Paladin hate.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

701 to 750 of 1,121 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>

I never played my anti-paladins with chronic backstabbing disorder myself, nor any of my evil characters really. Whether you do that is really up to the player I feel like. Evil doesn't have to suffer from it and to be honest it doesn't make much sense when it does, people are far more useful alive anyway. Unless of course, they fail you. Its actually a fallacy that they have to commit themselves to being backstabbing jerks or even killing henchmen for no reason.


@MrSin: That's great that you are not a backstabbing jerk, but what about that murder-hobo next to you? Or that demon that showed up to "help"? While you are being all trustworthy, some other Chaotic Evil jerk is going to figure out a way to use that against you.

You don't have to be a backstabbing jerk, but they are certainly more common on team Evil. And like I said, he who backstabs first, wins.

@anonymous: I am not talking about suicidal religious zealots that are going around killing themselves and all the heretics around them. I am talking about Good people being willing to sacrifice themselves for others. They don't want to die, but they will if it will save others.

The classic example is holding the choke point while the rest of your group retreats. Is an anti-paladin really going to stay back and fight while others escape? If he doesn't, will any of his companions cover his escape instead? I doubt it.

Edit: I was distracted during my post and another post disappeared while I was writing it. Removed poster's name to preserve anonymity.


Lord Twig wrote:

@MrSin: That's great that you are not a backstabbing jerk, but what about that murder-hobo next to you? Or that demon that showed up to "help"? While you are being all trustworthy, some other Chaotic Evil jerk is going to figure out a way to use that against you.

You don't have to be a backstabbing jerk, but they are certainly more common on team Evil. And like I said, he who backstabs first, wins.

What's your point? I feel like I'm being told I'm doing something wrong, eh. I was just stating there are a lot of ways to run evil and how I do it. The nutshell of it was evil =/= backstabbing jerk. I'd also say that he who backstabs first wins isn't particularly true either, it tends to bite you in the butt more than anything imo. A lot of this sort of thing is subjective in nature and varies with your game.

I also don't think no PvP is a particularly arbitrary ruling. Even 2 paladins can get in a scuffle with each other. I've always had it because I felt it helped keep everyone mellow.


I am not saying you are doing anything wrong. I am just explaining the advantages of Good over Evil. My first post was in response to Aelryinth...

Aelryinth wrote:

And a lot of extremely good optimizers will tell you that an anti-paladin is actually better in a party then a paladin. That Aura that lowers enemy saves is incredibly powerful in alliance with other casters.

And the fact he can lie, cheat, betray, use poison, burn down villages, etc, is just extra icing on the cake.

Now I agree that these are advantages for team Evil. They are ruthless and are not burdened by having to be nice to anyone. But on the flip side those same "virtues" work against them when it comes to big objectives. The ability to "lie, cheat, betray," (his words, not mine) also means you can not be trusted.

If you want your Anti-Paladin to be honest and trustworthy because he sees that as advancing his personal goals, great! That is actually an interesting character. But he can not self-sacrifice. He is completely incapable of it. If he does hold that bridge against impossible odds so that his friends and companions can escape, he will fall.

Also, I wouldn't want to get in between him (or her?) and power. In the Shackled City campaign there is a part were a choice has to be made and the person that makes that choice gains a pretty significant amount of power. If a Good character were to step up to claim that power, would you let them?

This is kind of like the Paladin falling dilemma I guess. The party doesn't want the power to go to team Evil. But if you don't claim the power the balance will shift towards Good, and you will fall.

Now you can say that you were being honest, helpful and trustworthy as a way to gain power, but now you have that chance right in front of you and the only thing in your way are your friends...

Let's see... What would Kitiara do?


Lord Twig wrote:
Let's see... What would Kitiara do?

Man ... that was low ... and epic :P. Gotta love dragonlance.

Sorry @MrSin , but i will have to atleast partially agree with @Lord Twig here.

There is no way that, if im playing in a evil party , i would trust the next guy with my life. I would make all i can to have the upper hand and save myself over all the others first always. And i would be certain to keep one eye open during the night.

Also , if i can gain more by killing than keeping alive , why the hell would i keep alive?

Sure , you would need to gain something awesome to be worth a "friend" (maybe , but lets say it is because then it makes harder to make the trade) , that does not mean my anti paladin would refuse to kill all his friends if he could become a demon lord in the trade.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Twig wrote:
And like I said, he who backstabs first, wins.

Woah.

Woah woah woah.

The guy who backstabs last wins.

Silver Crusade

Petty Alchemy wrote:
Lord Twig wrote:
And like I said, he who backstabs first, wins.

Woah.

Woah woah woah.

The guy who backstabs last wins.

Dead Ringer spies agree.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Evil party simply has to have different goals that are not in conflict with one another.

One wants to be the ultimate necromancer. The next High Priest of the God of death on this world. The third a tyrant king. The last the ultimate assassin and master of secrets. These are not necessarily conflicting goals, especially if the centers of power are far enough apart. If they all want the same artifact, well, then you're just asking for trouble, and they'll each go at it separately instead of together.

No, they won't sacrifice themselves for others. They can happily order their minions to do so, however, and the minions will do so, because not obeying the order is likely to be far more painful then dying in combat.

You keep splives around for a reason. If the evil masterminds don't have their own escape plans, why, they deserve to get shafted. Better for the mage to toss up the wall of stone to block the choke point instead of expecting the unholy champion to do the same...or summon something big with a lot of hit points that can do the same. The anti-paladin's fiendish companion, maybe.

And hanging together against Team Stupid Good is just pragmatic. You can watch each other's backs and stay out of one another's way, because Team Good is coming and you aren't going to survive separately. You don't have to like it, and there's nothing that says you can't try and use it to your advantage...but having a high level guy around who is just as interested in stomping on any idiotic do-gooders who are trying to upset your apple cart tends to be more useful then having more terrified minions who get thrown into that shiny fricassee machine to no effect.

It's noteworthy that the ONLY viable argument against Team Evil is Chronic Backstabbing Order. As soon as you get that under control, Team Evil is literally a murder machine. With no limits on actions you can take, Team Evil is able to take nasty all the way to the top.

There's a reason Paladins are so freaking tough, and its because of all the stuff Team Evil can pull without losing any sleep. Just consider all the ways you could really, really work over anyone, everyone they love, anyone they know, anyone they associate with, and you realize that putting yourself up against Team Evil is a terrifying prospect.

Immunity to fear: Job requirement.

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

The Evil party simply has to have different goals that are not in conflict with one another.

One wants to be the ultimate necromancer. The next High Priest of the God of death on this world. The third a tyrant king. The last the ultimate assassin and master of secrets. These are not necessarily conflicting goals, especially if the centers of power are far enough apart. If they all want the same artifact, well, then you're just asking for trouble, and they'll each go at it separately instead of together.

They would indeed need to be far apart. But even then, say all have attained their goals. Are they happy with what they have now? Do they say, "this is enough, I have everything I want" and leave it at that? Or does the necromancer think, "You know, I could totally scry and die King Tyrant over their and get a whole kingdom full of material for more undead." Or the High Priest of Death realizes that there is entirely too much not dying in the kingdom or that the necromancer is flaunting Death with his undeadness.

Not saying this absolutely will happen. Some Big Bad Evil Guys are happy sitting in their happy Evil place. But there is always the danger that some other BBEG will decide that he is not happy and what would really make him happy is taking what some other BBEG has.

Aelryinth wrote:
No, they won't sacrifice themselves for others. They can happily order their minions to do so, however, and the minions will do so, because not obeying the order is likely to be far more painful then dying in combat.

I would say that minions will fight until they figure out some way of not dying. Falling after the first hit and playing dead could be viable. Especially if they think they can get mercy from the "stupid" Good guys.

Aelryinth wrote:
You keep splives around for a reason. If the evil masterminds don't have their own escape plans, why, they deserve to get shafted. Better for the mage to toss up the wall of stone to block the choke point instead of expecting the unholy champion to do the same...or summon something big with a lot of hit points that can do the same. The anti-paladin's fiendish companion, maybe.

Good guys can do all this too (except the fiendish companion thing). But if all that fails they have the paladin they can fall back on.

Aelryinth wrote:
And hanging together against Team Stupid Good is just pragmatic. You can watch each other's backs and stay out of one another's way, because Team Good is coming and you aren't going to survive separately. You don't have to like it, and there's nothing that says you can't try and use it to your advantage...but having a high level guy around who is just as interested in stomping on any idiotic do-gooders who are trying to upset your apple cart tends to be more useful then having more terrified minions who get thrown into that shiny fricassee machine to no effect.

I agree with most of this, although there is no reason to get insulting. Good is not stupid any more than Evil is. It is possible to have some Stupid Good groups, just as it is possible to have some Stupid Evil groups. There is also Team Good Jerks and Team Evil Jerks. But being Good does not automatically make you an idiot.

Aelryinth wrote:

It's noteworthy that the ONLY viable argument against Team Evil is Chronic Backstabbing Order. As soon as you get that under control, Team Evil is literally a murder machine. With no limits on actions you can take, Team Evil is able to take nasty all the way to the top.

There's a reason Paladins are so freaking tough, and its because of all the stuff Team Evil can pull without losing any sleep. Just consider all the ways you could really, really work over anyone, everyone they love, anyone they know, anyone they associate with, and you realize that putting yourself up against Team Evil is a terrifying prospect.

Immunity to fear: Job requirement.

And I would argue that the Team Evil murder machine can easily be matched by a ruthlessly efficient Good Team. Good does not need to be nice. They can grant mercy, but they don't have to vs. the truly Evil types you are talking about. Yes, Team Evil can go after vulnerable loved ones, but that won't stop the Good team from hunting them down and exacting righteous vengeance.

If Team Evil is really bad enough then Team Good would be happy to play a zero sum game. As long as Team Evil dies they have no problem with dying themselves. After that Team Good gets to hang out in the Happy Fun afterlife that Good people expect. Team Evil gets to enjoy being some demon lord's sentient chamber pot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruse_of_war

Not immediately relevant but I thought this Wiki article on the legitimate use of ruses in warfare is important to interpreting what a Paladin may or may not do in warfare and combat. The important standard is "No treachery or perfidy".


Mikaze wrote:
Dead Ringer spies agree.

Meanwhile I'm just surfin' the ammo wasteland, cruisin' for a Medic pick...

When does the new UGC Highlander season start again?


FrankManic wrote:

Ruse of war

Not immediately relevant but I thought this Wiki article on the legitimate use of ruses in warfare is important to interpreting what a Paladin may or may not do in warfare and combat. The important standard is "No treachery or perfidy".

Linked.


I think the issue tends to crop up when some of the players want to do something terrible-- like torture a helpless creature for information, treat NPCs like lifeless fodder (trap fodder etc), plot to murder otherwise good NPCs, and anything else rather dark or amoral that may come up.

Some players like to explore the darker side of their nature and the paladin, the good, or even the odd character/player with scruples can get in the way of this (despite alignment on paper).

From the point of view of an appropriately played paladin, such acts are pretty terrible and he/she would work directly or subtly to stop/prevent said terrible thing from happening as much as acting to prevent any other harm/evil in the campaign. Notably, those player/characters with darker urges will tend to feel that their toes were stepped on and hence the ire toward the paladin.

In general, I find that darker, more evil seeming (despite alignment on the character sheet), characters are far more common than good or benevolent characters. So paladin-type benevolence tends to get band wagoned out of most groups.

For example, in one party we have a drow pirate type who's pretty much a dark scoundrel by background but plays more like Han Solo in game, a plotting lord who is basically nuetral evil to the core ( lawful neutral alignment on the character sheet), a mercenary barbarian who will kill anyone if the price is right, a paladin who basically toes the 'good' line in game but who at the table seems more inclined to fall into the nuetral evil plotting lord' s camp, and a cleric of sehanine who is barely preventing most of them from pure villainy. Out of them all, the cleric is probably the most motivated toward good and compassion and so the most inter-party conflict in this group centers around her subtly and not so subtly nudging them not to be terrible.

So why do people hate the paladin? Generally, it's the people who lust to do something the paladin considers to be terrible. Hence, the paladin wrecks their 'fun.'


Seranov wrote:
It might, if he were a Paladin of Cayden Cailean! I don't recall it saying Paladins needed to be near their deity in alignment.

There are Paladins of Asmodeus


Blackvial wrote:
Seranov wrote:
It might, if he were a Paladin of Cayden Cailean! I don't recall it saying Paladins needed to be near their deity in alignment.
There are Paladins of Asmodeus

this is has been acknowledge for years now as a mistake. all paladins are within one step of thier diety.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ikarinokami wrote:
this is has been acknowledge for years now as a mistake. all paladins are within one step of thier diety.

In PFS perhaps but not in Pathfinder at large. (Yes, they're different!) AFAIK, that errata does not exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
this is has been acknowledge for years now as a mistake. all paladins are within one step of thier diety.
In PFS perhaps but not in Pathfinder at large. (Yes, they're different!) AFAIK, that errata does not exist.

pladadin of asmodeus was a mistake as in a spelling error, by pathfinder rules it is impossible. it was corrected faith of purity and gods of the inner sea. all paladin codes are for gods within one step of LG. it has been stated repeatedly it was something that slipped by in the editing process and they have spent years actively correcting it. I'm not sure what more you want. in home games of course paladins can be what you want, but by the rules they can't worship and vernerate a God more than one step away from LG, because as previously stated by more than one developer/designer, that is because it would be a choatic to worhsip and venerate a god more than one step removed from a paladin's alignment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

TURN UNDEAD!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. Dudley douchebag
2. Lawful stupid
3. Alignment system
4. Kender paladins
5. It's a paladin, burn it!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

*yawn*

Paladin's are some of the most cookie-cutter classes ever... should have been a prestige class. Unlike most classes, the Paladin has the most likely to end up carbon-copies...


K177Y C47 wrote:

*yawn*

Paladin's are some of the most cookie-cutter classes ever... should have been a prestige class. Unlike most classes, the Paladin has the most likely to end up carbon-copies...

I'd love to introduce you to my Paladin of Wee Jass. :)


I abjure thee, oh thread, for thou art dead. Be put to rest by cleansing light, or be banished to dust by strength and might.

...

Darn thing must have turn resistance.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:

*yawn*

Paladin's are some of the most cookie-cutter classes ever... should have been a prestige class. Unlike most classes, the Paladin has the most likely to end up carbon-copies...

Well, quit building to optimization guides and build to a concept and you might get something different now and then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

*yawn*

Paladin's are some of the most cookie-cutter classes ever... should have been a prestige class. Unlike most classes, the Paladin has the most likely to end up carbon-copies...

Well, quit building to optimization guides and build to a concept and you might get something different now and then.

Way to go and assume there. I am not talking about assuming. I am actually talking about concept. Due to alignment restrictions AND the Paladin code AND all his abilities, he tends to really end up as one guy, the literal Knight in Shining Armor. What weapon's he uses sure changes up, but a paladin (who is actually a full paladin class, not a 2 level dip and rest Oracle) is almost by default the same "flavor" because the class kind of forces itself into very specific roles and ideas, hence why it should have been a prestige class.


K177Y C47 wrote:
Buri wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

*yawn*

Paladin's are some of the most cookie-cutter classes ever... should have been a prestige class. Unlike most classes, the Paladin has the most likely to end up carbon-copies...

Well, quit building to optimization guides and build to a concept and you might get something different now and then.
Way to go and assume there. I am not talking about assuming. I am actually talking about concept. Due to alignment restrictions AND the Paladin code AND all his abilities, he tends to really end up as one guy, the literal Knight in Shining Armor. What weapon's he uses sure changes up, but a paladin (who is actually a full paladin class, not a 2 level dip and rest Oracle) is almost by default the same "flavor" because the class kind of forces itself into very specific roles and ideas, hence why it should have been a prestige class.

Still not true unless you are under some super restrictive GM who does not allow them to have any personality or their own.

You can have the "take prisoners" paladin

The paladin that wants to eradicate all evil.

The jerk paladin.

The diplomatic paladin.

They "convert to my religion or hear me preach all day" paladin.

Basically you can add your own flavor.

Depending on your deity you will even be more or less restricted in certain areas.

The only thing that is really the same is that they are good and orderly, but most heroes are good and somewhat orderly anyway.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

*yawn*

Paladin's are some of the most cookie-cutter classes ever... should have been a prestige class. Unlike most classes, the Paladin has the most likely to end up carbon-copies...

Well, quit building to optimization guides and build to a concept and you might get something different now and then.

I don't see where optimization enters into what he said at all, unless we're going DrDeth style and assuming that anyone who says anything we don't like is obviously a dirty optimizer theorycrafter, because only dirty optimizer theorycrafters ever disagree with what we say.

Paladins are a lot more limited in theme and concept than most classes. There's still room to exercise some creativity, but unless you house-rule things every paladin is bound to a single alignment and a very strict code of conduct. "Paragon of Virtue Holy Warrior Who Must Always be 100% Good" is a much narrower niche to work with creatively than "Sneaky Guy," "Sword Guy," or "Spell Guy."

wraithstrike wrote:
The only thing that is really the same is that they are good and orderly, but most heroes are good and somewhat orderly anyway.

With how much everyone loves playing anti-heroes, lone wanderers who care not for the laws of men, Or characters who are capable of compromising their principles when they need to? If you think the vast majority of PCs are Lawful Good, we must have some very different gaming experiences.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Buri wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

*yawn*

Paladin's are some of the most cookie-cutter classes ever... should have been a prestige class. Unlike most classes, the Paladin has the most likely to end up carbon-copies...

Well, quit building to optimization guides and build to a concept and you might get something different now and then.

I don't see where optimization enters into what he said at all, unless we're going DrDeth style and assuming that anyone who says anything we don't like is obviously a dirty optimizer theorycrafter, because only dirty optimizer theorycrafters ever disagree with what we say.

Paladins are a lot more limited in theme and concept than most classes. There's still room to exercise some creativity, but unless you house-rule things every paladin is bound to a single alignment and a very strict code of conduct. "Paragon of Virtue Holy Warrior Who Must Always be 100% Good" is a much narrower niche to work with creatively than "Sneaky Guy," "Sword Guy," or "Spell Guy."

wraithstrike wrote:
The only thing that is really the same is that they are good and orderly, but most heroes are good and somewhat orderly anyway.
With how much everyone loves playing anti-heroes, lone wanderers who care not for the laws of men, Or characters who are capable of compromising their principles when they need to? If you think the vast majority of PCs are Lawful Good, we must have some very different gaming experiences.

If everyone is wanting to play anti hero loners who care not for the laws of men and compromise their principles, then isn't the paladin more unusual and creative, since it isn't what "everyone" is playing instead of being "the different and misunderstood dark loner" just like everyone else?

It doesn't allow enough creativity because it doesn't allow for the archetype that you say is really popular?


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Buri wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

*yawn*

Paladin's are some of the most cookie-cutter classes ever... should have been a prestige class. Unlike most classes, the Paladin has the most likely to end up carbon-copies...

Well, quit building to optimization guides and build to a concept and you might get something different now and then.

I don't see where optimization enters into what he said at all, unless we're going DrDeth style and assuming that anyone who says anything we don't like is obviously a dirty optimizer theorycrafter, because only dirty optimizer theorycrafters ever disagree with what we say.

Paladins are a lot more limited in theme and concept than most classes. There's still room to exercise some creativity, but unless you house-rule things every paladin is bound to a single alignment and a very strict code of conduct. "Paragon of Virtue Holy Warrior Who Must Always be 100% Good" is a much narrower niche to work with creatively than "Sneaky Guy," "Sword Guy," or "Spell Guy."

wraithstrike wrote:
The only thing that is really the same is that they are good and orderly, but most heroes are good and somewhat orderly anyway.
With how much everyone loves playing anti-heroes, lone wanderers who care not for the laws of men, Or characters who are capable of compromising their principles when they need to? If you think the vast majority of PCs are Lawful Good, we must have some very different gaming experiences.

When did I say most were lawful good?

I said orderly and good. You dont have to be lawful to be orderly.


RDM42 wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Buri wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

*yawn*

Paladin's are some of the most cookie-cutter classes ever... should have been a prestige class. Unlike most classes, the Paladin has the most likely to end up carbon-copies...

Well, quit building to optimization guides and build to a concept and you might get something different now and then.

I don't see where optimization enters into what he said at all, unless we're going DrDeth style and assuming that anyone who says anything we don't like is obviously a dirty optimizer theorycrafter, because only dirty optimizer theorycrafters ever disagree with what we say.

Paladins are a lot more limited in theme and concept than most classes. There's still room to exercise some creativity, but unless you house-rule things every paladin is bound to a single alignment and a very strict code of conduct. "Paragon of Virtue Holy Warrior Who Must Always be 100% Good" is a much narrower niche to work with creatively than "Sneaky Guy," "Sword Guy," or "Spell Guy."

wraithstrike wrote:
The only thing that is really the same is that they are good and orderly, but most heroes are good and somewhat orderly anyway.
With how much everyone loves playing anti-heroes, lone wanderers who care not for the laws of men, Or characters who are capable of compromising their principles when they need to? If you think the vast majority of PCs are Lawful Good, we must have some very different gaming experiences.
If everyone is wanting to play anti hero loners who care not for the laws of men and compromise their principles, then isn't the paladin more unusual and creative, since it isn't what "everyone" is playing instead of being "the different and misunderstood dark loner" just like everyone else?

Except that the Paladin pretty much COULD NOT exist in a group like that without either:

A) Forcing the rest of his party to play around himself and bend to his whim

or

B) Falling himself.

The paladin's code is strict and allows for only the most minimal wiggle room. And, unlike monks who cease becoming lawful, they lose ALL of their abilities if they break their code (even if they are still Lawful Good).

The biggest problem with the Paladin is his lackage of a single line that even the Anti-Paladin has. The anti-paladin specifically allows for the Anti-Paladin to do good deeds, so long as they help further his greater evil deeds (pretty much for the greater evil). The paladin should have had a line that allows the Paladin to break his code if it is for the greater good.


K177Y C47 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Buri wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

*yawn*

Paladin's are some of the most cookie-cutter classes ever... should have been a prestige class. Unlike most classes, the Paladin has the most likely to end up carbon-copies...

Well, quit building to optimization guides and build to a concept and you might get something different now and then.

I don't see where optimization enters into what he said at all, unless we're going DrDeth style and assuming that anyone who says anything we don't like is obviously a dirty optimizer theorycrafter, because only dirty optimizer theorycrafters ever disagree with what we say.

Paladins are a lot more limited in theme and concept than most classes. There's still room to exercise some creativity, but unless you house-rule things every paladin is bound to a single alignment and a very strict code of conduct. "Paragon of Virtue Holy Warrior Who Must Always be 100% Good" is a much narrower niche to work with creatively than "Sneaky Guy," "Sword Guy," or "Spell Guy."

wraithstrike wrote:
The only thing that is really the same is that they are good and orderly, but most heroes are good and somewhat orderly anyway.
With how much everyone loves playing anti-heroes, lone wanderers who care not for the laws of men, Or characters who are capable of compromising their principles when they need to? If you think the vast majority of PCs are Lawful Good, we must have some very different gaming experiences.
If everyone is wanting to play anti hero loners who care not for the laws of men and compromise their principles, then isn't the paladin more unusual and creative, since it isn't what "everyone" is playing instead of being "the different and misunderstood dark loner" just like everyone else?

Except that the Paladin pretty much COULD NOT exist in a group like that without either:

A) Forcing the rest of his party to play around himself and bend to his whim

or...

So it's not at all reasonable to suggest to others that every so often they may want to be different for a change and play upstanding good people on the right side of the law instead of a party of dark shady rule breaking anti-hero loners?


K177Y C47 wrote:

*yawn*

Paladin's are some of the most cookie-cutter classes ever... should have been a prestige class. Unlike most classes, the Paladin has the most likely to end up carbon-copies...

I think that it is true that paladin's tend to be predictable.

Of all the alignments Lawful alignments are predictable. Though I see several rants also on the CN alignment!

If you can't be excited about playing one (or come up with a way to play one that is un-predictable)......Then don't play one.


RDM42 wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:

I don't see where optimization enters into what he said at all, unless we're going DrDeth style and assuming that anyone who says anything we don't like is obviously a dirty optimizer theorycrafter, because only dirty optimizer theorycrafters ever disagree with what we say.

Paladins are a lot more limited in theme and concept than most classes. There's still room to exercise some creativity, but unless you house-rule things every paladin is bound to a single alignment and a very strict code of conduct. "Paragon of Virtue Holy Warrior Who Must Always be 100% Good" is a much narrower niche to work with creatively than "Sneaky Guy," "Sword Guy," or "Spell Guy."

wraithstrike wrote:
The only thing that is really the same is that they are good and orderly, but most heroes are good and somewhat orderly anyway.
With how much everyone loves playing anti-heroes, lone wanderers who care not for the laws of men, Or characters who are capable of compromising their principles when they need to? If you think the vast majority of PCs are Lawful Good, we must have some very different gaming experiences.

If everyone is wanting to play anti hero loners who care not for the laws of men and compromise their principles, then isn't the paladin more unusual and creative, since it isn't what "everyone" is playing instead of being "the different and misunderstood dark loner" just like everyone else?

It doesn't allow enough creativity because it doesn't allow for the archetype that you say is really popular?

You completely missed my point.

Paladins can only be The Paragon, as far as character concepts go. Any other class can also be The Paragon, but they also have the option of filling any other characterization niche. One alignment + a strict code of conduct means less options than any alignment with no code at all. It's basic logic.

Disclaimer, since apparently it needs to be said: There's nothing wrong with being a paladin and locked into the Lawful Good and Code-Obeying role, if that's what you want to play.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:

I don't see where optimization enters into what he said at all, unless we're going DrDeth style and assuming that anyone who says anything we don't like is obviously a dirty optimizer theorycrafter, because only dirty optimizer theorycrafters ever disagree with what we say.

Paladins are a lot more limited in theme and concept than most classes. There's still room to exercise some creativity, but unless you house-rule things every paladin is bound to a single alignment and a very strict code of conduct. "Paragon of Virtue Holy Warrior Who Must Always be 100% Good" is a much narrower niche to work with creatively than "Sneaky Guy," "Sword Guy," or "Spell Guy."

wraithstrike wrote:
The only thing that is really the same is that they are good and orderly, but most heroes are good and somewhat orderly anyway.
With how much everyone loves playing anti-heroes, lone wanderers who care not for the laws of men, Or characters who are capable of compromising their principles when they need to? If you think the vast majority of PCs are Lawful Good, we must have some very different gaming experiences.

If everyone is wanting to play anti hero loners who care not for the laws of men and compromise their principles, then isn't the paladin more unusual and creative, since it isn't what "everyone" is playing instead of being "the different and misunderstood dark loner" just like everyone else?

It doesn't allow enough creativity because it doesn't allow for the archetype that you say is really popular?

You completely missed my point.

Paladins can only be The Paragon, as far as character concepts go. Any other class can also be The Paragon, but they also have the option of filling any other characterization niche. One alignment + a strict code of conduct means less options than any alignment with no code at all. It's basic logic.

Since there is still a large field of options within that alignment and code, why is that particularly relevant?


RDM42 wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:

I don't see where optimization enters into what he said at all, unless we're going DrDeth style and assuming that anyone who says anything we don't like is obviously a dirty optimizer theorycrafter, because only dirty optimizer theorycrafters ever disagree with what we say.

Paladins are a lot more limited in theme and concept than most classes. There's still room to exercise some creativity, but unless you house-rule things every paladin is bound to a single alignment and a very strict code of conduct. "Paragon of Virtue Holy Warrior Who Must Always be 100% Good" is a much narrower niche to work with creatively than "Sneaky Guy," "Sword Guy," or "Spell Guy."

wraithstrike wrote:
The only thing that is really the same is that they are good and orderly, but most heroes are good and somewhat orderly anyway.
With how much everyone loves playing anti-heroes, lone wanderers who care not for the laws of men, Or characters who are capable of compromising their principles when they need to? If you think the vast majority of PCs are Lawful Good, we must have some very different gaming experiences.

If everyone is wanting to play anti hero loners who care not for the laws of men and compromise their principles, then isn't the paladin more unusual and creative, since it isn't what "everyone" is playing instead of being "the different and misunderstood dark loner" just like everyone else?

It doesn't allow enough creativity because it doesn't allow for the archetype that you say is really popular?

You completely missed my point.

Paladins can only be The Paragon, as far as character concepts go. Any other class can also be The Paragon, but they also have the option of filling any other characterization niche. One alignment + a strict code of conduct means less options than any alignment with no code at all. It's basic logic.

Since there is still a large field of options within that alignment and code, why is that particularly relevant?

Because it's still less options than if neither restriction were present.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm playing a Paladin. He's not The Paragon, so... Am I doing anything wrong?


Chengar Qordath wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:

I don't see where optimization enters into what he said at all, unless we're going DrDeth style and assuming that anyone who says anything we don't like is obviously a dirty optimizer theorycrafter, because only dirty optimizer theorycrafters ever disagree with what we say.

Paladins are a lot more limited in theme and concept than most classes. There's still room to exercise some creativity, but unless you house-rule things every paladin is bound to a single alignment and a very strict code of conduct. "Paragon of Virtue Holy Warrior Who Must Always be 100% Good" is a much narrower niche to work with creatively than "Sneaky Guy," "Sword Guy," or "Spell Guy."

wraithstrike wrote:
The only thing that is really the same is that they are good and orderly, but most heroes are good and somewhat orderly anyway.
With how much everyone loves playing anti-heroes, lone wanderers who care not for the laws of men, Or characters who are capable of compromising their principles when they need to? If you think the vast majority of PCs are Lawful Good, we must have some very different gaming experiences.

If everyone is wanting to play anti hero loners who care not for the laws of men and compromise their principles, then isn't the paladin more unusual and creative, since it isn't what "everyone" is playing instead of being "the different and misunderstood dark loner" just like everyone else?

It doesn't allow enough creativity because it doesn't allow for the archetype that you say is really popular?

You completely missed my point.

Paladins can only be The Paragon, as far as character concepts go. Any other class can also be The Paragon, but they also have the option of filling any other characterization niche. One alignment + a strict code of conduct means less options than any alignment with no code at all. It's basic logic.

Since there is still a large field of
...

And? So what?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Sane wrote:
I'm playing a Paladin. He's not The Paragon, so... Am I doing anything wrong?

Yes you are having bad wrong fun!

People have different opinions on the Paladin's code!

Entire threads have been dedicated to the paladin as judge jury and executioner (whether trial by combat or a literal trial).

Linky


RDM42 wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Since there is still a large field of options within that alignment and code, why is that particularly relevant?
Because it's still less options than if neither restriction were present.
And? So what?

That was my entire point. That was what my initial post you responded to was entirely about. Paladins have less options for character/personality.

I'm not sure what your point was.

Justin Sane wrote:
I'm playing a Paladin. He's not The Paragon, so... Am I doing anything wrong?

Only if you're not having fun.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Justin Sane wrote:
I'm playing a Paladin. He's not The Paragon, so... Am I doing anything wrong?

Depends... are you breaking the Paladin code? If the answer is yes, you have a problem.

The point here that was trying to be made is that the Anti-Paladin has more freedom within his code than his lawful good opposite.


LazarX wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
I'm playing a Paladin. He's not The Paragon, so... Am I doing anything wrong?

Depends... are you breaking the Paladin code? If the answer is yes, you have a problem.

The point here that was trying to be made is that the Anti-Paladin has more freedom within his code than his lawful good opposite.

And that is surprising by the very nature of what an anti paladin is?

Good not getting to play by the same rule book that evil does and cheat is one of the oldest story maxims in the book.

Evil cheats. That's its nature. It does whatever unscrupulous or immoral thing it has to do to in order to win.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Paladins can only be The Paragon, as far as character concepts go.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
I'm playing a Paladin. He's not The Paragon, so... Am I doing anything wrong?
Only if you're not having fun.

Wait, I'm confused.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just think people need to step back and put their presuppositions to rest about alignment and the code. Look at Paizo's examples of holy warriors and read about the good gods actually do and build their paladins based off that rather some bland view that somehow needs to apply to each and every one. That's the boring factor. Not all LG people get along and that applies to paladins interacting with other paladins even within the same religion. So, grow a beard and paladin like no other. GMs that would restrict this are the ones asking for one dimensional paladins and have no room to argue.

What gets demagogued about most often on these forums is what I'd call a mix between the Ragathiel and Shelynite paladin. They're a person who simultneously has to put down all wrong doers but simultaneously can't harm a kitten. That's assinine.

My comments on optimization guide worship is that they all espouse roughly the same ideals. You hit hard, are hard to hit, etc. Looking at that kind of character sheet leads to very few gut responses and they're all pretty much along the lines of being the hardass of the group. Your build should reflect your roleplay ideals because if that's what your character is really all about then you should be putting time (i.e. build resources) into making that actually a part of your character.


Ashiel wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

*yawn*

Paladin's are some of the most cookie-cutter classes ever... should have been a prestige class. Unlike most classes, the Paladin has the most likely to end up carbon-copies...

I'd love to introduce you to my Paladin of Wee Jass. :)

I agree with Ashiel here, we once had a party of all paladins for a one off, and they were very different.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RDM42 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
I'm playing a Paladin. He's not The Paragon, so... Am I doing anything wrong?

Depends... are you breaking the Paladin code? If the answer is yes, you have a problem.

The point here that was trying to be made is that the Anti-Paladin has more freedom within his code than his lawful good opposite.

And that is surprising by the very nature of what an anti paladin is?

Good not getting to play by the same rule book that evil does and cheat is one of the oldest story maxims in the book.

Evil cheats. That's its nature. It does whatever unscrupulous or immoral thing it has to do to in order to win.

But as a result the Anti-Paladin winds up being more party friendly than the Paladin.

I do think that Paladins can work, but it requires the right party, the right player, and the right DM. You need that trifecta that other classes don't need as much.

Sczarni

K177Y C47 wrote:

*yawn*

Paladin's are some of the most cookie-cutter classes ever... should have been a prestige class. Unlike most classes, the Paladin has the most likely to end up carbon-copies...

I am doing something that I do not think is cookie cutter with my only paladin build for pfs. I have an aasimar paladin archer that at 11th level, will have the aasimar wings. Okay, so she may be somewhat of a cookie cutter in terms of seeing herself as "the answer" or the means of an end to all the evil creatures in Galorian.


I'd wager you just need the right GM. Since quests are often about a great evil, a paladin works in most groups as a class. I don't see it as a matter of 'can' working, though. They do work, but they're easy to be put in seemingly impossible situations and then GMs cry foul and force them to fall if they try something inventive.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:


But as a result the Anti-Paladin winds up being more party friendly than the Paladin.

Huh?

Party with Paladin= Don't be evil murderhoboes.

Which no mature adult wants to do anyway, except maybe as a change of pace.

Antipaladin: Wake up dead as he has sacrificed you in your sleep.

Which is more party friendly again?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

*yawn*

Paladin's are some of the most cookie-cutter classes ever... should have been a prestige class. Unlike most classes, the Paladin has the most likely to end up carbon-copies...

I'd love to introduce you to my Paladin of Wee Jass. :)

I agree with Ashiel here, we once had a party of all paladins for a one off, and they were very different.

Some varieties of Paladin I've seen at my table:

A grizzled veteran longbowman looking for his son that was the embodiment of "Good is Not Nice".

A simple-minded country boy who would burst into bouts of righteous fury.

A gambling, hard-drinking light-armor skirmisher who managed to never out himself as a Paladin AND never tell a lie. (Full disclosure: This one had two Bard levels.)

A Gnome with a Don Quixote complex and a large wolf mount he named 'Doggy' that he would routinely try to have accompany him in the tavern.

Be 'Lawful' and 'Good' are broad enough edicts that I would say that it is quite possible to make a variety of character types within those parameters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What gets me about this debate is that good characters have to be good, but evil characters choose when to be evil. Good has to be good constantly, while evil only has to be evil when it suits it's purposes.

This is bunk. If you are mostly stable, but willing to do rough stuff when the need/opportunity arises, you are neutral. People set standards for what behavior is necessary to stay good, but none for what is necessary to stay evil. An antipaladin is meant to be the mirror to the paladin. Where a paladin is meant to portray the best of what is good, the antipaladin is meant to be the worst about what is evil. Capricious, cruel, sadistic, commanding through fear rather than loyalty. We're talking puppy kickers here.

Paladins arent special because their way is the most effective way to fight evil, but because theirs is the best example to set to other good people as a representative of good deities. Antipaladins, therefore, should be similar exemplifiers of the cruel malevolence of their masters. This does not necessitate stupidity any more than paladinhood does, but an antipaladin should be on the lookout for opportunities to do evil, to spread misery and fear, to selfishly increase his own power.

An antipaladin in my game would fall (rise?) if he were not evil enough. If you don;t walk the walk, you don't get the goodies.

701 to 750 of 1,121 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Paladin hate. All Messageboards