I don't see why monks should have to be disciplined ascetics at all.
Isn't one of the most famous fantasy monks (Sun Wukong, aka Monkey King) an exemplar of chaotic neutral?
But think about the Wanderer from the TV series Kung Fu, or the typical Wise Sensei we've all seen countless times. The very name "Monk" is indicative of Shao Lin and other monastics temples where ascetic discipline in life was an important part of both receiving enlightenment and employing martial arts.
Sun WuKong, though a Chinese figure originally, is probably closer to being Ninja. He has those supernatural Ki powers, but how he gets and employs them differ.
|
I'm in favor of specific limitations based on the class as opposed to broad alignment restrictions that could be really strict in one game and a non-issue in another.
Paladins pick a set of things they can never do (steal, attack an unarmed foe, etc.) and if they break it, they fall. Clerics falls if they disobey the tenets of their deity. A Monk should be able to maintain a strict, ascetic discipline while still acting in all other ways like a NG character.
I believe certain behavioral restrictions for classes is necessary because it makes them distinct and easy to role-play. But if you're going to have them, define specifically what behavior is restricted so the player knows what he or she's getting into.
I like that idea. Currently you're supposed to adhere to a "Code", but there's no really good description of what exactly is in that code. As we've just seen upthread, getting a consensus about what Lawful/Chaotic mean is probably impossible, so it's hard to be LG if you don't know what the L part entails.
There'll probably be some startup difficulties with things that should be in the Code, but nobody thought of them beforehand ("I don't see cannibalism listed as prohibited..."), but that's a matter of refinement.
You'll also have the occasional player trying to argue the letter of the code against the spirit, but that's A) inevitable, B) can be dealt with by adding a "Thou Shalt Not Try To Subvert The Intent Of The Code" commandment.
And not every code needs to be Sir Niceguy either; look at your Code to see how you should deal with the goblin babies, or whether Dhampir PCs are allowed.
I think that monk and barbarian alignment restrictions are not necessary. those do seem arbitrary.
having said that I also think that MONK should not be a base class.
martial artist, unarmed specialist or brawler should be a base class and MONK be an archetype based on that class.
To be perfectly honest I think that Paladin should be a prestige class requiring 4 levels of fighter and/or cleric and a dedication to Law and Good.
|
I can see the argument for Paladins, Monks, even Rangers as prestige classes. There were prestige paladins in 3.5 (Unearthed Arcana?) which could be used as a base. Otherwise it's a low of homebrewing (or something for a new Paizo supplement?)
We are not interested in getting rid of paladin behavior restrictions or code of conduct. What we are interested in, like Big Lemon said, is allowing a Paladin to choose alternate behavioral restrictions that may or may not perfectly match the LG standard. A NG Paladin who is committed to Mercy, never attacks first in combat, never does lethal damage to a sentient mortal foe (evil outsiders and undead excluded) and always accepts surrender. A CG Paladin who is dedicated to charity and liberty, gives half of their adventuring proceeds to their church and directly to the needy, does not use or tolerate the use of magical compulsions, and always does everything in their power to free prisoners. This isn't "let's make paladins unrestricted" this is "let's give them some restriction options that are not LG."
Doing good doesnt make you a paladin. Robin hood is not a paladin. Riddick is not a paladin. Superman and Batman are not paladins. Iron man is not a paladin. Qui Gon Jin is not a paladin.
Well, no. The paladin is the character who is utterly committed to a moral ideal, derives power from that commitment, loses their power if they fail in the commitment, and inspires other because of that commitment. The classic paladin is committed to LG, but it's possible to have a paladin committed to some other moral ideal (such as NG or CG) without reducing the paladin down to "a good guy."
Weirdo,
thats well writen and you have a point, but I have a question.
This isn't "let's make paladins unrestricted" this is "let's give them some restriction options that are not LG."
The paladin is the character who is utterly committed to a moral ideal, derives power from that commitment, loses their power if they fail in the commitment, and inspires other because of that commitment. The classic paladin is committed to LG, but it's possible to have a paladin committed to some other moral ideal
names are a powerful thing, l kind of agree with you on the oaths and restrictions... But names are a powerful thing. A paladin is more than just an LG holy warrior. A paladin has to, in my personal opinion, strive to spread that ideal.
while I presented a similar oaths idea earlier in the thread i think that it is ultimately a poor fix. Paladins dont simply follow a few rules, they have to be shining examples of an ideal. Chaos and even Neutural by their very nature dont really express any specific ideal which makes it harder. I mean... sure you can make something up like freedom or the constitution, or the teachings of the great who-ja-makal-im. But ultimatly those things are NOT paladins...
ANYWAY having said all that...
the OP seems to be about alignment restrictions in general and I think the answer is sometime it matters (paladin, some kind of monk, assasin, clerics) while at other times I dont think it matters at all, Druids, Barbarians.
but ultimatly what matters is the player and the GM. if the GM wants to allow his characters to make evil paladins of rovagug with smite anything and whos only restriction is that they cannot build anything. ... well more power to him.
I can see the argument for Paladins, Monks, even Rangers as prestige classes. There were prestige paladins in 3.5 (Unearthed Arcana?) which could be used as a base. Otherwise it's a low of homebrewing (or something for a new Paizo supplement?)
We are not interested in getting rid of paladin behavior restrictions or code of conduct. What we are interested in, like Big Lemon said, is allowing a Paladin to choose alternate behavioral restrictions that may or may not perfectly match the LG standard. A NG Paladin who is committed to Mercy, never attacks first in combat, never does lethal damage to a sentient mortal foe (evil outsiders and undead excluded) and always accepts surrender. A CG Paladin who is dedicated to charity and liberty, gives half of their adventuring proceeds to their church and directly to the needy, does not use or tolerate the use of magical compulsions, and always does everything in their power to free prisoners. This isn't "let's make paladins unrestricted" this is "let's give them some restriction options that are not LG."
Doing good doesnt make you a paladin. Robin hood is not a paladin. Riddick is not a paladin. Superman and Batman are not paladins. Iron man is not a paladin. Qui Gon Jin is not a paladin.Well, no. The paladin is the character who is utterly committed to a moral ideal, derives power from that commitment, loses their power if they fail in the commitment, and inspires other because of that commitment. The classic paladin is committed to LG, but it's possible to have a paladin committed to some other moral ideal (such as NG or CG) without reducing the paladin down to "a good guy."
I don't think it's that big a deal, but saying "Paladin" brings an imnmediate rush of knowledge and assumptions about the character. If you want to avoid that flood of (mis)information about your alternate versions of Paladins it is easier to call them something else. I refer to the ones in my homebrew as "Templars" (Guardians or Knights). They belong to a score of holy orders dedicated to different religions and have a wide range of alignments from LG to NE. And a wide range of variant abilities, etc. In my home game I don't have chaotic templars as they belong to various orders but, hey, ymmv and that's fine.
*edit* Having said that, you can fall and gain a demonic patron and viola, Anti-Paladin (Templar or whatever). Kind of like Prince Gaynor the Damned in Moorcock's Eternal Champion books. A singularly rare character / event. Most just become Fighters / Cavaliers etc.
maybe if we uses the vampyre paths besides the aligment or the taint from 3.5
|
|
I don't think it's that big a deal, but saying "Paladin" brings an imnmediate rush of knowledge and assumptions about the character. If you want to avoid that flood of (mis)information about your alternate versions of Paladins it is easier to call them something else. I refer to the ones in my homebrew as "Templars" (Guardians or Knights). They belong to a score of holy orders dedicated to different religions and have a wide range of alignments from LG to NE. And a wide range of variant abilities, etc. In my home game I don't have chaotic templars as they belong to various orders but, hey, ymmv and that's fine.
Which is why I'm looking at having "Champions" of alternate ideals, using paladin mechanics. I can see the reasoning for the paladin title being exclusive (it absolutely does have strong associations) but think that the paladin mechanics should be available to anyone with similar levels of moral commitment.
names are a powerful thing, l kind of agree with you on the oaths and restrictions... But names are a powerful thing. A paladin is more than just an LG holy warrior. A paladin has to, in my personal opinion, strive to spread that ideal.
while I presented a similar oaths idea earlier in the thread i think that it is ultimately a poor fix. Paladins dont simply follow a few rules, they have to be shining examples of an ideal. Chaos and even Neutural by their very nature dont really express any specific ideal which makes it harder. I mean... sure you can make something up like freedom or the constitution, or the teachings of the great who-ja-makal-im. But ultimatly those things are NOT paladins...
ANYWAY having said all that...
the OP seems to be about alignment restrictions in general and I think the answer is sometime it matters (paladin, some kind of monk, assasin, clerics) while at other times I dont think it matters at all, Druids, Barbarians.
but ultimatly what matters is the player and the GM. if the GM wants to allow his characters to make evil paladins of rovagug with smite anything and whos only restriction is that they cannot build anything. ... well more power to him.
I understand that you value the classic LG paladin and support your right to preserve that special paladin character at your table. It is as you say a matter between the player and the GM. Or even a matter between the entire group - I as a player wouldn't want to make you uncomfortable by playing a CG paladin, even if our mutual GM were fine with the idea.
I do think that the issue is more one of flavor rather than mechanics (especially if alternate behaviour restrictions are in use) and that it should be the flavour under discussion when the player and GM have that discussion, rather than "I don't know, Bob, I think your paladin will be overpowered if he's CG instead of LG." Just like whether or not to include philosophy clerics in a campaign is a matter of flavour instead of power balance.
|
At this point I can say I'm still sticking to my belief that Monk, Druid and Barbarian should have had their alignment restrictions nixed. This changes virtually nothing but flavor (with things like changing DR types being the worst damage), but opens up potentially interesting character options that, quite frankly, I'd like to see someone play. Paladin/Barbarian, Monk/Barbarian and Paladin/Druid being those combinations.
Assuming the above alignment restrictions are removed, it becomes unnecessary to modify Paladin (except to have an evil variant, which we do). Modifying the Paladin would no longer open up any new character options as LG would become a valid alignment for all other base classes.
I don't think it's that big a deal, but saying "Paladin" brings an imnmediate rush of knowledge and assumptions about the character. If you want to avoid that flood of (mis)information about your alternate versions of Paladins it is easier to call them something else. I refer to the ones in my homebrew as "Templars" (Guardians or Knights). They belong to a score of holy orders dedicated to different religions and have a wide range of alignments from LG to NE. And a wide range of variant abilities, etc. In my home game I don't have chaotic templars as they belong to various orders but, hey, ymmv and that's fine.
Which is why I'm looking at having "Champions" of alternate ideals, using paladin mechanics. I can see the reasoning for the paladin title being exclusive (it absolutely does have strong associations) but think that the paladin mechanics should be available to anyone with similar levels of moral commitment.
I agree, Champion or Templar would be my choices. I went with "Templar" because my orders are all religiously based. If it was a secular or philosophically based group "Champion" would have been my call. Both do the job without treading on traditionalist turf, and both enjoin the player to look into the differences.
|
|
Champion sounds good for a Neutral Good paladin; I'd actually use Templar for a LG or LN holy warrior. Referring to a temple just sounds "institutional".
For CG, I think they're not great titles; Templar sounds a lot like an organization, and even Champion sounds like you represent other people/gods. For the CG paladin-equivalent, it'd be nice if the class was built to also make sense for herous that don't belong to any organization/church at all.
I'm trying to make up my mind about Vigilante as a CG paladin actually. I think it gets close to the idea of a hero who doesn't need anyone else's help telling him how to be the good guy.
A quick trip through thesaurus.com also yields: Ace, Partisan, and (I like this one best): Gallant.
Rogues get Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge and they can be lawful. They get Trap Sense and that doesn't mean they can't be Lawful either.
Monks get Fast Movement and they have to be Lawful, so the Barbarian isn't prevented from being Lawful because of that.
Barbarians get Rage, usually the reason why people think the Barbarian has to be non-Lawful, and it's usually described as a loss of emotional control. Even when the Barbarian is an Urban Barbarian with a Controlled Rage, he's still not allowed to be Lawful.
Well, the Rage ability isn't a good reason either because the Wild Stalker archetype for the Ranger gets Rage. And he's still allowed to be Lawful.
Sure, the Barbarian eventually get Greater Rage, Mighty Rage, and Indomitable Will, and those abilities aren't replicated elsewhere (that I've seen), but that's irrelevant because the Barbarian's alignment restrictions kick in at 1st level, long before those abilities appear.
In short, alignment restrictions are bunk, and even if alignment didn't have games rules attached to them, it would be bunk as well.
|
|
Champion sounds good for a Neutral Good paladin; I'd actually use Templar for a LG or LN holy warrior. Referring to a temple just sounds "institutional".
For CG, I think they're not great titles; Templar sounds a lot like an organization, and even Champion sounds like you represent other people/gods. For the CG paladin-equivalent, it'd be nice if the class was built to also make sense for herous that don't belong to any organization/church at all.
I'm trying to make up my mind about Vigilante as a CG paladin actually. I think it gets close to the idea of a hero who doesn't need anyone else's help telling him how to be the good guy.
A quick trip through thesaurus.com also yields: Ace, Partisan, and (I like this one best): Gallant.
Chaotic people aren't necessarily anti-organization. They're more the keep-it-simple types that prefer it when the rules can be summarized as "don't be a dick". Those that are vehemently anti-institution are almost certainly chaotic, but those that are chaotic are not necessarily anti-institution.
There's a reason that Inquisitors and Clerics can be chaotic, after all. They're part of an institution, technically, but the part that matters to them is their belief in the god, not the rules of the institution itself.
That said, I do like the name Gallant.
Champion sounds good for a Neutral Good paladin; I'd actually use Templar for a LG or LN holy warrior. Referring to a temple just sounds "institutional".
I agree. My campaign doesn't have organized chaotic religions. I always found chaotic to be more in tume with individual believers, covens, isolated shrines and wondering religious prophets (who have followers,etc.). As always, ymmv.
For CG, I think they're not great titles; Templar sounds a lot like an organization, and even Champion sounds like you represent other people/gods. For the CG paladin-equivalent, it'd be nice if the class was built to also make sense for herous that don't belong to any organization/church at all.I'm trying to make up my mind about Vigilante as a CG paladin actually. I think it gets close to the idea of a hero who doesn't need anyone else's help telling him how to be the good guy.
A quick trip through thesaurus.com also yields: Ace, Partisan, and (I like this one best): Gallant.
You could have "secular" / philosophical Paladin equivalents for pretty much any alignment. Vigilante doesn't work well with CG for me, Gallant sounds like a good pick. The real question is if they would have any actual title for them (a traditional title perhaps), or if this is just what the ordinary public refers to them as. Probably the latter. As for having no institution to train them (I seem to recall someone bringing that up - or maybe it was another thread), I imagine they would have squires / journeymen / assistants / padawans :) who were trained by the individual master to carry on their work...
*edit* Vigilante sounds more like an Inquisitor to me... Vigilant (as in one who stands vigil not one who takes the law into their own hands) sounds like a good name for a religious warrior type though.
|
|
Loving the alternate name discussion and taking notes.
At this point I can say I'm still sticking to my belief that Monk, Druid and Barbarian should have had their alignment restrictions nixed. This changes virtually nothing but flavor (with things like changing DR types being the worst damage), but opens up potentially interesting character options that, quite frankly, I'd like to see someone play. Paladin/Barbarian, Monk/Barbarian and Paladin/Druid being those combinations.
Assuming the above alignment restrictions are removed, it becomes unnecessary to modify Paladin (except to have an evil variant, which we do). Modifying the Paladin would no longer open up any new character options as LG would become a valid alignment for all other base classes.
This would definitely open up build options, but that's not quite the same as opening up all character options. Paladins of Cayden Cailean (CG), Pharasma (N), Gozreh (N, and perfect for a Paladin/Druid), Callistra (CN), and Gorum (CN) would still be hard to represent as a LG character.
Honestly, I don't like allignment. I'd love to see it completely removed from the game. And I don't like any restriction that is not there for game balance.
I don't think there should be race/region/allignment exclusive feats/spells or anything else. Fluff-based restrictions should be related to campaign settings/gaming group preference, not hardwired into the rules.
Paladins are a pretty cool class, and a very effective one, but they are nowhere as powerful as a Wizard or Druid, and yet, they are the only ones to have such a restrictive allignment prerequisite (and their auto-destruction button is commonly much more emphasized in most games. Falling is not the main point of Paladins, guys!)
If my group wants a CG, NG (or even LE) Paladin, let me have it. Don't lock it away. Sure, I can houserule it, but I'd rather have *more* choices in PFS, instead of less. Besides, if I use things like HeroLab to create characters, it helps a lot if the rules are less restrictive.
I'm a big fan of the idea of having as few restrictions as possible.
Wizards are safe, but it can be easy for a druid to really mess up and lose their powers, go too chaotic, it is just less common and less talked about.
Just to get away from talking about any one class... are alignment, and alignment restrictions for classes,necessary? Yes. Why? Players. If you had the perfect troop of players it would not be necessary. How likely is that? You all know the answer to that...
Imho, of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But think about the Wanderer from the TV series Kung Fu, or the typical Wise Sensei we've all seen countless times. The very name "Monk" is indicative of Shao Lin and other monastics temples where ascetic discipline in life was an important part of both receiving enlightenment and employing martial arts.Unfortunately, the 3.x/PF monk is based on a poorly researched 1e class.
I suppose there's archetypes, but the core class gives very little control over what abilities you get.
As for Kung Fu, quite a few badass martial-arts-trained villains were not enlightened. The "lawful" path followed by Kane was his own (and the one generally taught), but it had more to do with his personality than his actual combat abilities.
I hold that being lawful simply means an adherence to some form discipline and personal code, not necessarily a lawful one. In their training, these martial arts masters all adhere to some form of discipline that allows them reach super-human levels, whether it's tremendous patience, work ethic, temperance, repeated self-harm, or some other discipline.
Non-lawful practioners of similar arts would by Pathfinder rules probably either Ninjas, Martial Artists, or simply monks that "fell" and can no longer continue down the Monk path (and as such can't get more powerful than the hero).
Ultimately though, this is why I think alignment restrictions on classes are bad: they are too vague. A Monk should be given a specific discipline he needs to follow, based on the school he attends or his archetype, and breaking that discipline causes him to "fall", however one wants to define said "fall".
Lawfuls have no requrement to respect the law of neutral evil thief guild towns, or chaotic evil monster despotisms.
The alignment restrictions really are a bit vague.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really wish posters would stop saying stuff like "if your not using a LG alignement for a Paladin your playing it wrong" type of reasoning because it's not fact. It's all opinion. It's cool that at certain gaming tables Dms and even players possibly insist on having a paladin be of a LG alignment. It's not universal. Different tastes for different players and dms. To be blunt no one here imo has the right to go around telling other dms/players if they change a certain aspect of the game they are no longer playing D&D. What you do at your gaming table is your business. What I do at my gaming table is my business. w
For me the issues with the Paladin has always come down to two things. The vaguely worded way the alignment are written. A well as players who run them poorly. either playing them as dirty harry with a sword. Or lawful stupid to the point where the rest of the players want to kill the player. Or Dms who allow Paladins into a game then go out of their way to put the player using the class into situations where they are guaranteed to fail. I'm not saying not to make any situation that would require the LG alignment into the game. It makes for fun roleplaying on both sides. Constantly trying to make the paladin fall. not cool.
One game that I never had trouble with alignments or how they interacted with the characters was Palladium Fantasy or any rpg published by Palladium books. Any players taking a Paladin or Knight class who tried or tries to play a fantasy version of dirty harry or Lawful Stupid. Either ends up taking another class. Learns to play with the games alignement system or walks away from the game.
Lawful good alignment from the Pathfinder core:
lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
From Palladium Fantasy their version of Lawful Good is Principled
Principled characters are upright "boy scout" or "do-gooder" types who put others before themselves. This is the knight in shining armor with the highest regard for the lives and well-being of others, freedom, truth, honor and justice. Principled characters will always attempt to work with and within the law, and have a high regard for (and trust of) authority, as well as for life and freedom. They are usually compassionate, merciful, cooperative and sincere.
Followed by what a principled character does in point form
1. Always keep his word
2. Avoid lies.
3. Never kill or attack an unarmed foe
4. Never harm a innocent
5. Never torture for any reason
6. Never kill for pleasure.
7. always help others.
8. always work within the law whenever possible.
9. Never break the law unless conditions are desperate. This means breaking and entering, theft, torture, unprovoked assaults etc.
10. Respect authority, law, self-discipline and honor.
11. Work well within a group
12. Never take "dirty" money or ill-gotten valuables or goods. This means any property that belongs to criminals or villians. It ammters not how the bad guys got that property themselves. The hero will not touch it even if destitute.
13. Never betray a friend.
I rather have spelled out what a character can do within the alignement and feel free to ignore and change it as opposed to the D&D version that is imo too vague and not rea;;y defined.
I agree. I've always liked the palladium alignment system better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they were just afraid that if a Monk could rage it might actually be good. God forbid.
|
|
While I also agree the palladium alignment system is better imo. All that is needed I thin with the D&D version in a new edition or say a PF version of Uneartherd Arcana is having the D&D alignments rewritten from the ground up. With what your character can or cannot do. Not necessarily in point form like Palladium does. Yet more than just a vaguly wordered defination. Look at my last post. Out of both descriptions of alignment which if the two would anyone have trouble with trying to figure out what their character can or cannot do. Almost guarenteed it's the D&D one imo since you have no real guidelines of what you can or cannot do.
It also avoids the dirty harry paladin syndrome too common among certain Paladin players. As well as the ones that take Lawful good to a dumb level. The ones who say "can't attack by night", "taking money from a dead foe breaks my alignment" or "you can't sneak up on a enemy old chap not very LG in alignment. Nowhere does it say in principled that you can't attack under cover of darkness. Not loot dead bodies unless the enemies are evil or that your not allowed to sneak up and surprise someone.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't (12) prohibit looting, since the LG isn't allowed to take money from criminals or villains and most looting targets will be one or both?
I think they were just afraid that if a Monk could rage it might actually be good. God forbid.
A monk can rage if he's a martial artist (or multiclasses as a cleric 8 with the Rage subdomain).
I really wish posters would stop saying stuff like "if your not using a LG alignement for a Paladin your playing it wrong" type of reasoning because it's not fact. It's all opinion. It's cool that at certain gaming tables Dms and even players possibly insist on having a paladin be of a LG alignment. It's not universal. Different tastes for different players and dms. To be blunt no one here imo has the right to go around telling other dms/players if they change a certain aspect of the game they are no longer playing D&D. What you do at your gaming table is your business. What I do at my gaming table is my business. w
People are talking about RAW, not "wrong" iirc. I hadn't seen anybody say you weren't playing D&D (or PF) in this thread if you had alternate alignments for Paladins. Just that the RAW required LG alignments for them (which it does), and anything else was a houserule. The only serious "disagreement" was in what to call the alternately aligned; Paladins, Templars, Champions, etc. Did I miss something in this thread (possible, there are several related threads going) or was that in another thread? I use alternate alignments for the class myself (I call the Templars) with differing abilities / spell lists. And yes, I don't think anybody disagrees with who controls your table.
|
|
People are talking about RAW, not "wrong" iirc. I hadn't seen anybody say you weren't playing D&D (or PF) in this thread if you had alternate alignments for Paladins. Just that the RAW required LG alignments for them (which it does), and anything else was a houserule. The only serious "disagreement" was in what to call the alternately aligned; Paladins, Templars, Champions, etc. Did I miss something in this thread (possible, there are several related threads going) or was that in another thread? I use alternate alignments for the class myself (I call the Templars) with differing abilities / spell lists. And yes, I don't think anybody disagrees with who controls your table.
I respectfully have to disagree. When you have posters writing that one can no longer call a Paladin a Paladin if you remove the LG alignement. As well as implying that if one removes the alignment than one is not running D&D. It's all subjective. Removing alignements is imo not a bad thing. Not doing it wrong and will not cause D&D to crash and burn. They removed level limits from non-humans in 3E. The game still works. I could understand if in topic it was just about raw. It has gone beyond raw with some posters implying that if one changes the Paladin from raw then the person doing that is wrong.
I respectfully have to disagree. When you have posters writing that one can no longer call a Paladin a Paladin if you remove the LG alignement. As well as implying that if one removes the alignment than one is not running D&D. It's all subjective. Removing alignements is imo not a bad thing. Not doing it wrong and will not cause D&D to crash and burn. They removed level limits from non-humans in 3E. The game still works. I could understand if in topic it was just about raw. It has gone beyond raw with some posters implying that if one changes the Paladin from raw then the person doing that is wrong.
I've seen a few changes in the game since 1974. The removal of level limits for demi-humans didn't really surprise me given the contantly expanding level / class limits. The only edition I had an issue with was 4E, not because it was a "bad game" but because it would have required me to dump 30+ years of work and basically start over.
I have been "house ruling" since day one. There were a lot of things to add (especially) / change in the original game. I hadn't noticed the LN champions of RAW weighing in on "bad wrong fun". Funny given the existence of Rule 0. I can understand changing the Paladin's class name for non LG variants because of the traditional association between Paladin and LG (I did so myself). Beyond that, it's every GM for him / her self. Imho anyway.
I'm in favor of specific limitations based on the class as opposed to broad alignment restrictions that could be really strict in one game and a non-issue in another.
Paladins pick a set of things they can never do (steal, attack an unarmed foe, etc.) and if they break it, they fall. Clerics falls if they disobey the tenets of their deity. A Monk should be able to maintain a strict, ascetic discipline while still acting in all other ways like a NG character.
I believe certain behavioral restrictions for classes is necessary because it makes them distinct and easy to role-play. But if you're going to have them, define specifically what behavior is restricted so the player knows what he or she's getting into.
I like that idea. Currently you're supposed to adhere to a "Code", but there's no really good description of what exactly is in that code. As we've just seen upthread, getting a consensus about what Lawful/Chaotic mean is probably impossible, so it's hard to be LG if you don't know what the L part entails.
There'll probably be some startup difficulties with things that should be in the Code, but nobody thought of them beforehand ("I don't see cannibalism listed as prohibited..."), but that's a matter of refinement.
You'll also have the occasional player trying to argue the letter of the code against the spirit, but that's A) inevitable, B) can be dealt with by adding a "Thou Shalt Not Try To Subvert The Intent Of The Code" commandment.
And not every code needs to be Sir Niceguy either; look at your Code to see how you should deal with the goblin babies, or whether Dhampir PCs are allowed.
Faiths of Purity actually lists specific codes for paladins of every deity a paladin can follow. They're quite nifty.
And, using that as precedent, it's very much worth noting that this includes a couple of neutral good deities, but even with them, you're still required to be LG.
Because really, that's what the lawful part of the alignment restriction is all about. It's not that you're absolutely sworn to uphold some code, whose specific points call upon you to act in a lawful manner. It's that swearing absolutely to uphold some code is, in and of itself, an inherently lawful thing to do. There's also nothing really inherently lawful about what the class can do or anything, that's just the sort of personality you need to have to stick to the tenets.
Meanwhile, the deal with chaotic alignments is that at best, you are always willing to bend the rules when you find them inconvenient. At worst, you are actively opposed to having anyone tell you what to do. A chaotic good paladin doesn't really ever face the traditional sort of paladin's dilemma where their gut instinct or personal passion doesn't match up with what's prescribed by their code, and they're forced to either swallow their feelings and follow the code, or break it and have all kinds of horrible guilt (and possible need for official atonement). The CG paladin would, by definition, go with their gut every single time and not feel an ounce of guilt for doing so.
So... either they'd just be falling constantly, or they'd have to have a comparatively very relaxed code to follow. I suppose the latter would be fairly fitting since we'd be allowing for paladins of Cayden Cailean, who's largely known for not really telling his followers what to do, at all... but then it becomes hard to come up with an in-universe reason for people NOT to be paladins. Like, why can't your average Joe fighter (or rogue, or wizard, or cleric even) who worships CC and follows what little of a code there is ("Don't do anything I wouldn't do!" I suppose?) get the ability to smite stuff and summon a mount?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People are talking about RAW, not "wrong" iirc. I hadn't seen anybody say you weren't playing D&D (or PF) in this thread if you had alternate alignments for Paladins.
That has in fact been said in this very thread.
If you want to play this game it's pretty necessary as it's part of what this game is.
If you want to play some other game then feel free to throw it away. Nothing is necessary unless you want it to actually be this game.
If you want to play PF, the LG restriction is necessary. Logically implies that if you have a non-LG paladin you are not playing PF.
There's also the very similar sentiment:
Being highly restrictive is part of what makes the paladin a paladin. If you don't want the restrictions then you don't truly want to play a paladin, you want to play a warrior with magical powers.
If this is not the intent of these comments I would very much like to be corrected, but you can see why some of us get the impression that at least a few people on the forums believe that playing a non-LG paladin is not just "not RAW" but "wrong."
~~~
Because really, that's what the lawful part of the alignment restriction is all about. It's not that you're absolutely sworn to uphold some code, whose specific points call upon you to act in a lawful manner. It's that swearing absolutely to uphold some code is, in and of itself, an inherently lawful thing to do. There's also nothing really inherently lawful about what the class can do or anything, that's just the sort of personality you need to have to stick to the tenets.
This assumes that the code represents a formal oath to follow a particular code of conduct. Those of us in favor of CG paladins believe that the code of conduct can be much more informal and based on the CG paladin's need to follow his/her personal convictions rather than his devotion to a particular order or explicit oath.
Meanwhile, the deal with chaotic alignments is that at best, you are always willing to bend the rules when you find them inconvenient. At worst, you are actively opposed to having anyone tell you what to do. A chaotic good paladin doesn't really ever face the traditional sort of paladin's dilemma where their gut instinct or personal passion doesn't match up with what's prescribed by their code, and they're forced to either swallow their feelings and follow the code, or break it and have all kinds of horrible guilt (and possible need for official atonement). The CG paladin would, by definition, go with their gut every single time and not feel an ounce of guilt for doing so.
The heart of the paladin's dilemma is a conflict between two values - law and good. It's not just "my heart says X, but my code says Y" it's "Due to my sense of compassion, I believe that X best serves the good. However, because X is dishonourable/unlawful my personal honour and respect for the law dictates Y." The value of honour, law, etc is still a part of the paladin's "heart." A CG paladin is equally capable of experiencing a conflict between two deeply-held values. In the case of the CG, however, it might look more like "I believe that X best serves the good, however to do X also supports an authoritarian system, which I could depose by doing Y instead."
... but then it becomes hard to come up with an in-universe reason for people NOT to be paladins. Like, why can't your average Joe fighter (or rogue, or wizard, or cleric even) who worships CC and follows what little of a code there is ("Don't do anything I wouldn't do!" I suppose?) get the ability to smite stuff and summon a mount?
Because being a Paladin is a deeper matter than just agreeing to follow a set of rules. It requires great commitment to a moral ideal, which may or may not be LG. In my opinion, to reduce a paladin to "abstain from X Y and Z, get cool power" is to devalue the paladin.
|
|
The name Paladin implies a knight in shining armor, who plays by the rules, even if that sometimes sucks. He wants to do good, and do it the Right Way. Not harming innocents, chance for redemption, honorable tactics, due process, all that. If you know the opponent is dishonorable, you can still prepare for their sudden yet inevitable betrayal, of course. But you have to give people the chance to be better than you expected.
I think it's more about playing that, than obsessing about what exactly "Lawful" means. The name means something.
So that's why I think alternate-alignment Paladin equivalents should have their own names. Paladin is a strong brand, you gotta respect that.
---
I don't view Chaotic as merely the absence of Lawfulness. It's an equal and opposite principle, not merely the default state if there were no Law.
So a CG "Vigilante" would have to do some things a NG "Champion" wouldn't have to do, because of his dedication to Chaos.
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
A CG "Vigilante" might feel a constant need to challenge government; to insist that if people don't do evil because of laws, that's not genuine Good, because they weren't free to decide on their own volition; to question current practices even if no major problems are noticeable, because stagnant traditions foster bureaucracy and corruption.
CG "Vigilantes" insist that it's more important to have a clean conscience than to follow all the rules.
To them, there's never any "I was just following orders" - everyone is personally responsible for their actions. If their god were to command them to do evil, that still wouldn't make it right.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been "house ruling" since day one. There were a lot of things to add (especially) / change in the original game. I hadn't noticed the LN champions of RAW weighing in on "bad wrong fun". Funny given the existence of Rule 0. I can understand changing the Paladin's class name for non LG variants because of the traditional association between Paladin and LG (I did so myself). Beyond that, it's every GM for him / her self. Imho anyway.
Look at Weirdo posts above. He saves me the job of rewriting the posts again. What is written is more than debating about RAW. If someone says "to play PF you need to have a paladin with a LG. If your remove that than your no longer playing PF it's another game". It's amounts to saying that if a person houserules anything in PF he is no longer playing PF. Since for some posters in their opinion it's no longer the same game. That's not what bothers me. It's when they try to pass it off as fact rather than opinion. The statements Weirdo has in his latest post come across as being fact. Which at a posters gaming table and only at their gaming table maybe be fact. Outside of it it's only opinion. anyone who wants to change certain aspects of classes is not doing anything wrong. They still play D&D.
I hate that, you make some changes it is another game, now shut up you evil house ruler.
Ruler of houses!