|
That is not a listed bvenefit so it is DM only benefit. A Good DM might, but not neutral or evil DMs.Part of what is great about playing a Paladin is walking into a village and having the people there trust you and your group, specifically because you are a Paladin.
It is a class that derives benefit from a well earned reputation for being exactly what it is.
If a GM isn't going to consider things like that, just put a dice roller behind the screen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of what is great about playing a Paladin is walking into a village and having the people there trust you and your group, specifically because you are a Paladin.
It is a class that derives benefit from a well earned reputation for being exactly what it is.
So how do they know you're a paladin and not a cleric or an inquisitor or a fighter or cavalier whose armor is covered in holy symbols? Do they read your character sheet?
|
|
So how do they know you're a paladin and not a cleric or an inquisitor or a fighter or cavalier whose armor is covered in holy symbols? Do they read your character sheet?Part of what is great about playing a Paladin is walking into a village and having the people there trust you and your group, specifically because you are a Paladin.
It is a class that derives benefit from a well earned reputation for being exactly what it is.
If I am a Paladin, and I want the benefits of having the reputation of a Paladin, I tell them. And show them if need be, by laying on hands, etc...
Just like if I'm a cleric and I want the benefits of them realizing I am a cleric I tell and show them. And if I don't want them to know, I hide it from them.
Not really that complicated.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A man in heavy armor adorned with holy symbols enters the village. He says he is a paladin and proves it by curing someone with a touch.
The man is a cleric.
But hey, if you generally allow NPCs to read the PCs character sheets, be my guest.
|
|
A man in heavy armor adorned with holy symbols enters the village. He says he is a paladin and proves it by curing someone with a touch.
The man is a cleric.
But hey, if you generally allow NPCs to read the PCs character sheets, be my guest.
Because Paladins don't exist and have distinct reputations in your setting, or because it is inconvenient to your argument if they do?
EDIT: I mean, it isn't like one of the most followed Gods on Golarion was a Paladin...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A man in heavy armor adorned with holy symbols enters the village. He says he is a paladin and proves it by curing someone with a touch.
The man is a cleric.
But hey, if you generally allow NPCs to read the PCs character sheets, be my guest.
Because Paladins don't exist and have distinct reputations in your setting, or because it is inconvenient to your argument if they do?
EDIT: I mean, it isn't like one of the most followed Gods on Golarion was a Paladin...
Nothing in this answers the question of "How does an NPC know the PC is a paladin instead of a cleric without looking at his character sheet?"
Or is "He's a paladin, so he's obviously well known enough to get a reputation" your answer?
They accept he's a paladin on faith, until he proves otherwise.
Why?
The same reason people in the wild west accepted someone was a Pinkerton on faith, until it was proved otherwise.
The same reason people in middle ages Europe accepted a guy in armor was a Knight and not a peasant who stole a knight's armor.
The same reason people in pre-reformation Japan accepted a man with a katana as a Samurai, until it was proved otherwise, and not a bandit who stole the sword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They accept he's a paladin on faith, until he proves otherwise.
Why?
The same reason people in the wild west accepted someone was a Pinkerton on faith, until it was proved otherwise.
The same reason people in middle ages Europe accepted a guy in armor was a Knight and not a peasant who stole a knight's armor.
The same reason people in pre-reformation Japan accepted a man with a katana as a Samurai, until it was proved otherwise, and not a bandit who stole the sword.
Those are very trusting people if they did.
Why didn't more people take advantage of their good faith?
They accept he's a paladin on faith, until he proves otherwise.
Why?
The same reason people in the wild west accepted someone was a Pinkerton on faith, until it was proved otherwise.
The same reason people in middle ages Europe accepted a guy in armor was a Knight and not a peasant who stole a knight's armor.
The same reason people in pre-reformation Japan accepted a man with a katana as a Samurai, until it was proved otherwise, and not a bandit who stole the sword.
Those are very trusting people if they did.
Why didn't more people take advantage of their good faith?
People would try to take advantage of it. The problem is the risk vs reward, plus the cost of trying to fake it. If you're not trying to fake it, but just using Bluff, you could be found out pretty easily. All for what... a free place to stay and a free meal?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's an entire Golarion religion based on sorcerers pretending to be clerics. I don't think it would be all that difficult for a cleric, inquisitor, or oracle to pretend to be a paladin, at least in the short-term.
But why should it matter if he's a paladin by class? This goes back to Ashiel's separation of RP and mechanics, but in this case it's specifically a separation of Class and Role. Do people generally trust Paladins? Sure, but in this case a Paladin could be a paladin by class or it could be a cleric, inquisitor, oracle, fighter, or cavalier who swore to uphold the proper ideals. The guy in the corner there with Cayden Cailean's holy symbol or the Pharasman undead slayer don't have quite the same authority, but they could be paladins by class. Just like not all members of a barbarian tribe are of the barbarian class - and not all members of the barbarian class are necessarily tribal, especially looking at the Urban Barbarian archetype. I have had an inquisitor character say, in-character, "I am not an Inquisitor," because while that was his class, it was not his role. A paladin by class does not have to be a "Paladin."
Yes, the paladin has powerful associations, but it's possible to preserve the paladin ideal while also expanding the paladin mechanics simply by calling non-LG members of the class "Champions" or "Crusaders" and reserving the "Paladin" title for LG members of the class.
I know a lot of GMs and players have a strong emotional attachment to traditional paladins. I empathize with them. I used to have similar attachments to the traditional druid, but I have intentionally broken those down because my attachment is to the idea of the druid and not to the mechanics, and I can preserve the idea of the druid without telling players that members of the druid class necessarily have to follow that ideal.
I empathize with these GMs who are attached to Paladin Classic, but I do think they're being closed-minded if they refuse to even consider removing the paladin class mechanics from the paladin role and ideal. You ultimately have the right to do whatever you want with your game, but I feel that the player-GM contract requires that the GM at least be open to conversation, to figure out whether the idea itself is at odds with the campaign ("I want to play a CN member of a well-respected Paladin order!") or whether it's just an issue of mechanics ("I want to play a CN champion of Callistra and the character really should be a Cha-based martial class which means paladin.")
In the same way saying "Warforged aren't in this setting" is a decision the GM makes about the setting. Paladins being Lawful Good was a decision the developers made about the flavor of the class.
And this is where everything circles back in these discussions for me, and why I think such restrictions need to be the default and should only be removed as part of a total setting revision in your home game rather than a "But I'm a good drow" kind of 'special' way.
In keeping alignment restrictions the devs decided that character options were less important than flavour. And personally I think the they made a mistake there, because if that decision is made it has to be made at the level of the GM - or the person writing a published setting - the person who actually knows whether that flavour is adding anything to the particular campaign or world.
Golarion (IIRC) forbids philosophy clerics and emphasizes that drow are inherently evil. The CRB and the ARG state that philosophy clerics and good drow are atypical, but do not rule out the possibility. The core rules should suggest flavour, but not enforce it. Enforcing flavour is for the setting.
I'm not the biggest fan of paladins but I agree that the restrictions of law and good should be in place. Mainly because they are shining examples of righteousness and valor. In these aspects, the main group of individuals who could perhaps match the high standards of their ideals would be honurable and chivalrous knights. If you want to do away with certain alignment restrictions of the class, you don't want to play a paladin. You just want to play a fighter with magical powers.
Badwrong fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They accept he's a paladin on faith, until he proves otherwise.
Why?
The same reason people in the wild west accepted someone was a Pinkerton on faith, until it was proved otherwise.
The same reason people in middle ages Europe accepted a guy in armor was a Knight and not a peasant who stole a knight's armor.
The same reason people in pre-reformation Japan accepted a man with a katana as a Samurai, until it was proved otherwise, and not a bandit who stole the sword.
Those are very trusting people if they did.
Why didn't more people take advantage of their good faith?
Because the Pinkertons were extremely violently opposed to people pretending to be them, and they hung, murdered, stabbed, shot people who did so. And often any friends they had and happened to be around at the time.
Because a peasant caught pretending to be a nobleman was whipped, drawn and quartered, hung, left in a cage to starve to death in public, etc. Often their family was as well.
Because people pretending to be nobles/samurai were tortured to death, burned alive, and generally killed along with their family.
Nobody in their right mind except an Anti-Paladin pretends to be a Paladin, because they then have EVERY paladin gunning for them. They may not kill the schmuck's family, but allies who try to stop them may just get killed in the takedown.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But why should it matter if he's a paladin by class?
It doesn't. As long as he follows the Paladin's code and is an accepted member of a Paladin order, then he's a Paladin, no matter what class he actually has. If he's not following the code, he's not a member of an order. If he's not a member of an order, he's not a Paladin.
If a paladin finds someone who is not a member of his order claiming to be a Paladin, they do the whole ask the god thing, and then get mideivel if you're not a paladin (regardless of your actual class).
|
|
Those are very trusting people if they did.
Why didn't more people take advantage of their good faith?
Not trusting, rather fearful and respectful. Because if the guy is who he proclaims to be, you'd better give him the proper respect, else you meet your maker real fast.
Of course, the same powers that be take a VERY dim view of any who would impersonate one of them to get the benefits that are rightly theirs and theirs only.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those are very trusting people if they did.
Why didn't more people take advantage of their good faith?Not trusting, rather fearful and respectful. Because if the guy is who he proclaims to be, you'd better give him the proper respect, else you meet your maker real fast.
Of course, the same powers that be take a VERY dim view of any who would impersonate one of them to get the benefits that are rightly theirs and theirs only.
Why would anyone be scared of a Paladin he can't kill you without falling. Treat him with respect he better treat YOU with respect!
His class mandates he respect your AUTHORITY OR FALL.Nothing requires the vice versa.
I dunno if being called out on not playing a paladin with the mechanics as stated in the book and decrying that as 'badwrongfun' is fair.
If you're not playing the paladin class with the mechanics in the book as intended, then you aren't playing a 'Pathfinder' paladin, but some houseruled variant. While it's perfectly ok to do so, lets not kid ourselves that it's within the scope of the rules as written.
|
|
A man in heavy armor adorned with holy symbols enters the village. He says he is a paladin and proves it by curing someone with a touch.
The man is a cleric.
But hey, if you generally allow NPCs to read the PCs character sheets, be my guest.
Because Paladins don't exist and have distinct reputations in your setting, or because it is inconvenient to your argument if they do?
EDIT: I mean, it isn't like one of the most followed Gods on Golarion was a Paladin...
Nothing in this answers the question of "How does an NPC know the PC is a paladin instead of a cleric without looking at his character sheet?"
Or is "He's a paladin, so he's obviously well known enough to get a reputation" your answer?
The PC knows because they aren't wearing a disguise and Paladins not only exist, but one of the main gods was a Paladin.
They know the same as they know someone is a Druid, Cleric, Wizards, Sorcerer, etc...unless they are wearing a disguise to mask this fact.
Which they aren't when they say "I am a Paladin"
And they know Paladins have to follow a code, because, hello, one of the primary Gods of the setting was a Paladin.
I know it makes it really hard to argue against Paladins having a distinct persona and still reject LG as wrongbadfun...but that is why I didn't choose to be on your side of the argument.
what the-
Okay here is a fun game
Hold up a picture of Isabella Locke to a bunch of people who have never played Skull & Shackles
Ask them what class she is
|
|
Ashiel's separation of RP and mechanics...
Changes with what side of the argument he is on at the time. We already saw up-thread that any limitation (other than ones put on DMs about what they can say no too...) is to much for him. Citing him will not help your argument.
If a major God of the setting was a Paladin, it is safe to assume people know what a Paladin is. So what is a Paladin, relative to another class.
If a Paladin is defined in part by honor and following a rigid code, people who meet Paladins will know this in the same way they know Druids can change shape, Clerics can heal, etc...
If you remove that, what is a Paladin but a Fighter with some divine powers. And these powers are granted for what reason exactly?
There was a gap in the game for a Divine Warrior who didn't follow a rigid code. It was filled by the Inquisitor. There is a place for the Paladin trope in the game. If you remove the restrictions, you basically have a Cleric/Fighter multi-class with special features for absolutely no thematic reason at all.
Hell, Pathfinder even added loopholes for working with lesser evils...
Hold up a picture of Isabella Locke to a bunch of people who have never played Skull & Shackles
Ask them what class she is
She looks like a Pirate!
(Which means she could be an Adept, Aristocrat, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Inquisitor, Monk, Ninja, Ranger, Rogue, Paladin, Sorcerer, Warrior, Witch, or Wizard)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel's separation of RP and mechanics...Changes with what side of the argument he is on at the time.
No it doesn't. Stop that.
We already saw up-thread that any limitation (other than ones put on DMs about what they can say no too...) is to much for him. Citing him will not help your argument.
No, we didn't. Stop that. Don't be a douche. Your arguments are more about attacking the person behind them rather than actually making an argument.
I'm asking you nicely. Please, do not be a douche.
What I was actually saying was that the removal of limitations from the core classes and races is beneficial. If you want to add limitations or restrictions for a specific campaign then you can make a case for it on a case by case basis. However, as we as gamers have evolved and become more educated in the world and mature in our gaming habits, we seem to come to reach the conclusion that such limitations are rather pointless when the alternative is to have your cake and eat it too.
The Paladin is just the last foothold of bad rules. Bad rules stretching back ages. Let's look at all the classes who have had alignment requirements over the years.
Paladins must be Lawful Good + lots of vague stuff.
Rangers must be Good. Then later must be Evil to have favored enemy (your race).
Thieves/Rogues must be Non-Lawful.
Bards must be Non-Lawful.
We have continuously been chipping away at this nonsense over the years. There's nothing that the Paladin's alignment restrictions or code do to promote roleplaying. It doesn't allow you to roleplay a Paladin. You can roleplay just like a Paladin by being almost any other class. Heck, in 3.x if you wanted to be a Paladin your best bet was to just play Cleric 20 and call yourself a Paladin because you'd end up with less troubles, get all the RP you wanted, and probably be stronger for it.
PALADIN as you guys are defining it is not a class. It is a concept.
PALADIN as we are defining it is the class minus the concept.
Since virtually any class can make use of the concept (and thus you can have a Fighter who is conceptually a Paladin) it is stifling to have a class (especially a core class in a setting-neutral system) be required to have only one concept when that same class could fulfill a multitude of concepts, or has stuff to offer from a gaming perspective that other classes do not have to offer.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My Jade Regent character is a barbarian. He has never called himself nor thinks of himself as a "barbarian".
My first Skull and Shackles character was classed as a monk. He would never dream of identifying as a monk.
My current Skull and Shackles character is a spirit ranger. He thinks of himself exclusively as a hunter and identifies as such.
My backup character for Skull and Shackles is classed as a ninja. He wouldn't even know what a "ninja" is.
|
|
Ashiel's separation of RP and mechanics...Changes with what side of the argument he is on at the time.No it doesn't. Stop that.
We already saw up-thread that any limitation (other than ones put on DMs about what they can say no too...) is to much for him. Citing him will not help your argument.No, we didn't.
Royal "we" or not,yes actually "you" did..
The Paladin without the concept isn't a class. It is a fighter with a few divine spells. That is not a class, that is an archetype.
Part of what defines a class, as opposed to an archetype, is that the class exists as a concept separate from what can be created otherwise.
Druids and Clerics both are prepared divine casters.
Rangers and Paladins are both full BaB partial Divine casters.
Paladins are defined by following a moral code. That is the core of what makes it a class and not an archetype. It is a classic trope, and it only works if it is understood that a Paladin is a paragon, by definition.
The other examples work fine either way. Lawful Barbarian is an oxymoron, as would a lawful thief, hence the name change. Chaotic Monk is equally Oxymoronic.
Yet neither class is as fundimentally defined by it's code of conduct than the Paladin.
And your only reason for wanting it gone, so far as I can tell, is so you can steal the mechanics without suffering the costs.
|
|
My Jade Regent character is a barbarian. He has never called himself nor thinks of himself as a "barbarian".
My first Skull and Shackles character was classed as a monk. He would never dream of identifying as a monk.
My current Skull and Shackles character is a spirit ranger. He thinks of himself exclusively as a hunter and identifies as such.
My backup character for Skull and Shackles is classed as a ninja. He wouldn't even know what a "ninja" is.
Your Barbarian goes into rages, but isn't seen as a Barbarian?
Your monk presumably trained at what is ostensibly a monastery by whatever name you choose to learn his skills, but...
A Ranger is a type of hunter.
And presumably your ninja character had some ninja training of some sort?
Because you have decided not to include training and skill acquisition in your back story doesn't mean that the skill sets they acquired appeared by magic. Unless they did, like a sorcerer, who may not call themselves one, but when people see them doing what a sorcerer does...well...you know.
And of course, all of this is beside the point since a Paladin would identify themselves as a Paladin with pride.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Paladin is an archetype of Fighter (all things being different aside from hit die, BAB, and armor proficiencies), does that mean that Ranger is an archetype of Barbarian?
Royal "we" or not,yes actually "you" did..
That's an inference you made from Ashiel's post, not something he ever said. Don't confuse what you assume to be true with reality.
|
|
First words of paladin when entering bar:
"Well met fellows, its is I, Sir. Blah de Blah, Paladin of BLAH"
Pretty easy to tell what he is, now?
And this is where the argument falls apart.
A Paladin is defined as
"Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful."
You can't separate the core of what defines the class from the class, because it is inconvenient to you being able to access the mechanics and pretend to be in any way serious about role playing and verisimilitude as a goal of your table.
This isn't to say that it would be wrongbadfun to do so. It is to call BS on the idea you are doing it for roleplay purposes rather than in an attempt to move mechanics to get around limitations.
|
|
Why? Why would all Paladins know they're Paladins, especially those who don't follow a god? And even if everyone was aware of Paladins as the pinnacles of law and good, wouldn't it be a bit conceited to claim yourself as one?
Conceited, perhaps. But it would also be true, so long as they adhere.
Which is kind of the whole point of the class.
|
|
Dang, I was sure I was agreeing with you!First words of paladin when entering bar:
"Well met fellows, its is I, Sir. Blah de Blah, Paladin of BLAH"
Pretty easy to tell what he is, now?
And this is where the argument falls apart.
A Paladin is defined as
"Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful."
You can't separate the core of what defines the class from the class, because it is inconvenient to you being able to access the mechanics and pretend to be in any way serious about role playing and verisimilitude as a goal of your table.
This isn't to say that it would be wrongbadfun to do so. It is to call BS on the idea you are doing it for roleplay purposes rather than in an attempt to move mechanics to get around limitations.
No, we are totally agreeing. I was using your statement to illustrate how right we are.
High five!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your Barbarian goes into rages, but isn't seen as a Barbarian?
Some might call him that, but if you asked him what he was, that's no answer he'd give.
Your monk presumably trained at what is ostensibly a monastery by whatever name you choose to learn his skills, but...
He learned everything he knew from his parents. No monastery. Just the local art of capoeira and traditions handed down through his family.
A Ranger is a type of hunter.
And not all hunters are rangers. He just thinks of himself as a damn good hunter.
And presumably your ninja character had some ninja training of some sort?
No ninja training as in Tien Xia/Asian ninja. Assassin training from the Red Mantis. The ninja class is how his skills as a Red Mantis are represented.
Because you have decided not to include training and skill acquisition in your back story doesn't mean that the skill sets they acquired appeared by magic. Unless they did, like a sorcerer, who may not call themselves one, but when people see them doing what a sorcerer does...well...you know.
Assumptions, dude. Actually, skill and training are part of their backstories. They just aren't bound to the narrow expectations of "barbarian school" or "ninja school".
Barbarian was brought up tough by a Shoanti mother according to traditions of both her culture and his orc father's. His childhood was basically one long obstacle course.
Monk was trained in the fighting traditions of his Bonuwat village.
Ranger is from a tribe of freakin' headhunting elves whose entire lifestyle is based around The Hunt.
Ninja was brought into the Red Mantis cult at an early age and raised on Mediogalti. Depending on whether he needs to be brought in and what's happening if he is, he'll either be on the run after dropping out or implanting himself in the crew to make sure what seems to be a major antagonistic force doesn't get a foothold (and stabilize) the area.
My paladin character does identify as a paladin. But this is no guarantee of respect(both because of his race and because different cultures are going to react differently to paladins and servants of different gods).
I can also imagine paladins that don't identify as such.* And paladins that aren't easily identified as paladins. It's all in the character.
*Considering an Osirioni aasimar paladin for a one-off that sees himself merely as a slave of his deity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Jade Regent character is a barbarian. He has never called himself nor thinks of himself as a "barbarian".
My first Skull and Shackles character was classed as a monk. He would never dream of identifying as a monk.
My current Skull and Shackles character is a spirit ranger. He thinks of himself exclusively as a hunter and identifies as such.
My backup character for Skull and Shackles is classed as a ninja. He wouldn't even know what a "ninja" is.
Your Barbarian goes into rages, but isn't seen as a Barbarian?
Your monk presumably trained at what is ostensibly a monastery by whatever name you choose to learn his skills, but...
A Ranger is a type of hunter.
And presumably your ninja character had some ninja training of some sort?
Because you have decided not to include training and skill acquisition in your back story doesn't mean that the skill sets they acquired appeared by magic. Unless they did, like a sorcerer, who may not call themselves one, but when people see them doing what a sorcerer does...well...you know.
And of course, all of this is beside the point since a Paladin would identify themselves as a Paladin with pride.
This comment infers a lack of originality Ciretose. Why would you pigeonhole all role play into what your class is called?
|
|
It is classification. Ostrich or Wren, it is still a bird. Very different types of birds, but within classifications we can all generally agree and identify.
Each class has defining some characteristics that make them worthy of a separate class, even within the archetypes.
In the case of the Paladin, I think the code is one of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I've been cursed with a Bestow curse I can't heal another with my powers without someone removing my curse first. Sorry, I must be on my way..."Huh. You know, my immediate response is "giving people the power of Low and High Justice is asking for them to abuse it." But with Paladins, you have a really easy way to tell- do they still have their powers? Yes? Okay then, they still retain the authority.
I can imagine a group of investigators tracking down a Paladin to question him over an incident.
"Do you believe what you did was both Lawful and Righteous"
"Yes."
"Okay. Can you lay on hands to heal this scratch on my arm?"
"Um... I've exhausted my uses for the day."
"That's fine sir, we can try it tomorrow."
"Uh...."
"Sir? You're under arrest."
I don't see a problem with that. It would just be good role playing.
"Make a knowledge (religion) (DC 15) check to make sure you know how curses work."
*Rolls... passes*
"Make a Bluff check"
*Rolls... passes*
"Okay, you've successfully convinced the investigators... for now. They leave."
(Player gets a small experience bonus for coming up with something clever on the fly.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Royal "we" or not,[url=http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pbzd&page=9?On-Paladins-and-just-being-a-good-player#410]yes actually "you" did.
.
No, I said I don't like forced class restrictions. Not "any limitation". There are many, many, maaaany limitations in the game that are entirely beneficial. Most of these are found in skills, combats, and spells. Also monsters. Limitations on what something can do or when it can be done are usually fine. However, forced alignment/fluff are not good "limitations". Oracle curses aren't even always limitations, but instead are more like quirks. And those are abilities that give you special powers in exchange. They're easy to min/max, I just hate them because they force a specific sort of fluff on your character even if that fluff is not at all suitable for the character you wish to play.Which is why I've had a lot of success by adding an alternative for oracles to drop the curse (and the benefits of the curse) and take cleric domains instead (which gives them a pseudo "bloodline spells" based on your chosen domains). Since it lacks the forced fluff that the normal Oracle possesses it has seen a lot more use in my campaigns by players. When I asked why, my suspicions were confirmed. Many of them thought that playing an Oracle could be fun but that the forced curse interfered with their character unless they made a character specifically for that class.
The Paladin without the concept isn't a class. It is a fighter with a few divine spells. That is not a class, that is an archetype.
On the contrary. It is a class. A class is nothing more than a mechanical building block for describing a character. Do not mix up class and archetype. And a Paladin is far from being a Fighter with a few Divine Spells. A Paladin plays differently than a Fighter, and has an entirely different set of benefits and tactical considerations than a Fighter has. For example, Paladins deal less damage but are better tanks and achieve their goals through self-heals, buffs, and smites.
A Paladin =/= Fighter with Spells.
Part of what defines a class, as opposed to an archetype, is that the class exists as a concept separate from what can be created otherwise.
Lies and slander. It's demonstrable that this false by most every other class. What defines a class is its mechanics, and a general archetype. However, look at other classes who can so easily just drop the suggested fluff of their class. You could take a Bard and make William Wallace from Braveheart if you wanted. Or have a Fighter be a Paladin in literally every aspect except mechanics. Or even a Ranger. A Ranger even is the "fighter with divine spells and a horse" and can live up to the Paladin's archtype just fine. But it doesn't play like a Paladin mechanically.
Druids and Clerics both are prepared divine casters.
Rangers and Paladins are both full BaB partial Divine casters.
Which is a gross oversimplification of those classes. They are much deeper than that. Clerics and Druids for example play little to nothing alike beyond both being divine casters with similar base statistics.
Paladins are defined by following a moral code. That is the core of what makes it a class and not an archetype. It is a classic trope, and it only works if it is understood that a Paladin is a paragon, by definition.
No, it's not. Because it's demonstrable that classes are not defined by alignment, only archetypes. Again, many classes in past editions - including Ranger - were more tightly restricted. Rangers could only be good. You couldn't be a dwarf ranger (hell, by all pre-modern standards the PF Iconic Ranger is not a Ranger, which shows where this logic leads us). You couldn't be a Halfling ranger. And so forth.
In your own words, you defined the difference between Fighter and Paladin being about alignment, other than divine spells. We're simply noting that such a distinction doesn't actually exist because a Fighter can enjoy all the fluff of the Paladin. So either the Fighter is also a Paladin by your standards or the Paladin is actually defined by their mechanics and not by fluff (because fluff is shared) and that means it actually IS an archetype and nothing more.
The other examples work fine either way. Lawful Barbarian is an oxymoron
Not hardly. Even the barbarians described in the PF Iconic's backstory are a people that revolve around honor, do not buck traditions, and are quite set in their ways. If you have a Barbarian who:
1) Honors his tribe's traditions.
2) Respects his tribe's elders/leaders.
3) Doesn't lie or cheat.
4) Keeps his word.
5) Gets angry at people who don't adhere to these things.
Then you have a Barbarian who acts Lawfully. The funny thing is this is basically the quintessential heroic barbarian.
as would a lawful thief
Of course there have been many examples of characters with thief skills acting in lawful manners. A spy stealing documents from an enemy kingdom would likely be a member of the Thief class back in the day, easily driven by respect for his legitimate authority, traditions, etc. Showing again that getting caught up in class names is pretty foolish.
Then there's lawful robbery. Like what happened with pirates. Government endorsed thievery against rival nations. Stealing and pirating by the law.
Chaotic Monk is equally Oxymoronic.
Unless you're Bruce Lee. Who is specifically the quintessential definition of Chaotic vs Lawful. Bruce Lee shirked traditions and embraced the concepts of freedom, flexibility, and adaptability in his fighting style Jeet Kun Do. When he was working as an actor on the Green Mantis, he quit his job because he didn't respect the authority of the directors when he was supposed to lose against Batman & Robin in a crossover show.
Yet neither class is as fundimentally defined by it's code of conduct than the Paladin.
Nay. Neither class is forcefully married to an archetype.
And your only reason for wanting it gone, so far as I can tell, is so you can steal the mechanics without suffering the costs.
Sorry, I've had Paladins. And I've actually adhered to being a Paladin without even using the class (I've played Clerics as Paladins, Fighter/Psions as Paladins, Rangers as Paladins, Psychic Warriors as Paladins, my brother's first character was a Fighter as a Paladin). There's nothing to steal from the class. I've mentioned having Paladins on this forum many times. I prefer being a good guy. I like the good guys. I'm playing a Lawful Good necromancer/cleric/mystic theurge in a game right now.
Your argument also seems really strange. On one hand you insist that other than the fluff there is no difference between Fighter and Paladin except Paladin is Fighter + Spells (which is false). On the other hand, you're talking about having to have the archetype restriction to avoid stealing the Paladin's cookies.
It's kinda irritating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
About paladins being defined by their moral code...I got a code just as moralistic as any paladin.
Ethical code on the other hand... Pffff. What the hell's an ethic anyway?
|
|
@Ashiel - Because some classes don't have restrictions doesn't mean all classes don't have restrictions.
Because a Barbarian follows "a" code of "a" group does not make them respectful of the laws of society as a concept. It is, in fact, largely anathema to the class to be held to the rigid restrictions of society specifically because they gain strength from rage that is...well...uncivilized.
Just as being respectful to law and order is the pool from which Paladins are granted abilities and powers. They are the very definition of civilized.
If you wish to designate this otherwise for a homebrew, feel free. But it fundamentally changes the setting when you change the core of what a Paladin is.
But that is a setting where the mechanics are not tied to logical connection. They are "Just Because"
Which you are allowed to do. In your homebrew.
The fact that I find that I view that approach as lazy and find it to be disruptive doesn't mean your game is wrongbadfun.
But the fact that the flavor and the mechanics were written to intertwine to fit the logic of the setting does mean that there was method and reason in it, even if you don't like it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ashiel - Because some classes don't have restrictions doesn't mean all classes don't have restrictions.
Because a Barbarian follows "a" code of "a" group does not make them respectful of the laws of society as a concept.
Now you're just trying to split hairs. One does not act lawful and then not be lawful. You're basically trying to justify why this barbarian acting lawfully is not lawful. You may wish to check the alignment rules again. The laws of society as a concept has bubkis to do with being lawful. If you act in a lawful manner - which includes respecting your tribe's rules and traditions - then you are being Lawful. There's no ifs ands or buts about this.
It is, in fact, largely anathema to the class to be held to the rigid restrictions of society specifically because they gain strength from rage that is...well...uncivilized.
Uncivilized has nothing to do with unlawful or chaotic. In fact, chaos never defines rage or anger as a trait that it shares. You don't even see chaotic outsiders with rage. Not even demons. Weak-sauce.
Just as being respectful to law and order is the pool from which Paladins are granted abilities and powers. They are the very definition of civilized.
Civilized =/= Lawful.
If you wish to designate this otherwise for a homebrew, feel free. But it fundamentally changes the setting when you change the core of what a Paladin is.
Don't talk to me about homebrew when you're not even in keeping with the rules on Alignment while arguing Paladins and Alignment.
But the fact that the flavor and the mechanics were written to intertwine to fit the logic of the setting does mean that there was method and reason in it, even if you don't like it.
The same logic of the setting that says you cannot regularly tell the truth, respect your leaders and traditions and judge those outside your group, then you cannot be a Barbarian. Even when the quintessential Barbarian:
1) Honors his tribe's laws.
2) Honors his tribe's traditions.
3) Honors his leaders.
4) Thinks deceit is for cowardly pansies.
5) Judges those not in keeping with his tribe (such as icky magicians).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Note- I used 'Cleric' in this post, but Inquisitor or any other non-nature Divine casting class would apply.)
In a world with only LG Paladins...
I don't see why you CAN'T have a cleric who calls himself a Paladin. One if the key points of a traditional Paladin is that they follow the Code. If you've got a Cleric of a God(dess) who has sworn to a Code, then that God(dess) is going to enforce it. (Unless it's a God(dess) of Trickery, in which case you weren't serious about the Code in the first place and so you're just using the Bluff skill Really Well.)
I mean, if I'm a 'Good' aligned God(dess), and my follower takes an oath in good faith, then I (as a GM) would consider breaking the oath to be an Evil aligned act. In which case, I'm going to punish them for violating one of my alignment requirements, and strip them of their powers. This would even work if the God(dess) involved was CG, because the cleric chose of their free will to take that Oath.
If it's a Lawful Neutral God(dess), same logic. If it's an Evil aligned God(dess), then either the cleric was bluffing the entire time or swearing the Oath identifies as a Good aligned act and the cleric loses their powers immediately. I'd rule the same for True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral, as LG is two/three steps of alignment away. And if a Neutral cleric is bluffing, they'd better have a good reason.
So you end up with two types of Clerics: those who agree to the Paladin Code and can Fall just like the Paladin class, or those who are bluffing. In the case of a 'False Paladin' (bluffing character), they are either required to act appropriately- or at least not get caught in non-Paladin behavior- or the word of their trickery gets around. They false Paladin have the forces of Law (like city militia), Good (church folk and crusading heros), and the Paladin Order itself chasing after them.
In a situation like that, any class with a good Bluff skill could fake being a Paladin. Though Divine casters would have the advantage of healing magic.
In a world with Paladins of every alignment, we have to create a Champion (of an alignment) class and say that Paladins are a Lawful Good Order of Champions. So all of the above reasoning would still apply.
As to the "why are these people so ridiculously trusting" argument, I'm sure that the trust level would go down if such situations were repeated. Common citizens would go from completely trusting to mostly trusting ("Well, the local cleric would know if they're not, right? Just the same...) to guardedly optimistic ("show me some proof, sir...") to distrusting to antagonistic. And I could totally see the Paladin Order organizing a PR campaign amongst the local populace of any area that became too doubtful. I can also see the local LG clerics preparing spells of identification and augury if they were fooled a couple times.
If the group has a Paladin (the order, not the class) with them, it would be up to the GM to decide to level of trust in each region. Entire backstories/side-quests/campaigns could be based around this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the contrary. It is a class. A class is nothing more than a mechanical building block for describing a character. Do not mix up class and archetype.
No sarcasm intended here: how is that different from an archetype? "Mechanical building block for describing a character" could apply to both.
How do you define the word archetype, Ashiel?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is moving too fast for me to make an extended response, but here's some quick comments:
1) While classes are presented with built-in flavour in order to provide context and inspiration, it is limiting to player creativity to assume that this built-in flavour must always be followed. This is like saying that because elves are typically flavoured as skilled archers and magic-users, you cannot make an elven polearm fighter.
2) What you have when you take the alignment restriction from the paladin, at least the way I've seen it played, is a charismatic divine champion who gains some magical divine power from their convictions in their ideals. They are not magical fighters, they are exemplar of a moral ideal. Saying that the paladin can only gain power from LG ideals is like saying that LG is the best or most powerful alignment, or that it is the only one that can attract powerful and inspiring champions. What is so important or special about the LG alignment?
3) Maybe the thief name change was the developers realizing that the mechanics of the class were more versatile than the tiny flavour-box it had previously been locked into with the "thief" label. Just like the mechanics of the paladin class are much more versatile than the tiny LG flavour-box.
4) The Inquisitor may fit the divine warrior role as well, but it is Wis-based, not Cha-based: it's a guile hero, not an inspirational champion. It is thus not remotely a suitable paladin replacement for someone who wants to play an inspirational divine champion.
The fact that I find that I view that approach as lazy and find it to be disruptive doesn't mean your game is wrongbadfun.
I think it's odd that you're calling a particular style of play lazy and disruptive and then saying that it's not wrong or bad.
Note that I'm not calling a group that makes the informed decision to only field LG paladins uncreative. I'm just concerned that shutting down alternate paladins without really considering the costs leads to problems with players feeling they aren't being heard OR with players who play bad, disruptive LG paladins because this was somehow considered preferable to a well-played CG paladin.
In a world with Paladins of every alignment, we have to create a Champion (of an alignment) class and say that Paladins are a Lawful Good Order of Champions.
Which is what I'm proposing for those who value the Paladin concept.
How do you define the word archetype, Ashiel?
Probably in the non-gaming way: A very typical example of a certain person or thing. An original that has been imitated.
Merlin is an archetypal wizard.
Conan is an archetypal barbarian.
Sir Lancelot and Sir Galahad are archetypal knights, often used as examples for the traditional flavour of the paladin class.
Archetypes of the non-gaming type are more like what Ashiel and I are referring to as "concept" or "role" rather than the gaming archetypes, which are mechanical modifications to a class, often with suggested flavour adjustments.
On the contrary. It is a class. A class is nothing more than a mechanical building block for describing a character. Do not mix up class and archetype.No sarcasm intended here: how is that different from an archetype? "Mechanical building block for describing a character" could apply to both.
How do you define the word archetype, Ashiel?
I'm glad you asked that MI and a great question. An archetype for a character is a conceptual standard. For example, a character archetype in literature, film, or other medium. Whether we're watching Hank in the D&D cartoon or reading Professor Xavier in The Uncanny X-Men, both are archetypal leaders. That is part of their character regardless of their powers and/or mechanics.
For example: TvTropes has a small article on archetype.
Now classes can be very useful for building characters of a particular archetype, but that doesn't mean they only fill that archetype. A class at its core is a selection of mechanical features which generally support the descriptive fluff. However, it's entirely possible to mix or apply such features to entirely different archetypes. For example, a bard is generally seen as a performer and minstrel. However, it's entirely possible to make a bard who fills the role of a powerful motivational speaker or evil politician whose honeyed words can sway the hearts of men and put swords in the hands of pacifists, even though such a character is not the archetypal bard.
Now a Paladin's mechanics are ideal for most any champion type character. Be that champion one of law, chaos, good, evil, or some other force (even a champion of just being awesome). It's mechanics are ideal for someone who wants to create a stalwart warrior, leader, and resilient figure with a strong heart, even if that character isn't devoted to anything other than those he cares about (such as his friends). However, the Paladin is heavily forced to only adhere to one specific archetype, which puts the Paladin as a class into a rather odd and cumbersome place next to most of the other core classes. It has unique mechanics that play differently but also has a horrible lack of freedom to the point of "you either play it like this or you don't play it at all", which means that you literally cannot play this class in any campaign that doesn't cater to it (even Ciretose's OP is basically "deal with it or GTFO", which underlines up much of the problem).
My complaint basically seems to be that the pro-Paladin people acknowledge that you do not meed mechanics to be a Paladin, and yet yell at anyone who wants the mechanics of the Paladin without being a Paladin. If you were to introduce a class called "Champion" that was exactly like the Paladin except without being called a Paladin, no one would say a thing. So it's really just clinging blindly to a name.
Off Topic
Also, Mystically Inclined, you have very quickly become one of my favorite posters on the board. Glad to have you around.
Weirdo said it better I think. :P