|
So as long as there IS a code and you see it as being something that would be lawful good? Am I understanding you correctly?At this point I would want to discuss with you what your defined ideals were, particularly in relation to your God of choice and work out your code.
Then I'd be fine with it as long as we can have a framework on the code.
I have always defined alignment from the perspective of the character, not from society at large.
So yes, as long as the character is being played as acting in what it views as a lawfully good fashion, they can be a paladin.
But again, back to the point that has been a bit obscured. If she were a Paladin (I don't know one way or the other) she would identify herself as one with pride. And conveying that to a group would have meaning, specifically that as a Paladin, this person embodies the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve and follows a moral code.This person, by definition of who they are, can be trusted.
Unless you throw the whole concept thing out the window, in which case it's just mechanics.
The best Paladin I've ever played never referred to herself as a Paladin. She was not in the gig of being a Paladin for honor and respect. She was selfless and 100% adherent to the Paladin's code. She was brave, selfless, and forgiving. She put others before herself, spared the lives of those she fought when possible. She told the truth and didn't believe in lying. She believed in doing good because it needed doing, and leading by example rather than anything else. She didn't have a "Paladin order". She was a wandering Paladin. Quite literally. She wandered around as a drifter from place to place and had a fondness for herbal teas after spending some time in the campaign's oriental-themed areas in her backstory (which led to her carrying several pounds of dried tea in her supplies).
Not once did she ever refer to herself as a Paladin. She didn't even get along with a lot of other Paladins (whom she viewed as pompous, uptight, and judgmental). Once she plopped onto a nearby rock after punching an evil dragon-ogre-like-thing into unconsciousness, took a drink from her canteen and said "Man, I can't wait to get back to town for a good drink and a better f***". This was the only time anyone ever referred to her as a Paladin, and why did they refer to her as a Paladin? Because they were metagaming.
One of the players who had seen her character sheet said in character "What kind of Paladin are you!?". Instead of giving him the stink-eye for being a dirty lil' metagamer (I use this term lovingly :P), I shrugged it off and she simply responded with a quirk of the brow and a rub of the chin. "Eh...I guess you could call me that if you want to. I'm just a fool doing the best I know how".
She was religious, but it was a personal religious. She was a wandering follower of the Witch Queen, and she actually got along with the strangest of people. She was a Paladin that could have gotten into a fist-fight with an Antipaladin and bought him a drink later. She was a Paladin who instead of harshly judging her enemies might sit and have a drink with the captive orc prisoners.
She didn't fight for her, or for her god, but for you. And your neighbor. And her enemies. She fought for them too. If you asked her, she was no Paladin.
But she was the best damn Paladin I've ever had the honor of playing.
I could easily envision a Native American style Paladin who matched your description. But your Barbarian is a rage based creature.
Rage is not chaotic. Alignment says nothing about rage being so. And it's funny because Barbarians are a class that traditionally acts lawful (for all the previously noted reasons) and uses controlled rage. Not a berserker mindlessly attacking anyone and anything. A controlled and channeled rage. That he can turn on and off at will, which implies great control of his own emotions (or adrenaline). Yet the rules say he cannot be Lawful. For no reason other than "because".
Pretty much summing up the problems with these stupid alignment class restrictions.
TO ALL YOU BARBARIAN PLAYERS
If you have a barbarian who:
1) Respects his elders/leaders.
2) Honors his tribe's laws and traditions.
3) Doesn't lie often or dislikes dishonesty.
4) Keeps his word.
5) Doesn't like things frowned upon in his culture (like witches).
You are at RISK! Because the Player's Handbook tells you that you are playing your barbarian WRONG! You could end up being Lawful and losing your ability to:
"Rage (Ex): A barbarian can call upon inner reserves of strength and ferocity, granting her additional combat prowess."
|
|
I read WPharolin's post. I don't actually see how he did anything against RAW.From the core rulebook, pg. 63 - 64, under code of conduct.
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they don't use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
The paladin in the example disrespected the authority of his father and the paladin npc. He didn't try to help the barbarian tribe by trying to teach them a better way than murdering somebody for failing as a warrior. He didn't do anything to punish the barbarian who killed an innocent.
As others have stated, it was an interesting concept, and no doubt worked well in that campaign. It just didn't go by RAW.
For me, he got around this by swearing his code to the Military and presumably after working it out with a GM, a God who would have a standard that allowed that behavior.
I can see your point, if I were a player and you came to me with that as a GM I would accept it without a problem, but I think I could make it work.
The best Paladin I've ever played never referred to herself as a Paladin.
*Description of the most Awesome Paladin I've ever heard of*
Yeah, that'd work. She had a Code. She was Champion of a Cause. She fits Lawful Good with the 'personal discipline' interpretation of Lawful. She followed a Goddess.
It totally fits.
And on a completely different note: I sum up the flavor vs. mechanic end of this argument and NOBODY responds?! You people are hard to please. :p
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.
I rather doubt that part of the inherent perks of playing a Paladin is meant to be people automatically trusting you. I understand that to a degree a Paladin is meant to be a respected member of the church, however most times they are meant to be the law bringers of an order. They are the martial arm of a religious order.
I should also like to point out that unless your campaign has some sort of adept type force always detecting good/evil, no one can tell whether a Paladin is who he says he is or not. Carrying a false holy symbol as a part of a disguise is easily done.
Also I would think that they would only get preferential treatment from those who prescribed to their beliefs and agreed with whatever the order was doing at the time.
There are a lot of different things to consider when you are talking about something like preferential treatment for Paladins.
But for me at least, that's the crux of it: the history of the character feels a little too much like he got there by accident. I could totally see him inheriting his positions that way. Also, the character's reaction to the public's perception of himself has a lot of comedic charm. "No, no! I'm not a Paladin. I'm just a humble servant doing my imperfect best to defend the weak, heal the sick, give to the poor, and protect the defenseless. You know... what everyone should be doing." In fact, I could see a crowd nodding solemly and silently deciding that he was right: They couldn't call him a Paladin because he was better than that. Then an entirely new order of "Servant Paladins" springs up and eventually overthrows the original order. And all this time, WPharolin's character doesn't even notice because he's too busy being a Defender of Righteousness and Justice to care. As a GM, I'd love it.
That would have been hilarious!
Getting back to my point: there are lot of Paladin-esque things the character could do accidentally. But when it comes to gaining magic, I feel that it would take a deliberate acceptance. For me, that'd be swearing an Oath to live by a Code. If you could role-play out a moment where the character solemnly swears to act a certain way while alone in a field some dark night, that'd be fine. He wouldn't even have to know that he's swearing to live by the same (or very similar) Code as an order of holy champions. But he would have to
1. Live by a Code.
2. Deliberately acknowledge that he's going to do so.If WPharolin can say his character did that, then I say that RAW says he's a Paladin. But as a GM, I'd need a reasonable explanation of why this morally upright Lawful Good warrior has holy powers. I'd work with you to get it, but that'd be the dividing line between Paladin and LG Fighter for me.
I never made an oath. But I did make it a point to pray regularly (each morning my character prayed off screen for a few minutes). If you're curious as to how I came by my spell-casting, it was by prayer. I prayed for the strength to defend the barbarians village from an attack which would not have happened if not for our most recent adventure (this had just leveled us up). In return I was given spell casting and had proc evil as an "answer" (short version of the story).
And I did have a well defined code, but it was never vocalized by my character or even viewed as a code by him. To him he was just doing the right thing.
So as long as there IS a code and you see it as being something that would be lawful good? Am I understanding you correctly?At this point I would want to discuss with you what your defined ideals were, particularly in relation to your God of choice and work out your code.
Then I'd be fine with it as long as we can have a framework on the code.
I have always defined alignment from the perspective of the character, not from society at large.
So yes, as long as the character is being played as acting in what it views as a lawfully good fashion, they can be a paladin.
Okay. Now given what you just said, I'm a little confused. Earlier you were claiming that code of conduct is important to the class. So my next question for you is what do you mean by that exactly? Do you mean that the code of conduct AS WRITTEN is important to the class? Or that simply having a moral standard is important?
And on a completely different note: I sum up the flavor vs. mechanic end of this argument and NOBODY responds?! You people are hard to please. :p
You're trying to bring a reasonable discussion into "my specific case doesn't match your general position!" Nobody wants that.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And on a completely different note: I sum up the flavor vs. mechanic end of this argument and NOBODY responds?! You people are hard to please. :p
Apologies, I was out with friends. I loved it.
For those who missed it, the key point (and main post):
The crux of the current discussion seems to be this: Do classes have inbuilt flavor that cannot be separated from the class? And looking at examples of both pathfinder and 3.5 classes, there seem to be arguments for both sides.
With the examples running from gunslinger (nearly impossible to separate gun-based flavour and mechanics) to archetypes like the archaeologist bard (no music) and the drunken monk (seems like it should be as nonlawful as your raging barbarian).
I absolutely agree with this assessment. All of the classes have a significant chunk of flavour text in them meant to give people an idea of what is usually done with that class. This flavour text is not binding unless the mechanics themselves back it up (and they do in some cases, like for the gunslinger). It's a starting-off point for the players' creativity and an introduction to a class, not a contract saying that you can't use that class to do other things. To figure out what you should be able to do with a class you need to actually look at the skills and abilities it gives you, and figure out whether those skills and abilities fit with your concept.
When your character is out in the world people aren't going to know that your character has entered rage, they're going to see your character get really strong, tough, and single-minded. And you know what? I know martial artists like that. I hang out with monkbarians. Some of them are drunken monkbarians.
And again, I ask how saying a Warforged is out of setting is good flavor, but saying a class actually has an ingrained flavor is bad.
Warforged were removed from the setting because the idea of mechanical or artificial people did not fit with the campaign setting, and my character concept absolutely depended on the character being mechanical/artificial. It wasn't a case of banning mechanics because the associated idea didn't fit. It was a case of banning an idea because the idea itself didn't fit.
Baby, bath water.
Depends on the setting, actually.
Which is the point.
And if it depends on the setting, it should not be in the core rules, which are supposed to be setting-neutral.
It's like saying I want to be an illiterate wizard, and not understanding why others think that is a stupid idea.
Pictograms. That wasn't hard.
I could easily envision a Native American style Paladin who matched your description. But your Barbarian is a rage based creature.
Okay, so the problem isn't that you see tribal societies, nomadic cultures or hunter-gatherer groups normally associated with “barbarians” as lawful, it's about rage.
Urban Barbarian, gets controlled rage. Still nonlawful.
Wild Stalker Ranger archetype, gets normal rage. Can be lawful.
Why?
A wild GM appears! They are excited because they have an idea and they say "Hey guys, I'm willing to invest a ton of time running a game if you'll let me, here is the concept, I have one slot left are you interested?!?!?!"
I listen to the concept, think about if I will have fun with this GM and this concept, and then try to come up with something that fits into the game and the concept, run it by the GM, get input and make improvements based on suggestions until we both come up with something we think will be awesome and fun to play, and then I work hard to try to make the game fun for everyone!"
And the other person says "F your concept, F the way the world is intended, I have a superawesomebadass idea about this trope that I could totally play using another class, but that I am going to shoehorn into this class because I want the benefits of the mechanics, and if you make me have to play the classes restrictions, you are cruel."
If you are the GM, who are you picking.
Let's try the flip side. You are a player who has been approached by two Gms about their new campaign. You mention a character you really want to play. One GM says “well, your concept is a bit unusual for that class but I think we can figure out a way to work it into the campaign if you are willing to talk to me about it and make some compromises.” One GM says “No, you cannot use that class to make that character concept and I refuse to listen to your explanation of why it makes more sense than using a different class.” I know which one I'd pick. And before this thread went off-topic you said yourself that a player should ditch a game that isn't suiting their needs. I'd prefer not to have good players ditch my games because I'm dropping the compromise ball. Especially since these good players are good GMs and if I as a GM am unwilling to be flexible wherever possible, why should I expect the same consideration when I am playing in one of these peoples' games?
|
|
Okay. Now given what you just said, I'm a little confused. Earlier you were claiming that code of conduct is important to the class. So my next question for you is what do you mean by that exactly? Do you mean that the code of conduct AS WRITTEN is important to the class? Or that simply having a moral standard is important?
I think the definition of "Lawful Good" can be a bit fuzzy depending on what you define as "Lawful" and what you define as "good". The example I gave earlier was the discrepancy between a Paladin of Abadar and a Paladin of Cayden on the topic of slavery.
This is why I was basically fine with your character once you indicated you were loyal to the military, etc...you weren't against authority, you just had a definition of what authority was correct that differed from your father. You were still deferential to a higher "law" that was a set standard.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
So, both.
@Ashiel - can't find the right post to quote, but I remember the gist.
A lack of fluff in classes, the mechanics only approach with zero RP elements, works for a generic game concept. It works so well, that I don't need to add "roleplaying" in front of the word game, because you could port the rules to a miniatures or board game. Much like WotC has done with 4E rules and their board games.
The game elements are internally consistent and you can play the character anyway you want, because the rules don't encourage or discourage anything. I find this boring and flat.
A roleplaying game should include roleplaying in the rules. Otherwise, it's just as easily a board game. The paladin is not a flaw, bug or hold over, it is a feature. It is a class with roleplaying baked into it. It guides you in how your character will behave, it doesn't dictate it to you, but it nudges and winks.
Good ROLEPLAYING game design should encourage roleplaying.
The paladin is a feature because it shows you what a class with roleplaying included might look like. If your group needs other flavorful classes, it isn't a 'template', but rather inspiration and guidance.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd prefer not to have good players ditch my games because I'm dropping the compromise ball. Especially since these good players are good GMs and if I as a GM am unwilling to be flexible wherever possible, why should I expect the same consideration when I am playing in one of these peoples' games?
And back to the OP, I don't think a player who can't come up with a concept that fits the setting is a good player.
I think a player who demands a square peg fit a round hole is a selfish player.
That isn't to say that if you find a GM who thinks your concept doesn't fit the setting you are wrong, or bad. It is to say that if your reaction isn't to find out how to correct it for the setting, but rather to be upset with the GM for not making it work, you are the problem.
This isn't to say the GM has no role or responsibility in helping a player try to fit a concept into a setting. But it is to say they are the ones who define what "fits" and what "doesn't"
Let us consider WPharolin's paladin example. He proposed an idea that sounded to me like an op positional defiant Paladin, a non-starter to me in a "Golarionlike" setting.
A bad GM says "No" full stop, and tells the player to start over. A good GM says "I have concerns about the concept as I understand it. Here are my concerns." and then leaves it to the player to address the concerns or come up with a new concept.
In WPharolin's case, he clarified that no, the Paladin wasn't resentful of authority, and he didn't hate society. He was seeking in conflict because he had higher expectations for behavior of society.
At which point, to me as a GM I believe he was playing a Lawful Good concept (there was a fixed morality with the goal of best outcome for all), and that the Paladin was going to respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
A Paladin in Cheliax isn't going to always follow the unjust laws of Devils, bu that doesn't make them unlawful. They follow defined laws, even if they aren't the local customs and culture.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could easily envision a Native American style Paladin who matched your description. But your Barbarian is a rage based creature.Rage is not chaotic. Alignment says nothing about rage being so. And it's funny because Barbarians are a class that traditionally acts lawful (for all the previously noted reasons) and uses controlled rage. Not a berserker mindlessly attacking anyone and anything. A controlled and channeled rage. That he can turn on and off at will, which implies great control of his own emotions (or adrenaline). Yet the rules say he cannot be Lawful. For no reason other than "because".
Pretty much summing up the problems with these stupid alignment class restrictions.
TO ALL YOU BARBARIAN PLAYERS
If you have a barbarian who:1) Respects his elders/leaders.
2) Honors his tribe's laws and traditions.
3) Doesn't lie often or dislikes dishonesty.
4) Keeps his word.
5) Doesn't like things frowned upon in his culture (like witches).You are at RISK! Because the Player's Handbook tells you that you are playing your barbarian WRONG! You could end up being Lawful and losing your ability to:
"Rage (Ex): A barbarian can call upon inner reserves of strength and ferocity, granting her additional combat prowess."
Have you ever considered that maybe it is not the rules which are at fault, but your own very personal understanding of what being Lawful means ?
Have you ever considered that maybe it is not the rules which are at fault, but your own very personal understanding of what being Lawful means ?I could easily envision a Native American style Paladin who matched your description. But your Barbarian is a rage based creature.Rage is not chaotic. Alignment says nothing about rage being so. And it's funny because Barbarians are a class that traditionally acts lawful (for all the previously noted reasons) and uses controlled rage. Not a berserker mindlessly attacking anyone and anything. A controlled and channeled rage. That he can turn on and off at will, which implies great control of his own emotions (or adrenaline). Yet the rules say he cannot be Lawful. For no reason other than "because".
Pretty much summing up the problems with these stupid alignment class restrictions.
TO ALL YOU BARBARIAN PLAYERS
If you have a barbarian who:1) Respects his elders/leaders.
2) Honors his tribe's laws and traditions.
3) Doesn't lie often or dislikes dishonesty.
4) Keeps his word.
5) Doesn't like things frowned upon in his culture (like witches).You are at RISK! Because the Player's Handbook tells you that you are playing your barbarian WRONG! You could end up being Lawful and losing your ability to:
"Rage (Ex): A barbarian can call upon inner reserves of strength and ferocity, granting her additional combat prowess."
After decades of not one single person being able to put forth a definition of chaos and law that doesn't A.) make one of them objectively superior to the other B.) make them indistinguishable from one another or C.) make them so abstract that they have no meaning, why don't you tell us why your interpretation of a few vague sentences are better than Ashiel's interpretation of a few vague sentences? I'd be interested to know because Ashiel's interpretation not only fits with those sentences but also with the interpretation of a good 3/4's of the DM's I've played with.
Have you ever considered that maybe it is not the rules which are at fault, but your own very personal understanding of what being Lawful means ?I could easily envision a Native American style Paladin who matched your description. But your Barbarian is a rage based creature.Rage is not chaotic. Alignment says nothing about rage being so. And it's funny because Barbarians are a class that traditionally acts lawful (for all the previously noted reasons) and uses controlled rage. Not a berserker mindlessly attacking anyone and anything. A controlled and channeled rage. That he can turn on and off at will, which implies great control of his own emotions (or adrenaline). Yet the rules say he cannot be Lawful. For no reason other than "because".
Pretty much summing up the problems with these stupid alignment class restrictions.
TO ALL YOU BARBARIAN PLAYERS
If you have a barbarian who:1) Respects his elders/leaders.
2) Honors his tribe's laws and traditions.
3) Doesn't lie often or dislikes dishonesty.
4) Keeps his word.
5) Doesn't like things frowned upon in his culture (like witches).You are at RISK! Because the Player's Handbook tells you that you are playing your barbarian WRONG! You could end up being Lawful and losing your ability to:
"Rage (Ex): A barbarian can call upon inner reserves of strength and ferocity, granting her additional combat prowess."
Believe it or not, I do try to do my homework a bit before I run off saying stuff about a subject. When you read the alignment rules, the above is actually things the game literally defines as Lawful.
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.
...
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility.
So yeah, according to the Alignment rules, any barbarian who acts in the way described as your most archetypal barbarian (the tribal elder and tradition respecting barbarian who judges spellcasters due to social taboos) is in fact...Lawful! Yet, you must be Non-lawful to be a barbarian.
And as Weirdo points out there's no clear reason why in their mechanics require this. Rangers can rage but be lawful, for example. It's arbitrary and pointless.
A lack of fluff in classes, the mechanics only approach with zero RP elements, works for a generic game concept. It works so well, that I don't need to add "roleplaying" in front of the word game, because you could port the rules to a miniatures or board game. Much like WotC has done with 4E rules and their board games.
The game elements are internally consistent and you can play the character anyway you want, because the rules don't encourage or discourage anything. I find this boring and flat.
Hold up on that car wash there sir. I disagree. There have been many, many RPGs that do not bind themselves to archaic and nonsensical limits and still have been just as much about roleplaying - nay, arguably more - as D&D/Pathfinder. Heck, until 3E came out, our particular branch of gaming subculture was mocked by people who had grown out of playing D&D (and yes, I do mean grown out of). 3E changes all of that by giving us the structure of a class system with movements towards the freedom of without.
Likewise, saying that the rules don't encourage or discourage anything is just plainly wrong. Looking at the Fighter who actually has no alignment quips or bizarre forced-fluff, it's clear the rules are encouraging you to play a guy who whacks people with weapons rather than sorcery.
A roleplaying game should include roleplaying in the rules. Otherwise, it's just as easily a board game. The paladin is not a flaw, bug or hold over, it is a feature. It is a class with roleplaying baked into it. It guides you in how your character will behave, it doesn't dictate it to you, but it nudges and winks.
Good ROLEPLAYING game design should encourage roleplaying.
Nudges and winks, my butt. Nudges and winks is what other classes like bards do. Y'know, since literally every class has a descriptive explanation of the default idea as to how to play this class. But in the sea of imagination and spirit of roleplaying, you'd think that people might be interested in playing more than 11 predetermined characters.
Removing the alignment nonsense encourages roleplaying by creating freedom rather than following a cookie-cutter pattern. Especially since one of the more annoying issues is how noninclusive the Paladin's mechanics are when telling a good story.
Also, on a side note, the RPG that started it all actually has rules that are anti-roleplaying all over the place. Especially the Dual-Class rules which require you to act out of character, in illogical ways, and metagame, or else you never get any XP again ever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
on the illiterate wizard subject why not just solve that with the whole riffle scroll deal and make your player happy with a fun mechanic rather than just going "NONONONONONONONONO"
I think it is fine for a GM to say no, but I would hope it is after they listen to the 'why I want to do this and why I think it makes sense' items from their player and not before
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also Ashiel I get what you are saying but it is pretty tough to keep reading a post that begins with you nudging your butt and then having it wink, man throw a comma or some single quotes or something up in that piece
Also Ashiel I get what you are saying but it is pretty tough to keep reading a post that begins with you nudging your butt and then having it wink, man throw a comma or some single quotes or something up in that piece
Duly noted good sir. :P
Okay. Now given what you just said, I'm a little confused. Earlier you were claiming that code of conduct is important to the class. So my next question for you is what do you mean by that exactly? Do you mean that the code of conduct AS WRITTEN is important to the class? Or that simply having a moral standard is important?
I think the definition of "Lawful Good" can be a bit fuzzy depending on what you define as "Lawful" and what you define as "good". The example I gave earlier was the discrepancy between a Paladin of Abadar and a Paladin of Cayden on the topic of slavery.
This is why I was basically fine with your character once you indicated you were loyal to the military, etc...you weren't against authority, you just had a definition of what authority was correct that differed from your father. You were still deferential to a higher "law" that was a set standard.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
So, both.
I didn't punish those who harmed though. That was one of the key points of the character. Basically, the key words that described him were forgiveness and tolerance. I knew that the rest of the party was going to play chaotic characters and I knew that at least two of them were going to do things that a normal paladin would be obligated to stop (even though they were chaotic good). So I went out of my way to create an interesting character who COULD party with those people without trying to boss them around or lay down the law. When I first started writing this character I was on facebook and I saw a common picture from My Little Pony of Twilight Sparkle that said "I'm going to love and tolerate the s@&+ out of you." I'm not even kidding when I say that that was the core concept behind this entire character. Everything he did was focused on a level of tolerance and forgiveness that paladin's aren't even allowed to have by RAW inspired by brightly colored pastel ponies. Because f@!~ yeah!
So I'm still uncertain as to whether you would see my character as a paladin and what degree you see the code as mutable to an individual.
I think Ciretose sums up a large problem very nicely.
I think the definition of "Lawful Good" can be a bit fuzzy depending on what you define as "Lawful" and what you define as "good". The example I gave earlier was the discrepancy between a Paladin of Abadar and a Paladin of Cayden on the topic of slavery.
If you follow the rules then your Barbarian has to lie, buck tradition, and give his leader the finger as often as he doesn't or else you can't be a barbarian. And if you follow the rules then you have to nail down all the little sub-definitions and add-on definitions and mis-understanding definitions of everything that is Law, Good, and the P-Code ('cause that sucker is as vague as a devil's contract). With the alternative to such things being "don't play one" being the inferred ideal solution to the problem (because there IS a problem here), it leaves a very bad taste in the mouth that is undesirable.
|
|
on the illiterate wizard subject why not just solve that with the whole riffle scroll deal and make your player happy with a fun mechanic rather than just going "NONONONONONONONONO"I think it is fine for a GM to say no, but I would hope it is after they listen to the 'why I want to do this and why I think it makes sense' items from their player and not before
Which is pretty much what I described.
But if a player approaches me with an illiterate Wizard concept, the burden is on them to convince me that it is going to work and not be a disruptive pain in the butt with a silly attention seeking concept.
Just the other day I proposed playing a Dwarven Inquisitor of Torag to a GM I am playing with for what he described as a "Viking" game. He was skeptical, as he really wanted us to all make Vikings and being a dwarf and an inquisitor could cause problems with party intergration, but was able to show how I intended the concept to work with the theme and the party (I go around helping people design and improve defenses). He agreed to the concept once he understood and in the email he sent out to the group described him as
"Dwarven Inquisitor of Torag, fighting evils of the land with hammer and shield while trying to spread the word about the benefits of actually building some damn walls, you stupid humans, did you not notice you're surrounded by trolls and witches and dragons and s**#, really, at least put a bar across the gate or SOMETHING."
Which was more or less exactly the concept I was going for. But I needed to explain why it wouldn't cause problems in his concept.
If you just want to play something because you think it would be cute, it still has to fit the framework of both the setting and the campaign.
|
|
I think Ciretose sums up a large problem very nicely.
I think the definition of "Lawful Good" can be a bit fuzzy depending on what you define as "Lawful" and what you define as "good". The example I gave earlier was the discrepancy between a Paladin of Abadar and a Paladin of Cayden on the topic of slavery.If you follow the rules then your Barbarian has to lie, buck tradition, and give his leader the finger as often as he doesn't or else you can't be a barbarian. And if you follow the rules then you have to nail down all the little sub-definitions and add-on definitions and mis-understanding definitions of everything that is Law, Good, and the P-Code ('cause that sucker is as vague as a devil's contract). With the alternative to such things being "don't play one" being the inferred ideal solution to the problem (because there IS a problem here), it leaves a very bad taste in the mouth that is undesirable.
But again, the Paladin has a code. They believe they follow a code, how you define it should be worked out between you and your GM in advance so when things come up there should be no surprises. The Paladin of Cayden very likely must act against slavery while the Paladin of Abadar very likely must not act against legal transactions.
The Barbarian doesn't "have" to do anything. It is there nature not to be restrained. They aren't lawful specifically because they go into fits of rage as a source of their power that leave them unable to use ability that requires patience or concentration.
A lack of fluff in classes, the mechanics only approach with zero RP elements, works for a generic game concept. It works so well, that I don't need to add "roleplaying" in front of the word game, because you could port the rules to a miniatures or board game. Much like WotC has done with 4E rules and their board games.
The game elements are internally consistent and you can play the character anyway you want, because the rules don't encourage or discourage anything. I find this boring and flat.
Hold up on that car wash there sir. I disagree. There have been many, many RPGs that do not bind themselves to archaic and nonsensical limits and still have been just as much about roleplaying - nay, arguably more - as D&D/Pathfinder. Heck, until 3E came out, our particular branch of gaming subculture was mocked by people who had grown out of playing D&D (and yes, I do mean grown out of). 3E changes all of that by giving us the structure of a class system with movements towards the freedom of without.
Likewise, saying that the rules don't encourage or discourage anything is just plainly wrong. Looking at the Fighter who actually has no alignment quips or bizarre forced-fluff, it's clear the rules are encouraging you to play a guy who whacks people with weapons rather than sorcery.
In the first paragraph, I'm not exactly following you. By the way, I play a LOT of games other than D&D, not limited to but including:
Burning Wheel
Dogs in the Vineyard
Marvel
Dresden Files
Bulldogs!
Mythender
Penny for My Thoughts
Don't Rest Your Head
Dread
Dungeon World
Fiasco
Sorcerer
Blowback
3:16 Carnage Amongst the Stars
Chronica Feudalis
Technoir
Everyone of those games places some sort of limit on your character. All of them. Their rules also actively feed into the roleplaying. Your character sheet doesn't just tell you how well you do things, it also tells you why you do things.
I'm actually down for removing alignment wholesale. I have long grown tired of it and could not care less if I never saw it again.
Your point about Fighters hitting things with sticks as roleplaying didn't actually do anything to counter my point, that a choice between different options of things to hit people with isn't actually roleplaying. It happens in board games, card games and video games. The class does not encourage the adoption of a persona that would be describable as a person in and of itself.
Here's a trick:
Describe each class without referring to a skill. If you want, I'll spot you every class except Fighter.
|
|
I didn't punish those who harmed though. That was one of the key points of the character. Basically, the key words that described him were forgiveness and tolerance. I knew that the rest of the party was going to play chaotic characters and I knew that at least two of them were going to do things that a normal paladin would be obligated to stop (even though they were chaotic good). So I went out of my way to create an interesting character who COULD party with those people without trying to boss them around or lay down the law. When I first started writing this character I was on facebook and I saw a common picture from My Little Pony of Twilight Sparkle that said "I'm going to love and tolerate the s#$+ out of you." I'm not even kidding when I say that that was the core concept behind this entire character. Everything he did was focused on a level of tolerance and forgiveness that paladin's aren't even allowed to have by RAW inspired by brightly colored pastel ponies. Because f+$& yeah!So I'm still uncertain as to whether you would see my character as a paladin and what degree you see the code as mutable to an individual.
Sounds a lot like a Paladin of Saranae to me. You have a code that you must follow, regardless of logic or reason. If you only sometimes wanted to "love and tolerate the s#$+ out of you" then I would have a problem with the concept.
On the other side, you could fall if you were intolerent, which is just as challenging a restriction. And you were trying to work within the framework of the party and GM, which is exactly what being a good player is all about.
But again, the Paladin has a code. They believe they follow a code, how you define it should be worked out between you and your GM in advance so when things come up there should be no surprises. The Paladin of Cayden very likely must act against slavery while the Paladin of Abadar very likely must not act against legal transactions.
So again, you're arguing that you must follow the RAW, except when you're not. Because the Paladin code says one thing, alignment says another. You yourself are saying that it's okay for one Paladin to tolerate the oppression of others (an evil act) while another one doesn't (an unlawful act). Your justification is house-ruling with your GM.
How is this at all any different than anything we've been saying? You're still altering the rules and what is an expected Paladin. You're still making exceptions or deviations from the RAW. So how exactly is this not house-ruling?
The Barbarian doesn't "have" to do anything. It is there nature not to be restrained. They aren't lawful specifically because they go into fits of rage as a source of their power that leave them unable to use ability that requires patience or concentration.
Except Weirdo proved this theory (because all it is is a theory concocted to justify alignment rather than the other way around) wrong by noting a class with Rage that is free to be Lawful. Also, "rage" is not associated with alignment by the alignment rules. Which demonstrates that you just grab and throw stuff into alignment as you see fit.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
To a Paladin of Cayden, Slavery is both illegal (regardless of local custom) and inherently evil.
To a Paladin of Abadar, Slavery is legal in some places, and as a part of commerce approved by the state, the greater good.
Nothing is altered but perspective, and the Paladin restriction requires them to be consistent, not correct.
man what the-
every time you guys mention a paladin of Cayden Cailean I just cannot get past that
To a Paladin of Cayden, Slavery is both illegal (regardless of local custom) and inherently evil.
To a Paladin of Abadar, Slavery is legal in some places, and as a part of commerce approved by the state, the greater good.
Nothing is altered but perspective, and the Paladin restriction requires them to be consistent, not correct.
Citation?
|
|
Consider the much maligned Paladin of Asmodeus from a few years back.
That Paladin believe, with all his being, that pure adherence to law in the forms that Asmodeus extols leads to the greater good.
He is, fundimentally and unquestionably, wrong. But that is what he believes, that informs his decisions, and he could theoretically fall for committing an act others would view as "good" if it was inconsistent with the teachings of Asmoedeus.
The Phelps followers who protest funerals believe they are lawful and good. That they are horribly misguided doesn't change that they have strict rules they believe are inherently, unquestionably, good.
D&D alignment is objective, not subjective. Again, citation?
|
|
Citation?To a Paladin of Cayden, Slavery is both illegal (regardless of local custom) and inherently evil.
To a Paladin of Abadar, Slavery is legal in some places, and as a part of commerce approved by the state, the greater good.
Nothing is altered but perspective, and the Paladin restriction requires them to be consistent, not correct.
For which part. The Abadar stuff on slavery I believe is in the Legacy of Fire AP explaining how the clerics could be a part of the slave trade.
Does the concept of relative morality blow your mind?
ugh no man you are like my favorite god ever (oh man you should quote that), except for the guy at my LGS who everytime he builds a character for a new player or an old lazy player he sneaks in his own name as the deity and of what their holy symbol is
but anyways am I having wrong fun or preventing wrong fun I cannot tell which one
if I am having it then yeah that would explain the feeling this thread gives me which would definitely include descriptive terms like wrong and bad
and man why are you guys making me type long posts
|
|
I predict now the argument will take a twist where I will be arguing that the game isn't restrictive as to relative definitions of what is "Lawful" and "Good" and Ashiel will be arguing that it is restrictive, but that this restriction is bad so we should ignore the restrictions that I am arguing don't exist.
Should be a fun...let me his submit and see if it has started.
Not to be a buzz kill, but, isn't it kinda sad that we cant agree on what to do about the topic at hand? I know morality/alignment is extremely "fuzzy", I have a player who always/almost always plays LE because of mostly being different egotistical characters, but otherwise as honourable as any paladin. What it all comes down to, isn't it just that the players and Gm need to be clear on what they mean/intend, and what the book says, is just a helping hand, not a iron chain?
Yes, paladins needs to be LG, but, within LG there is a infinite amount of ways to play it. The main thing, should it not just be fun? If I can make a good compelling argument on a paladin constantly being drunk/trying to get drunk, to honour his chosen deity, and make the people at my table laugh, is it wrong? I would judge no, even thou it might not be totally within everyone's perception of good/lawful.
Cant we all just agree to disagree, and that there is no final answer, since its all a matter of perspective?
My 2 c.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Citation?To a Paladin of Cayden, Slavery is both illegal (regardless of local custom) and inherently evil.
To a Paladin of Abadar, Slavery is legal in some places, and as a part of commerce approved by the state, the greater good.
Nothing is altered but perspective, and the Paladin restriction requires them to be consistent, not correct.
For which part. The Abadar stuff on slavery I believe is in the Legacy of Fire AP explaining how the clerics could be a part of the slave trade.
Does the concept of relative morality blow your mind?
Are the Legacy of Fire AP's clerics lawful good? Or are they lawful neutral, just like their god?
See, Paladins need to be good, which means they probably shouldn't be supporting "the oppression of innocents". Also, the code that you say is required for the class states that they must "punish those who harm or threaten innocents". Is every single slave in the area there because they aren't innocent?