|
Based on the game conception of how divine power works, there must be something that is bestowing the power based on...for lack of a better word...compliance with the expectations of that higher power. Clerics pray, druids meditate, Paladin both pray and follow a code of conduct.
The Paladin must submit to a higher authority as "the" authority. Forming your own personal code isn't the same as seeking a higher truth from something wiser and greater than yourself.
The fact that a Wizard can be very religious doesn't make him a Paladin. A Bard might revere nature, that doesn't make him a druid.
It isn't that following a code, in and of itself creates a paladin and more than simple prayer or meditation makes a Druid or Cleric. But those things are included in the package.
Because the traditional western definition of "God" doesn't apply to Buddism and Shintoism doesn't mean they don't submit to higher powers and authority. That is the fundimental difference between religion and science, and an interesting parallel between Arcane and Divine magic.
Arcane magic happens because you did something. Divine magic is granted to you.
A Paladin is granted powers, and therefore they can be withheld at the whim of the higher power. Therefore they must submit to the will of that higher power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But any wizard, druid, bard, or commoner still CAN fit the prerequisites you have defined for what a paladin is.
The difference is with those other classes, you can choose to behave like a paladin. With a paladin, you cannot choose to not act like a paladin. Now that definition has some wiggle room, and will vary from table to table.
Lets say we agree that if a Paladin sees a baby inside a burning building, they have to try to save it (not trying to argue over anything, so I don't care about exceptions for the moment), and not trying is automatic loss of powers.
A bard who wants to act like a Paladin will probably also try to save the baby. If they don't try though, nothing happens to them mechanically. They retain all their bard powers and abilities. They can choose to roleplay their guilt, or not.
A paladin would lose their powers. There are mechanical repercussions to their decisions.
I love games that have mechanical consequences to roleplaying choices. So I think that's awesome that paladins have that built in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
look my droogs as long as you choose LG for your alignment and follow the two sentences listed in THE Code of Conduct on the class, bam, you are a pathfinder-game paladin and can just go buck wild with the rest of your character concept
if you do not want to keep it canon and go with a deity that folks like JJ and such have established actually have paladins amongst their followers, then cool. Not my thing, but that's fine, as long as you can, as above, pull off an LG alignment and follow THE Code of Conduct on the class.
if you remove the alignment requirement and/or THE Code of Conduct listed on the class, well, then you are homebrewing. Totally cool but at that point we are playing different games. We can talk about our games, but at that point there is no right and wrong, just different tables
That's fine for me. Judge Dredd is not a paladin by your standard. That's good. I don't see him as one either. He's cool and all, but he's kind of dick to work with so he probably shouldn't be in a party anyway. But any wizard, druid, bard, or commoner still CAN fit the prerequisites you have defined for what a paladin is. So the class itself doesn't hold any meaning in your view point. But I don't think that you agree. So obviously there is still more to this definition that has not been spoken yet. Perhaps something you yourself do not realize, or maybe something you have forgotten?
Judge Dread isa Gun Marshal: he is the law!
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/s-z/shieldmars halThey can be judge, jury, and executioner with their Legal Judgement ability.
The Prc solves all problems of whether you have the legal ability to do whatever you want. Hint: You do!
|
(...Bear with me...)
When I was growing up and trying to get my head around various different...er...'non-scientific' concepts, some realisations dawned on me that made my conclusions easy to reach.
I read about the chinese zodiac. I read the blurb about what those born in the year of the snake were like. Guess why. I thought that at least some of it applied to me. Maybe there is something to this, after all! Then I read the descriptions in the other eleven signs. I could find as many things that I believed descibed me in each one! And as many things which didn't as were in the description of my own sign.
But the clincher was this: 'Wait, everyone born in the same year has the same personality?' In my class at school I could see that this was clearly nonsense.
I applied the same thought processes to the western zodiac. Everyone born in the same month has the same personality? By what mechanism? I knew enough about astronomy to know that the apparent position of objects in the galaxy as seen from earth had no way to affect the personalities of humans, especially in such a non-sensical way.
I applied my thoughts to many different supernatural and religious subjects, but a complete history is not needed here.
Here's the point (I knew I'd get there!); When I encountered the AD&D 1st ed paladin when I was 13, I applied the same thought process. What, every single paladin shares a single personality? It's inconceivable that, in a theoretical classroom full of teenagers who've just passed their 'entry into 1st level paladinhood' exams, that they have the same personalities, experiences, religious viewpoint, patron god and ethos, etc. ad nauseum.
The idea that all paladins have to wear the heaviest armour that they can afford or they weren't real paladins always struck me as absurd. Then they brought in the 'cavalier' class and made paladins a sub-class. : /
One of the best things 2nd ed did was the Paladin's Handbook. One of its chapters was about defining the seven (IIRC) core values that defined paladinhood, and said that every paladin should have at least five of those seven values! Which meant that they did not need all seven, and they could choose which one or two values not to have, and they would still be a paladin!
This allowed paladins to escape from the absurd cookie-cutter mentality, and have RAW to back them up when bothered by dinosour DMs!
One of my favourite characters I ever played was a 2nd ed dual-classed Red Wizard/paladin. He started off as a CE conjurer from Thay who put on the wrong helmet and became LG. After a period of despair and soul-searching, he came to the worship of Mystra and became her paladin, becoming a servant of the Simbul, Queen of Aglarond. I based his personality on six of those seven values, the missing value being 'humility'. That arrogance became his role-playing hook, and he seemed an unlikely paladin at first meeting because of it. But he followed every one of the other six values, as well as the code, as well as remaining LG, as well as being heroic and selfless. He just had a superiority complex about it all.
The DM didn't need to worry about him being cowardly, or evil, or anything else that would contradict the code. But he played very differently than all my other paladins in terms of RP, and it was a much richer experience because he went against the dreaded cookie cutter!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
look my droogs as long as you choose LG for your alignment and follow the two sentences listed in THE Code of Conduct on the class, bam, you are a pathfinder-game paladin and can just go buck wild with the rest of your character conceptif you do not want to keep it canon and go with a deity that folks like JJ and such have established actually have paladins amongst their followers, then cool. Not my thing, but that's fine, as long as you can, as above, pull off an LG alignment and follow THE Code of Conduct on the class.
if you remove the alignment requirement and/or THE Code of Conduct listed on the class, well, then you are homebrewing. Totally cool but at that point we are playing different games. We can talk about our games, but at that point there is no right and wrong, just different tables
If I houserule that Fighters get 4 skill points a level, because 2 is too stingy, am I still playing Pathfinder?
If I houserule that Finesse is a weapon quality, not a feat, as in "when wielding a light weapon, rapier, whip, or other weapon with the Finesse quality any character may use their Dex to hit," am I still playing PF?
If I give Monks d10 HP and full BAB, am I still playing PF?
If I ignore the encumbrance rules, am I still playing PF?
Why is the Paladin's behavior such a core rule that I can houserule a dozen different things but as soon as I touch the Paladin I'm "not playing Pathfinder"? Or did you mean that any houserule changes things intrinsically makes it a different game? This is strictly true, but I've never say that a Fighter with 4 skill points per level is "not a fighter," or a Monk with full BAB is "not a monk," while plenty of people are more than happy to throw the "not a Paladin" label around.
A bard who wants to act like a Paladin will probably also try to save the baby. If they don't try though, nothing happens to them mechanically. They retain all their bard powers and abilities. They can choose to roleplay their guilt, or not.
A paladin would lose their powers. There are mechanical repercussions to their decisions.
I love games that have mechanical consequences to roleplaying choices. So I think that's awesome that paladins have that built in.
I could go either way about a mechanical morality system, but I think such a thing ought to apply at least somewhat more evenly to all classes. Having it go from absolutely no consequences to total loss of class features for a single action is a little extreme.
Gorum the god probably doesn't have any fights worth running from...
*coughROVAGUGcough*
If I houserule that Fighters get 4 skill points a level, because 2 is too stingy, am I still playing Pathfinder?If I houserule that Finesse is a weapon quality, not a feat, as in "when wielding a light weapon, rapier, whip, or other weapon with the Finesse quality any character may use their Dex to hit," am I still playing PF?
If I give Monks d10 HP and full BAB, am I still playing PF?
If I ignore the encumbrance rules, am I still playing PF?
Why is the Paladin's behavior such a core rule that I can houserule a dozen different things but as soon as I touch the Paladin I'm "not playing Pathfinder"? Or did you mean that any houserule changes things intrinsically makes it a different game? This is strictly true, but I've never say that a Fighter with 4 skill points per level is "not a fighter," or a Monk with full BAB is "not a monk," while plenty of people are more than happy to throw the "not a Paladin" label around.
look man do not make this difficult
of course you are playing pathfinder, you are playing your houseruled pathfinder game and that is just mega-cool in my book, man
if you change the paladin or any other class with houserules than sure man you are absolutely still playing a paladin or whatever class you are playing that you are changing whether it is a monk, fighter, whatever man
but you have to respect that if you bring that houseruled paladin to another table with another GM, they have no requirement to adopt your houserules, no matter how much they might make sense and/or improve the game
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could go either way about a mechanical morality system, but I think such a thing ought to apply at least somewhat more evenly to all classes. Having it go from absolutely no consequences to total loss of class features for a single action is a little extreme.A bard who wants to act like a Paladin will probably also try to save the baby. If they don't try though, nothing happens to them mechanically. They retain all their bard powers and abilities. They can choose to roleplay their guilt, or not.
A paladin would lose their powers. There are mechanical repercussions to their decisions.
I love games that have mechanical consequences to roleplaying choices. So I think that's awesome that paladins have that built in.
I would do away with the alignment system whole sale. If I never saw it again, it's not just that I wouldn't care, I would actually be a little happy.
I agree, I'd like to see more roleplaying baked into the classes. Characters are more than just a collection of combat actions and classes are a really good tool to help represent that. The strength of a class like the paladin is that there are cool combat actions, but they're tied into how you roleplay the character as well. There is plenty of room for interpretation within those guidelines as well.
I think the inquisitor is a good example of a class with a clear purpose, but that purpose can be interpreted in multiple ways and can be adjusted to the various alignments. Looking at the class abilities, you actually get a sense of what kind of personality would use this class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am pretty sure that the person who favorited your post didn't get to the 2nd paragraph :)
I'm pretty sure the person did. But for clarity here's a post.
I pretty much agree with the alignment thing. Honestly I used to love alignment when I first started playing the game. These days I freaking hate it. I hate it to the core. I hate it because of threads like this. I hate it because I've seen it cause far more disruption to the game and to the genre than it has ever given back in benefits. I've seen it misused and abused to death (generally by the "alignment is subjective" crowd). After some problems with it in an online community of mine began to irritate me enough I removed alignment from the game for all except mechanics. It was actually incredibly easy to remove and not the great system shock that alignment enthusiasts demand it would be. And games after that were nothing but improved (less meta-gaming, better roleplaying, etc).
And what's funny is I don't wholly disagree with Irontruth on the idea that classes should generally have examples of what they are supposed to be. Even in games without classes like Deadlands or BESM d20 (which actually has classes but those classes are merely pre-distributed points purchasing abilities along a common theme such as "Samurai" over several levels) it's generally a good idea to give some narrative or suggestive nudges in the right direction - especially for newbies - so as to evoke the imagination a bit.
I also believe that in general the mechanics should fit the default fluff for classes. It's not very good to have a professional card shark as an archetype in Deadlands if the stats given for said shark would mean that in game terms he or she sucks at playing cards. This is the biggest issue that people have taken with the Monk class because since 3.x it doesn't actually live up to its fluff (most of the things the fluff describes the class as is a lie), which is wrong because it can lead people into a false path that will leave them disappointed.
HOWEVER
The moment I diverge from Irontruth's view is when it comes to forcing classes to adhere only to that fluff. That is a great step backwards in terms of the benefits of the d20 system and leads to some incredibly metagame thinking in-game. It also leads to the line of thinking that you are your class which is detrimental to roleplaying. It further leads to the idea that you cannot be X unless there is a class for it, which leads to unnecessary bloat.
A quintessential example of such a thing is the Samurai. The samurai is an archetype based on a particular warrior from Japan (I imagine anyone reading this board probably already knows this), but these samurai have certain traits commonly considered to be appropriate to samurai. They were fine warriors, incredibly stalwart and even fighting to the death as needed, and typically owed their allegiance to a lord of some sort. Their skills generally included combat training, archery, and horsemanship. Most wore medium to heavy armor (most would qualify as Medium though).
In the core rulebook we have the Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger. All of these classes could very easily be used to play a "samurai".
Barbarian has all the necessary proficiencies and his rage and rage powers easily translate to the relentless adherence to battle and special combat techniques that require such intense focus in this sort of battle-trance.
Fighter has all the necessary proficiencies and his weapon training and feats could make him idealized as a samurai whose emphasis is on the mastery of a particular martial art. Such as the mastery of the katana, yumi, or naginata.
Paladin has all the necessary proficiencies and his features easily translate to the idealized samurai who is in great adherence to his master or clan, who is resilient in the ways of trickery and magics and calls out the ancestral spirit from his blade through intense meditation.
Ranger has all the necessary proficiencies and his features easily translate to the skilled horsemanship and combat mastery of the bow and spear that the samurai were known for, and who used his mastery of ki to do incredible things like make exceptionally deep cuts (lead blades) or resist a ninja's poisons (delay poison) or for getting more speed out of his trusty mount (longstrider + companion bond).
All four classes can easily allow someone to play a samurai. All four classes would be at home in such a game. All four classes have aspects of classical samurai themes. Yet none of these classes suggest so in their initial fluff. Hell, barbarians don't even have a real fluff description of what you're playing (all their fluff does is describe their rage in battle and little else).
Does this mean that you simply cannot play a samurai until a samurai class is made? Does that samurai class need to fill every conceivable sub-archtype of samurai? Does it mean that when Ultimate Combat came out with a "samurai" cavalier subclass, can you suddenly not play any of the above classes as a samurai anymore?
This is where my view and what I believe Irontruth's view is differs heavily. I see the fluff of a class as a good starting point. An excellent reference and mechanics that are well suited for a particular archetpye of character. However, I am not interested in limiting the usefulness of those classes only to the narrowly defined paragraph of fluff text that appears prior to mechanical description of the class; nor am I interested in having to have a separate class or subclass for everything.
Someone else commented that the Paladin code would do better as feats or some mechanic similar to Vows and the class itself liberated from the confines of fluff and opened more to allow people to play the characters they want to play, while still retaining the specialness of being having a code you live by and it doing its thing. I think I could get behind that idea if people refuse to accept roleplaying for the sake of roleplaying.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I agree with both Irontruth and Ashiel on this one.
I absolutely agree that mechanical combat options should reflect the character flavour and classes help with that. I think Paizo has done a particularly good job making their new classes thematically interesting and self-consistent. I like what they've done with the Inquisitor, and I think one of their best decisions was to take the same concept we saw in the 3.X "Favoured Soul" and turn it into the more evocative "Oracle." But these things are tools, and while they might be very well-designed for a particular job they also have qualities that make them useful for other jobs. I can use a screwdriver to open cans of paint because the flat head makes a good lever. I can use a class described as an uncontrolled primal berserker and turn it into a martial artist with a fierce battle-trance because the mechanics fit that, too.
Someone else commented that the Paladin code would do better as feats or some mechanic similar to Vows and the class itself liberated from the confines of fluff and opened more to allow people to play the characters they want to play, while still retaining the specialness of being having a code you live by and it doing its thing.
Actually, that was a comment I made about your curse-free oracle (and I swear I am not doing this to curry favour, I am honestly surprised by the extent to which you like my posts...)
Once I offered the mere OPTION to play an oracle without the forced fluff (no curse, no curse benefits) I had players who were interested in playing oracles.That sounds entirely reasonable since most of the curses actually give better benefits than drawbacks in the long run. Turns the curse into something more like a monk vow – you can at your option accept this fluff and its corresponding benefits and penalties.
Could work for the paladin, too - they already have a few "oaths" like Chastity, Charity, and Loyalty - but they're structured like archetypes which means they sometimes drop key class features or are incompatible with other archetypes. For example, a Shining Shield can't take the Oath of Loyalty. That makes them less than ideal as an RP tool.
look man do not make this difficult
of course you are playing pathfinder, you are playing your houseruled pathfinder game and that is just mega-cool in my book, man
if you change the paladin or any other class with houserules than sure man you are absolutely still playing a paladin or whatever class you are playing that you are changing whether it is a monk, fighter, whatever man
but you have to respect that if you bring that houseruled paladin to another table with another GM, they have no requirement to adopt your houserules, no matter how much they might make sense and/or improve the game
I respect that. I am not trying to make anything difficult. I have repeatedly affirmed that I respect a GM's right to either refuse to adopt houserules or to ban things that are legal by RAW if they don't fit his campaign.
I absolutely respect your right to say "I will never play a LG paladin and I personally feel uncomfortable with non-LG paladins." I would prefer that GMs take the time to honestly review the reasons for these opinions and have a respectful conversation with players who might not feel the same way, which is why I'm still in this thread. But I am not at all offended by your opinion.
I have seen people who seem offended by mine. I have been told that the CG paladin I was privileged to be in a party with was "not a real paladin." Not "interesting house rule, not my thing" but "not a real paladin." This often comes with some lip service to "it's your game" but it still comes off as superior and dismissive.
On re-reading your post I realize that that was not your intent. I may be over-sensitive to that particular statement having participated in what is probably too many paladin threads for my own good. I apologize for introducing conflict where none existed.
yeah weirdo, no worries
it's cool I figured we got crossed up somewhere because I think we are on the same page and pretty much have been
|
|
And you can feel free to remove whatever flavor that is built into the rules in your own homebrew.
But flavor is part of the build. Oracles don't need curses, but curses are very useful in defining what makes an Oracle not a Favored Soul. And many of us think that makes them more, not less interesting and fun to play. Including the people who write the rules.
Paladins that aren't Lawful Good, frankly, aren't Paladins. It is a defining characteristic of the class, in the same way that a curse is a defining characteristic of an oracle, or worshiping a higher power is a defining characteristic of a cleric.
I think making the classes into mechanics is a really, really bad idea.
Options are a good thing, but when you remove restrictions you don't actually expand options if one is clearly better than the other.
If we want a setting where the Lawful Good Paladin is the default (And clearly the developers do) than any other option must be a corner case.
Simply removing the restriction isn't going to facilitate that goal. It will, instead create a ton of "Paladins" that aren't what the majority of the community consider Paladins.
Why would anyone advocate for that, outside of a home game?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't matter whether a paladin fits the communities view or not. It's not a popularity contest. If someone feels like they want to roleplay something unique, but find the lawful good code to be a detriment to that rather than an aid, I would kick it to the curb in an instant, community opinion be damned.
If I want a holy warrior that uses his charisma to lead from the front lines, I can't do that with any other class mechanics, so guess what, my class is a paladin.
There is a pantheon of gods of numerous alignments. If a cleric can fit any of those alignments, then so can a paladin.
if you guys are sitting at the same table with the same GM, then this a fine debate
if you are not, then I will see you in 15 more pages
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Holy: dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose; sacred
If he serves a god and their will, yep. Holiness does not necessitate goodness nor lawfulness.
|
|
Holy: dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose; sacred
If he serves a god and their will, yep. Holiness does not necessitate goodness nor lawfulness.
Dedicated being the operative word. If you refuse to, at minimum, define a code that dedicates you to following some higher power, why the hell is any divine power granting you anything?
What are you doing that you are entitled to the powers granted at that point? What are you given "Paladin" powers by some divine presence in that scenario?
Do you also advocate Clerics of Nihilism?
A paladin is not mechanically any better than a cleric. There is no reason whatsoever to take one type of mechanic and put your players in a straight jacket for it.
I don't like anyone telling my players how to roleplay. I don't need the fun police at my hobby table.
I never suggested anything like that. A paladin should probably have a code or other driving set of guidelines set forth by his deity to direct him when communication is impossible.
I just don't think "paladins" should be restricted to Lawful Good. It's bizarre from a mechanical standpoint (I have to be LG to utilize the concept of a divine warrior more martially oriented than a cleric?) and a world-building standpoint (Only LG deities can have divine warriors more martially oriented than clerics/Non-LG deities have servants that MUST be LG?).
On a side note, a cleric of nihilism could be pretty cool, I suppose. A god-less cleric, or a cleric of Groteus, most likely.
Based on the game conception of how divine power works, there must be something that is bestowing the power based on...for lack of a better word...compliance with the expectations of that higher power. Clerics pray, druids meditate, Paladin both pray and follow a code of conduct.
The Paladin must submit to a higher authority as "the" authority. Forming your own personal code isn't the same as seeking a higher truth from something wiser and greater than yourself.
The fact that a Wizard can be very religious doesn't make him a Paladin. A Bard might revere nature, that doesn't make him a druid.
It isn't that following a code, in and of itself creates a paladin and more than simple prayer or meditation makes a Druid or Cleric. But those things are included in the package.
Because the traditional western definition of "God" doesn't apply to Buddism and Shintoism doesn't mean they don't submit to higher powers and authority. That is the fundimental difference between religion and science, and an interesting parallel between Arcane and Divine magic.
Arcane magic happens because you did something. Divine magic is granted to you.
A Paladin is granted powers, and therefore they can be withheld at the whim of the higher power. Therefore they must submit to the will of that higher power.
See now we're getting somewhere. Now our definition of a paladin is someone who not only follows a code, seeks a higher power, but also has GRANTED divine powers which can be withheld. That speaks volumes. It means that the higher power must actually exist and have some way (even if it is not a god but rather just a force) to determine whether it is worthy. So now we also know that having faith in something is not enough to make you a paladin, all the conviction in the world will not make you a paladin. If you want powers granted to you you have to follow religions that are not false. So truth is also important.
The information extrapolated from the few things we've discussed says to me that you never really thought that the paladin was just the code. The paladin is so much more than that. At this point we have eliminated all characters without divine powers from our possible paladin's list. However, all characters with a strict unalterable code, faith in an existent higher power, and granted divine power still all fit your description of what a paladin is. That means that clerics, oracles, adepts, and any other character with divine powers (possibly via multi-classing) still fit your definition of a paladin.
|
|
Other classes could do things like a Paladin and not be a Paladin, just like a Wizard could pray to a god and not be a cleric.
Other classes can multiclass with Paladins. I can serve my faith and also study magic, music, fighting, etc...
In order for me to be granted the powers of a Paladin, I must maintain whatever the code is. That is the exchange.
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god also loses all spells and class features. They just aren't held to as high a conduct standard as a Paladin, generally speaking.
Similarly a druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities.
Even an inquisitor who slips into corruption or changes to a prohibited alignment loses all spells and the judgment ability.
Do we remove all of these as well?
I don't think so. There's no reason to; a higher being having authority over you is kinda the point for these classes. They are divine, after all.
I just think limiting them to a one-size-fits-all code and a single alignment prohibits creativity with characters, especially since there's nothing sacred or over-powered about their mechanics.
Other classes could do things like a Paladin and not be a Paladin, just like a Wizard could pray to a god and not be a cleric.
Other classes can multiclass with Paladins. I can serve my faith and also study magic, music, fighting, etc...
In order for me to be granted the powers of a Paladin, I must maintain whatever the code is. That is the exchange.
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god also loses all spells and class features. They just aren't held to as high a conduct standard as a Paladin, generally speaking.
Similarly a druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities.
Even an inquisitor who slips into corruption or changes to a prohibited alignment loses all spells and the judgment ability.
Do we remove all of these as well?
By your current definition of a paladin, which is someone who follows a code regardless of logic or reason, someone that seeks an existent higher power who grants him divine ability and reserves the right to deny him access to that gift (behavior pending), and who cares about the truth (extrapolated from the information given so far) there is nothing that prevents a cleric or an oracle or an adept even from being a paladin. If you want to say that only the paladin class can be a paladin, you will have to further refine your definition. Because right now, I can play any character that has divine abilities and count as a paladin by your standard. I can go down the list and place a check next to every single box.
|
|
In order for me to be granted the powers of a Paladin, I must maintain whatever the code is. That is the exchange.
Ok, but if all that is required to be a paladin is to follow a code, possibly one associated with a deity, why does the code have to be LG?
There are plenty of higher powers whose codes for their servants do not fit a LG ideal. These cannot have paladins. Why? There are plenty of possible codes that do not fit a LG ideal, including those that value knowledge over human life and those that demand extreme self-reliance. These do not have paladins advancing them. Why?
If we want a setting where the Lawful Good Paladin is the default (And clearly the developers do) than any other option must be a corner case.
Ok, the developers wanted a setting with only LG paladins. That's what Golarion is for. The CRB is not a setting. It is supposed to be setting-neutral. It contains a brief treatment of deities because you need those to play, but any further setting-specific material should stay out of the CRB.
Simply removing the restriction isn't going to facilitate that goal. It will, instead create a ton of "Paladins" that aren't what the majority of the community consider Paladins.
Why would anyone advocate for that, outside of a home game?
Because the paladin's code is sometimes (incorrectly) seen as a balancing factor. Some players who want to try a non-LG paladin have to convince their GMs that it's not OP. Not that it's a reasonable concept, but that playing a NG or CG paladin won't mechanically break the game. And that is because the CRB does not even suggest the possibility of non-LG paladins. It mentions the option of playing a cleric devoted to a concept rather than a deity but the paladin doesn't get a similar footnote, even though the cleric's deity has about the same importance to the class thematically as the paladin's LG alignment & code.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is where my view and what I believe Irontruth's view is differs heavily. I see the fluff of a class as a good starting point. An excellent reference and mechanics that are well suited for a particular archetpye of character. However, I am not interested in limiting the usefulness of those classes only to the narrowly defined paragraph of fluff text that appears prior to mechanical description of the class; nor am I interested in having to have a separate class or subclass for everything.
I intensely dislike generic systems. Suggesting the system be made more generic, to my ears, sounds like you think the system is too good and needs to suck more. A friend recently suggested we make a RPG to fit a type of game that currently nothing handles to our liking, but make it as a generic system to work for other kinds of games too. I have refused to participate in such an endeavor.
I think more color can be brought into the classes that would actually make them more adaptable at the same time.
Barbarian - add abilities for non-combat that encourage the use of brute force, like special abilities to use with Intimidate. Not a bonus to Intimidate, but cool and interesting ways to use it.
Fighter - the same thing as Barbarians, but with Sense Motive. Highly skilled fighters are often really good at sizing people up. They might notice things others who don't fight professionally. This would make Fighters more of a tactical character, which is pretty broad, but when compared side by side with a Barbarians focus on Intimidate, starts to paint a much clearer picture of the difference between them.
|
|
By your current definition of a paladin, which is someone who follows a code regardless of logic or reason, someone that seeks an existent higher power who grants him divine ability and reserves the right to deny him access to that gift (behavior pending), and who cares about the truth (extrapolated from the information given so far) there is nothing that prevents a cleric or an oracle or an adept even from being a paladin. If you want to say that only the paladin class can be a paladin, you will have to further refine your definition. Because right now, I can play any character that has divine abilities and count as a paladin by your standard. I can go down the list and place a check next to every single box.Other classes could do things like a Paladin and not be a Paladin, just like a Wizard could pray to a god and not be a cleric.
Other classes can multiclass with Paladins. I can serve my faith and also study magic, music, fighting, etc...
In order for me to be granted the powers of a Paladin, I must maintain whatever the code is. That is the exchange.
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god also loses all spells and class features. They just aren't held to as high a conduct standard as a Paladin, generally speaking.
Similarly a druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities.
Even an inquisitor who slips into corruption or changes to a prohibited alignment loses all spells and the judgment ability.
Do we remove all of these as well?
This whole line of questioning is your extrapolation, not mine.
Any class can do the behaviors of another class and not get the benefits of that class. I can have a fighter who loves studying magic and can even use magic devices, but not be a wizard because he can't cast spells. Because he's not a wizard.
He does all the things a wizard does, but he can't figure out that damn book unless he takes a level of wizard.
In the logic of the setting there are may be more failed Paladin want-to-be's than actual Paladins who were granted the grace of their deity.
So I don't think your line of discussion proves or disproves anything.
|
|
In order for me to be granted the powers of a Paladin, I must maintain whatever the code is. That is the exchange.Ok, but if all that is required to be a paladin is to follow a code, possibly one associated with a deity, why does the code have to be LG?
Who is saying that is "all" that it requires. Being Lawful Good is also part of what it requires.
I personally am comfortable with a definition of Lawful that means to following a code of laws and good to mean doing what you believe is right.
That gives a lot of wiggle room in the lawful good camp.
But the Paladin is still Lawful (because they submit to a rigid structure) and Good.
And again, if a GM took James Jacobs approach, I would have zero problem with it.
This whole line of questioning is your extrapolation, not mine.Any class can do the behaviors of another class and not get the benefits of that class. I can have a fighter who loves studying magic and can even use magic devices, but not be a wizard because he can't cast spells. Because he's not a wizard.
He does all the things a wizard does, but he can't figure out that damn book unless he takes a level of wizard.
In the logic of the setting there are may be more failed Paladin want-to-be's than actual Paladins who were granted the grace of their deity.
So I don't think your line of discussion proves or disproves anything.
What it demonstrates is that your definition of a paladin doesn't require the class to even exist. Everything so far that you have said that you think is important to being a paladin is external to the class. Not kind of external or partially external, but ENTIRELY external.
Now if you were to ask ME what MY definition of a paladin would be I would say a knightly champion with a specific mix of martial and divine abilities (though the degree of focus and specialty may vary) who is motivated by a cause or religious belief and either consciously or unconsciously follows a code of conduct fitting of his cause or religion.
My definition, while distinct, has a great deal of overlap with yours. But you were so adamant that the Code of Conduct was such an absolute defining trait of what a paladin is that you made the concept so abstract that the class itself was no longer needed to fill the trope. And then you slowly refined the definition, but never enough to justify the existence of a class called paladin. Acknowledging that it has a specific blend of martial and divine abilities is required to justify the classes existence. Because the only difference between a knightly champion with a code and a higher power and a knightly champion with a code, a higher power, and specific abilities is that one can be created with many class and multi-class combinations and is nothing but flavor and the other has specific mechanics which inform the flavor there-in.
That is the distinction. That is what you are missing. That is what is important if you want the class to have meaning. Everything you said about what you believe a paladin to be can be true. BUT, and this is a big BUT, if you want the trope to be represented by a specific class than the fact that there are SPECIFIC abilities that come with being a paladin must also be true. Either the mechanics of the class are important or the class is not important.
|
|
I think more color can be brought into the classes that would actually make them more adaptable at the same time.
Barbarian - add abilities for non-combat that encourage the use of brute force, like special abilities to use with Intimidate. Not a bonus to Intimidate, but cool and interesting ways to use it.
Fighter - the same thing as Barbarians, but with Sense Motive. Highly skilled fighters are often really good at sizing people up. They might notice things others who don't fight professionally. This would make Fighters more of a tactical character, which is pretty broad, but when compared side by side with a Barbarians focus on Intimidate, starts to paint a much clearer picture of the difference between them.
I don't know, I think that's what feats and new general skill applications are for. There's no reason for a fighter to get to do things with Sense Motive that a barbarian (or monk, or ranger, or inquisitor, or cavalier) could never learn - all those classes should be able to learn to quickly tactically assess opponents. Heck, the Inquisitor and Cavalier already have abilities with "tactics" in the name. If you want to make a class better at those things you can allow them as bonus feats or write prerequisites that make it easier for them to qualify for the feats. For example, many combat style feats have a requirement that you have "BAB X or Monk level X." By analogy, you could have an "Assess Opponent" feat with "BAB X or Fighter X-2" or an intimidation feat with the prerequisite "Intimidate 5 ranks or rage class feature."
In order for me to be granted the powers of a Paladin, I must maintain whatever the code is. That is the exchange.Ok, but if all that is required to be a paladin is to follow a code, possibly one associated with a deity, why does the code have to be LG?
Who is saying that is "all" that it requires. Being Lawful Good is also part of what it requires.
I personally am comfortable with a definition of Lawful that means to following a code of laws and good to mean doing what you believe is right.
That gives a lot of wiggle room in the lawful good camp.
But the Paladin is still Lawful (because they submit to a rigid structure) and Good.
To clarify, you believe that any character who follows a consistent set of ethical/behavioral rules (a "code") for the code's own sake is Lawful Good?
If so I can understand why you think that all paladins should be LG, but I must say you have a much more flexible definition of the alignment than most that I've seen on these forums.
|
|
This whole line of questioning is your extrapolation, not mine.Any class can do the behaviors of another class and not get the benefits of that class. I can have a fighter who loves studying magic and can even use magic devices, but not be a wizard because he can't cast spells. Because he's not a wizard.
He does all the things a wizard does, but he can't figure out that damn book unless he takes a level of wizard.
In the logic of the setting there are may be more failed Paladin want-to-be's than actual Paladins who were granted the grace of their deity.
So I don't think your line of discussion proves or disproves anything.
Now if you were to ask ME what MY definition of a paladin would be I would say a knightly champion with a specific mix of martial and divine abilities (though the degree of focus and specialty may vary) who is motivated by a cause or religious belief and either consciously or unconsciously follows a code of conduct fitting of his cause or religion.
Define "Knightly", because that is the only word that distinguishes it from a Cleric or Inquisitor, and yet that is what you said I lacked.
And wouldn't a Cavalier be more "Knightly". Hell a Ranger can hit all of the things listed.
Since you are telling me "what I am missing" let me point out what I think you are missing. The Paladin has a description and a concept. It is as follows.
"Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. 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. Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future."
Your description doesn't match. Mine does.
|
|
To clarify, you believe that any character who follows a consistent set of ethical/behavioral rules (a "code") for the code's own sake is Lawful Good?
If so I can understand why you think that all paladins should be LG, but I must say you have a much more flexible definition of the alignment than most that I've seen on these forums.
I can be. But it isn't a given that I will be. I would be willing to work with a player who had demonstrated a willingness to not disrupt the setting to be flexible with definitions of alignment to reach a concept that I believed would add to the game and the setting we were running.
For example, a player like the player described in the OP.
I would have no issue at all with a GM who wasn't flexible about it for any number of reasons, not the least of which being that clearly the writer of the primary setting isn't comfortable with the level of flexibility I am describing.
The social dynamics of the game, for me, go like this.
A group decides it wants to play. One person in the group is permitted by the group to be the GM. Once permitted, the GM is in charge of the setting for as long as the group wishes to continue to play in that particular game, in that particular setting.
If the GM says "No fighters", than as long as the group continues to permit him to run by showing up each week to give hours of their time, there are no fighters in that game, and that is how that game is run. You can talk to him out of game about things you would like to change, but at the end of the day you agreed to come to the game that GM is running.
If it sucks, the players will drift off. So your job as GM is largely summed up in "Don't suck, make it interesting and exciting so they want to come back."
But players are not entitled to play whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want. They are part of a group, both in game and out of game. If I have a player who wants a concept that I think will make the game less fun for the other players, I'm going to say no.
My GM was worried about a completely legal Dwarf Inquisitor, of the Dwarven God, in the Land of the Linnorm Kings, where Dwarves are a fairly major part of the setting, because it might not fit what he was trying to do for that campaign.
And that was perfectly acceptable to me. I was able to clarify how I planned to fit in, and because I have some credibility as a player, he let me do it. But if he said no, I would have made something else, because I know this GM and he runs a good campaign and I know I want to be a part of it.
This isn't to say that now that I have a concept, he gets to tell me how to play it, what to do, etc...it is to say that he created the world, he has invited me to hang out in it, and we will all see what happens next.
But if I create the world of the Legend of Zelda, and someone wants to play Super Mario, I am allowed to say no.
I don't know, I think that's what feats and new general skill applications are for. There's no reason for a fighter to get to do things with Sense Motive that a barbarian (or monk, or ranger, or inquisitor, or cavalier) could never learn - all those classes should be able to learn to quickly tactically assess opponents. Heck, the Inquisitor and Cavalier already have abilities with "tactics" in the name. If you want to make a class better at those things you can allow them as bonus feats or write prerequisites that make it easier for them to qualify for the feats. For example, many combat style feats have a requirement that you have "BAB X or Monk level X." By analogy, you could have an "Assess Opponent" feat with "BAB X or Fighter X-2" or an intimidation feat with the prerequisite "Intimidate 5 ranks or rage class feature."I think more color can be brought into the classes that would actually make them more adaptable at the same time.
Barbarian - add abilities for non-combat that encourage the use of brute force, like special abilities to use with Intimidate. Not a bonus to Intimidate, but cool and interesting ways to use it.
Fighter - the same thing as Barbarians, but with Sense Motive. Highly skilled fighters are often really good at sizing people up. They might notice things others who don't fight professionally. This would make Fighters more of a tactical character, which is pretty broad, but when compared side by side with a Barbarians focus on Intimidate, starts to paint a much clearer picture of the difference between them.
I'm sorry if you misunderstood, but my suggestion has nothing to do with combat. I would not include any abilities that affected combat, so if you're reading my suggestion as adding combat abilities, you read it wrong. Nothing to do with combat.
The suggestion of Fighters spending feats on non-combat feats is a poor one IMO. At the moment, Fighters have next to no participation in non-combat scenes. They shouldn't have to give up their one good thing just to justify being in the room when people start talking.
Also, classes already have unique abilities. The argument about whether to give classes unique abilities has been over for quite a few years.
The concept here is to add mechanical encouragement for the character to add to their personality based on class. But that's the thing with using an encouragement only method, you're not penalized for not adhering to it. Yes, it incurs an opportunity cost, but since you don't care about the thing being lost, that cost is very small.
Also, I'm not talking about major abilities. Maybe something like a Barbarian can use Intimidate to Aid Another on someone else's Diplomacy or Bluff. He's the stick to their carrot, it's not huge, but it's flavorful and impacts how the character is roleplayed. Don't pick apart specifics, this is an off-the-cuff example, not a detailed and playtested concept.
|
|
ciretose, I think I understand your position and agree with everything except the nitpicky details. Basically, if I understand you correctly, I'm stricter about handing out alignments but flexible with alignment restrictions and you're stricter about alignment restrictions but flexible about what qualifies as the appropriate alignment, and it all works out pretty much the same way in the end.
I'm sorry if you misunderstood, but my suggestion has nothing to do with combat. I would not include any abilities that affected combat, so if you're reading my suggestion as adding combat abilities, you read it wrong. Nothing to do with combat.
Yes, I did assume that "sizing up an opponent, tactical thinking" was supposed to apply to combat, but I'd be happy to be corrected.
The suggestion of Fighters spending feats on non-combat feats is a poor one IMO. At the moment, Fighters have next to no participation in non-combat scenes. They shouldn't have to give up their one good thing just to justify being in the room when people start talking.
Agreed. Though I was suggesting allowing them to use non-combat skills like Sense Motive (or Knowledge skills) in combat, thus encouraging them to develop skills that will be useful out of combat. (Also notable: though I understand some players of fighters feel they need to keep quiet during the talky scenes my group has never had this problem.)
Also, classes already have unique abilities. The argument about whether to give classes unique abilities has been over for quite a few years.
Yes, but do they need more unique abilities? The trend has been in fact in the other direction - animal companions/mounts are available to clerics, inquisitors, and cavaliers in addition to druids, rangers, and paladins, rangers and clerics can get rage, bards can get sneak attack and rogue talents, and any class can pick up a familiar or a selection of other sorcerous bloodline abilities though Eldritch Heritage.
The concept here is to add mechanical encouragement for the character to add to their personality based on class. But that's the thing with using an encouragement only method, you're not penalized for not adhering to it. Yes, it incurs an opportunity cost, but since you don't care about the thing being lost, that cost is very small.
Also, I'm not talking about major abilities. Maybe something like a Barbarian can use Intimidate to Aid Another on someone else's Diplomacy or Bluff. He's the stick to their carrot, it's not huge, but it's flavorful and impacts how the character is roleplayed. Don't pick apart specifics, this is an off-the-cuff example, not a detailed and playtested concept.
Hm. Honestly, I'd allow that for any character without any special ability, because it makes sense and is generally a good idea. But you're right that there isn't much support for that in RAW, and maybe there should be. If it were something minor I wouldn't mind making it a class-specific ability, but personally I'd put that under new skill uses for everyone to take advantage of - that way, the fighter and the barbarian can both be effective "sticks," and so can rangers and inquisitors and anyone else scary enough to pull it off.
Also I like the idea of more skills for fighters so they can actually afford to branch out.
|
|
@Weirdo - Based on your posts, I'm pretty sure we could game at the same table. You aren't against restrictions, you just don't want them to be arbitrary, and that is how you view alignment restrictions.
Others seem against anything that prevents them from doing what they want to do, and IMHO that way leads to chaos.
Hm. Honestly, I'd allow that for any character without any special ability, because it makes sense and is generally a good idea. But you're right that there isn't much support for that in RAW, and maybe there should be. If it were something minor I wouldn't mind making it a class-specific ability, but personally I'd put that under new skill uses for everyone to take advantage of - that way, the fighter and the barbarian can both be effective "sticks," and so can rangers and inquisitors and anyone else scary enough to pull it off.
Also I like the idea of more skills for fighters so they can actually afford to branch out.
Part of the idea IMO, would be to give people semi-defined roles in non-combat situations, much like they do in combat. Look at class design through the lens of combat and you see distinct roles and trends appear. Look at them outside of combat and a couple classes have trends, but several start to fall by the wayside, having little or nothing to contribute.
Every class has an ability which is designed purely for combat purposes.
Not every class has an ability that is useful outside of combat.
Just making these general uses of skills doesn't do anything to address the second point. I understand that players can roleplay their characters to be interesting and engaging, but I fail to see the downside to giving them something mechanically useful to add to a scene based on their class. These things can make them interesting and unique outside of combat, just like they are inside combat. New abilities with skills wouldn't require you to invest in them, they would encourage and reward you for investing in them. If you didn't want to play up that aspect of the character, you'd just put your skill points other places and be exactly the same as characters now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Define "Knightly", because that is the only word that distinguishes it from a Cleric or Inquisitor, and yet that is what you said I lacked.And wouldn't a Cavalier be more "Knightly". Hell a Ranger can hit all of the things listed.
They can meet ALL of the things I listed EXCEPT for one. They do not have the SPECIFIC mix of martial and divine abilities. And no matter what definition I create for a paladin or what definition you create, if the definition does not include giving the concept its own abilities, unique to it, than the definition will continue to be able to be applied to other characters, whether either of us like it or not.
Since you are telling me "what I am missing" let me point out what I think you are missing. The Paladin has a description and a concept. It is as follows."Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. 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. Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future."
Your description doesn't match. Mine does.
No, mine does not. But then again, mine doesn't have to. I'm not advocating that we keep the paladin the same as it is. So my definition has wiggle room. But my definition is also the one between the two of ours that requires that paladin be a class (actually my definition has room for it to be a feat because I never define WHICH specific abilities, but I figure it should be obvious that I'm talking about that paladin's class features by now, and if not consider this a clarification).
If you'd like to expand your mutable definition to include all of the flavor text too, go ahead. At this point it hardly matters. I've more than proven that the paladin is not just the code.
That said, your definition still does not require the paladin class to exist. Even with its very own flavor text inserted into it. We are still left with a description of the paladin that allows players to create characters that meet all of the prerequisites of what a paladin is without actually being a paladin. We can talk about banishing evil and healing the innocent all we want. You dump as much fluff into the class as you'd like, and not matter how interesting it is, no matter how descriptive it is, until you come up with a definition that includes paladins having unique abilities that others do not, than there is no need for the class.
That is what my definition does that yours does not. It states that paladins have SPECIFIC abilities. Abilities that are unique to it. So again, either the mechanics for the class are important or the class is not important.
|
|
You can't assign an expectation or standard to me that you are unwilling to reach.
You are functionally arguing that a Paladin is a Paladin because it took levels of Paladin, and any further description of what a Paladin is should be disregarded as "fluff"
You say "Knightly" and then fail to describe it, even though most definitions of knights describe a chivalric type of code AND your definition is more closely suited to a Cavalier.
The flavor text is included, and it is reflected in the mechanics, including the alignment restrictions.
You don't like that, fine. House rule it. All classes have specific abilities that are unique to them, and many have flavor attached to it. A Wizard must memorize each day, a Druid must be neutral and revere nature, a Cleric must be within one step of her deity's, etc, etc, etc...
Your box isn't tidier, your description is no more precise. You are advocating the mechanics have no logical backbone or reason for existing, and that anything you disagree with is fluff...
And yet you use the word knightly...
Because that means what? What makes a Paladin "Knightly" to you?
Because if it means nothing, than you and Ashy are on an island where the mechanics exist only to make sure the numbers work and "Fluff" is meaningless stuff cruel GMs use to be mean to players.
And it doesn't seem like anyone else here is interested in that.
Since a Paladin's Code is essentially the Cleric's Code + multiple other restrictions, shouldn't the Paladin be proportionately stronger than a Cleric as well? I mean, Lawful Good deities give their strongest magical powers (restoring the dead and miracles, for example) to followers who they hold to a lower standard than their Paladins.
That really doesn't make any sense at all.
I am pretty sure that the person who favorited your post didn't get to the 2nd paragraph :)I'm pretty sure the person did. But for clarity here's a post.
I pretty much agree with the alignment thing. Honestly I used to love alignment when I first started playing the game. These days I freaking hate it. I hate it to the core. I hate it because of threads like this. I hate it because I've seen it cause far more disruption to the game and to the genre than it has ever given back in benefits. I've seen it misused and abused to death (generally by the "alignment is subjective" crowd).
I can't disagree with the exception of one practical point--I have played for 33 years. I have played D&D systems for only five of those. So most of my experience comes from alignment free systems. Problem with those systems is not the gamer who is into the RPG of the system but the gamer who can seem to get an idea of a character with any consistency. Alignment allows that consistency for those players who seem to forget the essential idea of the character when they feel like it. Sometimes it is the only thing keeping the power gamer in check.
Funny. I don't see any alignment restrictions on Clerics and Wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference is that once the cleric picks their deity, they must abide by the restriction. There is not a restriction on the creation of the character (unlike a paladin), but there is one on the playing of the character.
And I've found that in actual games played, character creation takes up much less time than the rest of the playing/campaign. As opposed to theorycrafting/internet games, where thinking up the character and backstory and statting it out might actually involve more work than any gameplay the character gets to see. That's just my experience, others may find it different, but a cleric's restrictions in play are just as real as a paladin's.
The difference is that once the cleric picks their deity, they must abide by the restriction. There is not a restriction on the creation of the character (unlike a paladin), but there is one on the playing of the character.
And I've found that in actual games played, character creation takes up much less time than the rest of the playing/campaign. As opposed to theorycrafting/internet games, where thinking up the character and backstory and statting it out might actually involve more work than any gameplay the character gets to see. That's just my experience, others may find it different, but a cleric's restrictions in play are just as real as a paladin's.
True. In play you will behave one way and not another. This is true for all 3 dimensional characters. Including rogues and clerics and awakened dinosaurs. When creating a cleric it is the player who sets the terms of his behavior as part of his character creation process. But once chosen you are (mostly) bound to fulfill the expectations of your god if you want to continue to gain dinive abilities from said god. Expectations that you yourself chose from a long list that covers just about any kind of personality you could ever want with plenty of wiggle room even within a single gods expectations to branch out and be unique or take a different perspective. Or if you wish you can just not have a god.
With a paladin a great deal of your characters behavior and personality are preselected for you. You're correct that at the table it won't be much different. But during character creation when you are deciding what your characters personality, beliefs, and behavior will be like it will matter a great deal.