On Paladins and just being a good player.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

801 to 850 of 2,403 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Let me clarify before I am misquoted.

Heroes become special. At first level, heroes are interesting and full of potential. They level, they do things, and if the GM and the player do a good job they generally evolve into something neither fully envisioned at the beginning of the campaign.

They become special.

Lets take the rain man marshall artist and plop them in a game. They learn by seeing things, so again do they just level every time they see a fight?

If not, are you really playing that concept?

If so, how does the rest of the group feel about your magic hax autoleveling system?

So no, you can't play the martial artist from that movie who automatically learns everything by watching, because the game has a leveling system that isn't based on watching other people fight.

And you can't play Super Mario, Superman, the Green Lantern, Wolverine...hell pretty much any of the X-Men...either.

That isn't a failing of the system any more than it is a failing of Mutants and Masterminds that is it hard to play a Pathdfinder style Wizard in that system.

It isn't what the system is for. It is for a specific setting, with specific types of characters and classes.

It isn't creative to be unable to find a way to make an interesting character in a setting. Quite the opposite.


Quote:

Heroes become special. At first level, heroes are interesting and full of potential. They level, they do things, and if the GM and the player do a good job they generally evolve into something neither fully envisioned at the beginning of the campaign.

They become special.

Lets take the rain man marshall artist and plop them in a game. They learn by seeing things, so again do they just level every time they see a fight?

If so, how does the rest of the group feel about your magic hax autoleveling system?

Kind of like gaining experience points. Meanwhile, a level or two of monk, improvised weapon mastery, and maybe a bit of multiclassing and bam. You could easily mimick most combat styles. And while the mechanics don't have to bend over backwards to fit your concept, there's nothing about them that says that your character isn't simply getting better at fighting by mimmicking others and/or using improvisation, inspiration, or raw creativity.

I'm pretty much at a loss for understanding you at this point. It feels like I'm talking to someone with a completely alien mindset to my own (and to be fair, I'll be the alien and you can be the human so it's clear I'm not trying to imply you're inhuman). I just can't fathom this conversation. Maybe I need more sleep, but I just can't do it right now.

Liberty's Edge

You could mimic some fighting styles, after you level, and not by observing them. Because if it were just observation, you wouldn't need the experience.

Or is the need to gain experience also a hinderance on player creativity.

Why can't they just watch combat to level, rather than having to actually participate.(s)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

That was in reference to the handy-capable monk concept, as borrowed from Chocolate.

I've seen that movie, and it was good.

So was the Avengers. But those concepts don't convert well into Pathfinder, either.

Oh, agreed. You could vaguely re-create them (paladin for Cap, alchemist for Hulk, synthsist summoner for Iron Man, etc), but never a true conversion.

Liberty's Edge

Kryzbyn wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

That was in reference to the handy-capable monk concept, as borrowed from Chocolate.

I've seen that movie, and it was good.

So was the Avengers. But those concepts don't convert well into Pathfinder, either.
Oh, agreed. You could vaguely re-create them (paladin for Cap, alchemist for Hulk, synthsist summoner for Iron Man, etc), but never a true conversion.

Which is my point. Not being able to fit every concept you see isn't a problem of the ruleset. The ruleset is designed to accomodate concepts of for the setting of the system.

I love playing Mutants and Masterminds, broken as it is. But that is a different game. Same with Call of Cthulhu.

Would one argue because I can't make a Wizard in Call of Cthulhu, the system was flawed?

Again, the goal is to get 5 people to be able to sit down at a table and be able to play together.

Alignment is a very rough outline, but it lets me know if the guy I'm playing with is going to be compatible philosophically with the concept I have in a quick shorthand.

Bill is Lawful Good, he might have a problem with me being Chaotic and Evil, we should chat about that before we dive to deep into character creation.

If I walk into a room and say "I want to play a Paladin" that convey a lot of information to the room, in it's current format. Other classes you may need to add more information, but for the purposes of fellow players trying to figure out how to fit into the group (which should be the goal of every player...) if you know what they are playing, the alignment, and possibly for divine characters who they worship, in 10 words or less I can figure out enough to let me do my job of making something that will fit and be fun for everyone.

Coming up with a strange off the wall concept isn't being more creative unless you think the homeless guy who spouts non-sense is demonstrating greater creativity as well. I would argue it is easier to create a weirdo than a normal character, as the weirdo doesn't have to conform to any logic or reason.

You just make crap up and force everyone else to adjust to whatever lunacy you are spouting.

This isn't to say that occasionally this isn't fun. My Hillbilly Luchadore from Mutants and Masterminds was great fun for all of us. But that was a silly campaign from the outset, and those were the parameters of that setting.

The goal of the rules is not to give everything you want. You don't need a rule set for that.

The goal is to give you a framework of "a" world, and of what exists in "a" world and how things work there.

If you don't like it, house rule or play another game.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
That doesn't answer my question. Why do Lawful Good gods give their greatest magics to followers they hold to a lesser standard than their Paladins?

This is a false argument.

Clerics cannot:
Lay on hands
Smite
use mercies
Gain their cha bonus to saves
etc.

If your talking purely spell levels, then I suppose you are correct.

The question should be:
Why do clerics have to rely more on the spells their Lawful Good god gives them, instead of being personally invested with more overall passive power like a paladin?

3.5 Clerics can smite through destruction domain, did PF Clerics lose that?

Nope, they still have it. It is weaker than 3.5 version though.

Lay on hands is just healing magic, mercies are boosting of lay on hands so more spells.

Cha to saves is special.
Mount is special too.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

When my gaming group wants to play fantasy, we play PFRPG. For everything else, GURPS.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
That doesn't answer my question. Why do Lawful Good gods give their greatest magics to followers they hold to a lesser standard than their Paladins?

This is a false argument.

Clerics cannot:
Lay on hands
Smite
use mercies
Gain their cha bonus to saves
etc.

If your talking purely spell levels, then I suppose you are correct.

The question should be:
Why do clerics have to rely more on the spells their Lawful Good god gives them, instead of being personally invested with more overall passive power like a paladin?

I'd say that Clerics getting Divine Intervention whenever they feel like it trumps all that. That and their ability to summon angels to solve all their problems. ;P

Grand Lodge

This is why I miss the older edition's rule of having to receive training before a character was able to go up in level. Because now, one can play (for example) a Wizard for say 5 or so levels and then decide totally out of the blue to "dip" into Fighter in order to gain "weapons training" without ever having that character pick up a longsword prior to that decision...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Between inconsistently applied arguments, an expanding definition of paladin, and then the constant throwing out one argument in favor of another in order to maintain your possition, I'm just too confused by all the inconsistency to know what the hell is even being talked about anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So guns can break a setting but it's unfair if you can't play an autistic monk who levels up by watching TV?

Shadow Lodge

ciretose wrote:

Except it does, unless you ignore the text and want to a flavorless mechanics based game using your house rules.

Armor training.Weapon training.

Training apparently starts occuring three/five levels into the campaign. Do you require training montages over the course of this campaign for every single one of the fighters in your games? What about rogues? Do they have explicitly to show they've been spending time perfecting a specific rogue talent before they can use it? How do you portray a monk getting each new ability each level? Ranger? How do you explain an Orc warrior being proficient with any martial weapon they get their hands on? Have you had them train with every single weapon group in the game? Or, what about just Feats in general? Does every character have to explicitly show how they were able to gain each of their feats, or they need to choose something else?

Quote:

@Ashiel - Even a Cleric that follows a concept, adheres to that concept or risks falling. Except in a flavorless houseruled game. Mmmm... flavorless gruel...please sir, might I have some more?

@Ventnor - Without a code, why exactly is the Paladin given their power in the logic of your setting?

Why exactly do druids, rangers, and oracles get their powers from, again? Because they're... connected to nature... in some way? Oracles are given their powers because ... providence?

Clerics of all alignments are given their powers because they've become emissaries of their gods, and inquisitors of all alignments because they hunt out enemies of the faith. However, the characters of the paladin class are only allowed to be the champions a very small subset of gods. Where are the divine champions for the other gods? Oh, I guess using the emissaries or investigators is good enough for them.

How are such stringent restrictions on character creation good? How would a Champion class of a set of more diverse alignments, would destroy the ruleset (especially a setting neutral ruleset?

What I still don't understand about these types of paladin conversations is that no other class as written generates this much discord between people on a thematic scale. It's the only class that can't be fit in some way into any standard campaign, purely due to thematic reasons. Every other class has some permutation on it, such that it can fit into any campaign. Every single one of the paladin's class abilities fits with a good character. None of it is all that lawful specific. However, the very limited, yet heavily debated, code of conduct and alignment restrictions forces a very limited number of character tropes. No other character class has such a limited ability to evolve (whether the player is doing it intentionally or by accident), either.
Oops, the CG rogue has been acting CN for a while now, as she has stopped being altruistic and is more interested in her own problems, better shift her alignment to CN.
Oops, the LG cleric of Erastil has been acting LN for a while now, and has become enthralled by the teachings of Abadar, better shift her alignment to LN and her deity to Abadar.
Oops, the LG Paladin of Sarenrae has been acting NG for a while now, acting more and more in accordance with her god's ideals, better shift her alignment to NG and strip her of all her powers until she atones and becomes LG again, or be forced to multi-class with warrior levels!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ventnor wrote:
I'd say that Clerics getting Divine Intervention whenever they feel like it trumps all that. That and their ability to summon angels to solve all their problems. ;P

Heh. Nice.

But I disagree on the divine intervention.
A cleric has to interceed on his own behalf to get the power.
A paladin is invested with power from the get go.
Passive vs. active. Who does the god favor more?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Serum wrote:
Oops, the LG Paladin of Sarenrae has been acting NG for a while now, acting more and more in accordance with her god's ideals, better shift her alignment to NG and strip her of all her powers until she atones and becomes LG again, or be forced to multi-class with warrior levels!

Yep. That's exactly how it works.

"I'm sorry I couldn't uphold the ideals I swore I would in your name. Can I keep mah powers anyway?"

Shadow Lodge

You're right. That is exactly how it works. I never disagreed there.

"I swear I will never stop being Lawful Good or become more like you, or forever will I be completely useless in furthering your cause. Even though you're Neutral Good yourself."

Very thematic.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Is it thematic for a god to accept an oath breaking paladin?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oath breaking? The paladin doesn't need to break any oaths to become Neutral Good. She just needs to (possibly inadvertently) adopt a mindset that isn't biased towards order.

You can do all of this:

Quote:
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.

and still be neutral good, for example.

Oops, here we go arguing over what the paladin's current theme is.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

He's obviously broken his oath to follow the Paladin's Code and remain LG.
Sarenrae has clerics for run of the mill agents, where they can be within 2 steps of an alignment. Paladins HAVE to be LG or the whole agreement with the god goes kaput.

Shadow Lodge

Kryzbyn wrote:
Paladins HAVE to be LG or the whole agreement with the god goes kaput.

Of course they do. It says that in the rules. Thank you for explaining the rules to me.

But why? Just because the rules say so? Because paladins as a trope are always LG? Because it's inconceivable that the champion of a CG god could embody the god's teachings with all of her actions and use the abilities of the paladin class to do so?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Well, I guess since it's all fluff, what the book says is as good of an explanation that I can come up with.

But, a NG character would not adhere to a code. He would be completely indifferent to following a code. Indifferent to lawful behavior.
If I were a god and a NG guy came and asked to be my paladin, and I know in his soul he was indifferent to following any kind of code or precepts I came up for him to follow, why would I bother? Same with a CG character.

Shadow Lodge

Ah, so you're still stuck on the "The CODE IS THE PALADIN CLASS" argument. Understood.

My opinion on that is that it's silly and limiting to reduce the class to a feature that anyone can swear and pledge to retire their character if they ever break it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If you ignore the second part of my post, yeah.
Would you allow a NG character to exhibit lawful behavior over an extended period of time?

Shadow Lodge

If his entire outlook became slowly lawful over an extended period of time, then he'd eventually gain the lawful alignment.

Is the act of following a set of ideals/codes/teachings (regardless of the details) going to turn the character lawful by itself? No, otherwise all clerics of chaotic deities are doomed to fail.

If I were a CG god, and there's a CG martially oriented charismatic person devoted to following my ideals, I'd definitely consider granting him paladin powers to help him further my cause over cleric/inquisitor powers. If he stops following my ideals, I'll take the powers away, just like I do with clerics and inquisitors.

Shadow Lodge

Kryzbyn wrote:
He's obviously broken his oath to follow the Paladin's Code and remain LG.

By the way, according to the rules, you can have Paladins of Erastil who hate the countryside, and believe that the future lies in civilization. There's nothing in their Code of Conduct that requires them to uphold the primary ideals of their god. As long as they swore an oath to expand civilization and trade in the name of Erastil, oh, and be Lawful Good, and do a bunch of other Lawful Good stuff, they're golden.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
I would argue it is easier to create a weirdo than a normal character, as the weirdo doesn't have to conform to any logic or reason.

And here I thought we had reached an understanding.

I do think we agree well enough to game at the same table as you said previously, but I keep seeing statements that strike me as overly inflexible and narrow-minded, so here we go again:

Kryzbyn wrote:
If I were a god and a NG guy came and asked to be my paladin, and I know in his soul he was indifferent to following any kind of code or precepts I came up for him to follow, why would I bother? Same with a CG character.

Then why are you bothering to empower nonlawful clerics and inquisitors, if nonlawful people can't be trusted to wholeheartedly follow your teachings and advance your agenda?

Characters of every alignment can have something that they care deeply about and are willing to die for, and good-aligned adventurers are particularly likely to possess the capacity for self-sacrifice. I've had a CG character who was willing to die to bring down the evil empire, and a NG druid who was willing to die to defeat a lich cult. Nongood characters are generally less altruistic, but I've seen a LN sorcerer who dedicated his life to bringing the dead to rest (and who died in the course of these duties), and a CN alchemist who risked his life in pursuit of knowledge.

If a god walked up to any of these characters and said "If I give you special powers do you promise to keep promoting the ideals that you care most about?" not one of these characters would have said "no" just because they weren't that keen on the idea of oaths.

Nonlawful =/= no convictions.

EDIT: To clarify, I believe the argument "only LG characters have strong enough conviction to be paladins" or "only LG characters can be relied on to promote a cause" is invalid under the current alignment system and is thus not sufficient reason to restrict paladins to LG, unless you go ahead and redefine alignment.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Serum wrote:

If his entire outlook became slowly lawful over an extended period of time, then he'd eventually gain the lawful alignment.

Is the act of following a set of ideals/codes/teachings (regardless of the details) going to turn the character lawful by itself? No, otherwise all clerics of chaotic deities are doomed to fail.

If I were a CG god, and there's a CG martially oriented charismatic person devoted to following my ideals, I'd definitely consider granting him paladin powers to help him further my cause over cleric/inquisitor powers. If he stops following my ideals, I'll take the powers away, just like I do with clerics and inquisitors.

Yes. Then he could take levels in Paladin.

All clerics have to do is pray daily and be within one step of their deities' alignment. That's not following a code of honor, or anything even remotely close to it.

And you still can! Houserule.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Serum wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
He's obviously broken his oath to follow the Paladin's Code and remain LG.
By the way, according to the rules, you can have Paladins of Erastil who hate the countryside, and believe that the future lies in civilization. There's nothing in their Code of Conduct that requires them to uphold the primary ideals of their god. As long as they swore an oath to expand civilization and trade in the name of Erastil, oh, and be Lawful Good, and do a bunch of other Lawful Good stuff, they're golden.

That's a campaign setting.

CRB is campaign agnostic, or it is supposed to be, at least.

So, essentially it's a houserule.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Serum wrote:

Ah, so you're still stuck on the "The CODE IS THE PALADIN CLASS" argument. Understood.

My opinion on that is that it's silly and limiting to reduce the class to a feature that anyone can swear and pledge to retire their character if they ever break it.

The combination of THE CODE and the LAWFUL GOOD ALIGNMENT is the paladin class. Anything else is a houserule.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Weirdo wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
If I were a god and a NG guy came and asked to be my paladin, and I know in his soul he was indifferent to following any kind of code or precepts I came up for him to follow, why would I bother? Same with a CG character.
Then why are you bothering to empower nonlawful clerics and inquisitors, if nonlawful people can't be trusted to wholeheartedly follow your teachings and advance your agenda?

Because I need people to do the day to day proselytizing, and folks that can do things that need to be done that a paladin isn't comfortable doing. Sheesh, read the class descriptions.

Weirdo wrote:
Characters of every alignment can have something that they care deeply about and are willing to die for, and good-aligned adventurers are particularly likely to possess the capacity for self-sacrifice. I've had a CG character who was willing to die to bring down the evil empire, and a NG druid who was willing to die to defeat a lich cult. Nongood characters are generally less altruistic, but I've seen a LN sorcerer who dedicated his life to bringing the dead to rest (and who died in the course of these duties), and a CN alchemist who risked his life in pursuit of knowledge.

Self sacrifice isn't the lawful part, it's the good part. CN folks will do whatever they feel is right for them at any given time. So if it's self-sacrifice, so be it.

Weirdo wrote:
If a god walked up to any of these characters and said "If I give you special powers do you promise to keep promoting the ideals that you care most about?" not one of these characters would have said "no" just because they weren't that keen on the idea of oaths.

Book says it's a qualification for becomming a Paladin. So I'd take from that that the gods would not approach those characters, becasue they don't even meet the base requirements for becomming one.

But if it's your campaign and it works, houserule it.

Weirdo wrote:
Nonlawful =/= no convictions.

Non-lawful = indifferent or unwilling to be lawful. You can't reconcile that to mean what you want it to. Not without a handwave from the GM via houserule.

Weirdo wrote:
EDIT: To clarify, I believe the argument "only LG characters have strong enough conviction to be paladins" or "only LG characters can be relied on to promote a cause" is invalid under the current alignment system and is thus not sufficient reason to restrict paladins to LG, unless you go ahead and redefine alignment.

Anyone can promote a cause. That is not being lawful, or necessarily good, either.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Serum wrote:

Ah, so you're still stuck on the "The CODE IS THE PALADIN CLASS" argument. Understood.

My opinion on that is that it's silly and limiting to reduce the class to a feature that anyone can swear and pledge to retire their character if they ever break it.

The combination of THE CODE and the LAWFUL GOOD ALIGNMENT is the paladin class. Anything else is a houserule.

Better not tell my LG monk that, he may spontaneously turn into a pally.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Obviously, if he's a monk, he's not a paladin. But if he wanted to multi-class, he meets one of the requirements.


/facepalm


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Indeed.

Shadow Lodge

Kryzbyn wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
If I were a god and a NG guy came and asked to be my paladin, and I know in his soul he was indifferent to following any kind of code or precepts I came up for him to follow, why would I bother? Same with a CG character.
Then why are you bothering to empower nonlawful clerics and inquisitors, if nonlawful people can't be trusted to wholeheartedly follow your teachings and advance your agenda?
Because I need people to do the day to day proselytizing, and folks that can do things that need to be done that a paladin isn't comfortable doing. Sheesh, read the class descriptions.

Okay, that explains why a LG god will want clerics and inquisitors and not just paladins. But why will a CG god trust CG clerics and inquisitors to do the things that need to be done, but won't trust a CG paladin/champion to do the things that need to be done?

Kryzbyn wrote:
Self sacrifice isn't the lawful part, it's the good part. CN folks will do whatever they feel is right for them at any given time. So if it's self-sacrifice, so be it.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Anyone can promote a cause. That is not being lawful, or necessarily good, either.

So if CG characters are capable of great self-sacrifice in service of a cause, why can't they be paladins? Why can't a divine entity of Chaos and Good give a knight a poke and tell them "go forth and be my champion"?

ciretose at least defined LG as "the alignment of self-sacrifice in pursuit of a cause" which explains, albeit in an unusual way, why these types of characters would only come in the LG flavour.

Weirdo wrote:

Book says it's a qualification for becomming a Paladin. So I'd take from that that the gods would not approach those characters, becasue they don't even meet the base requirements for becomming one.

But if it's your campaign and it works, houserule it.

Translation: These are the rules because they are the rules. Deal. End translation.

1) There is no logical reason non-LG divine entities wouldn't want servants of their alignment with a paladin's powers.
2) There is no reason why a non-LG character would lack the conviction necessary to dedicate their lives to a cause.
3) There is no reason that non-LG divine entities would be unable to imbue these servants with a paladin's powers unless LG is somehow the best or most powerful alignment (it's not). An appeal to the existing rule is not valid - it's circular reasoning.

Conclusion: There is absolutely no reason why the gods would not approach non-LG characters as paladins. It makes no logical sense in a setting-neutral system, so it shouldn't be a rule.

Kryzbyn wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
Nonlawful =/= no convictions.
Non-lawful = indifferent or unwilling to be lawful. You can't reconcile that to mean what you want it to. Not without a handwave from the GM via houserule.

Okay, so a nonlawful person is not lawful. Why do you need to be lawful to be a paladin? Because it's the rules...

Obviously I'm not a very lawful person.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weirdo wrote:
So if CG characters are capable of great self-sacrifice in service of a cause, why can't they be paladins? Why can't a divine entity of Chaos and Good give a knight a poke and tell them "go forth and be my champion"?

Blech. Isn't there a bit somewhere in the CRB about how Paladins can get their powers from the sheer powers of Good and Law and not from deities? I always liked that idea.

Although I guess it doesn't avoid this argument, since why can't the powers of Good and Chaos (or Evil and Chaos, or Evil and Law) do the same thing?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Weirdo wrote:
more of the same

I think if you re-read my posts, you'll find the answers to your questions.

I won't keep re-explaining the difference between lawful and chaotic behavior, or the behvior of one who doesn't care either way.
The mechanics of the paladin class requires they follow the code, and be LG.

Suffice to say that the individual that the gods look for to be their paladins are Lawful Good, and follow a strict code of honor, no matter their alignment.

As I have said, even in this thread, I have played in games where all gods had 'paladins'; each god had their own code and alignment requirements. It obviously was houseruled. This is not the Paladin from the CRB.

'Could a god, would a god...?' Yes, they could, would and in some worlds do. In a home brew. Not in the CRB.


Gaekub wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
So if CG characters are capable of great self-sacrifice in service of a cause, why can't they be paladins? Why can't a divine entity of Chaos and Good give a knight a poke and tell them "go forth and be my champion"?

Blech. Isn't there a bit somewhere in the CRB about how Paladins can get their powers from the sheer powers of Good and Law and not from deities? I always liked that idea.

Although I guess it doesn't avoid this argument, since why can't the powers of Good and Chaos (or Evil and Chaos, or Evil and Law) do the same thing?

That was how 3.5 worked. No diety required.

Faerun (FR) reequired a Diety though. But the greyhawk/non-FR games required none, granted Clerics can be frely concept no Diety in 3.5 too.

Liberty's Edge

Weirdo wrote:

Translation: These are the rules because they are the rules. Deal. End translation.

1) There is no logical reason non-LG divine entities wouldn't want servants of their alignment with a paladin's powers.
2) There is no reason why a non-LG character would lack the conviction necessary to dedicate their lives to a cause.
3) There is no reason that non-LG divine entities would be unable to imbue these servants with a paladin's powers unless LG is somehow the best or most powerful alignment (it's not). An appeal to the existing rule is not valid - it's circular reasoning.

And here is where the divide is.

1. Yes "I" think they "could" want them. You and I agree. I also understand James Jacobs reasoning that non-lawful Gods may not want to give someone who would blindly follow them power. Think Life of Brian "You are all individuals!" mindset. Following a Code, by definition, is saying "I am going to do this thing, regardless of if it makes logical sense at a given time, because I believe this thing to be more important than my well being"

So I could see Cayden or other Chaotic deity thinking that following codes is something for zealots and idiots, and not being interested in giving power to someone like that.

2. I fundimentally disagree with you here. Dedicating your life to a cause is almost the definition of a lawful act. You are submitting to a rule, regardless of your personal wants and wishes. You are saying that rule supercedes your personal desires and even logical reasoning in a given situation.

That is not a chaotic or neutral act in any way shape or form.

And as to the 2nd part, if you are giving someone "Smite Evil" it is perfectly reasonable to require they be good.

3. See part 1. A Chaotic God may believe that submitting (not worshiping, but submitting) to any higher authority is wrong. And that is largely what a Paladin is doing. I personally would try to work with a player if it was a cool concept (not if it wasn't, or the player only was doing it for the mechanics and not story purposes) but I can see 100% why other GMs wouldn't.

Liberty's Edge

Kryzbyn wrote:
Serum wrote:

Ah, so you're still stuck on the "The CODE IS THE PALADIN CLASS" argument. Understood.

My opinion on that is that it's silly and limiting to reduce the class to a feature that anyone can swear and pledge to retire their character if they ever break it.

The combination of THE CODE and the LAWFUL GOOD ALIGNMENT is the paladin class. Anything else is a houserule.

I would say "Is included as part of" rather than saying "is".

You are getting pulled into the trap of "Define narrowly so I can destroy" by a side that wants absolutely no definition at all.

801 to 850 of 2,403 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / On Paladins and just being a good player. All Messageboards