|
I will again remind you that Cayden is himself described as refusing to compromise his ideals, leaving mercenary jobs undone rather than violate his principles, which sounds pretty paladin-like to me.
Sounds more like a Chaotic Good Mercenary to me...which is what he was.
There is nothing Paladin about breaking your word...or really being a mercenary...
This is my issue with your argument. Your Paladin isn't anything that doesn't exist in another class in the game, thematically. You can achieve the concepts you are describing with any number of other classes.
Why can't a Paladin be as described? It doesn't remove any of the concepts you are describing, it just doesn't deliver the specific mechanics.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will again remind you that Cayden is himself described as refusing to compromise his ideals, leaving mercenary jobs undone rather than violate his principles, which sounds pretty paladin-like to me.
Sounds more like a Chaotic Good Mercenary to me...which is what he was.
There is nothing Paladin about breaking your word...or really being a mercenary...
This is my issue with your argument. Your Paladin isn't anything that doesn't exist in another class in the game, thematically. You can achieve the concepts you are describing with any number of other classes.
Why can't a Paladin be as described? It doesn't remove any of the concepts you are describing, it just doesn't deliver the specific mechanics.
Wait ... What? I argued this exact same thing against you earlier, that in order for a class to have meaning it has to have SPECIFIC abilities that prevent the concept from just being a descriptor that can be applied to large numbers of characters who meet the prerequisites. You fought against it hand and foot. I told you that your concept of a paladin would not be lost by making the code clear and you insisted I was wrong. But Now you're argument is MY previous argument that you rejected entirely?
It is at this point that I have to respectfully bow out of the discusion.
|
|
I will again remind you that Cayden is himself described as refusing to compromise his ideals, leaving mercenary jobs undone rather than violate his principles, which sounds pretty paladin-like to me.
Sounds more like a Chaotic Good Mercenary to me...which is what he was.
There is nothing Paladin about breaking your word...or really being a mercenary...
This is my issue with your argument. Your Paladin isn't anything that doesn't exist in another class in the game, thematically. You can achieve the concepts you are describing with any number of other classes.
Why can't a Paladin be as described? It doesn't remove any of the concepts you are describing, it just doesn't deliver the specific mechanics.
Wait ... What? I argued this exact same thing against you earlier, that in order for a class to have meaning it has to have SPECIFIC abilities that prevent the concept from just being a descriptor that can be applied to large numbers of characters who meet the prerequisites. You fought against it hand and foot. I told you that your concept of a paladin would not be lost by making the code clear and you insisted I was wrong. But Now you're argument is MY previous argument that you rejected entirely?
It is at this point that I have to respectfully bow out of the discusion.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Can you cite back?
I am saying here that there is no reason the given concepts "need" to be paladins, and the only reason one would want them to be paladins is to get to the mechanics, which are largely reserved for Paladins (exceptions being some prestige classes for some abilities).
You don't need to have the specific paladin abilities to reach any of the concepts AND if you take away the definition of Paladin, it ceases to be a Paladin as defined.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think what Ciretose is saying is a few things that keep being all bundled together because this thread is so god damned long.
1.) He is against removing Paladin alignment restrictions and the Code (no Chaotic Good Paladins with all the same Paladin abilities) because a Paladin is, at it's core, the Lawful good paragon of justice and restraint, and removing that ruins the class' neat flavor.
2.) He is NOT against separate aligned "Paladin-like" classes being introduced, such as a Chaotic Good "Freedom Fighter" with some special Paladin-like abilities (such as Smite/Detect Evil) and then unique mechanics built from that core of a "Embodiment of a certain alignment's principles".
3.) The confusion stems from his wording of "A Chaotic Good Paladin is not a Paladin" being construed as "There is no way a Chaotic Good person deserves these 'Divine Avatar' powers, go play Inquisitor."
I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I've gotten from this past bout of exchanges.
The reason there are Inquisitors and Clerics is because a CG or NG character's contributions are wanted and needed. They just can't measure up to being a 'paladin'.Then you are of the opinion that NG and CG are inferior to LG?
In their capactity to be a Paladin, yes.
|
The reason there are Inquisitors and Clerics is because a CG or NG character's contributions are wanted and needed. They just can't measure up to being a 'paladin'.Then you are of the opinion that NG and CG are inferior to LG?
In their capactity to be a Paladin, yes.
Then in what way is LG inferior to NG and CG? Their ability to be a barbarian? There are two Lawful-only core classes, one nonlawful-only core class, and no chaotic-only core classes. And the barbarian's signature Rage ability is available to lawful clerics and inquisitors through the Rage domain, and to lawful rangers through the Wild Stalker archetype, while the paladin's signature abilities are paladin exclusives. Seems a little skewed to me.
Thank you.
You're very welcome. I love to debate this issue and I expect I come off pretty forcefully sometimes but I do understand why people love paladin classic. I was a bit skeptical about the CG variants myself until I saw a really well-done one in play, which turned me into a believer.
There were many holy warrior type classes printed, but I think they were all 3.5.
Yes, 3.5 had a number of variant paladins. There are also some conversions and homebrew variants. It's not hard to introduce into PF given GM approval, it's just not supported by anything published by Paizo for PF.
2.) He is NOT against separate aligned "Paladin-like" classes being introduced, such as a Chaotic Good "Freedom Fighter" with some special Paladin-like abilities (such as Smite/Detect Evil) and then unique mechanics built from that core of a "Embodiment of a certain alignment's principles".
3.) The confusion stems from his wording of "A Chaotic Good Paladin is not a Paladin" being construed as "There is no way a Chaotic Good person deserves these 'Divine Avatar' powers, go play Inquisitor."
And I'd be satisfied with the introduction of a paladin-like class or classes with some changes in their abilities, like the 3.5 variants RadiantSophia mentioned above. It could easily be done with an archetype in PF, like the martial artist monk which gets rid of the "lawful" alignment requirement. But we do not currently have those variants, and the Inquisitor (while an excellent class) is not a sufficient substitute.
So ciretose, can we compromise in calling for a "Paladin of Freedom" archetype, or even a "Champion" or "Liberator" variant class like the antipaladin, ninja, or samurai?
This is my issue with your argument. Your Paladin isn't anything that doesn't exist in another class in the game, thematically. You can achieve the concepts you are describing with any number of other classes.
Why can't a Paladin be as described? It doesn't remove any of the concepts you are describing, it just doesn't deliver the specific mechanics.
Because the alternate mechanics available are too much of a stretch. The Inquisitor is Wis-based. They're a guile knight, which is why I chose one for my LG knight-bureaucrat who was "a good judge of character." The oracle is too casting-oriented and the oracle's curse complicates the concept. Cavaliers and Fighters don't get divine magic. And PF discourages multiclassing. It's possible to approach the CG champion from other angles, but it's unnecessarily difficult and you're probably going to have to compromise your concept at some point. And there is no good reason it should be this hard.
The mechanics don't need to be identical, but they should be closer than the Inquisitor, the Cavalier, or the Oracle, and it shouldn't require multiclassing.
I will again remind you that Cayden is himself described as refusing to compromise his ideals, leaving mercenary jobs undone rather than violate his principles, which sounds pretty paladin-like to me.
Sounds more like a Chaotic Good Mercenary to me...which is what he was.
There is nothing Paladin about breaking your word...or really being a mercenary...
Yes he broke a promise, but he did so in order to uphold his personal code and he did so even at personal cost (lost income from a job and getting a reputation as an unreliable mercenary). That's not lawful, but it's the same sort of conviction and self-sacrifice you would expect from a paladin. A real mercenary would finish the job, because bad things happen to you when you fail to complete a job.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"There is no way a Chaotic or Neutral Good person deserves these 'Divine Avatar' powers, go play Inquisitor."
This is the largest issue I have with this thread.
It isn't "deserved".
If a concept hates nature, does it get druid powers?
This a large part of what I hate about the Player Entitlement Community. Not everyone gets everything, all the time in every concept. I will now speak in the general "you" rather than the "specific" you.
If you are Chaotic and want to smite, play a Chevalier. Don't like that class? Play something else. There are billions of potential concepts, and you can't come up with one that actually will fit the setting? And you call that creative? Really?
Creative people are giving problems and they find multiple ways to solve them. If one doesn't work, they find another.
Uncreative people may find a solution, but are lost if that specific solution doesn't work.
The most creative guy in our group almost always GMs because he literally gets bored playing only one character for more than a few sessions, because there are so many other things he could be playing.
Within the given framework.
I love the Paladin concept. I think it is awesome. And I think even within it's relatively narrow framework there are a million ways to go with it.
But part of the concept is that when people find out you are a Paladin, that has a meaning to them. Much like when in the Dark Tower Series, people found out Roland was a Gunslinger, that had meaning to them.
Does that make Roland a Paladin? No. He is a gunslinger, that has a specific meaning in that setting. A Hellknight has a specific meaning in Golarion, and when one walks into a place, that means something.
I am fine with a class or archetype that has some Paladin features. I think the Chevalier is awesome, and they can smite.
But when you remove the restrictions, you fundamentalism change the class. Instead of "That is a Paladin, they are lawbringers, you can trust them" you get "That is a Paladin...um...who knows..."
|
|
@Weirdo - It is not the same kind of self sacrifice I, or the description, would expect from a Paladin.
They are held to a much higher standard.
Edit:
As to the second part, I would be fine with an Archetype. But Archetypes are invariably changed from the original, so just taping "Chaotic" onto the chassis wouldn't be enough for me.
Like I said, I like the chevalier, I wouldn't mind seeing that run out as a full archetype at all.
Then in what way is LG inferior to NG and CG? Their ability to be a barbarian? There are two Lawful-only core classes, one nonlawful-only core class, and no chaotic-only core classes. And the barbarian's signature Rage ability is available to lawful clerics and inquisitors through the Rage domain, and to lawful rangers through the Wild Stalker archetype, while the paladin's signature abilities are paladin exclusives. Seems a little skewed to me.The reason there are Inquisitors and Clerics is because a CG or NG character's contributions are wanted and needed. They just can't measure up to being a 'paladin'.Then you are of the opinion that NG and CG are inferior to LG?
In their capactity to be a Paladin, yes.
In the scope of "do you think Paladins can be anything but LG" discussion, I dunno how any of that is relevant.
Maybe start a "do you think you should have to be chaotic to play a barbarian" or "Should inquisitors have stricter requirements" thread?|
|
It seems odd to me that the lawbringer theme of the Paladin is something that isn't supported in the class mechanics.
The bard's jack-of-all-trades/performer theme is baked into the abilities of the class.
The cleric's warrior-priest theme is baked into the abilities of the class.
The druid's nature theme is baked into the abilities of the class.
The inquisitor's investigator/punisher theme is baked into the abilities of the class.
etc.
|
|
Creativity:
It's not about being unable to come up with other concepts. I've had my warforged mystic theurge concept on the shelf for four campaigns because it's a specific concept that hasn't fit well into the campaigns I've been involved in.
It's the fact that in order to pull off a very basic concept – charismatic CG holy warrior – you have to jump through hoops that a LG equivalent wouldn't have to jump though, and make compromises that a LG variant wouldn't have to make.
If I wanted to make a CG holy warrior of Cayden at ciretose' table, knowing how he feels about paladins, and if I really was set on playing a CG holy warrior of Cayden and not some other concept, I'd have two ways of pulling it off. First option, if I wanted a mounted warrior, is a cavalier-battle oracle multiclass. The oracle gives the cha-based divine magic with access to healing and buffs. I'd take the lame curse and say the character began riding as a child because of their gimp leg – it's one of the few curses that isn't too difficult to work with the concept. Second option, if I didn't want a mounted warrior (because challenge is great, but cavs have a lot invested in the mount) is to multiclass bard (arcane duelist)-fighter or bard-urban barbarian. Bards get, again, cha-based casting and access to buffs and healing. Oratory can be used as a subtle form of inspirational performance, and the arcane duelist archetype trades out a few skill-monkey abilities for more combat ability. The fighter/barbarian adds a bit more combat strength and durability.
Both of these options would work, but they both involve multiclassing – discouraged by PF – and the second in particular involves concept sacrifices, since the bard is technically an arcane caster and you wouldn't be able to wear medium armour until 10th level bard and heavy armour until 16th. (Though with fighter proficiency you could manage mithral breastplate as soon as you could afford it and get mithral full plate at bard 10.)
Flavour:
Yes, there's a whole lot of flavour put into the paladin in Golarion, especially with the “Faiths” supplements that detail paladins of specific gods. And it's good flavour, and I think James Jacobs has done it well.
But that's Golarion flavour. And as much as I appreciate what JJ has done with Golarion, as much as I respect his creative rights as the mastermind of the campaign setting – the super-GM as it were – I don't think that that setting specific-flavour ought to be enshrined in the core rules. James can argue that only LG gods would have interest in creating paladins, but he is merely describing the state of affairs he has envisioned for Golarion. It is not a universal truth that a chaotic god who has their own “uncompromising principles” will find the concept of a strict code distasteful. It is not a universal truth that that the powers of law and good can empower a warrior who shows unshakeable commitment to their causes but that the powers of chaos and good are incapable. Chaos might be unpredictable, but it isn't fundamentally incapable of granting reliable powers. Clerics don't have to worry about losing access to the Chaos domain because Chaos (or their chaotic god) didn't feel like granting those powers today. The idea that LG gods are the only ones who want paladins may be true for Golarion, but it is not a logical necessity for every PF setting.
If “paladin” or “gunslinger” means something in a specific world, they mean something in that world. That doesn't mean that they mean the same thing in every other world. If I decide that guns are illegal in my world and all gunslingers are nonlawful, that doesn't mean anything about how they should be treated in your world.
And if people really are attached to the meaning of “paladin” and the paladin ideal, you can just change the name of the class to “Champion” and clarify that LG champions are given the title “paladin.” That way you get “That's a paladin, you can trust them” and “That's a champion of Cayden, they do a lot of good work but don't expect them to keep promises.”
Weirdo (and probably Serum) wants a concept that only peripharally exists in the game, a chaotic divine warrior. There is the Chevalier, but that doesn't tickle his fancy, and if there were a variant that could reach that level while not overshadowing or replacing the Paladin as is, I would be fine with it. Hell, I might even play it. I like the Chevalier concept, I wish it was more fleshed out.
As to the second part, I would be fine with an Archetype. But Archetypes are invariably changed from the original, so just taping "Chaotic" onto the chassis wouldn't be enough for me.
Like I said, I like the chevalier, I wouldn't mind seeing that run out as a full archetype at all.
That's correct, I'm frustrated with the lack of that concept in the game, particularly for non-mounted variants. One cavalier and one fighter archetype with a small amount of cha-based divine power would go a long way towards addressing this, though personally I would rather see a paladin archetype that was analagous to the martial artist (I think smite and lay on hands are pretty crucial but mercy and most or all of the auras could be modified).
Then in what way is LG inferior to NG and CG? Their ability to be a barbarian? There are two Lawful-only core classes, one nonlawful-only core class, and no chaotic-only core classes. And the barbarian's signature Rage ability is available to lawful clerics and inquisitors through the Rage domain, and to lawful rangers through the Wild Stalker archetype, while the paladin's signature abilities are paladin exclusives. Seems a little skewed to me.In the scope of "do you think Paladins can be anything but LG" discussion, I dunno how any of that is relevant.
Maybe start a "do you think you should have to be chaotic to play a barbarian" or "Should inquisitors have stricter requirements" thread?
It's relevant because lawful characters have more options than chaotic characters and an easier work-around for the concept they don't get. If you want to make a lawful rage machine with wilderness skills, you can make a wild stalker ranger. The lawful monk isn't that big a deal because you can make a martial artist, or make an unarmed fighter with a fighter or barbarian, or even an inquisitor if you want the wisdom element. The paladin is harder to work around.
@Weirdo - It is not the same kind of self sacrifice I, or the description, would expect from a Paladin.
They are held to a much higher standard.
A lawful standard. You can see why I feel like this issue of a bias in the system in favour of law over chaos.
It seems odd to me that the lawbringer theme of the Paladin is something that isn't supported in the class mechanics.
The bard's jack-of-all-trades/performer theme is baked into the abilities of the class.
The cleric's warrior-priest theme is baked into the abilities of the class.
The druid's nature theme is baked into the abilities of the class.
The inquisitor's investigator/punisher theme is baked into the abilities of the class.
This too. The "good" aspect of the paladin is linked to the mechanics but the "lawful" element is only reflected in the description and the code - it actually isn't entwined with the mechanics in the way that bardic music is. And there's still a bard archetype that gets rid of performance!
|
|
It seems odd to me that the lawbringer theme of the Paladin is something that isn't supported in the class mechanics.
The bard's jack-of-all-trades/performer theme is baked into the abilities of the class.
The cleric's warrior-priest theme is baked into the abilities of the class.
The druid's nature theme is baked into the abilities of the class.
The inquisitor's investigator/punisher theme is baked into the abilities of the class.
etc.
It isn't like they can detect and smite evil, emit an aura of good...
Just to jump in on this, I do believe in some sense that LG is "better" than CG. (Not to say that CG or NG are bad.) If two people are equally Good, wouldn't you prefer the reliable one that followed the law than that guy who, while being an extremely nice fellow, maybe didn't return your lawn mower when he said he would or was always speeding down the street when your kids were playing? Again I like CG and NG but I think lawful is a better good. (If that makes sense.)
|
|
It isn't like they can detect and smite evil, emit an aura of good...It seems odd to me that the lawbringer theme of the Paladin is something that isn't supported in the class mechanics.
The bard's jack-of-all-trades/performer theme is baked into the abilities of the class.
The cleric's warrior-priest theme is baked into the abilities of the class.
The druid's nature theme is baked into the abilities of the class.
The inquisitor's investigator/punisher theme is baked into the abilities of the class.
etc.
Those don't look particularly lawful to me. It's as if they were aligned with an entirely different axis.
|
|
Those don't look particularly lawful to me. It's as if they were aligned with an entirely different axis.It isn't like they can detect and smite evil, emit an aura of good...It seems odd to me that the lawbringer theme of the Paladin is something that isn't supported in the class mechanics.
The bard's jack-of-all-trades/performer theme is baked into the abilities of the class.
The cleric's warrior-priest theme is baked into the abilities of the class.
The druid's nature theme is baked into the abilities of the class.
The inquisitor's investigator/punisher theme is baked into the abilities of the class.
etc.
If only they had spelled in out clearly in the description of the class, or under for code of conduct in the text of the mechanics section...
If you don't like it, that is fine. But it is there as clearly, or more clearly, than in the examples you provided.
You can not reasonably argue it isn't. You really can't.
Now if you want to argue for an alternative that offers some of the same options for a chaotic character, like the chevalier, that is something else entirely.
|
|
If only they had spelled in out clearly in the description of the class, or under for code of conduct in the text of the mechanics section...
If you don't like it, that is fine. But it is there as clearly, or more clearly, than in the examples you provided.
You can not reasonably argue it isn't. You really can't.
Now if you want to argue for an alternative that offers some of the same options for a chaotic character, like the chevalier, that is something else entirely.
Which of the class abilities makes absolutely no sense for a neutral good or chaotic good person who isn't following that specific Code of Conduct? If you can answer that, I might back down and concede that there is room for separate archetype/alternative who only gets some of the paladin class abilities.
|
|
Which of the class abilities makes absolutely no sense for a neutral good or chaotic good person who isn't following that specific Code of Conduct? If you can answer that, I might back down and concede that there is room for separate archetype/alternative who only gets some of the paladin class abilities.If only they had spelled in out clearly in the description of the class, or under for code of conduct in the text of the mechanics section...
If you don't like it, that is fine. But it is there as clearly, or more clearly, than in the examples you provided.
You can not reasonably argue it isn't. You really can't.
Now if you want to argue for an alternative that offers some of the same options for a chaotic character, like the chevalier, that is something else entirely.
Dude.
Following the Code of Conduct itself a Lawful Act. If you aren't removing that, they are lawful. Not fighting for a cause (any alignment), not living by a personal code (any alignment), submitting to follow a Code of Rules adjudicated by a third party (Almost the definition of Lawful).
Are you removing the code? Because if you aren't, that is very much a Lawful part.
And if you are removing the code, they aren't a Paladin anymore.
And that is more baked in than any of your examples, since we are talking about a divine warrior who smites evil and can lose all special abilities if they don't 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 before you say "Those aren't mechanics" Druids lose spells when they wear metal or don't rever nature, monks abilities when they wear armor, etc, etc...
It is in there. It is clear as day. You don't like it, I get it, but so far you have asked me to ignore paragraphs that specifically refute what you say and cited examples that are less clear than what is spelled out under the Paladin class.
You don't agree. Fine. It is still written into the class, both the description and the mechanics.
|
|
Let me try and rephrase the question.
Do the class features as a set not make any sense without the Code of Conduct? If they do, then why is the archetypal LG Paladin the only one to benefit from the entire set? As far as I see, any good character of any alignment could put these abilities to as good of a use as the Archetypal Lawful Good person. Especially if they still have certain fall conditions to keep them on the path of good.
Yes, I am different from Weirdo in that I believe the Code is unnecessary for a more general version of the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it marginalizes a true Paladin? If just any good character can do those things...
How about instead of being a binary on an off thing, it is gradual, let's say for example, a Paladin has done something to anger or displease his/her god, but the god doesn't want to lose a Paladin, so in order to let the Paladin know he/she is not acting Paladin-ish he/she suffers power incontinence, say a spell fizzles when it shouldn't, smites fail but are still consumed etc. Would add a bit of versimilitude to the game. If the Paladin keeps doing "evil" stuff then their contract is terminated - so to speak. If the Paladin "fixes" whatever it was doing wrong, then the power incontinence stops.How about we include a mechanism that allows Paladins to be restored to full power if they atone for their transgression.
What would we call that...
And back to the OP (because, you know, I wrote it so I'm kind of attached to it...) the point was that some players try to fit into the game as a primary goal and some players try to fit the game to them as a primary goal.
And the former are much more fun to game with.
Give their abilities a rising spell failure percentage, if you wanted to house rule in that direction.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see a restriction removing class abilities in response to character behavior as an attempt to enforce fluff through mechanics, not mechanics in themselves. (Armour restrictions are different because they are at least in part motivated by balance, while behavioral codes should not be used as balancing factors.)
As long as there is a chaotic god who is described as refusing to compromise his principles, I will not accept the argument that having a code in general is sufficient for a lawful alignment.
The specific paladin's code is lawful in nature. However, if you were to change that code to something following chaotic ideals (like the example I posted above) there would not be a single thing in the rest of the class that would be incongruent with that new chaotic code and alignment - there is not one ability granted by the class that supports law and that would look weird on a character who did not value law.
In contrast, the druid's restriction to revere nature is supported by their nature sense, trackless step, woodland stride, resist nature's lure, venom immunity, and wild shape. There is a much tighter association between the behavioral fluff and the mechanical abilities. And even then it would be possible to envision a character with those abilities who got bestial talents as a result of some connection to lycanthropy, or otherwise from having a protean nature. And I would let a player ignore the "revere nature" restriction for such a character because the concept still makes sense - though I'd probably require that they lose the druidic language, which comes from the druidic tradition and doesn't fit with the 'lycanthrope' concept.
Sometimes being creative about a concept requires reflavouring things. Not stripping away all flavour, but realizing that the default flavour is too narrow and changing it to be more palatable.
To clarify, I personally don't think a separate archetype is necessary for a CG paladin/champion, but I think it would make a decent compromise and an improvement over the current situation (no paizo-supported options for that concept at all).
Just to jump in on this, I do believe in some sense that LG is "better" than CG. (Not to say that CG or NG are bad.) If two people are equally Good, wouldn't you prefer the reliable one that followed the law than that guy who, while being an extremely nice fellow, maybe didn't return your lawn mower when he said he would or was always speeding down the street when your kids were playing? Again I like CG and NG but I think lawful is a better good. (If that makes sense.)
I'd prefer the guy who's willing to lie to the Nazis about the jews in their attic (strictly interpreted, paladins can't).
I'd prefer the guy who supports Rosa Parks in refusing to yield her seat as the law demands.
I'd prefer the guy who will give me a warning instead of a ticket when I'm speeding to the hospital to be there for the birth of my first child.
I'd prefer the guy who will cover for me when I'm 10 minutes late to work and my boss has threatened to fire me.
There are situations in which it's good to be lawful, and others in which it's good to be chaotic.
Because it marginalizes a true Paladin?
Well, right now you're marginalizing me, and you're marginalizing my friend's CG paladin of Sarenrae who physically dragged the soul of her son's murderer out of hell because she thought he deserved a chance at redemption. Not deserving of being a paladin, my full-plated posterior.
Why is this idea, this "true Paladin" worth defending over real players - real roleplayers invested in their concept? Especially when you don't even have to play this blasphemous false paladin or allow them at your own table?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any good character (not a paladin) could have accomplished that. What did being a paladin matter? It's anything any good character would have tried. My CG Ranger did something similar, he still doesn't have the mindset to be a paladin.
If you wanna house rule it, go for it. Play your CG paladin. I'll stick with my LG Paladin, and be happy. My belief that the alignment and code combination are important to the Paladin concept should not infringe on you or your friend's ability to do so. And it doesn't.
I don't understand why becasue I think this I'm kicking puppies or forcing you to play a certain way. You are obviously way too emotionaly invested in this idea. Houserule the mfer. It's not at my table, I don't care.
If you wanna play a CG Paladin in PFS, though, then you're arguing with the wrong guy in the first place.
You aren't going to change my mind, however.
No worries.
So I'm busy drawing up a Chaotic Good 'Paladin" (Liberator) and a Lawful Evil one (Subjugator).
Decided to keep Lay On Hands, Detect/Smite Evil (thinking of MAYBE changing it to Detect/Smite Law), and Divine Grace (Reckless Luck) and then giving some unique abilities.
My one big dilemma: Spellcasting + Channel Energy, or no?
|
|
If you're keeping Lay on Hands I think it makes sense to keep Channel.
I like "Subjugator" as a term for the LE variant. Might have to borrow that.
Also you gave me some advice about my monkbarian a while ago and I let the thread die, but your recommendation of snake style was very helpful and I wanted to thank you for that.
Any good character (not a paladin) could have accomplished that. What did being a paladin matter? It's anything any good character would have tried. My CG Ranger did something similar, he still doesn't have the mindset to be a paladin.
A good member of any class might have demonstrated the same selflessness and capacity for forgiveness (we had a summoner in the same campaign redeem a lich), but there is no level of goodness that a LG character can reach that a CG character cannot. And that is why the statement that CG characters aren't deserving of being paladins annoys me.
Let me explain by a safe, non-political analogy why I think this is important and why I'm arguing about it rather than just letting my group house-rule it.
Pathfinder is like a cookbook. Pathfinder is my favourite cookbook. I like its recipes better than all the competing cookbooks.
However, the person who wrote the Pathfinder cookbook strongly believes that chili by definition includes only meat, no beans. And so the chili recipe in the pathfinder cookbook does not have beans in it.
It's not hard to add beans, or even to replace the meat with beans entirely. But then I go and talk on the pathfinder forum about how much fun I had making chili the other night, or I ask for advice improving the chili recipe, and as soon as people hear that I put beans in it a bunch of them say "anyone who knows beans about chili knows real chili ain't got no beans" and "if you want beans you should make burritos instead." And they use the pathfinder recipe as evidence that chili doesn't and shouldn't have beans in it. And even if I shut up about my own delicious bean chili I will find people complaining about other cooks who just don't know how to make chili and how those philistines keep trying to put beans in it!
This is altogether a very unfriendly environment for someone who likes beans in their chili.
And that is why I would like it if the pathfinder cookbook somewhere devoted even a sentence to saying "you can also make this chili with beans."
I'd prefer the guy who's willing to lie to the Nazis about the jews in their attic (strictly interpreted, paladins can't).
I'd prefer the guy who supports Rosa Parks in refusing to yield her seat as the law demands.
I'd prefer the guy who will give me a warning instead of a ticket when I'm speeding to the hospital to be there for the birth of my first child.
I'd prefer the guy who will cover for me when I'm 10 minutes late to work and my boss has threatened to fire me.
There are situations in which it's good to be lawful, and others in which it's good to be chaotic..
And here I think is the problem. One person speaks in generalities and is immediately contradicted in highly specific examples. (Regardless as to whether I agree those are all non-lawful) Everybody is holding everybody else to much higher standards then they are holding themselves to. (Poor grammar but I'm at work. Don't tell anybody)
You don't need the cookbook to add beans to your chili, nor will having the cookbook changed to say you can add beans change the fact that I think chili is better as is, nor change anyone else's concepts about chili, or change the kind of chili they prepare at their table, or even get people to eat chili who wouldn't otherwise.
None of this should affect your ability to enjoy your chili with your friends.
But, this analgoy in my mind, would be more analagous to a chicken noodle recipie with niether chicken nor noodles, two essential parts of chicken noodle soup. You can't make it with pork and beans, and it still be chicken noodle soup.
<snip>
2) Paladin powers are by RAW granted by the forces of law and good, not their deity (and so serum is correct in saying that despite the mention of the deity in the class description, a paladin's adherence to their deities' specific teachings is lightly enforced at best - at least within the core rules, straying from your deity's teachings doesn't cause a fall)...
Ah ha! Thank you! The idea of a Paladin getting its powers from a god really bugs me, and I like this much better.
I'll probably regret saying anything about this, but I like the Lawful Good Paladin. I like that there's a class that not only fights for good, but can't bend. Isn't allowed to. It's not the kind of class I like to play (I prefer being more morally flexible), but I like that it exists. To me, being Lawful Good is an inherent part of what a Paladin is.
Now, here's the important part. To me, being Lawful Good is an inherent part of what a Paladin is. Clearly, a lot of you disagree. Whether you see the Paladin as just a set of mechanics, a paragon of law and good, or something in between, you don't have the same vision of the Paladin as I do. And as much as I like my view of the Paladin, I can't think of any logical reason to inflict that on anyone else.
I like the Paladin as presented in the CRB, but as someone said, it should be setting-neutral. And they're right, as much as it pains me to admit it. Alignment restrictions should be a setting-based thing, not a core-rules thing.
Within the milieu of the Robin Hood mythos, there is a good argument for him being lawful good; he DOES respect legitimate authority; he just views that legitimate authority as King Richard, not Prince John, who he views as illegitimate.
|
|
Chicken Noodle soup actually is by definition soup with chicken and noodles in it. It is right in the name. Chicken Noodle soup without chicken or noodles is more like a fighter who has poor BAB, no weapon proficiencies, and no other methods of actually fighting.
There are people who believe that by definition chili is meat-only, but there are also plenty of people with another definition. Google defines it as "A spicy stew of beef and red chilies or chili powder, often with beans and tomatoes." So beef mandatory by definition, beans optional but not excluded.
This is about the level of agreement we get on the definition of "paladin."
Miriam-Webster defines a paladin as "a trusted military leader (as for a medieval prince), a leading champion of a cause." Which doesn't say anything about a formal code or even religious devotion.
If we ask Google to "define paladin" we get:
1. Any of the twelve peers of Charlemagne's court, of whom the count palatine was the chief.
2. A knight renowned for heroism and chivalry.
Defining chivalry and knight and plugging them into the definition we get: "A man serving his sovereign or lord as a mounted soldier in armor, renowned for his heroism and following the medieval knightly system with its religious, moral, and social code." So a christian man with a horse and armour, following ideals like courtly love and supporting a feudal system. That's a heck of a lot more narrow - too narrow, in fact, to actually fit into a D&D/PF, which lack christianity (and we've gotten rid of the horse requirement, too).
4E defines the paladin more closely to the inclusive Miriam-Webster definition as a martial servant of a god of any alignment, and 3.5 with its semi-supported variants similarly defined it as a holy warrior, usually LG but other alignments possible. A spicy meat stew, beans permitted. PF continues to say despite all these contradictory opinions "chili by definition has no beans."
You don't need the cookbook to add beans to your chili, nor will having the cookbook changed to say you can add beans change the fact that I think chili is better as is, nor change anyone else's concepts about chili, or change the kind of chili they prepare at their table, or even get people to eat chili who wouldn't otherwise.
None of this should affect your ability to enjoy your chili with your friends.
And this I agree with, but I think it gets a bit fuzzy when you spend time on the forums where people actually do feel entitled to criticize your chili for not being the kind they like (and this goes for a few things other than paladins, notably WBL and magic item shops).
Let me show you an example of the problem: this thread. The OP says that he is making a CN paladin and the very first response is "you mean an Inquisitor?". There are six posters in that thread telling the OP that he cannot play a CN paladin, two that refer him to 3.5 variants but don't address his request for help with a deity, and three posts actually pointing him at appropriate deities. That's 5 helpful posts and 6 telling him he can't play what he wants to play. Note that in that thread I start my own post with "Have you got GM permission to play that? If so, here is my advice..." and later tell another poster "this is not RAW, but it's a common houserule, ask your GM nicely and be prepared to accept no for an answer." Not exactly "if your GM doesn't let you play a CN paladin he's a meany-face."
And the reason that this thread turned into a discussion about non-LG paladins is that a poster complained about another GM who actually let a player convert a poorly-played LG paladin to a CG one rather than taking his character away from him.
|
|
4E also has a completely different alignment system.
Lawful Good: Civilization and order.
Good: Freedom and kindness.
Unaligned: Having no alignment; not taking a stand.
Evil: Tyranny and hatred.
Chaotic Evil: Entropy and destruction.
So that isn't particularly informative.
And of course, we have a perfectly good definition in the rule book of the game we are playing.
But let us not completely handwave the sources.
"A man serving his sovereign or lord as a mounted soldier in armor, renowned for his heroism and following the medieval knightly system with its religious, moral, and social code."
And the reason this thread turning into a discussion about non-LG Paladins was a derail very early on.
|
|
Yes, and one of the things I dislike about 4E is that it got rid of CG and LE as distinct alignments. But 4E does preserve LG and paladins as concepts and describes LG similarly to PF LG (without downsides like sometimes feeling bound to follow evil laws) and it still doesn't define paladins as always LG.
And you're going to ignore the fact that the strict paladin definition requires
- being a man
- serving a lord (not a god)
- being mounted
and insist that the religious, moral, and social code is indispensable?
And given that the accept a religious, moral, social code as indispensable (which I personally accept - I like paladins to have a code) we can ignore the fact that the definition specifies the medieval knightly system which was christian in nature and supported killing nonchristians for being nonchristian (and also serfdom, racism, and other social injustices)? We can get rid of that specific code and substitute moral codes that are virtuous by our standards, but we can't substitute moral codes that are nonlawful in nature?
Let's try a different question since I actually don't give a fig what alignment my character is on paper so long as I'm allowed to behave according to my concept.
I've gone back and read a few of your old posts and you've stated several times that you believe that any character following a set of rules ("laws") that he believes are good and the correct moral law.
Would you let me play a paladin of Cayden Cailean following a code that required he do everything he can to fight slavery and oppression, that he not support imprisonment or restrictions on others free will, protect innocents, and not perform evil acts, as long as I defined that character as lawful good, since he has a clear set of rules that he believes are good and are the correct moral law?
|
|
Would you let me play a paladin of Cayden Cailean following a code that required he do everything he can to fight slavery and oppression, that he not support imprisonment or restrictions on others free will, protect innocents, and not perform evil acts, as long as I defined that character as lawful good, since he has a clear set of rules that he believes are good and are the correct moral law?
I can answer this one! "No, because Cayden Cailean has no use for a lawful servant".
|
|
Would you let me play a paladin of Cayden Cailean following a code that required he do everything he can to fight slavery and oppression, that he not support imprisonment or restrictions on others free will, protect innocents, and not perform evil acts, as long as I defined that character as lawful good, since he has a clear set of rules that he believes are good and are the correct moral law?I can answer this one! "No, because Cayden Cailean has no use for a lawful servant".
Which is James Jacobs arguments, which is consistent with a cleric's alignment having to be within one step of her deity's, along either the law/chaos axis or the good/evil axis I might add.
Although I think rather than saying a Lawful servant, he might say someone who follows an inflexible code, because Cayden thinks inflexible codes are dumb, and anyone who would follow one isn't someone who is in step with his philosophy. Which is a valid position.
I personally would consider being more flexible if a good player came up with a good concept.
But that doesn't mean there isn't a very valid logic in saying that someone who is supposed to "embody the teachings" of a deity shouldn't share the alignment of the deity.
Soup stuff
That's exactly my point. In Pathfinder LG and 'must follow a code of conduct' are the very definition of paladin. It is no longer a paladin if you remove these. Again, IMHO.
I think you wasted your time looking up real-world definitions. They really are irrelevant to this discussion. :)
I suppose that depends on if the alignment is central to the teachings of the deity; I can easily posit a deity of magic that is just plain neutral, but where that neutrality really isn't a central feature of their teachings, where the magic is much more important for example. Or where the person is embodying one ASPECT of their teachings. But yeah a traditional paladin lawful good Calieanite seems off.
Let's try a different question since I actually don't give a fig what alignment my character is on paper so long as I'm allowed to behave according to my concept.
As a GM I would care, greatly. Why write it down otherwise?
Oooh for 3.5 or PF?
|
|
That's exactly my point. In Pathfinder LG and 'must follow a code of conduct' are the very definition of paladin. It is no longer a paladin if you remove these. Again, IMHO.
I think you wasted your time looking up real-world definitions. They really are irrelevant to this discussion. :)
You and ciretose are arguing that by definition a paladin behaves in a lawful manner and that it is not possible to make a consistent definition that does not include lawfulness.
I was trying to demonstrate that there are a number of possible definitions - official definitions, in other game systems and in the dictionary. Because these other definitions exist and are self-consistent, it follows that a paladin that is not lawful good by definition is a reasonable concept.
It's not your definition, but it's not nonsensical powergaming or player entitlement.
Let's try a different question since I actually don't give a fig what alignment my character is on paper so long as I'm allowed to behave according to my concept.As a GM I would care, greatly. Why write it down otherwise?
Because the definitions of alignment are, if not completely arbitrary, at least subjective enough that Ashiel and I can look at the behavior of the iconic barbarian and think "lawful." If I'm playing the iconic barbarian and I write down alignment: CN (or whatever the official alignment is) and my GM says "you know, you're acting lawfully, but the concept is consistent so just change your alignment to LN and keep playing" I'm fine with that. If I come up with a monk concept that I think is nonlawful (believes in rugged independence, self-determination, adaptability) but my GM says "you are disciplined and come from a martial tradition, that counts as lawful" I am fine with that.
Where I have a problem is if my GM says "your barbarian is behaving lawfully because he respects the judgment of his tribal elders. He loses his rage abilitiy" or "you're clearly nonlawful because you advise people to put their desires above their lawful duties, no more levels in monk for you." The alignment system shouldn't be used to deny reasonable character concepts.
But that doesn't mean there isn't a very valid logic in saying that someone who is supposed to "embody the teachings" of a deity shouldn't share the alignment of the deity.
I would agree in most cases (though Arssanguinus is right that there might be deities for whom alignment isn't a central part of their portfolio, such as the TN deity of magic). This is why I'm skeptical of the LG paladin of Abadar who thinks of slavery as an economic necessity. I feel like that character should be a LN paladin of Abadar.
Moar stuff
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
[b]Additionally, a paladin's code]/b] 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.
Dunno why a barbarian respecting legitimate authority makes them lawful, or it just happens to coincide with a small part of a paladin's code. This does not mean barbarian = lawful.
A barbarian who happens to do these things at random does not make them lawful.
I really think there's some over-thinking going on here.
