|
Which is why the thief is suppossed to steal from the fighter without the fighter knowing.
THIS is the problem right here!
No! The rogue is not supposed to steal from his mates, any more than the fighter is supposed to axe his mates in the head!
Why on earth would anyone treat their friends so badly? My 'bad experiences' were not with evil party members, but with good party members! The common belief seems to be that just because the rogue class used to be called the thief class, that they are 'role-playing' by compulsively stealing even from their friends! Because thieves are supposed to steal!
If that behaviour makes sense to you, then fighters are only 'role-playing' when they axe their friends in the head, because fighters are supposed to fight!
I steal from my friends.
A pen here, a book there, and they do the same with me.
I don't see any problem with the Rogue stealing the Fighter's spare bootlaces or something to "keep himself in practice".
Now if he starts stealing gold or magic shit feel free to use your big axe to chop his little hand off.
Or maybe the expectations of playing a Paladin is something players have trouble conforming to.
Some people don't do well with structure.
Some people do have trouble with the concept of the Code itself or just want the power without the restrictions, true, which is why you get those Paladins who use their position as a Paladin to slaughter mercilessly any creature that shows a hint of evil (the "Orc women and children" scenario, or the government of Cheliax).
But you can't deny some GMs enforce a much too strict interpretation of the Code. The kind that would make a Paladin fall for complimenting the lady of the house on her beauty, when her stat block says she has 8 Charisma or something.
GMs like that exist, but that's a problem that covers a hell of a lot more than just paladins. That's like the person I once played with who spontaneously decided to have everyone in the party make high DC perception checks to avoid walking off a cliff Roadrunner cartoon style.
Also, all the talk about punishing the paladin for what the rest of the party does is just plain confusing to me. There's a whole paragraph devoted to explaining, specifically, that a paladin can hang around with and help out full-on evil people if there's any sort of good coming out of it.
Again, I'm fairly sure paladins, like anything else in the game, should always be just fine and dandy if everyone is aware of the rules and you have healthy relationships in your gaming group.
|
|
Which is why the thief is suppossed to steal from the fighter without the fighter knowing.THIS is the problem right here!
No! The rogue is not supposed to steal from his mates, any more than the fighter is supposed to axe his mates in the head!
Why on earth would anyone treat their friends so badly? My 'bad experiences' were not with evil party members, but with good party members! The common belief seems to be that just because the rogue class used to be called the thief class, that they are 'role-playing' by compulsively stealing even from their friends! Because thieves are supposed to steal!
If that behaviour makes sense to you, then fighters are only 'role-playing' when they axe their friends in the head, because fighters are supposed to fight!
Bugs the hell out of me when players do that. "Hey, watch out for our rogue, he's dodgy" - when the character's never stolen a GP in his whole career...
Grrrr.
This, too!
I've played rogues that never stole anything, but when other players found out that my PC had rogue levels, just assume I'm going to steal stuff! From them!
Why? Because all rogues suffer the consequences of the behaviour that I highlighted in my previous post.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why does the third one need to be alignment restricted? Why should LG get more options than non-LG?Why shouldn't they?
And I'm the naturally contrary person? Seriously? "Why shouldn't they?" Because it isn't fair. So defend unfairness.
"It is better for some players to have an easier time playing a game and expressing the character they've created within that game while others should have to fight tooth and nail and gear up for a veritable knock-down, drag-out philosophical war just to get the same opportunity with their own creations because (BLANK)."
What is (BLANK)?
More to the point, are you honestly perplexed that someone would want to speak out against this? "Oh, I'm getting a crap deal when I could very easily not be getting such a crap deal and there's no rational reason behind it, but whatever; I don't mind being a doormat."
How is the same thing occurring? It wouldn't be a Paladin if it weren't upheld to a higher standard of Good and Law/Justice. A Fighter can be a Fighter whatever weapon he uses. A Paladin cannot be a Paladin without the LG restriction. If it were any other alignment it could still be a Holy Warrior, but not a Paladin.Now, you can make an argument that there should exist other Paladin-esque classes, but that's neither here nor there since we're talking about people following the Code that they agreed to uphold when they picked the class. The class has a Code. There can be a great deal of flexibility in the Code, but the class by name is defined by it.
(Except that Paladins, for all their alignment restrictions and Codes and the stick up their rear, are demonstrably not any more good than any other character without all that baggage. For example, I can create a Cleric character devoted to the ideals of Fire and Forge (i.e., the Fire and Artifice domains). I can also make him CG, but of course, in this case, it's incidental. He's CG by pure happenstance, just like his CG Rogue buddy; he's not invested with the Cosmic struggle or the Divine Force of Good in the universe, he just happens to be a swell guy. Nevertheless, if you stand him up next to a restriction-suffering Paladin of equal level, and cast Detect Good, both of them will radiate Good (even though one doesn't really care), both will radiate the same amount of Good, and all the Paladin's behavior restrictions don't mean jack. And that's according to the closest thing in-universe to an objective scientific measurement.)
Thank you Weirdo for the example of the Paladin from even further back. Never played that long ago (probably has much to do with my lack of tolerance for this archaic bull), so was unaware. I chose the hypothetical Swords-Only-Fighter to illustrate my point, but this works, too.
So, Rynjin, why is the Pathfinder version of the Paladin so sacred when it wasn't previously? "A Paladin cannot be a Paladin without being human. If it were any other race, it could still be a Holy Warrior, but not a Paladin. ... The class has a racial restriction. There can be a great deal of flexibility in the racial restriction, but the class by name is defined by it." Why isn't that true now? If the name could change, it can change still more. Explain why that is not so.
Furthermore, why the hangup with the name?
I want to play a Knight, but there's no class named Knight. Am I therefore not allowed to play a Knight? When Pathfinder first came out, I wanted to play a Samurai character, but Ultimate Combat hadn't been released (likely hadn't even been a twinkle in its creators' eyes) yet, so am I not allowed to play a Samurai? And if the GM allows me to, say, use the Fighter class while I refer to my character as a Samurai and the game had lasted long enough for Ultimate Combat to be released, would I then be required to rewrite my character?
Suppose I'm about to start a game and I want to play a Fighter and I make the grievous mistake of telling the GM that my character will be an "Expert Warrior". Must I then take levels of Expert and Warrior because those are the words I used? There's a series of books where the main character is a type of spellcaster referred to as a "Witch-Gunslinger". Suppose I want to play that sort of a character. Looking through the books, the Spellslinger archetype for the Wizard in Ultimate Combat would seem to be the simplest way to express such a character. Am I required to multiclass Witch and Gunslinger?
If you thought the above examples ridiculous, then you agree with me that names don't mean anything (they may provide inspiration if the player doesn't know what he wants to do; they may inform and suggest, but not dictate). If you agree that names don't mean anything, then the name of the Paladin class doesn't mean anything. If the name of the Paladin class doesn't mean anything, then any and all Holy-Warrior/Crusader/Champion-esque sorts of characters that would likewise be expressed by the Paladin class should be expressed by that class. (Personally, I think there should've been one class, the Champion (or whatever; some name evocative of the general idea but without all the misbegotten baggage associated with it). And then they could've gone on to say that LG members of this class are called "Paladins".)
I literally can't think of a more simple way to express that. It's like saying "If A=B and B=C, then A=C".
Again, valid, but what does this have to do with the thread?
Because it deserves to be said. It needs to be said. And we'll only ever get this long-overdue change if it keeps being said, whenever and wherever remotely applicable. If this interrupts or deviates another thread, well, just know that I'm tired of this, too.
You're supposed to see it as a fact of this game that the Paladin has a Code. It is neither good nor bad. It just is.
No. Wrong. Just entirely wrong.
If this game were a setting specific game, then there wouldn't be an issue. Any RPG set in Star Wars is meant to facilitate playing in that specific universe with its specific assumptions. For instance, using Force Lightning (or Sith Lightning as it's sometimes called) is bad in that universe. You're supposed to buy into the idea that it is physically, metaphysically, psychologically, and just plain completely impossible for a person to exist that can use Force Lightning and not have a twisted, charred twig of a soul in his body.
Star Wars doesn't make that claim about anywhere else. Storm isn't evil. Thor isn't evil. Black Lighting, Static Shock, Captain Marvel and the Power of Shazam. None of them are evil. But it doesn't matter to the Star Wars RPG how lightning is handled in other universes. The Star Wars RPG, whichever one we're talking about, is only concerned with the Star Wars universe, and if you want to make those rules work for another setting, even one you made up yourself, then the onus is on you to hammer that ruleset into your own mold.
A setting-neutral game system, on the other hand, does not get to make that assumption. If there were an overarching game system to handle a wide variety of worlds including Star Wars, DC, and Marvel, then it'd be a poor move to make Thor and Captain Marvel have to be evil just because Palpatine and Dooku are the only ones in Star Wars to use lightning.
Pathfinder is the same way. It's specifically billed as such. One of its design goals was to provide backwards compatibility, to work with games from 3.5, set in other settings than the new Golarion setting they were coming out with.
If Pathfinder were setting-specific, intended to be used only in Golarion, then this wouldn't be an issue. Paizo has every right to say that it is physically and metaphysically impossible for anyone to figure out that "Exact Right Amount of Divine Empowerment" to get just enough Divine spellcasting ability without taking on so much (i.e., no more than four spell levels over 20 class levels) that they lose the ability to learn the more mundane methods of fighting as expertly as they want to (i.e., a full BAB) without also being LG and adopting a Code of Conduct. They don't get to say that about Faerun, Eberron, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, ancient Greece, any other pre-published setting, or any other home-brewed setting. If other settings happen to share that commonality, then it's a coincidence.
But it shouldn't be the going assumption. Just because 3.5 made that mistake (even though it, too, was a setting-neutral game system) doesn't mean it should be forever perpetuated.
So please, let's stop this. A player should play a Paladin because they want to. A player should play a LG character because they want to. A player should play a LG Paladin, not because it's the only way to play a Paladin, but because they want to. What does it serve to introduce this aggravation? Why must some players continue to have to beg/bribe/cajole/threaten/blackmail/armtwist/etc. their GMs to ignore this just to get the same enjoyment from the game as their fellow players?
Why is it that when we set the two opposing groups, those who just want to play their Paladin characters their way and are perfectly happy to let other players do the same, and those who can only enjoy their Paladin characters if they know that somewhere, someone else is having to fight an uphill battle, why is it that Pathfinder seems to be supporting the selfish?
Because this seriously needs to stop. As intelligent people, this is unworthy of us.
What I said (twice now I think) was that a Paladin is not a Paladin without the Code, BUUUUT there's no reason there shouldn't be other alignment Paladins.
I'm agreeing with you on that account. It's kinda silly that the only way to play a character with the Paladin's class features (Smite, Lay on Hands, Full BaB, Detect Alignment, etc.) is to be Lawful Good and be bound to an extremely restrictive Code.
What I don't agree with is that
A.) A Lawful good person flat-out has more options (they do not, there are other classes that LG characters cannot qualify for).
and
B.) I am a "mean little kid who is withholding your toy from you" because I face the facts that Paladin, as he is currently in this games rules, is defined by the Code. He is. That is indisputable. Any other Paladin-esque class (We'll call them the Tyrant and the Liberator for now) would also have a Code that defines them. You can't have something like the Paladin without the Code as it is currently.
I quite like the concept of the Code as well. It gives very clear instructions for how the Paladin should act (though vague enough to be left open to interpretation). It's just not implemented well (it's TOO vague, or too rigid depending on the angle you look at it from).
|
|
So you see no difference in adhering to a clear rule (you cant see past x feet) and an argument over the overly ambiguous mess that is the dnd/pathfinder alignment system? Seriously?
The problem with paladins isnt that people intentionally break the code and want to get away with it (not that this doesnt happen its just not the problem with the code). Its the fact that as you say, the dm and the player have to agree on what the code means and how it is actually implemented, and for the most part that is really hard to do. Ive seen threads where a detailed code been posted (i forget what paizo product had a bunch of codes for different deities) and still people couldnt agree on what it meant and how that applies to in game situations.
We can all agree that if you cant see past 30ft you shouldnt react to things at 50ft. If I have to have a detailed discussion with my dm on how weapon focus works, something is wrong. If in thousands of message board threads we havent resolved how channel energy is to be used in game, we have issues. But these lines:
"Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
Have been the subject of more discussion, more confusion, and more table conflict then how many levels of magic user gandalf has. And that is a problem. It has been a problem for a long time, and its not the fault (usually) of some deceitful and dastardly player for trying to take advantage of it. Its that everyone has their own picture of how a paladin should act, and more often then not the two pictures dont look the same.
There is a section in his post that pretty much answered anything you said.
As long as you and your DM sit down and establish how each one of you pictures the code, and come to an agreement, then everything is good. Arguing with people on the forum about it pointless unless they sit at your table.
Its actually simple at the of the day. Come to an agreement with your DM and trust in his judgement.
Nuff said.
It never makes sense, because when roleplaying (and I am super into the ROLE aspect) makes you act against your team, that character should be punished by the DM. In my view, it is cheating. Any time you use an ability against a fellow character, it is cheating, because the point of the game is to work together. It is the main theme of the game in which everything rests on. If you do any robbing or stealing, you are cheating, and thus harsh punishments come on cheaters, or you just not allow it.
Ehhhh... I don't know. This sounds very 'absolute'. I don't think a player should ever MALICIOUSLY steal from each other... But I can see some harmless pranks and such coming up.
In the last AP we were on... our characters were stuck on an island. My rogue kept putting notes in a bottle and tossing them into the sea....
Those bottles were the alchemists... and no he never asked ;)
We never played close with the 'mundane' equiptment for someone who relies on bombs as a class ability. so no harm no foul.
I'm a big fan of the mentalist and he is CONSTANTLY stealing things from allies... Tea, notes, Badges... Whatever he wants, he pretty much takes and then gives back at a dramatic moment. They find it ANNOYING....but these things happen.
Little stealing for fun or practice is fine. As long as the other player isn't acutally 'put out' by it. IN fact it could be the HEIGHT of the CN rogues 'Role-playing'
|
|
The text of Atonement suggests that a paladin falls even if the evil act was unwilling and/or unknowing:
If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you.Sure, you don't need to pay a 2500gp fine, but you still fall and need to seek out a ninth-level cleric to beg to be allowed to play the game again if you are tricked into doing something with evil consequences or forced to perform an evil act by a Dominate effect. Don't ask me why anyone thought this was a good game mechanic.
But man obviously the real problem is those evil players who just want to cheat the system man I hate them.
Although some story elements don't work well with the "knowingly".Yeah it would really suck if we couldn't arbitrarily strip a player of all class features for doing something they had no way of knowing was in any way wrong. I mean getting randomly screwed over is the whole point of the paladin class right?
I wouldnt go by what Atonement says. I would look at the Paladin entry first because the woeding of Atonement could be a mistake.
You cannot commit a willful act of evil through a Dominate spell because you get a saving throw. Now if you allow it to effect you then that would be will full but the moment you declare that save, then you are resisting. After that, you are not doing anything willfully.
Using Atonement as the basis is a poor argument.
What I don't agree with is that
A.) A Lawful good person flat-out has more options (they do not, there are other classes that LG characters cannot qualify for).
and
B.) I am a "mean little kid who is withholding your toy from you" because I face the facts that Paladin, as he is currently in this games rules, is defined by the Code. He is. That is indisputable. Any other Paladin-esque class (We'll call them the Tyrant and the Liberator for now) would also have a Code that defines them. You can't have something like the Paladin without the Code as it is currently.
I quite like the concept of the Code as well. It gives very clear instructions for how the Paladin should act (though vague enough to be left open to interpretation). It's just not implemented well (it's TOO vague, or too rigid depending on the angle you look at it from).
A: It doesn't matter that a LG person has more "Divine Warrior" options at the expense of "Raging Warrior" options (which is also screwed up, as almost everything a Barbarian can do, including Rage, can be replicated by a character with a lawful alignment). A player should have X options for playing Y character concept, regardless of what sort of behavior or motivations a character may have. That means that Barbarians shouldn't have alignment restrictions. Same with Monks, Druids, Paladins, Assassins, and everything else. Get rid of this artificial conceit that "What Works in Golarion is True of the Entirety of All that Can Ever Be Ever".
B: To paraphrase the old line: "Crappy rules prevail in a game system when good/rational men do nothing". It is only indisputable while we hang our heads and accept the current ruleset as sacred. I mean, I agree. As the rules currently stand, the Paladin is poorly written and unfairly treated. Yes, indeed, this is an indisputable fact. It need not stay that and it shouldn't.
As for the Code, I can see it being written in the same little blurb saying "Champions of the LG alignment are usually called Paladins and adopt the following code", but I hope to God you don't mean to say that every version of every alignment in every setting of Paladin should have some form of code.
I mean, what is the purpose of the Code as a mandatory institution? Who needs yet another Sword of Damocles lurking over their heads ready to strike down on a whim and turn them into an NPC? Let that be optional, too. For every version of the Paladin/Champion/whatever, including LG.
Again, why?
Because if it were a choice why would anyone ever use the Code? I like the Code, as I said, in concept. They just need to be more well-defined/less rigid in some places. Yes, each alignment of "Paladin" should have its own Code. It'd really just be a more formal wording of the quick alignment briefs on the Alignment page.
I've never been on board with the whole "No Alignment Restricted Classes!" bandwagon. All it really hinders is multiclassing.
And the Code doesn't have to be this sword hanging over your head unless your GM is a dick. It's a guideline of how to play your alignment to the utmost.
Look at it this way, you have a Chaotic Good "Liberator". Chaotic Good characters are generally against oppression and are for freedom of thought, speech, expression, and whatever.
The entire point of a Paladin-esque class is to exemplify what your alignment is. The current Paladin is the truest form of Lawful Good. In our example, the Liberator would have a blurb in his Code that says something like "A Liberator cannot tolerate willful oppression of another sentient race, and must try to fight oppression wherever possible. Not all legitimate authority figures are oppressive, this is not to be taken as an indicator that the Liberator must espouse anarchist rule".
That's not particularly restrictive at all, but it defines a portion of the Liberator's Code of Conduct, without infringing upon his ability to act.
Also, how do you get Rage as a Lawful character? So far as I know, no god that grants the Rage SubDomain or Anger Inquisition allows a Lawful alignment (The only two that grant it are Gorum and Rovagug, right?).
Wait, nevermind. Forgot about godless Clerics. =/
|
|
Because if it were a choice why would anyone ever use the Code? I like the Code, as I said, in concept. They just need to be more well-defined/less rigid in some places. Yes, each alignment of "Paladin" should have its own Code. It'd really just be a more formal wording of the quick alignment briefs on the Alignment page.
I've never been on board with the whole "No Alignment Restricted Classes!" bandwagon. All it really hinders is multiclassing.
And the Code doesn't have to be this sword hanging over your head unless your GM is a dick. It's a guideline of how to play your alignment to the utmost.
Look at it this way, you have a Chaotic Good "Liberator". Chaotic Good characters are generally against oppression and are for freedom of thought, speech, expression, and whatever.
The entire point of a Paladin-esque class is to exemplify what your alignment is. The current Paladin is the truest form of Lawful Good. In our example, the Liberator would have a blurb in his Code that says something like "A Liberator cannot tolerate willful oppression of another sentient race, and must try to fight oppression wherever possible. Not all legitimate authority figures are oppressive, this is not to be taken as an indicator that the Liberator must espouse anarchist rule".
That's not particularly restrictive at all, but it defines a portion of the Liberator's Code of Conduct, without infringing upon his ability to act.
Also, how do you get Rage as a Lawful character? So far as I know, no god that grants the Rage SubDomain or Anger Inquisition allows a Lawful alignment (The only two that grant it are Gorum and Rovagug, right?).
Wait, nevermind. Forgot about godless Clerics. =/
Strict rigidness is a part of the paladin.
If the rogue lies, cheats and poisons? It isn't the paladin doing them himself, but does allowing it make him and accomplice, thus indirectly violating the oath? (I say yes)So if the rogue, who didn't roll a paladin and never signed up for the restrictions of the paladin's code of conduct, chooses to use poison, should the paladin... leave the party forever? Attack the rogue? Get a raise for Darklord Hitlermancer so that he can kill him properly?
I'd ask if the rogue is carrying enough antidotes for those poisons so each member of the party can carry two ot more in case they accidentally poison an innocent, if playing a paladin I believe the appropriate response from the paladin would be no but I can't see a paladin falling for emphasising to the rogue that if he wants to carry poison he needs to have more than sufficient antidotes if he doesn't want to be smited the first time he openly uses it in front of the paladin.
Not kill mind you, but a warning is required carrying antidotes to poisons' is fine the fact some antidotes are poisons in their own right mind you...
Sometimes it's the DM, sometimes it's the player...
When I was 16 I DMed my 14 year-old brother and some of his mates in AD&D 1st ed. One of his mates wanted to play a paladin so we had a conversation about what it means to be a paladin. At one point they took a goblin prisoner. After questioning, the paladin said, 'I kill the goblin!'
I pointed out that killing a prisoner (who hadn't actualy done anything wrong, had co-operated and who had been promised his freedom in return for said co-operation) would be an evil act.
'Right, I accidentally fall on 'im wi' me axe!'
At least they came up with an excuse in one game I played in the paladin's player gained the help of a captured bandit so we could infiltrate the bandit lair and even though the bandit kept their word he immediately murdered him before fighting the rest of the bandits and then tried to coerce the bandits' families to join his faith ignoring the fact he had openly murdered their spouses in front of their kids...
Later on after we stormed a goblin's lair my character questioned a goblin prisoner only to have the paladin storm in and kill her even after the rest of us protested as she was in no shape to even pose a threat and was unarmed and unarmored... given the guy runnign the paladin runs his games in the forgotten realms after reading one novel regarding paladins in the realms I can understand where that idea came from, completely wrong from my viewpoint but as this thread said earlier don't run a paladin if your view doesn't match your dm's viewpoint...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a player in a game who played a rogue who stole from the party at every opportunity. Whenever he sold items for them, he pocketed half the difference between what he got and the standard 50% sell (he had a high diplomacy, and usually got about 60% for the items).
Drove one of the other player's nuts, because he couldn't say anything in character (playing a paladin). The two of them spent almost a year in a dance, the paladin trying to catch out the rogue, the rogue avoiding being caught steeling by the paladin.
Finally, the Paladin caught him out when they were in a remote wilderness, no way to buy supplies, out of healing, and hunkering down in some ruins avoiding lizardfolk patrols. The rogue reaches into his backpack and pulls out two wands of cure moderate, and a few dozen potions, passing them around. When asked where he got it all, he admitted to having been skimming for the last year in game, and saving up and storing this for emergencies.
The Paladin was nearly apoplectic, he had been trying to catch out the rogue for stealing from the party, but had just found out the rogue was doing it to keep the party from getting killed in an emergency.
"Why didn't you just tell us?! It's been driving me nuts!"
"Well, you're all stuffy, and besides, you trying to catch me at it made me more careful, which made me less likely to get caught by other people, which made me safer, and made it more likely I'd still be around in the case of an emergency." The rogue grins. "Besides, it's fun watching the vein on your forehead pulse when you can't prove I did something."
Its not BS, its fact. Which you admit yourself in your second from last sentence.
Who was talking about novels either? (Other than yourself)
I saw a film once (Drive), it was great and it didn't have any paladins in it. Therefore I'm banning paladins from my game.
This makes nooooooo sense....
Probably because somewhere along the line you made an utterly baffling leap of logic that linked "Every class has interesting story potential built into the class" to "There are good things without Paladins /sarcasm hurr durr".
|
Every class has potential. But that potential is partially based on limits of the class being followed. Structure has benefits that help us avoid clownish builds that disrupt the verisimilitude of the game.
The paladin is, by definition a holy warrior. If they have no "holy" theme to fight for, they cease to be a paladin in the same way a cleric or druid who has no faith from which it draws power ceases to be a cleric.
Because if it were a choice why would anyone ever use the Code? I like the Code, as I said, in concept. They just need to be more well-defined/less rigid in some places. Yes, each alignment of "Paladin" should have its own Code. It'd really just be a more formal wording of the quick alignment briefs on the Alignment page.
The Pirate's Codes listed towards the back of the Pirates of the Inner Sea booklet are all optional. Why would anyone ever use them? Because they want to. And because they're optional, with only in-story consequences looming over the player rather than artificial, forced penalties, they're all the more likely to be chosen.
I've never been on board with the whole "No Alignment Restricted Classes!" bandwagon. All it really hinders is multiclassing.
How? "Oh, no. I have more options available to me. What cruel god would do this? Why, oh, why?"
And the Code doesn't have to be this sword hanging over your head unless your GM is a dick. It's a guideline of how to play your alignment to the utmost.
No, it doesn't. Making it optional by default accomplishes this. It furthermore forces dick GMs to present themselves as such from the getgo, rather than hiding behind the ruleset. "Even though I'm ostensibly the guy in charge, I have to smack you with a nerf-hammer for some poorly-established reason because that's how the game is, the game as it is is what we agreed to play, so we're all stuck with it." Yeah, right.
The entire point of a Paladin-esque class is to exemplify what your alignment is. The current Paladin is the truest form of Lawful Good.
Yeah, that's one view. Another view is that the Paladin is the halfway point between the Cleric and the Fighter, like the Ranger is the halfway point between the Druid and the Fighter. The current Paladin is the halfway point between a LG Cleric and a LG Fighter. AND THEN, they added in a Code because the alignment restriction wasn't already enough of a thorn. This just so happens to be the truest form of Lawful Good that some people enjoy and others have allowed themselves to knuckle under this crap for so long that they can't see it another way.
Also, how do you get Rage as a Lawful character? So far as I know, no god that grants the Rage SubDomain or Anger Inquisition allows a Lawful alignment (The only two that grant it are Gorum and Rovagug, right?).
Wait, nevermind. Forgot about godless Clerics. =/
Actually, I'm referring to the Wild Stalker archetype of the Ranger found in Ultimate Combat. 4th level, gain rage with an effective barbarian level of your ranger level -3. 5th level, they start gaining rage powers.
Add to that the Trap Sense from the Rogue (who can be lawful) and the Fast Movement similar to the Monk (who must be lawful) and there's no good reason why the Barbarian has to be non-lawful.
Yet another gaping issue.
|
"Why didn't you just tell us?! It's been driving me nuts!"
"Well, you're all stuffy, and besides, you trying to catch me at it made me more careful, which made me less likely to get caught by other people, which made me safer, and made it more likely I'd still be around in the case of an emergency." The rogue grins. "Besides, it's fun watching the vein on your forehead pulse when you can't prove I did something."
That's fantastic.
Personally, I think there should've been one class, the Champion (or whatever; some name evocative of the general idea but without all the misbegotten baggage associated with it). And then they could've gone on to say that LG members of this class are called "Paladins".
Pretty sure this is what I'm doing in my next campaign. I'm ditching the alignment restriction, but still trying to decide whether the history of the paladin title makes it worth changing up the terminology.
I'm pretty set on getting rid of all alignment restrictions, actually. CG fey-oriented druids, LN Barbarians concerned with tribal honour (or Lawful Urban Barbarian guardsmen), CN drunken master monks. Whatever, as long as you roleplay it well.
Yeah, that's one view. Another view is that the Paladin is the halfway point between the Cleric and the Fighter, like the Ranger is the halfway point between the Druid and the Fighter. The current Paladin is the halfway point between a LG Cleric and a LG Fighter. AND THEN, they added in a Code because the alignment restriction wasn't already enough of a thorn. This just so happens to be the truest form of Lawful Good that some people enjoy and others have allowed themselves to knuckle under this crap for so long that they can't see it another way.
This isn't true. If rangers and paladins were just halfway points between other classes, there'd be no reason for them - multiclassing would produce essentially the same result. The ranger isn't a halfway point between a fighter and druid - the favoured terrain and favoured enemy features are intended to make it specifically a skilled hunter or guide rather than just "someone who protects nature but has more combat training than a druid and less magic." Likewise the whole reason that the non-LG paladin is important is that it's a very different class from a Fighter/Cleric or Cavalier/Cleric. The paladin is supposed to be charismatic - inspirational - while the cleric is wise. Second, while the cleric's primary loyalty is to their deity, the paladin's primary loyalty is to their alignment and their code.
I believe that the LG-only rule is unfair, but I do think that all paladins should have some sort of code. All classes that draw heavily on divine power have a fall condition - druids, clerics, and inquisitors as well as paladins. A paladin does draw power from their convictions, so they need a well-defined set of convictions to draw power from. A champion has to be a champion of something. Default codes for each alignment should be available, and players should be encouraged to fine-tune these codes with the help of the GM, so that everyone has a chance to champion a cause of their choosing, but getting rid of any form of code does render the paladin/champion a little pointless.
Again, where are you getting this? What about a wizard studying his spells, a sorcerer trying to control her inborn powers, a fighter learning his bladework, a rogue skulking about, among others doesn't have something that's worth building a story around? Are you actually saying that the only class mechanic that encourages story telling is a built in self destruct?
If true, then that means that the Monk of the Healing Hand (with his 20th level capstone ability that's the equivalent of taking your character sheet and burning it) must be the most conducive to stories ever.
What? Not true in anyone's actual experiences? Shocker.
This isn't true. If rangers and paladins were just halfway points between other classes, there'd be no reason for them - multiclassing would produce essentially the same result. The ranger isn't a halfway point between a fighter and druid - the favoured terrain and favoured enemy features are intended to make it specifically a skilled hunter or guide rather than just "someone who protects nature but has more combat training than a druid and less magic." Likewise the whole reason that the non-LG paladin is important is that it's a very different class from a Fighter/Cleric or Cavalier/Cleric. The paladin is supposed to be charismatic - inspirational - while the cleric is wise. Second, while the cleric's primary loyalty is to their deity, the paladin's primary loyalty is to their alignment and their code.
Again, one possible view, not the only one. The Paladin is also (or could very easily) the deity's choice of servant for battle.
It's very odd that Gorum, god of war, can either imbue his servants with so much divine power that it interferes with their mastery of the more mundane methods of fighting (i.e., make a Cleric), give his servants no support whatsoever (i.e., the servant is a Fighter with no divine ability at all, but Gorum is cheering him on with pom-poms in the background), or make a Full BAB, somewhat divine spellcasting character, but only as long as the character behaves in a way that disappoints Gorum.
"Go forth, my Paladin/AntiPaladin, and take my divine power to perform mighty deeds in my name that will sadden me greatly. But should you ever make me proud of you, I must then take my blessing from you forthwith." Yeah, right.
Allowing other alignments for the Paladin opens up a lot of room for more character options, including options for those players that see the LG Paladin as the militant arm of the church where the LG Cleric is more the artillery/utility and would like to reproduce this for the other alignments, but keeping the code above and beyond what's required for other members of the church (keeping an approximate alignment and obeying the specific tennants of the deity in question) doesn't jive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys realize I hope that there are two camps on the paladin issue and those camps will never compromise. The first camp are the traditionalists who hold the paladin up as an icon of LG, a person who lives by a code that sets them apart from everyone else even other LG people. And then there are the new people who want a paladin without any restrictive code, bound by nothing more than a loose adherence to some deities rules.
There really isn't a place they can compromise either... either you have a rainbow of unrestricted holy warriors in every creed and style or you have traditional hard core paladins. In the end your GM decides which is going to be used, because they are the supreme arbiter of alignment and house rules. If a rainbow player is in a traditionalist GMs game (or vice versa) then they shouldn't play a paladin at all. Just step away from the class and keep the peace at your table.
|
|
EDIT : And please note the gnome was the EVIL guy who tortured the Paladin for YEARS, he sure as heck knows the Paladin is a Paladin, and is EVIL, so of course he sends the little boy to attack the Paladin. Duh! It's perfect tactics, make your foe take his own self out of the fight (metaphysically speaking of course).
Mention this ahead of time next time. The way I read it the first time the evil gnome seemed to somehow have a victim ready to throw at the Paladin to make him fall. Without knowing their was a Paladin in the first place. Finding out that the evil gnome was toruting the Paladin for years puts a different spin on the whole thing. That being said I have played in a few games where DMs just happened to have evil BBEG ready with a innocent victim on hand to make the Paladin fall. Were talking about the BBEG and the Paladin meeting up for the first time. Unless a BBEG knows ahead of time I'm sorry he should not have a ready supply of victims around to make a Paladin fall. Once twice is acceptable. All the time I'm sorry that is just cheating to make sure the BBEG never fail imo.
|
|
Evil people generally keep around innocent prisoners. You need them for a variety of purposes. First, if you need to ask your dark god a favor, he generally requires a human sacrifice(outlined in Book of the Damned, particularly for the abyss). You need to keep em in round just in case.
I'm not saying that evil npcs should not keep innocent prisoners. To have some handy just in case a Paladin comes by. No sorry I'm not buying that. Unless the player using the Paladin really goes out of his way to draw attention to himself an evil npc should not always be ready for a Paladin to come along to make him fall. Now of the player draws attention to himself than that is a different story.
Second, Paladins are fairly well known. Bad guys keep innocent prisoners for the same reason good guys keep cold iron weapons. Just in case you fight a foe to use it against.
Again unless the player delibrately goes out of his way to draw attention to himself then I would agree that a evil npc would be prepared. A player that stays low key does not draw attention to himself should not automatically be known by the forces of evil imo.
And third, innocent victims are easy to acquire. Its not that hard to go out to a hamlet, knock a few people unconscious and bring them back to your lair.
True innocent victims are usually easy to acquire. Except I doubt every evil npc motive is to seek out and search innocent victims for the sole purpose of making a paladin fall.
IMO, bad guys underuse this tactic. Even a nonpaladin good character will be hindered by dealing with hostages.
There is a reason no too many DMs use the tactic. Abuse such a tactic too often and no one at the gaming table will play Paladins. Rightfully so imo. If the forces of evil are going to always be ready just in case a Paladin comes along so that they can make them fall well it's no fun playing a Paladin imo. Why would it be if around every corner the forces of evil seem always prepared for his coming. True a nonpaladin group maybe slightly hindered by dealing with hostages except those other classes don't have that much too lose. Unless possibly playing a monk.
I get the point being made. Evil should be ready for the group of good adventurers to come along. Ready 24/7 with a some innocent victims jut in case a paladin comes along no that is imo cheating and favoring the odds for the DM.
|
|
@Memorax:
I'm definately in agreement with you that most encounters should not be a hostage situation, i came here to play D&D/PF, not get turned into a Delta operator.
I can somewhat see the staying low key as to not arouse a great deal of attention, and while i think that works in the lower levels of character developement, it might start being a problem by around levels 7+ due to reputation. A PC parties deeds will travel faster than a speeding ox cart.....oh wait ;)
I think that as the party gains in power, it may be very difficult to stay low key.
|
|
@ norgrim
I have nothing against a encounter that ends up being a hostage situation. sometimes that happens. I do have a issue when it happens all the time. With the BBEG ready for every situation. That is understandable if the group has been chasing the BBEG through the course of a entire campaign. After all just as the players would learn the BBEG strengths and weakness so would the BBEG doing the same to the players. It's when every BBEG is prepared ahead of time even if it's the first time the BBEG meets the party. Unless a DM runs every BBEG as a paranoid, control freak, insomniac there should be a element of surprise when a party meets a BBEG for the first time. Having innocents at the ready just in case a Paladin is in the party is imo somewhat unbelievable. I get it evil is supposed to be evil. Yet if every evil BBEG went after the innocent population the entire population would rise up and take out the BBEG. Not to mention great way to trap a BBEG. Pretend to be innocent victims and turn the tables on a BBEG.
|
|
@Memorax:
I'm not argueing for numerous hostage scenarios, as i mentioned, i'm here to play my heroic fantasy character, not be a part of HRT or Delta.
When i mentioned the reputation thing, that was not meant to be used as an excuse to increase hostage situtaions, it was meant to convey the idea of "Ah, well met, your reputations preceed you." As the PC's gain power and their reputations grow, the bad guys will probably get wind of some information on them, even if it's just "they arrived in town" kind of thing.
Now as far as what actions the bad guys take at that point, that's up to the GM, but i would hope it wouldn't be a bunch of nonsense hostage taking without some damn good build up in the story.
Mention this ahead of time next time. The way I read it the first time the evil gnome seemed to somehow have a victim ready to throw at the Paladin to make him fall. Without knowing their was a Paladin in the first place. Finding out that the evil gnome was toruting the Paladin for years puts a different spin on the whole thing. That being said I have played in a few games where DMs just happened to have evil BBEG ready with a innocent victim on hand to make the Paladin fall. Were talking about the BBEG and the Paladin meeting up for the first time. Unless a BBEG knows ahead of time I'm sorry he should not have a ready supply of victims around to make a Paladin fall. Once twice is acceptable. All the time I'm sorry that is just cheating to make sure the BBEG never fail imo.
EDIT : And please note the gnome was the EVIL guy who tortured the Paladin for YEARS, he sure as heck knows the Paladin is a Paladin, and is EVIL, so of course he sends the little boy to attack the Paladin. Duh! It's perfect tactics, make your foe take his own self out of the fight (metaphysically speaking of course).
Uhm, it's not my story, I just read the thread, and saw the OP commenting that the gnome had tortured the paladin for years. So no need to berate me for not telling you, since I just read it in the thread, same as you should have. :)
As to the 'shouldn't have victims'. Again, BS. You're an Evil Gnome. Whos' going to try to stop you? Another evil guy? maybe, but you kill him. Good guys? Them you need innocent hostages for. Duh. Villainy 101. Every BBEG should have some innocent hostages squirreled away for getting away.