There really isn't any villification.
Play what you want. That's what houserules are for.
Houserules aren't always an option though, and more RAW options help those situations. "you could houserule it!" is not a perfect answer to why not to do something in RAW, and its definitely not balance by a longshot.
I do feel there is a sort of resentment at the idea of more options though, becuase some people feel it hurts the paladin if he's not as unique. I think thats the villification.
Let's just agree to a long term plan.
Get rid of the Paladin, replace him with a Holy Warrior class, wait for a book or large supplement to explain to us what he does. Each god gets his righteous martial advocate of the same alignment. Abilities would be slightly custom to each god (much like domains go on forever for clerics.) Leaving that alignment would still cost you your powers.
Fair enough?
What if I want my paladin to cast arcane magic? IF we go down that slippery slope I want to leap! He needs divine mounted cannons that fire magic missiles when I smite evil.
Insanity aside... I'm not sure if I'd say replace paladin. I don't think thats peoples intentions here, possibly open more options, but I wouldn't kick paladin to the curb!
Also not a fan of the way diety specifics works. I get that its thematic, but when you disagree with something or if you add in more domains/inquisitions you just make a mess. Poor Whimsy domain.
Paladin of that neutral god of magic would probably get some arcane stuff...
Nethys? Yeah his followers get a special spell called channel the gift. They probably aren't going to get dual mounted magic missle cannons though.
Edit: Still against killing the word paladin though. That really villifies the idea of giving people more options becuase it makes it look like your taking one away.
Though of course you'd get them back as the Holy Warriors of the LG deities...
Right! So we aren't laying the paladin to rest, we're opening more options. Refering to it as laying the paladin to rest or calling it a problem to keep the paladin is it makes it look like your getting rid of the paladin, when your not really.
Seriously guys, what's with the vilification? Is it that badwrong to you that someone might want to play an alignment exemplar that isn't LG or CE and have some options to back that flavor up ingame?
I'm sorry if this seems rude, but you're rather late to the game at this point. I am not saying options are bad. This has all been covered already. I have said you have to option to play it however you want. My point (at this point) is, we shouldn't change the CRB every time somebody wants to play something new. If we include your new options that you like, why not the next person's options that you don't like? You either include everything everybody wants and have a 5000+ page rule book where everything is anything or take out everything and make it all generic. (Or you realize you already have the option to alter/add/remove whatever you want.)
Though of course you'd get them back as the Holy Warriors of the LG deities...Right! So we aren't laying the paladin to rest, we're opening more options. Refering to it as laying the paladin to rest or calling it a problem to keep the paladin is it makes it look like your getting rid of the paladin, when your not really.
You are destroying what the Paladin is, though. He has always been a righteous champion of good. You want Generic Divine Warrior. The Paladin is not the Paladin when he has eight other copy cats running around. Of course I could play Generic Divine Champion as a Paladin (because the book talks about how you can change stuff) but I would have to get my GM's permission and we all know they're horrible people bent on destroying our fun.
|
These conflicts are already happening between clerics of those faiths in Golarion. The Gorumites of Lastwall clashing with the Gorumites of Belkzen are a notable ongoing example.Ok... so, what exactly happens when-
-a LG Paladin of Abadar meets a LE Legalist of Abadar?
-a NG Benefist of Pharasma meets a NE Malefist of Pharasma?
-a CG Liberator of Gorum meets a CE Destroyer of Gorum?
Because that doesn't make it any less stupid, for me...
Actually they don't.
Alignment: A cleric's alignment must be within one step of her deity's, along either the law/chaos axis or the good/evil axis (see Additional Rules).
Unless you handwave that rule as well.
Edit: The exception you note proving the rule, as Gorum is the God of fighting for basically no logical reason.
|
|
There really isn't any villification.
Play what you want. That's what houserules are for.Houserules aren't always an option though, and more RAW options help those situations. "you could houserule it!" is not a perfect answer to why not to do something in RAW, and its definitely not balance by a longshot.
I do feel there is a sort of resentment at the idea of more options though, becuase some people feel it hurts the paladin if he's not as unique. I think thats the villification.
There is resentment at the idea of options that make the setting make less sense, and therefore less interesting, yes.
|
|
Though of course you'd get them back as the Holy Warriors of the LG deities...Right! So we aren't laying the paladin to rest, we're opening more options. Refering to it as laying the paladin to rest or calling it a problem to keep the paladin is it makes it look like your getting rid of the paladin, when your not really.
One could allow a flying fart monster that gives out quotes from Dr. Who, and that would be more options.
Stupid options. But options.
More options is only better if the options are at least as good as the options in removes.
You destroy the Paladin mystique for what? A silly corner case so you can steal mechanics and not have the GM be able to say no?
Because if it were better, the GM would just let you house rule it...meaning your idea is probably not better.
|
These conflicts are already happening between clerics of those faiths in Golarion. The Gorumites of Lastwall clashing with the Gorumites of Belkzen are a notable ongoing example.Ok... so, what exactly happens when-
-a LG Paladin of Abadar meets a LE Legalist of Abadar?
-a NG Benefist of Pharasma meets a NE Malefist of Pharasma?
-a CG Liberator of Gorum meets a CE Destroyer of Gorum?
Because that doesn't make it any less stupid, for me...
Actually they don't.
Alignment: A cleric's alignment must be within one step of her deity's, along either the law/chaos axis or the good/evil axis (see Additional Rules).
Unless you handwave that rule as well.
Edit: The exception you note proving the rule, as Gorum is the God of fighting for basically no logical reason.
All of those examples listed fall within the one-step rule. And all of the intra-faith conflicts I mentioned for neutral deities are entirely feasible(and in many cases likely) according to the actual background material for those religions.
And I'm really starting to share Cracked.com's sentiment towards the phrase "expection that proves the rulej".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just wrote an entire page of race/class/spell/weapon/feat options so outrageous that nobody in their right mind would allow them. Each line of which ended with "MOAR OPTIONS!". I deleted it. Intentionally.
This has gone from a discussion about player/DM responsibility as it relates to Paladins, to a reasonable discussion about class and alignment, to an absurd debate about chaotic alignment, to this travesty.
Why do you play Pathfinder, if all you want is free mechanics? There are other systems that are built for that.
DnD4 tried to pander to the masses, the way you want Paizo to do. Their product was completely unpalatable. Is that what you want for Pathfinder as well?
The part of this that is really sad to me, is that you will probably eventually get what you want. It may take until a whole new generation of designers are controlling content. It may not. But, someone will eventually give in and print this debacle.
Just remember... When the gods truly wish to punish us, they answer our prayers...
With that, I think I am done with this thread.
The Crusader
You are destroying what the Paladin is, though. He has always been a righteous champion of good. You want Generic Divine Warrior. The Paladin is not the Paladin when he has eight other copy cats running around. Of course I could play Generic Divine Champion as a Paladin (because the book talks about how you can change stuff) but I would have to get my GM's permission and we all know they're horrible people bent on destroying our fun.Though of course you'd get them back as the Holy Warriors of the LG deities...Right! So we aren't laying the paladin to rest, we're opening more options. Refering to it as laying the paladin to rest or calling it a problem to keep the paladin is it makes it look like your getting rid of the paladin, when your not really.
By the nine, those 8 people are not copycats. They are 8 choices you could have made instead of being who you are. Instead you want to cut down 9 to 2, and keep those people from being anyone but you sure, but don't take that out on others please. A paladin is less of a generic divine warrior when he is one choice of many rather than being the only choice. He's more unique when there were options in the first place! IT does not destroy the paladin in any way, shape, or form. Not unless you call all those other paladins paladins. They are certainly not paladins in any way but mechanics though.
Not asking for free mechanics.
Asking for mechanical options that support a wider array of concepts.
I'm sorry if folks desiring options to make CG or NG exemplars with their own requirements and flavor equal in standing to paladins is that absurd to you.
This is just an April's fool prank, right? I understand you don't want free mechanics, you just want this one little teeny tiny option. Of course, you don't think it's absurd, you're the one asking for it.
But there are other people beside you! Take a look around these forums. Are you saying you haven't seen anything absurd suggested. Chances are someone didn't think that one option was absurd. Surely the game can survive one more option. And then one more, and then one more... (It seems like this incline has very little friction. Should be a word or phrase for that)
By the nine, those 8 people are not copycats. They are 8 choices you could have made instead of being who you are. Instead you want to cut down 9 to 2, and keep those people from being anyone but you sure, but don't take that out on others please. A paladin is less of a generic divine warrior when he is one choice of many rather than being the only choice. He's more unique when there were options in the first place! IT does not destroy the paladin in any way, shape, or form. Not unless you call all those other paladins paladins. They are certainly not paladins in any way but mechanics though.
Right, they are not copycats just people with identical abilities. Nope, no copying there.
(By the nine-I see what you did there)Edit: I was going to ignore it because I have already said it but apparently I like to repeat myself. I'm not cutting 9 down to 2. I'm saying, "Play what you want without demanding everyone else play the same." I'm saying, "leave the CRB alone, including the part that says you can change your game." I'm not taking anything away from anybody.
|
|
Not asking for free mechanics.
Asking for mechanical options that support a wider array of concepts.
I'm sorry if folks desiring options to make CG or NG exemplars with their own requirements and flavor equal in standing to paladins is that absurd to you.
You can, you just can't have the Paladin's mechanics (or you can't have all of them, as some are available in other forms from prestige and other classes)
The only reason to want a Paladin that isn't LG is to have the mechanics without actually playing the Paladin concept.
|
|
The paladin's lawful requirement is arbitrary.
A non-lawful version is hardly the equivalent of flying fart monsters quoting Dr. Who.
It isn't arbitrary. It is the core concept of the class. It is what the class is and does. To quote
"Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful. Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future."
And if you don't like flavor, play gurps. But to say it is arbitrary is demonstrably ridiculous.
There are no paladins as written because a paragon of law and good is a logical contradiction that causes the paladin to fall. If the paladin is a paragon of law exclusively, then its mechanics do not support it. If the paladin is a paragon of good exclusively, then the code does not support it. Golarion has no paladins.
/end thread
|
|
And if you don't like flavor, play gurps. But to say it is arbitrary is demonstrably ridiculous.Flavor is fine and dandy. Requiring that all things be flavored the way you prefer is most definitely arbitrary.
I don't require it to be flavored the way I prefer. That is what you are arguing for, actually.
I actually read it as it is written.
Actually, it occurs to me that the only deities who would empower paladins as they are written would be chaotic evil ones. I can just see them laughing at the idiot as he tries to conduct himself in a way that is completely impossible...
Impossible.
Not hardly. Well, maybe if your Gm is a complete dick.
Right, they are not copycats just people with identical abilities. Nope, no copying there.
I accept this only if anti-paladins are identical to paladins.
I'm saying "Play what you want without demanding everyone else play the same."
Actually when I say we should be able to play more, I'm saying the opposite of that. When you say its not okay to have more options, your pushing more for this. All paladins the same.
|
|
Not asking for free mechanics.
Asking for mechanical options that support a wider array of concepts.
I'm sorry if folks desiring options to make CG or NG exemplars with their own requirements and flavor equal in standing to paladins is that absurd to you.
This is just an April's fool prank, right? I understand you don't want free mechanics, you just want this one little teeny tiny option. Of course, you don't think it's absurd, you're the one asking for it.
But there are other people beside you! Take a look around these forums. Are you saying you haven't seen anything absurd suggested. Chances are someone didn't think that one option was absurd. Surely the game can survive one more option. And then one more, and then one more... (It seems like this incline has very little friction. Should be a word or phrase for that)
I remember this exact kind of doomsaying back when paladins were made capable of being from any race rather than just humans.
The game survived. And made a hell of a lot more sense afterwards.
But hot damn there was no shortage of badwrongfun accusation going around from folks determined to prove that paladins had been ruined.
Not asking for free mechanics.
Asking for mechanical options that support a wider array of concepts.
I'm sorry if folks desiring options to make CG or NG exemplars with their own requirements and flavor equal in standing to paladins is that absurd to you.
You can, you just can't have the Paladin's mechanics (or you can't have all of them, as some are available in other forms from prestige and other classes)
The only reason to want a Paladin that isn't LG is to have the mechanics without actually playing the Paladin concept.
OR I want to have mechanics and requirements that match the other possible exemplars and make sense. That's an option too.
I remember this exact kind of doomsaying back when paladins were made capable of being from any race rather than just humans.
Dwarves can't be paladin! They're beards would get in the way, what kind of guy leaving deep underground learns to worship a good diety and fights for justice anyway? And why couldn't halflings be paladins? I try to think of reasons but I keep coming up short.
Really though, that was a thing? I'm usually against racial restrictions myself, but that sounds a little crazy. You think if paladins already had other options we'd have less arguements about it?
|
|
I remember this exact kind of doomsaying back when paladins were made capable of being from any race rather than just humans.Dwarves can't be paladin! They're beards would get in the way, what kind of guy leaving deep underground learns to worship a good diety and fights for justice anyway? And why couldn't halflings be paladins? I try to think of reasons but I keep coming up short.
Really though, that was a thing? I'm usually against racial restrictions myself, but that sounds a little crazy. You think if paladins already had other options we'd have less arguements about it?
Strawman.
And yet, the alignment and code is still there.
While I would agree that racial restrictions are stupid, clearly no one here is arguing that. They are saying the existing alignment and code restrictions need to remain, becasue they are important to the class.
What edition was this from, anyway? The one where the other races were the classes?
Strawman.I remember this exact kind of doomsaying back when paladins were made capable of being from any race rather than just humans.Dwarves can't be paladin! They're beards would get in the way, what kind of guy leaving deep underground learns to worship a good diety and fights for justice anyway? And why couldn't halflings be paladins? I try to think of reasons but I keep coming up short.
Really though, that was a thing? I'm usually against racial restrictions myself, but that sounds a little crazy. You think if paladins already had other options we'd have less arguements about it?
Where in this statement is the strawman? I made a short joke and I asked something out of curiousity. Is that a bad thing?
And yet, the alignment and code is still there.
While I would agree that racial restrictions are stupid, clearly no one here is arguing that. They are saying the existing alignment and code restrictions need to remain, becasue they are important to the class.
No one said to take them away.
|
|
No one said to take them away.And yet, the alignment and code is still there.
While I would agree that racial restrictions are stupid, clearly no one here is arguing that. They are saying the existing alignment and code restrictions need to remain, becasue they are important to the class.
That is exactly what you are arguing for.
That is exactly what you are arguing for.No one said to take them away.And yet, the alignment and code is still there.
While I would agree that racial restrictions are stupid, clearly no one here is arguing that. They are saying the existing alignment and code restrictions need to remain, becasue they are important to the class.
Erm... No, I've been pretty keen on keeping the old paladin. I repeatedly stated not to phrase it like its getting rid of the old paladin for a reason.
|
|
Erm... No, I've been pretty keen on keeping the old paladin. I repeatedly stated not to phrase it like its getting rid of the old paladin for a reason.That is exactly what you are arguing for.No one said to take them away.And yet, the alignment and code is still there.
While I would agree that racial restrictions are stupid, clearly no one here is arguing that. They are saying the existing alignment and code restrictions need to remain, becasue they are important to the class.
You get rid of the old Paladin when you remove the restrictions. Being a Paladin ceases to mean "Paladin" when it ceases to have the restrictions, as the restrictions are the class.
This is what you don't seem to be grasping.
Erm... No, I've been pretty keen on keeping the old paladin. I repeatedly stated not to phrase it like its getting rid of the old paladin for a reason.That is exactly what you are arguing for.No one said to take them away.And yet, the alignment and code is still there.
While I would agree that racial restrictions are stupid, clearly no one here is arguing that. They are saying the existing alignment and code restrictions need to remain, becasue they are important to the class.
You get rid of the old Paladin when you remove the restrictions. Being a Paladin ceases to mean "Paladin" when it ceases to have the restrictions, as the restrictions are the class.
This is what you don't seem to be grasping.
Except I don't say remove the restrictions. Please don't put words in my mouth or accuse me of things. I say add, not remove.
|
|
Except I don't say remove the restrictions. Please don't put words in my mouth or accuse me of things. I say add, not remove.Erm... No, I've been pretty keen on keeping the old paladin. I repeatedly stated not to phrase it like its getting rid of the old paladin for a reason.That is exactly what you are arguing for.No one said to take them away.And yet, the alignment and code is still there.
While I would agree that racial restrictions are stupid, clearly no one here is arguing that. They are saying the existing alignment and code restrictions need to remain, becasue they are important to the class.
You get rid of the old Paladin when you remove the restrictions. Being a Paladin ceases to mean "Paladin" when it ceases to have the restrictions, as the restrictions are the class.
This is what you don't seem to be grasping.
Add restrictions?
Because otherwise you are removing restrictions.
Except I don't say remove the restrictions. Please don't put words in my mouth or accuse me of things. I say add, not remove.Add restrictions?
Because otherwise you are removing restrictions.
If you add options, you do not remove restrictions. If you add a CG paladinish archetype you did not remove any of the previous restrictions, just added an option thats more lenient. You did not remove anything to add it.
|
|
If you add options, you do not remove restrictions. If you add a CG paladinish archetype you did not remove any of the previous restrictions, just added an option thats more lenient. You did not remove anything to add it.Except I don't say remove the restrictions. Please don't put words in my mouth or accuse me of things. I say add, not remove.Add restrictions?
Because otherwise you are removing restrictions.
No one is arguing against that.
Impossible.
Not hardly. Well, maybe if your Gm is a complete dick.
If the DM puts a choice before you that requires either a lawful answer or a good answer(and the lawful answer is one of the absolutes, like lying, in the code) then you fall, period.
You cannot be absolutely lawful and absolutely good. Because the paladin has absolutes in his code that are lawful examples, and any evil act is a cause for a fall, the paladin is an invalid class.
They are mutually exclusive and cannot play nice.
No one is arguing against that.If you add options, you do not remove restrictions. If you add a CG paladinish archetype you did not remove any of the previous restrictions, just added an option thats more lenient. You did not remove anything to add it.Except I don't say remove the restrictions. Please don't put words in my mouth or accuse me of things. I say add, not remove.Add restrictions?
Because otherwise you are removing restrictions.
Good! Then I'm not asking to remove any restrictions! Just give people more options.
|
|
Good! Then I'm not asking to remove any restrictions! Just give people more options.No one is arguing against that.If you add options, you do not remove restrictions. If you add a CG paladinish archetype you did not remove any of the previous restrictions, just added an option thats more lenient. You did not remove anything to add it.Except I don't say remove the restrictions. Please don't put words in my mouth or accuse me of things. I say add, not remove.Add restrictions?
Because otherwise you are removing restrictions.
Which isn't what the others are arguing for.
Which isn't what the others are arguing for.Good! Then I'm not asking to remove any restrictions! Just give people more options.No one is arguing against that.If you add options, you do not remove restrictions. If you add a CG paladinish archetype you did not remove any of the previous restrictions, just added an option thats more lenient. You did not remove anything to add it.Except I don't say remove the restrictions. Please don't put words in my mouth or accuse me of things. I say add, not remove.Add restrictions?
Because otherwise you are removing restrictions.
Who's argueing to remove restrictions on the normal paladin? No reason to change that imo. I've been sorta reading over the giant text walls when I see those, almost unreadable.
|
|
Dwarves can't be paladin! They're beards would get in the way, what kind of guy leaving deep underground learns to worship a good diety and fights for justice anyway? And why couldn't halflings be paladins? I try to think of reasons but I keep coming up short.
Really though, that was a thing? I'm usually against racial restrictions myself, but that sounds a little crazy. You think if paladins already had other options we'd have less arguements about it?
Yep, it was. The arguments against it boiled down to "preserving the feel of the game" and dismissed any in-setting based arguments in favor of accusing those for non-human paladins of wanting them only for mechanical benefits.
Same old song.
Strawman.
History repeating.
And yet, the alignment and code is still there.
While I would agree that racial restrictions are stupid, clearly no one here is arguing that.
No, but the doomsaying slippery slope arguments and the insistence that all of us are asking for something other than what we're saying smacks of the same mentality.
And yes, the code and alignment remained. It bears noting that the code was actually changed and improved in the move to PF in that it no longer disallows redemption attempts through literalist readings of the code.
Change is not always bad.
They are saying the existing alignment and code restrictions need to remain, becasue they are important to the class.
And I agree. The alignment and restrictions should stay in place. But there is also plenty of room for other options with their own fitting alignment-based restrictions, and their presence would not devalue the paladin at all.
I love (well-played) paladins. But damn I would love to see CG and NG stop getting treated as the Lesser Goods and have their specific champions as well. I just don't believe that providing options for them would hurt the game.
(and I know for certain that I'd get more use out of LE exemplars as a GM than I would Anti-Paladins!)
What edition was this from, anyway? The one where the other races were the classes?
Spread out across the early ones. Original D&D had stuff like Elf and Dwarf as classes. God help you if you ever wanted to play a character that stepped outside narrow stereotypes there.
IIRC, 3rd Edition is where a lot of those old legacy rules were finally broken for good, but not without a fight. To this day there's still no shortage of folks willing to lecture you about how you're playing the game wrong.
It's stuff like that and similar callbacks that made Dungeon Crawl Classics feel anathema to me. :)
Impossible.
Not hardly. Well, maybe if your Gm is a complete dick.If the DM puts a choice before you that requires either a lawful answer or a good answer(and the lawful answer is one of the absolutes, like lying, in the code) then you fall, period.
You cannot be absolutely lawful and absolutely good. Because the paladin has absolutes in his code that are lawful examples, and any evil act is a cause for a fall, the paladin is an invalid class.
They are mutually exclusive and cannot play nice.
Untrue, totally and completely.
If this was true, no one could be LG like ever without slipping eventually to NG or LN.This is false.
Impossible.
Not hardly. Well, maybe if your Gm is a complete dick.If the DM puts a choice before you that requires either a lawful answer or a good answer(and the lawful answer is one of the absolutes, like lying, in the code) then you fall, period.
You cannot be absolutely lawful and absolutely good. Because the paladin has absolutes in his code that are lawful examples, and any evil act is a cause for a fall, the paladin is an invalid class.
They are mutually exclusive and cannot play nice.
Untrue, totally and completely.
If this was true, no one could be LG like ever without slipping eventually to NG or LN.
This is false.
I've been with enough crazy DMs to know from time to time... Its true.
Impossible.
Not hardly. Well, maybe if your Gm is a complete dick.If the DM puts a choice before you that requires either a lawful answer or a good answer(and the lawful answer is one of the absolutes, like lying, in the code) then you fall, period.
You cannot be absolutely lawful and absolutely good. Because the paladin has absolutes in his code that are lawful examples, and any evil act is a cause for a fall, the paladin is an invalid class.
They are mutually exclusive and cannot play nice.
Untrue, totally and completely.
If this was true, no one could be LG like ever without slipping eventually to NG or LN.
This is false.
A character can be largely good and totally lawful, or largely lawful and totally good, not both. Thats why they are separate.