Going back to my dick Gm comment.
Going back to my dick Gm comment.
Somehow these GMs keep finding players apparently. Some people are fine with overly restrictive, sometimes they play favorites and one person just has an easier time, and other times its a long time friend and you just think alike so it never comes up.
Could be. Or they just learn that there are a number of other classes to play, and lesson learned.
Could be. Or they just learn that there are a number of other classes to play, and lesson learned.
I'm going to point out for the hundreth time that if you want to play a paladin for mechanics, you won't get those mechanics from Inquisitors or clerics.
I can't find anything that causes a paladin to fall for chaotic behavior.
Lying for one. It explicitly states that a paladin cannot lie for any reason, which is a totally lawful stance with regards to lying. If you are put in a position of lying or doing evil, then you are boned.
Lying for one. It explicitly states that a paladin cannot lie for any reason, which is a totally lawful stance with regards to lying. If you are put in a position of lying or doing evil, then you are boned.I can't find anything that causes a paladin to fall for chaotic behavior.
Yes, but lying is not a Chaotic action. Even if it were, it is a specific Chaotic action spelled out in the Code, not a precedent to say a Paladin can fall for Chaotic behavior (behind doing so many Chaotic actions that his alignment shifts from Lawful Good).
Lying is a fall condition spelled out in the code. To never lie is a dogmatic position in every sense of the word. If you can never lie or face a fall from grace, then your character is restricted to a dogmatic, or "lawful" response to situations that require lying. The paladin code also states that any evil act is also a fall condition. To surrender sensitive information that may lead to the death of innocents is evil and required by the code. Lying is explicit, any form of obfuscation will cause a fall as the act is intrinsically dishonorable.
This is a very straightforward fall or fall scenario that can and often does come up. It has nothing to do with DM's being dicks and everything to do with a logical contradiction as it relates to a character who must be two things simultaneously. You can either be dogmatic, follow the code to the absolute letter, and fall, or you can be a paragon of good, do everything in your power to do good, and fall.
There is a third option I guess. You could get yourself killed when a contradiction occurs... at least you would still be a paladin on your death bed.
|
At this point, you must be typing with your eyes closed to not see this...The paladin/antipaladin classes could easily be converted to an "alignment champion" class. Heck, some games could even restrict it to only the lawful range of champions.
And having a champion for every alignment would make it easier to deal with the pproblem of LG / LE champions of Abadar, since you could change the one-step rule to a matched alignments rule and require that Abadar only have LN champions (which would prevent his LG champions from having to go against their church in order to fight slavery).
No. There are two ways to deal with having LG and LE champions of Abadar, and both of them are fine.
1) Like others have been saying, assume that these champions may come into conflict at times despite sharing a deity. This is a little messy, but not too different from the current possibility of having LG and LE clerics of Abadar.
2) Give every alignment a champion and require that since champions are supposed to be more committed to their alignment than a cleric, they can only worship a deity who matches their alignment.
It seems reasonable to leave that decision up to individual GMs, but option 2 is only available if there are champions of every alignment.
Also notable: I've seen several complains from the “LG only” crowd stating that the antipaladin ought to be LE normally because they don't like the CE code. This would cause exactly the same problem...
The conversion comment is because while the paladin mechanics currently fit the "good champion" and the anti-paladin fits the "evil champion" with no mechanical changes, there would need to be some fiddling to merge the two in with a nonexistent "law champion" and "chaos champion" for an "alignment champion" class.
The problem with keeping Paladin and opening up options though has led to this totally unresolved after 2000+ posts debate, and not the first of its kind. Paladins are written to be LG. Opening the core idea of the Paladin up (Holy Warrior) to other alignments requires changing much of what the Paladin is by RAW. And if you're going to do that, and if JJ himself has said that Paladins are a relic (of the 70's and 80's when many mothers were concerned that their DnD playing children were worshipping the Devil), maybe it really is time to lay them to rest.
Though of course you'd get them back as the Holy Warriors of the LG deities...
That's fine by me. If people want the LG champions to keep their special “Paladin” title and associated social benefits, that's fine. A CG champion doesn't care what others think so long as they know they're doing the right thing.
Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations,
I've pointed out how circular this general argument is, but you keep bolding this particular bit when you repeat this argument and I'm wondering
1) How is this contradictory with the concept of a CG paladin?2) Doesn't this actually contradict what you've been saying about how LG paladins are always universally trusted and respected because everyone likes a strongly LG person?
That's silly.
There are no fall or fall situations. If you do your best, that's enough. Any GM that rules otherwise is indeed a dick. Fall or die situations? sure, but again, takes a GM to put you there.
And, though it feels odd to say it, I think you're derailing the thread a bit Trogdar (as if this thread is anything but a giant derail of the OP's intent...)
One party, the OP being one of the loudest contributors, believes that the Paladin is the Arbiter of absolute law and good. They also believe that any change to the status quo will irreparably damage the setting, fluff, yada yada whatever.
The other party feels that an Exemplar of freedom and good would be fine because it doesn't really change the mechanics.
These points are only relevant if the premise of a absolute arbiter of good and law can exist. I am simply pointing out that one or the other alignment must be flexible or the whole class doesn't function.
I don't think that derails anything. I also think that 2300 posts is a good indication that this thread is circling its tail anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I refuse to accept the premise that the only two choices are Lie or Fall. If you've been reading this thread, there is a very good, very paladin-y option, that's stoic and honorable even.
Refuse to answer. Invite them to take your life.
Playing a paladin requires a certain sense of altruism, where for the greater good he'd rather die than surrender in any way that which he knows is not good and right.
If you're not prepared to follow the code unto death, then playing a paladin is not for you.
If the GM keeps putting you in these situations, he IS a dick.
I refuse to accept the premise that the only two choices are Lie or Fall. If you've been reading this thread, there is a very good, very paladin-y option, that's stoic and honorable even.
Refuse to answer. Invite them to take your life.
Playing a paladin requires a certain sense of altruism, where for the greater good he'd rather die than surrender in any way that which he knows is not good and right.
If you're not prepared to follow the code unto death, then playing a paladin is not for you.
If the GM keeps putting you in these situations, he IS a dick.
So the paladins choices are now... Fall, Fall, and Suicide? His life sucks.
Anyways, yes, many GMs are jerks. Some just see it as being dramatic, others are malevolent, and some think its the same as burning a wizards spellbook or breaking a fighters sword.
Look back in the thread for the "Nazi's killin babies" scenario.
Take from it what you will.
|
Could be. Or they just learn that there are a number of other classes to play, and lesson learned.I'm going to point out for the hundreth time that if you want to play a paladin for mechanics, you won't get those mechanics from Inquisitors or clerics.
Which is exactly what we have accused you of any you have acted offended by.
You want to steal the mechanics of the class without having to deal with the restrictions.
You just don't like being called on it.
There are certain GMs I would never play a paladin for. Their idea of GM'ing a paladin includes constant rediculous moral quandries.
There should be a few that crop up, but they shouldn't be all or nothing fabrications. "Let's see how he handles this!" things, when you've written no way out is a dick move.
There are also certain GMs I would never play other certain classes with.
You pick your battles, and your classes. It does not justify a re-write of the Paladin.
|
|
I can't find anything that causes a paladin to fall for chaotic behavior.
You didn't look very hard.
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.
|
|
So the paladins choices are now... Fall, Fall, and Suicide? His life sucks.
Anyways, yes, many GMs are jerks. Some just see it as being dramatic, others are malevolent, and some think its the same as burning a wizards spellbook or breaking a fighters sword.
He is a Paladin. He fights evil wherever it appears, it is what he does.
Do your Paladins say "That demon to to tough, sorry orphans..."
If you don't even understand the concept of the class, it is really bold of you to demand to change it.
Could be. Or they just learn that there are a number of other classes to play, and lesson learned.I'm going to point out for the hundreth time that if you want to play a paladin for mechanics, you won't get those mechanics from Inquisitors or clerics.Which is exactly what we have accused you of any you have acted offended by.
You want to steal the mechanics of the class without having to deal with the restrictions.
You just don't like being called on it.
That first sentance doesn't make much sense...
Its not stealing from the mechanics of a class to have archetypes. Its not just about wanting to play without restrictons. Restrictions are not always a good thing. I don't think the paladin should only have one face, he becomes so generic because everyone has to be the same.
Look back in the thread for the "Nazi's killin babies" scenario.
Take from it what you will.
I did not like much said in that thread. Fall or die is an awful scenario. One I do not want to put any player into. One I don't think many players would enjoy.
|
|
Its not stealing from the mechanics of a class to have archetypes. Its not just about wanting to play without restrictons. Restrictions are not always a good thing. I don't think the paladin should only have one face, he becomes so generic because everyone has to be the same.
Which is what I literally said you were doing earlier and you got offended by.
You want to remove the restrictions of the class, and therefore change the class.
A Paladin that doesn't follow a strict code is not a Paladin in the same way that a Druid who doesn't revere nature isn't a Druid.
It was the scenario that sucked. And I agree that a GM that put his player's Paladin in that scenario is a dick.
Or perhaps playing a Paladin was not a good choice for that particular adventure? Who knows.
But the Paladin answer I gave was the correct one.
If you don't even understand the concept of the class, it is really bold of you to demand to change it.
I said nothing about the paladin doing anything like that. This has happened several times now, but you do not get to exagerate examples out of propertion and claim this is what someone else wants want. You do not get to make personal insults or claim something is what I think when I have not said it. It is ridiculous and does not help the conversation at all.
I know what a paladin is. I didn't ask for a paladin did I? I asked for a CG hero who smites evil. I keep saying I don't want to change the paladin or to destroy what it is. This is not stealing class features. This is giving people a chance to play something different, something some people actually want.
If your Paladin has to choose between being killed by a demon and letting it eat orphan virgin babies, then his life sucks. My statement really doesn't change.
But the Paladin answer I gave was the correct one.
Did I disagree? Does it make your arguements everywhere else more correct?
|
|
It was the scenario that sucked. And I agree that a GM that put his player's Paladin in that scenario is a dick.
Or perhaps playing a Paladin was not a good choice for that particular adventure? Who knows.But the Paladin answer I gave was the correct one.
And one a GM should expect.
If it was a Cleric of Gorum, they also likely aren't going to back down from a fight. I think if a GM presented the "Knocking on doors" scenario it would actually play out great as the guys knocking on doors are almost certainly mooks.
We are acting like the Paladin isn't able to fight...
With demons vs orphans,how would a CG paladin (or champion or whatever) make a different choice and still be a champion?
With demons vs orphans,how would a CG paladin (or champion or whatever) make a different choice and still be a champion?
The example is bad no matter who its for. Except maybe a baby eating Anti-Paladin who just joins in, or a LE character who tries to sell the demon the orphans. On the upside, the CG Paladin might actually be able to roll a bluff check without losing his superpowers. GM pending.
Edit: Actually its not that bad is it?
Did I disagree? Does it make your arguements everywhere else more correct?
It destroys the Fall or Fall fallacy, so yeah, kinda.
There isn't really a more correct, just correct.Overall point is, if you're playing a Paladin you should be prepared to make a stand, not say "Oh well, take the babies, cuz I can't lie".
|
|
I'm going to point out for the hundreth time that if you want to play a paladin for mechanics, you won't get those mechanics from Inquisitors or clerics.
You keep saying you don't want to change it, you only want archetypes, and then you say things like this.
If you only want to play Paladins for Mechanics, play Gurps.
Did I disagree? Does it make your arguements everywhere else more correct?It destroys the Fall or Fall fallacy, so yeah, kinda.
There isn't really a more correct, just correct.Overall point is, if you're playing a Paladin you should be prepared to make a stand, not say "Oh well, take the babies, cuz I can't lie".
No one said "Take the babies!" is a great option! No one.
How does it destroy the fall or fall fallacy?
I'm going to point out for the hundreth time that if you want to play a paladin for mechanics, you won't get those mechanics from Inquisitors or clerics.
You keep saying you don't want to change it, you only want archetypes, and then you say things like this.
If you only want to play Paladins for Mechanics, play Gurps.
And? Am I lieing or something? An Inquisitor or Cleric is not a paladin.
I don't tell you to go play other games. Thats not a viable arguement. Its just telling me to go away. Also not so nice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to play a mighty Champion of goodness and freedom that risks the lives of orphans on bluffs vs. evil!!!
Said no one, ever.
Did I disagree? Does it make your arguements everywhere else more correct?It destroys the Fall or Fall fallacy, so yeah, kinda.
There isn't really a more correct, just correct.Overall point is, if you're playing a Paladin you should be prepared to make a stand, not say "Oh well, take the babies, cuz I can't lie".
No one said "Take the babies!" is a great option! No one.
How does it destroy the fall or fall fallacy?
becasue fall or fall aren't the only options.
There's fall, fall or be a an effin' Paladin.
I want to play a mighty Champion of goodness and freedom that risks the lives of orphans on bluffs vs. evil!!!
Said no one, ever.
I want to play the class that shoves a stick up his butt and can't lie to save an orphans life! Also said no one ever.
That bluff is a whole lot better than letting him kill you and then killing the orphans. As a side note, this situation is ridiculous and we probably should use another.
When lying wouldn't work either, I dunno what your point is.
I do agree though, that the scenario sucks.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't find anything that causes a paladin to fall for chaotic behavior.
You didn't look very hard.
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.
You're right. My statement was overly broad and I rescind it.
When lying wouldn't work either, I dunno what your point is.
I do agree though, that the scenario sucks.
It might work, depends on how good your bluff check is and if the people your lying to have zone of truth or something like that.
I can't disagree that it sucks. Fall fall or die, but stay a paladin(a dead paladin) is just awful and I've seen DMs who think its a great idea and dramatic. From a player perspective its... not as a amazing. One will usually add insult to injury the demon just eats the orphan babies after you die and the GM lets you know.
|
|
I want to play a mighty Champion of goodness and freedom that risks the lives of orphans on bluffs vs. evil!!!
Said no one, ever.
I want to play the class that shoves a stick up his butt and can't lie to save an orphans life! Also said no one ever.
That was the best scenario your side could provide of a "Fall or Fall" scenario.
Because it is a Fallacy.
Again, if you want all mechanics without any flavor, play GURPS.
It exists to serve that type of player.
Can't always win. But you can always dictate your own actions.
I want to play a mighty Champion of goodness and freedom that risks the lives of orphans on bluffs vs. evil!!!
Said no one, ever.
I want to play the class that shoves a stick up his butt and can't lie to save an orphans life! Also said no one ever.
That was the best scenario your side could provide of a "Fall or Fall" scenario.
Because it is a Fallacy.
Again, if you want all mechanics without any flavor, play GURPS.
It exists to serve that type of player.
When did I ask for that? I have not said "Hey guys, lets go play a game without flavor and all mechanics!" Please don't put words in my mouth. I keep saying that.
And I'm not on anyone's side. I'm just an individual forum user. There is not a conspiracy or anything. A fall fall scenario could also be "Save an orphanage or save a hospital, fail to save one you fall."
You want the mechanics without the flavor.
You say you want an archetype, but your description is "The exact same, only without restrictions"
Which isn't an archetype, it is a lifting of restrictions.
I did not say this. Circular arguement if you just keep claiming this.
Chances are if anyone ever has another kind of paladin, its still going to have a code.
|
|
You want the mechanics without the flavor.
You say you want an archetype, but your description is "The exact same, only without restrictions"
Which isn't an archetype, it is a lifting of restrictions.
NO.
What is desired is a different flavor.
Not without restrictions. Without the same restrictions.
If those restrictions aren't as restrictive...
which none of the examples given have been...
then what's the point?
You can't replace 'must take a hard line against evil and tyranny while acting honorably at all times' with 'Be chaoticy and fight for freedom' and be taken seriously when it is said you want different but equal restrictions.
|
|
You want the mechanics without the flavor.
You say you want an archetype, but your description is "The exact same, only without restrictions"
Which isn't an archetype, it is a lifting of restrictions.
NO.
What is desired is a different flavor.
Not without restrictions. Without the same restrictions.
You can not be chaotic and submit to following a restrictive code not of your own making and choosing.
And if it is of your own making and choosing, by definition you can't break it.
Why does all this sound familiar?
|
|
You can not be chaotic and submit to following a restrictive code not of your own making and choosing.
And if it is of your own making and choosing, by definition you can't break it.
The specifics of how a chaotic code would work have been detailed many times over. You are projecting your own biases where they do not belong.
|
|
You don't know what you are talking about.You can not be chaotic and submit to following a restrictive code not of your own making and choosing.
And if it is of your own making and choosing, by definition you can't break it.
Strong counter argument, I can see you put a lot of thought and effort into it, what with all the citations and such...
Allow me to retort.
"Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it."
"Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."
If you are following a code, you are doing what the code says. If you aren't the one who decides if you are following the code, another "authority" is holding you accountable for your actions.
Not. Complicated.
" chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society."
Any code that you must follow that you don't get to decide if you are or are not following is a regulation on you, by definition.
|
|
Strong counter argument, I can see you put a lot of thought and effort into it, what with all the citations and such...
Allow me to retort.
"Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it."
"Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."
If you are following a code, you are doing what the code says. If you aren't the one who decides if you are following the code, another "authority" is holding you accountable for your actions.
Not. Complicated.
" chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society."
Any code that you must follow that you don't get to decide if you are or are not following is a regulation on you, by definition.
And yet the anti-paladin does it, officially.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if you don't like flavor, play gurps.
I don't find at all that an understanding of how to decouple flavor and mechanics automatically equals "no flavor at all." Indeed, I find the opposite to be true, in my personal experience.
A player is sort of expected to use his or her imagination, yes? So melding the flavor you envision to the mechanics that support it can be a major part of character building.
It's definitely convenient to have those decisions ready-made for you and pre-packaged, as they are in the case of the paladin -- but that's not the only way to play the game, and, I'll submit, isn't even the "best" way to play it. It's the easy, safe way to play it, when you don't trust the players (or yourself) to actually use your own imaginations and creativity in a responsible manner.
Sadly, this reminds me of baby-sitting for my friend's kids. Watching their favorite kids movie with them, I found a one-liner very amusing, and chuckled. The 4-year-old became extremely indignant and protested, "THAT'S NOT THE FUNNY PART! Stop laughing! You're not supposed to laugh there!" When some goofy cornball thing happened and I didn't laugh, he again became very upset. "That was the funny part! You're supposed to laugh! I'm not watching movies with you anymore!"
Why that attitude is automatically "the right way to play," and anything else is "badwrongfun" is what I can't grasp.
And it's agreed that the AP's 'code' is a joke, and is not restrictive in any way. It only exists as a mockery of the Paladin's code.