| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And a Fallen Paladin is still a full BaB melee class
The NPC Warrior class is pretty overpowered if you ask me.
Mal from Serenity (Firefly) is chaotic. His rules are fluid. The wind blows west he goes west. He will place people in danger one moment and rescue them later. He will shoot a man who surrendered in one instance and let a villain walk free the next. There are no rules and if there are he sure doesn't believe in them. He has a weird form of honor but doesn't hold to it if it becomes inconvenient. He is a man with no compass. His unpredictability even makes the people he deals with nervous. THAT is chaotic. And you are right about one thing, chaotic isn't random. Chaotic is all about what works in the moment and how you feel about it now. And THAT often changes from day to day.
A rule saying the Gorum follower MUST never run from a fight is a good example of lawful behavior.
Its not that he must. Its that he wouldn't.
If we are talking about Mal, he does have some rules. His crew comes first, for one.
The person that Gorum part was in response to said: "never run from a fight". A chaotic wouldn't hold to that... there just might be a fight someday he wants to run from. A man's got to keep his options open. He may very well not run from fights... till he found one that's worth running from. I sure hope this Gorum follower is smart enough to run from reavers or an angry nest of dragons.
Mal "Your not crew 'less I fathom you are."
Said by Mal not long before kicking River and Simon off the ship.
This is of course long after he told Simon "Your crew." when asked why he rescued them from crazy settlers.
So as you see even that "Crew" code isn't literal since he can change his mind at any time about whether you are crew or not.
Gorum the god probably doesn't have any fights worth running from...
|
Then you need to sit down with your DM and compare notes as to how the two of you interpret the code and come to some sort of agreement.
Sounds fine, in theory.
This conversation should be player-led, outlining how he sees his paladin while explaining how his behaviour will be consistent with the LG alignment, deity-specific code and the general code. The DM may require drilling-down into the detail, may require adjustment, etc.
The pitfall to avoid would be where the 'conversation' is merely a DM dictat disguised as a conversation, because that way leads to the DM making decisions for the PC instead of the player.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then you need to sit down with your DM and compare notes as to how the two of you interpret the code and come to some sort of agreement.Sounds fine, in theory.
This conversation should be player-led, outlining how he sees his paladin while explaining how his behaviour will be consistent with the LG alignment, deity-specific code and the general code. The DM may require drilling-down into the detail, may require adjustment, etc.
The pitfall to avoid would be where the 'conversation' is merely a DM dictat disguised as a conversation, because that way leads to the DM making decisions for the PC instead of the player.
Player : So, My paladin doesn't truck any evil, anyone that pings evil get's killed, no matter what. If someone surrenders, but he considers them beyond redemption, then he kills them, even if he said he wouldn't, because evil can't be given any quarter. He won't lie or steal from any good folks, but evil folks he'll lie, cheat and steal against because they're evil and they don't count.
GM : The book specifically says he can't lie cheat or steal.
Player : WAUGGH!! Quit telling me how to run my paladin!
BOTH the player and the GM have to agree, or a Paladin should not be in the game. The class requires the GM to be arbiter of whether or not the character has stood up to the Paladin Code. Neither should be dictating, however, the GM must have the final say as the GM on whether or not the rule has been followed. It's no more valid for the player to dictate that they are going to play their Paladin as having no code, or a code that violates the book as it is for a DM to tell a player what their character thinks or feels.
An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin’s code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don’t interfere with his goals.
As you can see this isn't really a code... It is just "you must stay CE" with an added point that you can't willingly do good unless it's part of greater evil. All the rest doesn't need to be followed since the code places the villain's personal goals above these other requirements. I don't see anything here that they MUST always do...
|
|
This is why I've always had a problem with the anti-paladin.
Admittedly the picture from the book kind of exemplifies it, the biggest green haired jerk on the planet with a huge troll-grin.
Antipaladins are less sithlord and more outrageous sh**bag though.
Also, the codes are one of the reasons I always found the alternate paladins unintentionally hillarious.
You can be a member of society and always be lawful good. But the paladin of freedom with his 'you have to always work for liberation' or the one of tyranny with their 'you must /always/ oppress' didn't hold a candle of ridiculousness to the chaotic evil's code of 'always be chaotic evil.'
Meaning the guy has to wake up in the morning, find and torture his breakfast, walk around eating live chicks all day, light fires, break his own house, break everyone else's house and generally be a total moron in all circumstances or else "fall." And what does a fallen antipaladin become? A risen antipaladin? A slightly flat anti-paladin without the perky caffiene flavor of evil?
|
An antipaladin who acts altruistically has lost his conviction that others' lives are his for the taking, and thus can't tap into unholy powers that require a complete disregard for life and a desire only to see your enemies destroyed.
As you can see this isn't really a code... It is just "you must stay CE" with an added point that you can't willingly do good unless it's part of greater evil. All the rest doesn't need to be followed since the code places the villain's personal goals above these other requirements. I don't see anything here that they MUST always do...
I agree that it's a poor example of a consistent CE code, but it is a RAW example of a chaotic code (as are edicts for chaotic cavaliers), which indicates that a chaotic alignment and a personal code aren't completely incompatible by RAW.
As you can see, the idea of a "code" of behavior, including a personal one, is a lawful concept.
Well, what about the Chaotic Good description?
He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
So what's the difference between someone following a code and someone who follows a moral compass which always points them consistently in the same direction?
Let's read Lawful Neutral again:
A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
I suggest that the difference is that the chaotic person doesn't think of his compass as a code or set of regulations, no matter how consistently it directs him, while the lawful person does think of it consciously as a code they're following and also believes that it is important that their behavior be codified. The Lawful Neutral description appears to suggest that a personal code is an acceptable substitute for an external law, if that code is also accompanied by a sense that "organization and order are paramount." A person who acts consistently, but doesn't believe in "personal order" isn't lawful.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And a Fallen Paladin is still a full BaB melee classThe NPC Warrior class is pretty overpowered if you ask me.
Don't.
Toz does it better, and the straw is just feeding the flame with no real progress or point.
Unless that is what you are going for, then by all means proceed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the Anti-Paladin is supposed to be the reverse of everything a real Paladin stands for, then Chaotic Evil fits.
However, if the intent is to be everything the Paladin stands for corrupted to a horrid degree, then it's Lawful Evil.
|
|
I agree with Icy, and kind of feel like LE was the way to go in some regards. But then it would almost be two separate classes.
Not that that would be a bad thing...I like the both the idea of someone who has a code of pure evil and some who just wants to watch the world burn in my BBEGs options list.
|
|
Keep in mind, Mal doesn't live in Fantasy D&D. In the modern world, Good and Evil are what you impose on the universe, which for the most part, doesn't care.Really TOZ?
Scene: Haven after the crew of Serenity has gathered to hear Mal's ultimatum speech.
Mal draws his pistol and everyone shuts up wondering if he actually intends to shoot them. But behind them a lone survivor crawls out of the wreckage of the Alliance ship. The man sees them gathered and holds up his arms in surrender... Mal shoots him dead.
Mal might also personally believe 'people who mercilesly open fire on women and children from a space fighter, and then get shot down through the heroic last actions of a man I respect don't get to just surrender.'
Although I'd argue Mal's not CG. He strikes me as more NG. He probably used to be LG. And he likes to think of himself as NE.
I think it's fair to say LazarX that if an alignment can't match a real behavior then it has failed as an alignment and should probably be discarded from the game.
Edit: I am convinced alignment, while not perfect by a long shot, is able to be reflected in simulated real world behaviors. Chaotic can be applied to Mal or any number of other people in the real or fictional world.
|
|
An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin’s code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don’t interfere with his goals.As you can see this isn't really a code... It is just "you must stay CE" with an added point that you can't willingly do good unless it's part of greater evil. All the rest doesn't need to be followed since the code places the villain's personal goals above these other requirements. I don't see anything here that they MUST always do...
Except that there is a full paragraph dedicated to Ex-Antipaladins, which specifically mentions violating the code of conduct as a cause for losing all powers.
We might not like it, we might not agree with it, we might houserule it as much as we want, but it is still a RAW example of a Chaotic person following a code. As such it is on equal footing with all RAW examples of Lawful persons following a code.
In other words, according to RAW, following a code does not automatically makes you Lawful.
Right The black raven, a full paragraph that says basically the same thing as the part I quoted.
It isn't a code... it just says you have to stay CE. Every other part of this is perfectly breakable as long as the player wants to break it. The only part you can never break without losing your powers is a change in alignment to something other than CE!
So this isn't a code it's an alignment restriction.
|
|
The anti-paladin can play the role of the hero as long as he is doing selfishly, aka why are you saving the world ? because I live in it.
Oh, William the Bloody.
The antipaladin code is unfortunately phrased as a rather lax code compared with the Paladin's, and I would also like to see LE antipaladins because they would be excellent villains, but the fact that any CE code was proposed at all indicates that a "Chaotic Code" is not an oxymoron in PF.
And in any case I'd require that an antipaladin clearly define "his goals" and be able to justify any apparent altruism (or failure to impose tyranny, punish good, steal candy from babies, etc) according to how they serve those goals. Or else rewrite the CE code to be a bit more specific.
I think it's fair to say LazarX that if an alignment can't match a real behavior then it has failed as an alignment and should probably be discarded from the game.
Edit: I am convinced alignment, while not perfect by a long shot, is able to be reflected in simulated real world behaviors. Chaotic can be applied to Mal or any number of other people in the real or fictional world.
Agreed. It may be a poor base for a real philosophical discussion about ethics or morality, but it really should be able to describe behavior at least in a general sense. For example, a chaotic is more likely to steal than a lawful character, and a lawful character is more likely to be a stickler for regulations: we have archetypes like the classic duo of the by-the-book officer and the loose cannon, a law/chaos pair. I know at least a couple IRL people I'd describe as definitely chaotic, where as I tend towards lawful.
Personally I feel like Mal is a CG character with occasional aspirations towards Lawfulness in the form of "honour among thieves."
|
|
The antipaladin code is unfortunately phrased as a rather lax code compared with the Paladin's, and I would also like to see LE antipaladins because they would be excellent villains, but the fact that any CE code was proposed at all indicates that a "Chaotic Code" is not an oxymoron in PF.
My point exactly. Despite what the "personal code implies Lawful" crowd would prefer, we have a RAW example that a Chaotic person can have a code of conduct
At least three camps (or super-camps, to be subdivided into camps, I guess).
A: Paladin should be LG with a Code, period.
B: Paladin should be allowed any alignment, but must follow some manner of Code.
C: Paladin should be allowed any alignment and the subject of a Code should be entirely the choice of the player, independent of the fact that he also chose to play a Paladin.
I am totally with you on the fact that Gorum and other chaotic deities should be able to have paladins in their service. However, that doesn't mean removing any code of conduct from the paladin class. I don't think Gorum would be too pleased with his champion running away from a winnable battle, or passing up an opportunity to demonstrate his skill at arms for the glory of his god.
If a paladin is any warrior in service of a deity, the Paladin still needs a code of conduct, it's just at minimum replaced by the cleric code of conduct instead of the current paladin's code. If the Paladin really ticks off the divine source of his power, he will lose that power. Paladins who do not serve a particular deity will still need to cause to serve, and their code of conduct should reflect that cause. This might look a bit more like a Cavalier's edicts, or it might be a generic "champion of an alignment" code. But a champion has to champion something.
"But a Cleric has to be the Cleric of something." Except when they don't. When the player is playing a Cleric devotee of some concept that actually incorporates no behavioral or alignment codes of any kind. "I'm a Cleric, devoted to no god whatsoever, but instead led by the ideals of Fire and Air." Exactly how does such a Cleric then fall? By refusing to build a campfire if necessary? Swimming underwater and holding his breath?
True, it's not allowed in Golarion, but I've already said I have no problem with behavioral assumptions existing for a specific setting. The Cleric class outside of Golarion has no code (or IF it does, it's a specific add-on from whatever setting the game is in, or something placed in the class by the GM but not inherently there).
So I agree entirely with your second paragraph. "If a paladin is any warrior in service of a deity, the Paladin still needs a code of conduct, it's just at minimum replaced by the cleric code of conduct instead of the current paladin's code." It's just that when the cleric code of conduct can be reduced all the way down to zero, then I expect the same of the Paladin.
I'd just rather the headache be optional, is all.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I'd rather people who don't want to play things that are by definition restricted by needed to adhere to a code or tenets not play them.
That way the table can play the setting they all were reading about rather than the one living primarily in one players head.
|
|
What LazarX said. And if we want to have criteria for limiting access to things on sides of the spectrum, we have to pick a tool.
I would be fine with a player defining a Mal type PC as Lawful or Chaotic (or neutral). And they would need to pick one or the other and take the benefits and penalties of the other.
If you look at Mal and say "That is someone who has a code he lives by" you are right.
If you look at Mal and say "That is someone who bucks authority and centralized power" you are right.
That his code is to fight the power makes him complicated. But the question is, regardless of which way he is interpreted by the GM, how is he interpreted by the player defines if that is Chaotic, Lawful, or evil Good or Neutral.
As a GM in that circumstance, all I am going to ask is the player play the character consistently. If you have Mal join the Alliance to get personal power, I'm going to tell you "Not unless you are changing Alignment he doesn't"
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the alignment system sucks at describing characters that aren't specifically tailored to it, then that says a lot about the alignment system.
|
|
There is also the question of if Mal's opposition to the alliance is to the Alliance or just to any centralized authority telling people out on the Rim what to do.
He is a smuggler after all.
The alignment system serves a purpose. A player can choose what type of player they want to play and as I said with Mal, pick if they consider it Lawful or Chaotic and get the benefits of one or the other (but not both)
The problem seems to be people who feel entitled to all the things at the same time, like it isn't a made up world with restrictions and limitations.
|
|
...he's a smuggler because the Alliance outlawed his former job. Don't you think he'd still be a soldier if his side hadn't gotten crushed?There is also the question of if Mal's opposition to the alliance is to the Alliance or just to any centralized authority telling people out on the Rim what to do.
He is a smuggler after all.
The alignment system serves a purpose. A player can choose what type of player they want to play and as I said with Mal, pick if they consider it Lawful or Chaotic and get the benefits of one or the other (but not both)
The problem seems to be people who feel entitled to all the things at the same time, like it isn't a made up world with restrictions and limitations.
It isn't like there were only two lines of employment open to him...:)
|
|
If the alignment system sucks at describing characters that aren't specifically tailored to it, then that says a lot about the alignment system.
The problem isn't the alignment system, it's people and how they interpret it. Just because you are lawful doesn't mean you can't do anything chaotic.
Your alignment is your overall perspective of yourself and how you interact with the world.
If the alignment system sucks at describing characters that aren't specifically tailored to it, then that says a lot about the alignment system.The problem isn't the alignment system, it's people and how they interpret it. Just because you are lawful doesn't mean you can't do anything chaotic.
Your alignment is your overall perspective of yourself and how you interact with the world.
Yes, but someone said Paladin and that at least proves he isn't one.
What about when he shot that guy at the bank heist episode because reapers? Not a good act.
I'd say he might have LG before he lost to the Alliance, but has drifted to NN to CN overtime as a smuggler trying to survive.
Sooooooo go and get an Atonement spell. Costs a hell of a lot less than it does the fighter to replace his sword and armor, or a wizard to replace his spellbook full of spells.Paladins have awesome power. They are nigh indestructible. And can destroy evil creatures with great ease. d10 hit die, full bab, full armor, some divine spellcasting, immunity to disease, fear and stuff. Please tell me what other class is this gifted?In my experience, at least on these forums, too many players want all the benefits without being willing to deal with the drawbacks tied to the benefits.What benefits?
Do you mean, 'class abilities'?
You know, the things that every class has? And that the other classes manage to have without the 'self-destruct' drawback?
Wizard, Druid, Oracle, Inquisitor, Cleric...
All the tier 1 and tier 2 classes.
In 1st ed AD&D, paladins were overpowered, but balanced by their drawbacks.
Since 3.0, paladins have been balanced against the other full-BAB classes without the paladin restrictions!
Well to replace a fighter's kit, you only need to shiv a standard fighter elite, with party help and rake in much of what you have lost. Rings, magic armour, bracers, etc etc. If you went a really odd exotic weapon, yeah, they aren't just lying around all over.
Since the Paladin code is basically a cleric+ code, shouldn't Paladins be clerics but better?
Give'em full spellcasting. That will justify why deities care so much that a paladin stays on the straight and narrow.
Since the Paladin code is basically a cleric+ code, shouldn't Paladins be clerics but better?
Give'em full spellcasting. That will justify why deities care so much that a paladin stays on the straight and narrow.
Nah, Bardic or Magus casting (with Cleric spell list + Paladin ones) works. Not full as up to 9th.
Isn't it an actual good act to save somebody in peril and not to shoot them so they don't suffer. lol.
Liking, or not liking the alignment system is irrelevant. It is iconic and one of the founding pillars of the D&D game we all fell in love with (well, for myself anyway)! However, the one constant in the 30+ years playing the plethora of versions of D&D (Pathfinder being the best IMHO)is the interaction between GM and player and the "house rule."
Several people have pointed out that communication and compromise is the best solution to this issue. It is not the fault of the "jerk GM," or the "cheating" munchkin player. It's both and neither. I agree with many that it's about trust and respect! If a player wants to play the paladin class RAW, there definitely needs to be an agreement between not only the player and GM, but also the group as a whole. This class is arguably the most divisive class out there. If a group is going to bring one in, there needs to be an agreement of rules. Whether a locking in of tenants of their deity and spelling out, to the letter what will and what will not be considered a punishable offence in the eyes of the patron deity, or a more the "we'll work it out as it goes" approach where the GM will give warnings when he/she thinks the paladin's behavior becomes questionable.
I think the biggest problem is when a powerful PC class is "balanced" by role-playing restrictions; the GM is tasked with reigning in the PC, sometimes to the detriment of the player's enjoyment of the game. The Pathfinder paladin is (relatively) balanced with the other PC classes, so it really comes down to storyline and enjoyment of the game. If the GM is too restrictive, the players resent it and when the unfettered paladin runs rampant, the GM gets frustrated and everyone suffers.
To make a long post longer, talk it out, agree on basics and always keep the enjoyment of the game first priority.
Strange Doc
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nah, Bardic or Magus casting (with Cleric spell list + Paladin ones) works. Not full as up to 9th.Since the Paladin code is basically a cleric+ code, shouldn't Paladins be clerics but better?
Give'em full spellcasting. That will justify why deities care so much that a paladin stays on the straight and narrow.
The idea is, Paladins have a cleric's alignment restrictions, plus they go the extra mile to always act honorably, never cheat, etc, etc. And yet, it's to these less devoted servants that the gods grant the really powerful miracles and spells.
I mean, it's kind of messed up if you think about it.