I think that it is obvious that there can't be a Paladin with demonic blood in his veins fighting demons, it's absurd. But I see you are that kind of GM that would allow parties like Halfling Barbarian, Half-Orc Bard, Dwarf Wizard, Tiefling Paladin, Dark Elf Cleric of Sarenrae, and Minotaur Rogue that backstabs with a large greatsword etc.
Ahem.
Okay. If it's so obvious Adrian, explain it to me. Why can't a tiefling be a paladin?
|
.
I also find it quite funny that most who want to define a paladin strictly as a LG Knight in shining armor forget that the very first paladin was a cowboy with magic six shooters at Gary Gygax's table.
While Don Kaye's Murlynd was a character in one of Gygax's campaigns, we have no reason to conclude that he was the first Paladin to be played. There may have been others who acheived no noteriety due to early character death. The table had at least one other Paladin who became a murderous evil brigand, if I recall my Rogue's Gallery text.
And to be technically accurate, the magic six shooters did not occur until the character in question had dual-classed to wizard and plane-hopped to Boot Hill. (conversion mechanics were included in the DMG) and/or became a Hero Diety which is a different kettle of fish entirely.
But, But...that doesn't fit the narrative they are trying to use!?!?!
That's fine Ciretose. What works at your table works at your table, and I'm not trying to say your group's style is any better or worse than mine or any other poster's. I just want to understand.
|
|
That's fine Ciretose. What works at your table works at your table, and I'm not trying to say your group's style is any better or worse than mine or any other poster's. I just want to understand.
I think logically it makes a lot of sense to have a setting where demonic taint prevents becoming a Paladin. That is a logical decision you can make as a GM. It would not bother me at all if that was a restriction in a given game.
It isn't the way I would go, as I think a Tiefling Paladin could be a great concept if well played. My line would be if the Tiefling Paladin wanted to argue his demon taint wasn't a bad thing, because his demon dad was a good demon, at which I would go "This is not a 'demon with a heart of gold setting...'" and Bobby Y and Ashy would scream about how cruel I am.
Having expectations for a setting isn't a bad thing. It is, in fact, a great thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because there aren't at least 3 other classes that can fill this description and a Paladin isn't a specific trope some people really enjoy playing?
What other classes? What other classes have "Honor is cool", "be on your best behavior" and "you shouldn't like bad stuff" or anything similar? What other class has a rule even half as vague for determining behavior? I will ignore you if you try to pull that barbarian rage thing again. There is no comparison what so ever to a rule that requires interpretation and gentlemen's agreement to even function remotely and a rule that is not up for debate because it is clearly written. When was the last time you saw a thread dedicated to how players who play an oracle need to learn to be good players and be trustworthy and adapt to their DM's idea of what "foggy vision" is? You haven't because they defined what that meant.
The reason the Code of Conduct is something that doesn't have value is because the players and the DM have to invent it. It doesn't actually exist. "Don't use poison" is clear. "You should oppose evil" is so vague that no group has ever actually had a paladin in it without making up some rules first. And sometimes the group comes to a quicka dn easy consensus. That's cool. But that doesn't mean they didn't make it up themselves.
I'm really glad you have a group that can all trust one another and be cool and adapt to YOU. That's awesome. But I play with random people at book stores and coffee shops and when my players come to the table to play a paladin, I'm not going to have long discussions about what a paladins code means, or force him to adapt to my views, or argue with him 7 sessions in about what how I don't think one of his actions line up with his almost impossible to interpret vague code of conduct. And I'm CERTAINLY not going to pull any of that "you shouldn't have played a paladin" crap. What I will do however is to quickly say "hey look, in the past paladin's have been a problem because the code of conduct is vague, so why don't you write a code of conduct yourself with 3 to 5 tenants, something that you personally would be more interested in playing. Make it clear things that aren't open to interpretation and then I'll look it over and discuss it with you and we'll be good to go."
|
|
You said "Champion of a God" (and then selectively edited it out...)
Clerics, Inquisitors and Fighters can all fill the "Champion of a God" category without having to follow a Paladin code.
That was the goal post you set, I kicked a ball through it. If you want to move them elsewhere now, admit it is a separate discussion.
You decide to play at random bookstores with random people who apparently aren't willing to conform to GM expectations, which is probably why a few of them (not all, not even most) have to resort to playing at random tables in coffee shops and bookstores.
Because you game with random strangers you just met and don't want to hold them to any kind of reasonable table norms is a function of you, not the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We should also remove the Oracle curse, because who wants to play a curse, right?(S)
Sarcasm or not you're right. The #1 reason that Oracle wasn't played in my group was because no one wanted the forced RP. Unless a curse fit into your character concept then it was unsuitable for play. Eventually I added the option to play an Oracle without curses (and without the benefits those curses bring) and Oracle became a consideration and we had a few.
And Rage seems really...well angry...that should go. And why should can't they be lawful, that seems like a silly restriction?(S)
Actually the lawful thing is a silly restriction. And Rage can be refluffed to be intense single-minded focus. At the end of the day, Rage is merely a buff that fits on almost any martial. You could replace the word "Rage" with "Battle Focus" and pretty much leave everything the same. That's the difference between mechanics and fluff. I can easily take the Barbarian and make a Samurai if I want to.
Just like why shouldn't monks be allowed to be chaotic? And why do Druids have to be neutral? And why can't they wear metal armor? And arcane spell failure is cruel.(S)
Again, monk alignment is stupid. I didn't say it wasn't. Druid alignments aren't as restrictive because you're allowed to be almost anything which at least marginalizes the problem so that it's not nearly as noticeable as "must be X".
See how well the tag would work if it became universal?
Looks like an improvement in just about every respect, if you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We should just have one mega class with all class options and no restrictions, unfettered use of all abilities at will all day. Let the player pick the powers they want, and no stupid level restrictions either. Then everyone can do everything they want every time with no restrictions or balance. (S)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your honor, I rest my case.
I need to remember that post, as I will certainly link to it later when you say in another forum "I'm not against restrictions, but..."
Oh please do. It'd save me the trouble of doing so. None of these things are nearly as restricting as the Paladin, barring perhaps the Oracle. However each thing you mentioned was a perfect example of something that is probably not needed in the least ('cept the Barbarian's rage which was the only one on the list other than oracles that wasn't some bizarre alignment restriction).
Even with the Oracle I knew plenty of people who agreed that the oracle was powerful (often because of her curses since each of them give you a major upside as well) but they just didn't want to play a character who had so much forced fluff.
Once I offered the mere OPTION to play an oracle without the forced fluff (no curse, no curse benefits) I had players who were interested in playing oracles. Later I added the option to add cleric domains, and then we ended up with an Oracle who was very playable without all the forced fluff.
Because fluff is nice but in the end it's just fluff. If the concept you had for your character didn't involve an oracle curse then it put the oracle and its playstyle off the table and basically left you with the cleric instead. But not everyone wants to play a cleirc. Some would rather play an oracle (much as how some prefer sorcerer over wizard).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I could have everything my way, I'd have "(Un)Holy Champions" of each alignment. I'd keep the whole "has a personal code" thing, because it actually helps shape role play, just like a Druid's aversion to metal and a Monk's internal discipline (IE lawful behavior) add flavor to those classes.
I'd also make the Code a little differently for every character, depending on factors like alignment and if the Champion is following a God. Lawful alignments would have very inflexible codes, while Chaotic alignments would be highly personable. Lawful alignments would have strict "lose all your powers- no exceptions" consequences, because that Code would be clearly laid out. You're either following The Law or you're not. Chaotic Codes would be more general to allow for situational interpretation, and the consequences would be more along the lines of "lose a usage of one power for a week" (minor infractions) or "lose a third, half, or two thirds of your power until you atone, depending on the situation." (Major infractions) I'd do it that way because it would be my expectation (clearly laid out beforehand) that Chaotic characters would face situations in which the 'best move' wouldn't be to completely follow the code, and thus they'd be losing abilities more often than lawful characters.
I'd do it this way because I think the "Paladin" class runs mechanically different than a Fighter/Cleric multiclass, or the Inquisitor class. I'd be going for the mechanical effect while setting strict role playing guidelines on the side. In the same way, I'd have no problem playing a Fighter class if I could negotiate with the DM to spend feats/traits to acquire an animal companion at -4 Druid levels and role play myself as a Ranger. There is a divide between the mechanics of a class and the flavor of it. That's why I'm saddened to see the Paladin mechanics restricted to such a narrow flavor. Monks and Barbarians may have similar alignment restrictions, but they still provide plenty of RP room. (Honestly, the restrictions help define the RP experience.) Druids have a stricter alignment restriction, but you can do a *lot* from the 'neutral' stance. (In fact, I could totally play a Heroic Crusader Druid who balanced out the Good aligned goals by being willing to torture and murder "for the Greater Good.")
I realize that a Paladin's LG alignment restriction help define the RP experience for that class too... I just find the RP experience to be too narrow. Especially when you have GMs and players like those in my group who honestly believe that Paladins all have to be one PERSONALITY (with only small room for variation) in order to successfully stick to the code. At my table, the Paladin is a character, not a class. I genuinely hope that my table is a statistical anomaly, but that doesn't change the fact that there really aren't a whole lot of RP choices in the Paladin from a traditionalist point of view.
With all of that said, Paizo would have a great deal of difficulty publishing 'my way.' My way DEPENDS on heavy interaction and communication between the player and the GM. In the end, it's the same type of (player) "I want to play this character" and (GM) "that does or does not fit in my world... make these changes" interaction. It's simply a more intensified version of it. The player and GM would have to sit down and work all of this out from the start, with the player giving a very vivid depiction of his character's ethics while still being willing to change it based on the GM's feedback.
Also, I've already established a reputation at my table as someone who likes to succeed at what I'm doing, but who will also make sub-optimal or just plain bad character decisions if the role play or dice roll call for it. (In fact, some of my characters funniest and most memorable moments came from low dice rolls.) I'd like to think that past behavior would buy me some slack (presuming I had a GM who wasn't a Paladin Traditionalist, anyway). However, I have a feeling that any Paizo product that prefaced a (non-optional) rule set with as long as the player communicates heavily the GM and is willing to accept semi-regular nerfing due to role-play... wouldn't be well received amongst the broad spectrum of Paizo's customer base.
The best Paladin I've ever seen was a Fighter.
Also, the Crusader in Tome of Battle did this very well. No one complains that Druids must be Neutral because they still have tons of different options (Neutral Good, Neutral, Neutral Evil, Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Neutral) and their class features aren't suddenly lost if they and the GM have a disagreement over whether it was morally right or wrong to save little Timmy from the Well instead of letting little Timmy die while he stopped the big bad from poisoning the water supply of an entire town.
The crusader could be anything except True Neutral. Which meant virtually everything but complete fence-sitting was on the table (and even then due to the nature of alignment you could probably get the exact same flavor you wanted using a slightly different alignment if you wanted to be a fence-sitting crusader).
You said "Champion of a God" (and then selectively edited it out...)
Clerics, Inquisitors and Fighters can all fill the "Champion of a God" category without having to follow a Paladin code.
That was the goal post you set, I kicked a ball through it. If you want to move them elsewhere now, admit it is a separate discussion.
You decide to play at random bookstores with random people who apparently aren't willing to conform to GM expectations, which is probably why a few of them (not all, not even most) have to resort to playing at random tables in coffee shops and bookstores.
Because you game with random strangers you just met and don't want to hold them to any kind of reasonable table norms is a function of you, not the game.
I'm not going to give such an absurd misrepresentation of my post the dignity of a response.
|
|
I'm not going to give such an absurd misrepresentation of my post the dignity of a response.You said "Champion of a God" (and then selectively edited it out...)
Clerics, Inquisitors and Fighters can all fill the "Champion of a God" category without having to follow a Paladin code.
That was the goal post you set, I kicked a ball through it. If you want to move them elsewhere now, admit it is a separate discussion.
You decide to play at random bookstores with random people who apparently aren't willing to conform to GM expectations, which is probably why a few of them (not all, not even most) have to resort to playing at random tables in coffee shops and bookstores.
Because you game with random strangers you just met and don't want to hold them to any kind of reasonable table norms is a function of you, not the game.
Isn't that exactly what you just did?
Isn't that exactly what you just did?I'm not going to give such an absurd misrepresentation of my post the dignity of a response.You said "Champion of a God" (and then selectively edited it out...)
Clerics, Inquisitors and Fighters can all fill the "Champion of a God" category without having to follow a Paladin code.
That was the goal post you set, I kicked a ball through it. If you want to move them elsewhere now, admit it is a separate discussion.
You decide to play at random bookstores with random people who apparently aren't willing to conform to GM expectations, which is probably why a few of them (not all, not even most) have to resort to playing at random tables in coffee shops and bookstores.
Because you game with random strangers you just met and don't want to hold them to any kind of reasonable table norms is a function of you, not the game.
Not really.
|
Isn't that exactly what you just did?I'm not going to give such an absurd misrepresentation of my post the dignity of a response.You said "Champion of a God" (and then selectively edited it out...)
Clerics, Inquisitors and Fighters can all fill the "Champion of a God" category without having to follow a Paladin code.
That was the goal post you set, I kicked a ball through it. If you want to move them elsewhere now, admit it is a separate discussion.
You decide to play at random bookstores with random people who apparently aren't willing to conform to GM expectations, which is probably why a few of them (not all, not even most) have to resort to playing at random tables in coffee shops and bookstores.
Because you game with random strangers you just met and don't want to hold them to any kind of reasonable table norms is a function of you, not the game.
What did he respond to?
|
I think that it is obvious that there can't be a Paladin with demonic blood in his veins fighting demons, it's absurd. But I see you are that kind of GM that would allow parties like Halfling Barbarian, Half-Orc Bard, Dwarf Wizard, Tiefling Paladin, Dark Elf Cleric of Sarenrae, and Minotaur Rogue that backstabs with a large greatsword etc.
I am indeed currently running a halfling barbarian, my group had a rogue with a fullblade (basically a large greatsword) about two years back, and I see no problem with any of the other combinations you mentioned as long as they are well roleplayed. The tiefling demonhunter paladin isn't any weirder than the dhampir vampire hunter.
I think several posters in here believe the default solution to any restriction should be "world changes"
Nope, only the restrictions that make the game less fun and exist only to preserve someone else's idea of "appropriate flavour" for a class.
Sometimes it doesn't even make sense. Look at the Champion of Irori, a class that serves a LN deity. It's required to be LG. Why? Because it's a monk/paladin multiclass and is affected by the Paladin restriction.
I think logically it makes a lot of sense to have a setting where demonic taint prevents becoming a Paladin. That is a logical decision you can make as a GM. It would not bother me at all if that was a restriction in a given game.
It isn't the way I would go, as I think a Tiefling Paladin could be a great concept if well played. My line would be if the Tiefling Paladin wanted to argue his demon taint wasn't a bad thing, because his demon dad was a good demon, at which I would go "This is not a 'demon with a heart of gold setting...'" and Bobby Y and Ashy would scream about how cruel I am.
Having expectations for a setting isn't a bad thing. It is, in fact, a great thing.
Absolutely, but that's setting specific. It would be unfortunate if the ARG had a line in there somewhere saying “because tieflings are corrupted by fiendish blood then can never be Good,” thus requiring groups to make a specific exception if they want to bring in a tiefling paladin.
Think of it like organ donor registries. In countries where you opt out of organ donation (being a donor is the default), you have more donors than countries where you opt into organ donation (not being a donor is the default). It's more energy to make a specific change, so people who don't really care will stick with the default. And I don't like that the default is "less character options."
We should also remove the Oracle curse, because who wants to play a curse, right?(S)
And Rage seems really...well angry...that should go. And why should can't they be lawful, that seems like a silly restriction?(S)
Just like why shouldn't monks be allowed to be chaotic? And why do Druids have to be neutral? And why can't they wear metal armor? And arcane spell failure is cruel.(S)
See how well the tag would work if it became universal?
I agree with Ashiel that alignment restrictions in general need to go, at least on core classes and probably on prestige classes as well.
The oracle's curse and arcane spell failure are mechanical restrictions, not flavour/RP restrictions – they actually have a role in game balance. Wizards would be OP if they didn't have to jump through hoops in order to safely wear armour (though they can do it at the cost of two feats and a swift action by getting Light Armour Proficiency + Arcane Armour Training + Mithral Chain Shirt). Metal armour for druid is a very minor balance point easily bypassed by dragonhide in most campaigns. Also you at least get to choose which oracle curse you take, so that's a little more like “pick an alignment for your paladin and follow the corresponding code.” And even then -
Once I offered the mere OPTION to play an oracle without the forced fluff (no curse, no curse benefits) I had players who were interested in playing oracles.
That sounds entirely reasonable since most of the curses actually give better benefits than drawbacks in the long run. Turns the curse into something more like a monk vow – you can at your option accept this fluff and its corresponding benefits and penalties.
The best Paladin I've ever seen was a Fighter.
And the CG Paladin was actually only about 40% paladin by levels.
And I once rewrote a Paladin character as an Inquisitor class after the APG came out, when I realized that I wanted a Wis-based divine knight rather than a Cha-based one. The RP was exactly the same, just different class dynamics.
But you can't have a Cha-based CG divine knight.
|
|
What did he respond to?Isn't that exactly what you just did?I'm not going to give such an absurd misrepresentation of my post the dignity of a response.You said "Champion of a God" (and then selectively edited it out...)
Clerics, Inquisitors and Fighters can all fill the "Champion of a God" category without having to follow a Paladin code.
That was the goal post you set, I kicked a ball through it. If you want to move them elsewhere now, admit it is a separate discussion.
You decide to play at random bookstores with random people who apparently aren't willing to conform to GM expectations, which is probably why a few of them (not all, not even most) have to resort to playing at random tables in coffee shops and bookstores.
Because you game with random strangers you just met and don't want to hold them to any kind of reasonable table norms is a function of you, not the game.
He posted a response, so, you know...
Also, it's kind of ballsy to comment on "misrepresentation" of a post literally right after you selectively quoted someone by leaving out the key sentence.
Things like that kind of weaken the effect of righteous indignation...
|
|
If you want to remove alignment restrictions, that is what house rules are for.
But it seems the writers, developers, and most of the rest of us like to have defined classes, in part so when we sit down at a table there can be some level of shared understanding we can build from rather than having to hand out a reading list in advance.
If your group wants to veer from these, nothing is stopping you. But removing the norm so a few people can play things like Drittz without getting an eyeroll from the rest of a group that is aware that the setting will now need to change significantly to accommodate one "special" person, and therefore they can't play the way they would prefer to play is a silly approach to game design.
The Paladin code exists because the Paladin trope exists. If you don't want to play the paladin trope, you need to find a group that is fine with you not playing the paladin trope.
More power to you.
|
I think that it is obvious that there can't be a Paladin with demonic blood in his veins fighting demons, it's absurd.
Click on the Malachi Silverclaw name and go to his profile.
This is one example of a background that has a paladin with the blood of demons in his veins, and who was born and raised in Cheliax, a country allied with devils.
I chose to do this partly as a role-playing challenge, and partly to play a character who isn't good because it is easy; he's good even when it's difficult.
I can't tell you how to play at your own table, but I feel that any decision you make regarding the validity of a PC's background be made after you know about it, rather than forbidding it before you know how it all makes sense (or not)!
|
|
He posted a response, so, you know...If you say 'TOZ, I need that report.' and I say 'Man it is nice weather today ciretose!' I have responded to you without giving your statement a response.
If I say 'TOZ, I need that report.' and you say 'I am not responding to you' you are actually responding in the same way that if a child goes "I'm not talking to you" they are, in fact, talking to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To clarify, I was not attempting to make a personal attack. I simply view silence as a form of consent. I happen to like ciretose. I found it in better taste to simply withdraw and say why than to argue against possition that is not mine. If it seemed like an attack I'm sorry about that. That isn't the way I debate.
I think that it is obvious that there can't be a Paladin with demonic blood in his veins fighting demons, it's absurd. But I see you are that kind of GM that would allow parties like Halfling Barbarian, Half-Orc Bard, Dwarf Wizard, Tiefling Paladin, Dark Elf Cleric of Sarenrae, and Minotaur Rogue that backstabs with a large greatsword etc.
I too am disappointed that elf is no longer a class.
Elves are so awesome that they don't need a class. ;)
|
|
To clarify, I was not attempting to make a personal attack. I simply view silence as a form of consent. I happen to like ciretose. I found it in better taste to simply withdraw and say why than to argue against possition that is not mine. If it seemed like an attack I'm sorry about that. That isn't the way I debate.
And for the record, I like WPharolin. He may very well be my favorite person on the other side of the argument. And that it isn't how he usually debates is why I made the snarky response :)
|
|
I think that it is obvious that there can't be a Paladin with demonic blood in his veins fighting demons, it's absurd. But I see you are that kind of GM that would allow parties like Halfling Barbarian, Half-Orc Bard, Dwarf Wizard, Tiefling Paladin, Dark Elf Cleric of Sarenrae, and Minotaur Rogue that backstabs with a large greatsword etc.I too am disappointed that elf is no longer a class.
For the record, I would allow all of the things he listed for most of the people I've game with. Now if the player had demonstrated in the past that they were incapable of playing such things without disrupting the game...like my one friend who can't play Paladins anymore because he is really, comically bad at it, I would also reserve the right to pull the plug.
|
I have not read the entire thread - I have to sleep sometimes LOL
Paladins live by a Code. They are required to adhere to that Code or they have to atone for their sin. Playing a Paladin means the character is LG, period. It is in the rules. (I am not talking about any other class related to a Pally.)
A player and a GM get together to decide what tenets of the Paladins Code are. They define "Honor", they define "Honorably". This is not a difficult concept. If the Pally's code states - "You cannot use ranged weapons because it is dishonorable." If the Code states that a Paladin must be a leader in combat, then he cannot hang out in back of the party. Then if a Pally uses a ranged weapon she is in violation of her Code and she has to Atone or loose her status. Simple.
I have played D&D, AD&D, 3.5, and now Pathfinder for something like 38 years. Alignment is not fuzzy or difficult to understand. It is clearly defined in the CRB.
The game is to have fun. It has rules, so the rules have to be followed, unless the GM announced she is suspending some portion and inserting her own guidelines. Pathfinder is a really good set of rules. They are basically well done and easy to understand, (except for all the publications which add additional rules, published monthly, but Paizo has to make money to stay in business.) BTW, IMHO any GM who would have a demon/devil "repent" to hang a Pally needs to rethink their sitting behind the screen. That is just plain evil!
Rule Number One: Have fun
Ok, to summarize this...
Since there are just too many people with too many their own personal opinions, LG Paladin, CG Paladin, Tiefling Paladin fighting his own blood, egotistical Paladins, honorable Paladins, Paladins acting like Barbarians, Paladins that defile female Clerics, bless their own "nuts", Paladins don't respect authority, Paladins that beat innocent people, Paladins that use poison on weapons, Paladins that run like cowards from combat, Paladins, Paladins, Paladins, and just too many different Paladins.
Every GM has the right to make his own rules about Code of Conduct, every GM has a different point of view what Paladin stands for, how he should behave, how not etc.
So in the end, since I'm the GM my opinion when I explain about Code of Conduct to the future Paladin player is the rule that the player should respect, GM is the law, GM is GOD, no matter how bad or good ( in soul) he is! I was and I will be the GOOD GM as i always been, but from now on, Paladin will be a Paladin how it should be, Lawful Good, honorable, a true hero who fights to preserve the good humanity from evil and fight for a better Utopia!
If you smeeeeelll what AdrianGM is cooking!!!
|
|
If you want to remove alignment restrictions, that is what house rules are for.
But it seems the writers, developers, and most of the rest of us like to have defined classes, in part so when we sit down at a table there can be some level of shared understanding we can build from rather than having to hand out a reading list in advance.
If your group wants to veer from these, nothing is stopping you. But removing the norm so a few people can play things like Drittz without getting an eyeroll from the rest of a group that is aware that the setting will now need to change significantly to accommodate one "special" person, and therefore they can't play the way they would prefer to play is a silly approach to game design.
The Paladin code exists because the Paladin trope exists. If you don't want to play the paladin trope, you need to find a group that is fine with you not playing the paladin trope.
More power to you.
I understand the power of house rules and use them liberally when I think that rules restrictions are impeding the group's fun or preventing interesting character concepts. My interest in the subject on the boards is pretty academic. It mostly boils down to two points:
1) If the PF rules system is supposed to work in a variety of campaign settings, it should err on the side of being inclusive and permissive on things that do not affect game balance. Firearms are inappropriate in some settings, but that doesn't stop PF from publishing firearms rules and the Gunslinger class - it's just understood that if guns don't make sense in the setting the GM will disallow them. While it absolutely makes sense in some settings for drow and tieflings to be Always Evil, it doesn't make sense for PF as a whole to make that restriction. And similarly while in many worlds it makes sense to use the LG paladin trope, in many worlds it really doesn't, so PF as a whole should not use that restriction. At minimum it should encourage a group to consider alternate paladin alignments and codes if it fits within their playstyle and campaign world. There's already similar wording allowing philosophy clerics (no deity) at GM discretion.
2) I regularly see threads complaining about paladins who don't conform to the paladin trope. While it's perfectly valid for a particular GM/group to tell someone "if you can't play the traditional paladin trope, don't use the paladin class," it makes sense to first ask "is the paladin trope actually valuable enough to preserve in this particular case?" Which is why I think it's just fine for a GM to look at a problem paladin and say "why don't we give you a different alignment and code" rather than punishing or getting rid of the character. It's up to a particular GM, group, and paladin player to work it out, and I think that you, ciretose, respect that. But I don't appreciate being told that paladins who don't conform to that trope are wrongbadfun, which is the sense I am getting out of AdrianGM's posts.
Another thing to keep in mind about the Paladin's Code- and this has already been touched on by Ciretose and others- is player/GM communication.
If a Paladin is edging on behavior that would violate the Code (whatever the Code may be) it's important for this to be communicated in some way. (Preferably in a more straightforward manner than subtle hints in-game, as I personally have a low Sense Motive.) If I'm a player with a character that is under an alignment restriction and my character's behavior is getting lax, I (the player) am trusting the GM to warn me.
If my character is going merrily along her way, and then suddenly loses her class abilities because she's done something that the GM thought was Fall-worthy, I (as the player) am going to feel ambushed. It's going to be difficult for me to take that calmly if I've had no warning. (This is not to say that players SHOULDN'T behave maturely at their table, or that they are somehow not responsible for how they behave. Merely that feeling ambushed makes it difficult to be accepting about something that you don't like.)
A good GM will warn their player. In fact, I am sure that most GM's warn their players in some way. I'm just pointing out that the GM side of the "players and GM's should trust each other" line is a responsibility to communicate to the player if the GM feels their Paladin character is edging close to a Fall.
|
|
If that restriction alone means I can't have fun at his table, that is more my problem than his.
There's something to be said for tone when communicating how things work in one's campaign. Incompatible preferences happen and aren't bad, but like Weirdo says, there's that tone of badwrongfun accusation, particularly in the remarks aimed at Gaekub.
GAH!
Kenders...
Cuz, yeah an adventuring party is going to want to take a hopelessly naive and annoying clepto on a trip with them.
Nope.
There are also people who want to play builds that would be disruptive in some games, because those are the kinds of things they want to play. Kender players come to mind, for example.
And if a GM doesn't say upfront that isn't acceptable, the same people attack that GM for not being clear upfront.
Kender's info says they have to disruptive. "You just don't understand Kender" is actually says in their description if you get upset wioth their "borrowing" of your stuff.
If people can't handle a LG paladin, how many games would break down over a CN paladin?
If you want to remove alignment restrictions, that is what house rules are for.
But it seems the writers, developers, and most of the rest of us like to have defined classes, in part so when we sit down at a table there can be some level of shared understanding we can build from rather than having to hand out a reading list in advance.
If your group wants to veer from these, nothing is stopping you. But removing the norm so a few people can play things like Drittz without getting an eyeroll from the rest of a group that is aware that the setting will now need to change significantly to accommodate one "special" person, and therefore they can't play the way they would prefer to play is a silly approach to game design.
The Paladin code exists because the Paladin trope exists. If you don't want to play the paladin trope, you need to find a group that is fine with you not playing the paladin trope.
More power to you.
I understand the power of house rules and use them liberally when I think that rules restrictions are impeding the group's fun or preventing interesting character concepts. My interest in the subject on the boards is pretty academic. It mostly boils down to two points:
1) If the PF rules system is supposed to work in a variety of campaign settings, it should err on the side of being inclusive and permissive on things that do not affect game balance. Firearms are inappropriate in some settings, but that doesn't stop PF from publishing firearms rules and the Gunslinger class - it's just understood that if guns don't make sense in the setting the GM will disallow them. While it absolutely makes sense in some settings for drow and tieflings to be Always Evil, it doesn't make sense for PF as a whole to make that restriction. And similarly while in many worlds it makes sense to use the LG paladin trope, in many worlds it really doesn't, so PF as a whole should not use that restriction. At minimum it should encourage a group to consider alternate paladin...
I came to another conclusion from your point of view.
Since I would really like to find a player who know to play the LG Paladin to it's best and me as GM and that player understand each other in terms of better cooperation during the game. But there is one more thing that I found out:
If that future party whom I'll be GMing consist most of CG, N or CN characters, especially if they are in the range on N and CN, then it's better not to have a Paladin in that group, I mean I would allow for Paladin class to be played. In that way, as far as CN goes, then it's all fine with me what those characters are going to do, except not going too far to becoming CE.
Look the only thing is if a Player wants to play the Paladin but ask like a Fighter, which means he won't ask LG how I expect, then it's much easier for him to create a Fighter, then both myself and he won't have problems, everything would be nice and smooth.
I mean I wouldn't allow Paladin class to be played* - That's what I meant to say in that sentence in the third paragraph.