Inquisitor in many ways is the "alignment unrestricted" Paladin; a divine warrior with the ability to enhance his damage. WarPriest was another way they've put it together.
I think the paladin's abilities are too tied to Lawful goodness to really change; they'd have to make each of the "mercy" sets and such based on a specific alingment. It's better to use the non-alinged substitutes if you want a Chaotic Neutral "Holy Knight".
Agree here.
It was put to me well, once: With great power comes great responsibility. Being a paladin isn't about doing what you want to do. Having that kind of power requires the discipline to use it, a responsibility you answer to, and a willingness to put others before you.
It is a theme.
The mechanics would need altered substantially to support a different theme. Chaos would deserve Unbindings instead of Mercies. The ability to mislead The Man, to inspire Riots, create kinks in Bureaucracy (and be beyond Freedom, Captain America! that so much of Chaos feels narrowly shoe-horned into, which feels so limiting). I would enjoy playing a class like that, but would never see it as a paladin. The theme is too different.
And you'd want it to be.
As for "holy warrior of a different take," Inquisitor and Warpriest fill these niches nicely already. Your Inquisitor is your "end justifies the means" divine warrior, the "paragon of a random divine cause" warrior and the war priest is exactly what it says.
There's no need to if what you want is a shining knight or divine warrior.
If you want a Chaos Knight, give it the full retooling and retheming it deserves and please, if anyone does take this challenge...make it not shoehorned into Freedom, Captain America.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my mind, a character's flavor shouldn't come from the mechanics, but from the player or the setting. The primary reason that rules exist in an RPG is to facilitate storytelling. The moment they impede that goal, as too often alignment restrictions do, they are acting contrary to that purpose, and hold no weight with me. The lack of alignment restrictions doesn't prevent anyone from playing the class the same way they would with the restrictions. A player can still play a Paladin as a warrior of virtue, or a Barbarian as a chaotic berserker, or a monk as an ascetic, but it means they don't have to be shackled to that.
It's something I can't fathom, when there is a topic such as this, where it doesn't affect you in the slightest (if you want to play a traditional Paladin, play a traditional paladin. If you want to DM a setting where non-LG Paladins don't exist, then say "in this setting all paladins are LG") people still come out in opposition of it. And if you have a problem with playing at the same table as a non LG paladin? Tough Sh*t. I guess the paladin's player gets to play the character s/he wants to play and you don't get to say BadWrongFun to them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins don't quite work as EVERY alignment, but honestly Any Good (and Any Evil for Antipaladins) could be done with minimal changes.
If you'll notice, there are very few mentions of Law anywhere in the Paladin's abilities, and it only lightly touches on the Code ("Respect legitimate authority" being the only overtly lawful bit).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not clear on the difference between a paladin and an LG cleric, from the perspective of someone who lives in the game world. Clerics call on divine power to smite the enemies of the religion, as do paladins. Clerics summon divine creatures to help them fight, as do paladins. Livewise healing and so on. They're both clergy, they both get basically the same skills, etc.
How can anyone who can't see their character sheets tell the difference between the two?
It's easy, really.
Ask them if your fat wife looks fat.
If they answer, and still have their powers, they're a Cleric and not a Paladin.
Why? Because a Paladin is unable to tell a lie (even a white lie), so they can't say no, and if they say yes, they fall because they hurt an innocent (their feelings still count).
I'm still not clear on the difference between a paladin and an LG cleric, from the perspective of someone who lives in the game world. Clerics call on divine power to smite the enemies of the religion, as do paladins. Clerics summon divine creatures to help them fight, as do paladins. Livewise healing and so on. They're both clergy, they both get basically the same skills, etc.
How can anyone who can't see their character sheets tell the difference between the two?
Clerics are not as militant as paladins. Paladins would be the ones who form the majority of the militant arm of a faith. Yes they both fight evil, but a paladin is more prone to do so with force. A cleric not so much.
Dragon Issues 310 & 312 from August and October of 2003 presents 3.5 info for paladins of other alignments and gave each one a different name. Basically they use all the same information for the Paladin adjusted for the alignment they are supposed to represent.
Dragon 310:
Sentinel NG
Avenger CG
Enforcer LN
Incarnate N
Dragon 312:
Anarch CN
Despot LE
Corrupter NE
Anti-Paladin CE
Paladins don't quite work as EVERY alignment, but honestly Any Good (and Any Evil for Antipaladins) could be done with minimal changes.
If you'll notice, there are very few mentions of Law anywhere in the Paladin's abilities, and it only lightly touches on the Code ("Respect legitimate authority" being the only overtly lawful bit).
Honestly, the only one it doesn't really work for, IMO is really just True Neutral. Chaotic neutral is also a bit difficult, since it's very individualistic, and most cases border Chaotic Good, but I'd argue that a Chaotic Neutral Paladin could be found in some Byronic heroes.
|
If we want to look at variant paladins paizo them selves showed how this could be done with the Hell Knight. It smites chaos instead of evil. Instead of not being able to lie they detect lies.
If paizo can come up with a concept such as the hell knight which takes core paladin class abilities, smiting and such, and give them to a class that can be decidedly not good (there is still a law clause there yes but one could easily reflavor it to fit a chaotic or even neutral mold) why cant paladins be of any alignment? We already have anti paladins which are evil paladins.
Why is this such a sacred cow?
you're a decade late.Man, you're like at least 20 minutes late with that.
You don't even need to go to Dragon magazine to get a non-LG paladin: there is a CE paladin in the APG.
It's easy, really.
Ask them if your fat wife looks fat.
If they answer, and still have their powers, they're a Cleric and not a Paladin.
Ooooor, since both clerics and paladins have comparable capacity to be diplomatic, they could politely refuse to answer.
Clerics are not as militant as paladins. Paladins would be the ones who form the majority of the militant arm of a faith. Yes they both fight evil, but a paladin is more prone to do so with force. A cleric not so much.According to what? They both have a huge pile of divine powers that are all directly applicable to fighting. What makes a paladin more likely to fight anyone than a cleric? How do you tell a peaceful ascetic paladin from a cleric of the same sect? How do you tell a militant crusader cleric from a paladin of the same sect?
This is a problem Pathfinder is running into, more and more, as they add more classes. But it was there from day 1.
The thing I have to ask here, is why is that a bad thing? I see it as a good thing, boosting verisimilitude. While I don't like class bloat, (and one of the reasons I prefer PF to 3.5 is Paizo is significantly better than WotC at keeping that type of bloat in line), anything that makes it so the entirety of a world doesn't fall into neat, easily differentiated boxes, is a plus for me. It allows there to be a gradient. You've got three classes of holy warrior, with the Cleric, Paladin and Warpriest (four, if you count the Inquisitor, but I don't, simply because they play very differently. Likewise, I'm not counting the oracle, since they're not typically connected to a deity in the same way). An order of holy knights might include members of all three classes, resulting in a gradient of how much they focus on martial combat, vs magic. By having just one, the ratio of magic to martial combat is more rigidly set. By having two, it's less rigid though the boundary between the two is potentially easier to spot, and with three, it's very fluid, and it's harder to specifically spot the boundary between the three classes as there is some overlap. In my mind, this is good, because reality also has this degree of fluidity. Also, this argument falls flat, when you look outside the Paladin-Cleric dynamic, and see Fighters, Rangers, Barbarians and such. You could play a fighter as a knightly character, does that mean Cavaliers are too indistinct?
This ties into paladins-of-all-alignments chat: paladins have very little to distinguish them from clerics, and always being LG is part of that. Take that away and you run smack into the problem that an any-alignment paladin is even more like the already-any-alignment cleric. Plus, you also run into the fact that lawful-chaotic is a complete f+~#ing mess of nonsensical garbage, so it makes it very difficult to get any thematic space between CG, NG, and LG paladins.
Again, I argue that this isn't a bad thing. So long as the rules allow you to play the stereotypical LG paladin, that option is still on the table. It won't go away fluff wise, especially in Pathfinder, where one of the big 20 gods is about as stereotypically paladin as you get. But what it offers is the ability to leave the shackles of the alignment restriction. Again, looking at the big 20 gods, you've got two, who, though by the current method, wouldn't allow paladins, the case could be reasonably made that they'd be perfect for having non LG paladins. Asmodeus (for obvious reasons), but I could also definatively see Cayden Cailean sponsoring Paladins, fighting against Tyranny and Slavery and such. A classic paladin's flavor will always be there, for those who want it, but not everyone wants to play a paladin that way. And that shouldn't be a problem.
Ooooor, since both clerics and paladins have comparable capacity to be diplomatic, they could politely refuse to answer.It's easy, really.
Ask them if your fat wife looks fat.
If they answer, and still have their powers, they're a Cleric and not a Paladin.
If you're going to reply to my joke seriously, you could at least READ it.
If they answer
Edited to not link*
I understand this, but the problem is that it's near-impossible to write a non-retarded Chaotic list of rules, because one of the many, many contradictory definitions of Chaos is that they aren't going to put up with your rules, maaaaaaan. It's also near-impossible to write rules for a crusader of Neutrality because how the heck do you ardently have no particular opinion on things?
So we're left with strident good paladins (which we already have) and stridently evil a$%#+%#s (which we already have, and they have a code of conduct that makes no f&#$ing sense whatsoever as it is). If you want to make interesting alt paladins, focus less on alignment and more on reasonable codes of ethics and conduct.
Eh, I'd disagree that a class like the paladin needs specific 'rules' to play like a paladin does. After all, I played what essentially amounted to a paladin in a Mutants and Masterminds Fantasy game (which, honestly, I think does high fantasy a lot better than PF, which does low-level Tolkienesque epic fantasy pretty well, but loses out above, say 8th level, where it's still playable but less than ideal), where there were no 'rules' besides self imposed ones, and it never really felt like I was playing something different from a paladin. Did I follow the 3.5/PF Paladin's code 100%? No, but then again, most 3.5 or PF Paladins don't either. Self imposed RP restrictions can go a long way to giving a class a certain feel, without being restrictive to those who want to play it another way. Honestly, if I were to write Pathfinder 2nd Edition, I'd make Paladins without alignment restrictions, but give a sidebar describing the traditional paladin's code, as a roleplay guideline, should they choose to use it (and I'd even have the iconic be a classic LG paladin). But if they don't I don't see how that's any more 'incorrect' than, say, an Urban druid or an Atheist Cleric, who gains her powers from devotion to an ideal rather than to a god. But both are doable within the rules. And, even to use the cleric as an example, it's also the example of how a setting could be more restrictive to deny a certain thing that the setting agnostic rulebook allows. PFS disallows (and James Jacobs, to my knowledge, has stated that this is what he intended for all of Golarion, even non PFS) Ideal-focused clerics, but the book still allows them. The same could go with Non-LG paladins.
I'm all for options, though. A concept could be filled with a Cleric, yes, but a Berserker concept could be filled by a Fighter, were there not a barbarian class. It doesn't mean they should just toss the Barbarian class, nor does it mean the barbarian class should be limited to just being a wilderness tribal berserker.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This debate seems to be ignoring a basic detail: Pathfinder DOES allow alternate alignment Paladins:
They are Anti-Paladins, for the CE Alignment. That is a major change, because so many abilities are keyed into the Alignment,
and many are not so simple to change by swapping references to "Good" for "Evil".
And reducing the class to the level where you could do that would reduce it to flavorless nothing:
Paladin is not JUST the barest outline of LG, it is above and beyond LG.
That works well enough for the extreme alignments. I don't see any fundamental reason LE and CG could not receive similar treatments. Paizo has already done on of those (CE), so they aren't fundamentally opposed there.
But for the Neutral Alignments, it doesn't work so well. A fundamental aspect of Paladin, the CONTRAST between two sometimes not identical ideals, doesn't exist when you only have ONE substantial moral alignment. Paladins have tough choices when facing a choice where Good and Law point different directions. Anti-Paladins also do in their own way. If you are just NG, NE, LN, CN, there is never a conflict between two poles like that. Those just aren't very specific Alignments, unlike the extreme/corner alignments, so they just don't suffice as the conceptual basis of a class as much as the extreme alignments do.
And don't get started with TN, or trying to use Neutrality as the prime pole in NG, NE, LN, CN combos. Just doesn't work. Well, there already is something for that: Druid, and soon Beastmaster(?). I GUESSS you could make a Ranger Archetype to be the Neutral-Required Druidic Paladin, but that's what it would be, a "Green Faith" Ranger Archetype.
You don't even need to go to Dragon magazine to get a non-LG paladin: there is a CE paladin in the APG.you're a decade late.Man, you're like at least 20 minutes late with that.
And, in my opinion, the APG Anti-Paladin is better than the Anti-Paladin in Dragon 312. Or more interesting, rather.
Pathfinder should have Unaligned as an alignment to go with the other nine alignments. Where are our unaligned paladins? :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man oh Man, nothing brings out the knives like the paladin. The original post came in today and there are already 125+ replies. And it's always been this way even back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth (before the Internet.) Back then we had these arguments too, only they were in person and at gaming groups or conventions.
For that reason alone, the paladin needed to be left as LG only. Otherwise what other class would we argue so vehemently about? How does code of conduct work? Should the paladin be able to lie? What other class would we endlessly torment with unsolvable moral conundrums - should the paladin save the family from the burning farm or chase down the Demon of Slurggh who's even now racing (okay oozing) toward town? (Correct answer: your GM is a schmuck)
If you think a generic holy warrior class should be available to multiple alignments, know that we love you and embrace your free-wheeling, innovative, unorthodox and variant rules. Please continue bring your open-minded, outside-the-box ideas here where they can get the nurturing support and complete mocking they need to fully bloom.
And know also that if you believe Paladins should be LG and that such a structure is intrinsic to the core PF experience, your views are welcome here as well. We need your strict RAW perspective to keep us on the straight and narrow, to serve as a beacon for us all, much like the Paladins of old (before they lost their alignment restriction.)
But these role-playing vs. RAW arguments need to be used judiciously otherwise someone will start a thread about why rogues can't have familiars. We just might break the interwebs.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't even need to go to Dragon magazine to get a non-LG paladin: there is a CE paladin in the APG.you're a decade late.Man, you're like at least 20 minutes late with that.And, in my opinion, the APG Anti-Paladin is better than the Anti-Paladin in Dragon 312. Or more interesting, rather.
Pathfinder should have Unaligned as an alignment to go with the other nine alignments. Where are our unaligned paladins? :P
Over in 4E
@AMIB: Or even more so, Inquisitor.
I'm fine with good-aligned characters gaining advantages and special options that aren't available to non-good characters. And I'm fine with that being baked right into the rules.
The current alignment restrictions on paladin is a terrible way to implement this sort of thing. First off, the paladin isn't restricted to just good alignments, it's restricted to just lawful good. Why don't NG and CG characters get any special evil-fighting advantages?
Second, these special advantages existing on the class level is a bad way to do it. Why don't good bards and barbarians get special options to fight evil? Note that the way Marvel Superheroes and 7th Sea implemented this, you don't have to be a specific class to benefit (not that either of those systems even have classes).
Third, the paladin class isn't actually an advantage. It's a fun class to play, but it's not at the upper echelons of class power.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
. . . Having a class that is supposed to emulate European knights such as those found in the Arthurian fables in a game where players may not be playing concepts that have anything to do with Europe is very poor design.
Then don't play a paladin. It has baggage. Very specific baggage.
The Twelve Peers, or the Twelve Paladins of Charlemagne[pal-uh-din] noun
1. any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne.
2. any knightly or heroic champion.
3. any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause.
So... to extrapolate a bit, too much possibly, a paladin is a knightly figure that advocates and defends a noble cause.
Actually, you've convinced me. Remove the paladin class entirely. It is now a role play title as a rogue may be called a noble because he bought a title, or a samurai who has no levels in a class with the same name. (And yes, I am aware that the character in question has levels in paladin. It just makes it funnier to me for some reason...)
What follows is my own opinion, and not one that I am pushing in an effort to attempt to make any others agree.
I think a cleric should lose spell access for a bit if he doesn't act like a follower of his specific god should. I think a holy warrior chosen by a higher power or who has had a religious epiphany falls more in the realm of something that happens after first level, and as such, should be a prestige class. Arguing for other alignment paladins when there is still so much arguing over alignments themselves is kind of odd to me. I do believe flavor is mutable, and as such, I can make most of the character concepts I would like within the current rules set without resorting to changes. I still like having more options.
Oddly enough, more paladins that don't act like paladins isn't one of them. Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. No reason a Paladin can't tell the literal or partial truth when asked. "Why are you here?" "I have business with your boss." If he's there to arrest said boss, that is indeed 'business' and therefore true.
2. Codes should be part of roleplaying, not mechanics. They should not be hard-coded into the mechanics.
Just wanted to say that this thread did accomplish one bit of good - it encouraged me to re-read Three Hearts and Three Lions. :)
-TimD
And they should have changed fighters so they can shoot magic missiles and fireballs!
Hey, Lyans (LN paladins) could throw fireballs. Not sure about the Magic Missiles. So could the LE illriggers, IIRC.
==Aelryinth
|
When the paladin concept originally appeared in D&D, it was as a champion of good. Trouble was, there was no such thing as a 'good' alignment back then; there were only three alignments: law, neutrality and chaos. Out of those three, it's obvious that paladins had to be lawful.
When the alignment system expanded to include good and evil, the paladin should have become purely good (to match the 'champion of good' concept, but it retained the 'lawful' part, I can only assume for legacy reasons.
The concept AND the mechanics are about good versus evil. Law doesn't and shouldn't dilute it.
The PF paladin should be any good alignment, the code should replace the single line about respecting legitimate authority (slavery anyone?), and the mechanics of the class will be almost totally unchanged! The tweak to the spell list and Divine Weapon Bond powers is little effort and doesn't change the 'champion of good' concept at all.
I wouldn't like to see variations in the mechanics (beyond spell lists/alignment descriptors for spells) for paladins of different alignments. There is no need.
Just to illustrate that paladins, even now, are all about good and not about law:-
Aura of Good
No 'Aura of Law' anywhere to be seen.
Hellknights have an aura of law, no?
==Aelryinth
Actually, my issue with the limitation is that it's not applied to clerics as well. Clerics are supposed to represent the divine will of their gods and yet they aren't help to a strict code like the paladin? That just seems off to me. If I am a god, wouldn't I expect my clerics, who wield my divine might and represent me in the world, to be held to the same standards as this other guy fighting in my name?Paladins aren't holy warriors, though, that's the Cleric's schtick. Paladins don't have to worship a deity any more than a Ranger or Fighter does.
Paladins aren't paragons of their deity, they're paragons of virtue. A Paladin can worship a deity, but if they do and there's a conflict between their deity's tenets and their code, Paladins follow their code every time. Clerics can't pick their personal codes over their deity's edicts. Not if they want to stay Clerics.
Except that the paladin description indicates that they worship a deity (bold mine). So what's the difference?
Paladin
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.
Actually, my issue with the limitation is that it's not applied to clerics as well. Clerics are supposed to represent the divine will of their gods and yet they aren't help to a strict code like the paladin? That just seems off to me. If I am a god, wouldn't I expect my clerics, who wield my divine might and represent me in the world, to be held to the same standards as this other guy fighting in my name?But clerics do have codes they must abide by. The tenets of the deity chosen are as much of an RP restriction on them as the codes of honor on the Paladin.
In cases where the god is a deity of honor or some extreme virtue or vice their codes may be even more strict than the Paladins.Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).
So where are the alignment restrictions? Last I checked they only needed to be within one step of their deity.
Where is the code of conduct?
The problem with the paladin is that it is a campaign specific class in what is (for the most part) a campaign neutral system. Kind of like the monk and to some degree the Ranger.