|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
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).
That's kind of the thing, they are LG, and yet, really, they might as well be NG, because their *mechanics* are all about good vs. evil, and don't give a rat's buttocks about law vs. chaos.
For all that we've had a LG Paladin class for 30 years or so, we haven't *yet* had a truly LAWFUL good Paladin class. Just a GOOD Paladin class that, for some reason, unrelated to the game mechanics, is supposed to also be lawful.
And, tradition is not a selling point. Paladins no longer have to be Human only. They can now multiclass. They no longer have to have a 17 Charisma just to get in the door. They no longer are limited to 10 magic items. They no longer have to tithe most of their party treasure. They no longer spend more experience to level (because they are no longer 'everything a Fighter can do PLUS special powers'). They've never been as Lawful as they are Good, so there's nothing 'iconic' or special about that lingering convention, since it was never an issue, since day one. That's like claiming that you love traditional iconic flintlocks because of the laser targeting sights, apparently unaware that flintlocks didn't have laser targeting sights.
Of the classes, the Paladin is probably one of the *most* changed from it's original form, compared to say, the Fighter or the 'Magic-user' or the Cleric. (Although the Bard easily wins the title of most changed!)
As for the argument that 'we already have non LG Paladins, they're called Clerics, Inquisitors, Warpriests, etc.', that's specious. A Cleric / Inquisitor / Warpriest is not a 'non-LG Paladin,' and if they were actually intended as such, then it would be forbidden to play a LG Cleric / Inquisitor / Warpriest, because 'we already have LG Clerics / Inquisitors / Warpriests, they're called Paladins.'
Still, as written, a CG or NG Paladin is literally identical to a LG Paladin, since Paladins don't have any abilities at all that relate to the Lawful part of their alignment (so, *nothing* has to change if that Lawful Good is changed to Neutral Good or Chaotic Good). They don't Detect Chaos or Smite Chaos, so there's no need to change that for a CG Paladin to Detect Law or Smite Law. Change the name to Templar or Crusader or Champion or Vanguard or Penitent or Redeemer or whatever, and it's good to go.
You could do the same thing with a LE or NE Antipaladin, changing nothing at all but the alignment restriction (and perhaps the name, to something like Reaver or Vandal or Blackguard or whatever).
LN or CN Paladins would require swapping Detect X and Smite X for Detect Chaos/Law and Smite Chaos/Law, but otherwise not take a lot of work either. Names like Lawman or Enforcer or Anarchist or Liberator seem doable.
A true N Paladin would take actual seconds, perhaps even entire minutes, of thought. Detect anything and Smite anything might be a bit much, and not necessarily make sense, outside of the insane old-school notion that 'neutral means you attack whatever side is winning, to keep the balance.' Still, *setting specific* true Neutral Paladins with Detect/Smite abilities keyed off of their respective faith could be do-able. A Neutral Paladin of Pharasma (Ghostbreaker, Purifier, Exorcist) could have Detect Undead and Smite Undead, while a Neutral Paladin of Gozreh (Warden, Defender) might have Detect and Smite Aberration (or some other 'foe of nature'). That would require some actual decision making, and more than crossing out 'must be LG' and replacing it with 'must be CG' or 'must be NG.'
Regardless, if a particular *setting,* such as Golarion, is restricted to LG Paladins (and, freakishly, CE Antipaladins) only, and no other alignment is allowed to have a full BAB 4-level-casting holy warrior, that's a *setting* thing, and doesn't belong at all in the (purportedly, setting neutral) Core Rulebook.
That sort of setting specific rules restriction belongs in a Players Guide to Golarion, along with setting-specific rules like 'Clerics must choose a god, and cannot pick a philosophy' or the specific exceptions to 3.X multi-classing restrictions that existed in the Forgotten Reams (allowing various Paladin and Monk multi-class options, in a game that mechanically forbade them in their core book, or Paladins of the CG goddess Sune to exist, in that setting), along with any other assumed rules of the setting that you might only find out by surfing this message board or playing Pathfinder Society, since there isn't a Players Guide to Golarion detailing what in the Core rules actually exists (or does not exist, or works differently) in the setting...
I think more paladin alignment options is good, but they don't need to be opened to every alignment. I've seen two options for this in this thread and I like both of them.
Option 1)
LG Paladin has anti-evil abilities
CE Antipaladin (change that name please) has anti-good abilities
LE Hellknight has anti-chaos abilities
add in a CG Something that has anti-law abilities and blammo.
Option 2)
Paladins can be any good and must be within one step of their deity's alignment.
Antipaladins (again, change that name) can be any evil and must be within one step of their deity's alignment.
Leave N in regards to G and E to the druids.
I love you, Set.
I think more paladin alignment options is good, but they don't need to be opened to every alignment. I've seen two options for this in this thread and I like both of them.
Option 1)
LG Paladin has anti-evil abilities
CE Antipaladin (change that name please) has anti-good abilities
LE Hellknight has anti-chaos abilities
add in a CG Something that has anti-law abilities and blammo.Option 2)
Paladins can be any good and must be within one step of their deity's alignment.
Antipaladins (again, change that name) can be any evil and must be within one step of their deity's alignment.
Leave N in regards to G and E to the druids.
Option 1 is how I do it, though I give CG Paladins the option for anti-evil abilities, as a feat (I also do this with other alignments, but as most games are good-vs-evil, this rarely comes up). That way most Paladins for a good-vs-evil campaign will still be LG, but they can be CG, with slightly greater opportunity cost.
Also I call CE paladins Despoilers. Why? No reason.
|
add in a CG Something that has anti-law abilities and blammo.
But a paladin should be anti evil, no matter their personal law/chaos leanings. Paladins are pro-good/anti-evil. I want NG and CG paladins, but wouldn't dream of playing an anti-law paladin. That goes against the concept of a champion of good.
When issue 310 of Dragon Magazine came out I was looking forward to seeing the CG paladin. Imagine my disappoinent when it had anti-law abilities but nothing against evil! What a waste of time!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assassins are not, as the very concept of killing people for no other reason than you were paid to do so is an evil act in the game world.
It's easier to wrap your head around if you have an Assassin who doesn't kill people JUST to get paid.
To go back to the Assassin's Creed example, their entire reason for existence is to oppose the Templars, who want to enslave the world ("For the Greater Good").
Now, to be fair, they may not individually be Good, many are Neutral at best, but the organization's purpose as a whole is CG-ish.
|
Lets face it. If there where CG paladins, than the Thrune uprising would have lasted a whole 1 day, and Cheliax would be a very different place. No Hellknights, Asmodeus would be some minor pseudodeity, and no amount of creator fiat would matter. Granted, I'm not really seeing a downside, so I am sort of loosing my own conviction on no non-LG paladins, . . .
an anti-law paladin. That goes against the concept of a champion of good.
Huh? That makes no sense. The two are unrelated.
Assassins are not, as the very concept of killing people for no other reason than you were paid to do so is an evil act in the game world.It's easier to wrap your head around if you have an Assassin who doesn't kill people JUST to get paid.
To go back to the Assassin's Creed example, their entire reason for existence is to oppose the Templars, who want to enslave the world ("For the Greater Good").
Now, to be fair, they may not individually be Good, many are Neutral at best, but the organization's purpose as a whole is CG-ish.
Honestly, 'assassin' is just a profession. A Druid could be an assassin, who cultivates poisons to use on victims. A wizard could be an assassin who uses enchantments and possibly illusions (after all, why kill the king yourself, when you can cast charm person on the king's servant, and have them do the deed). Or an assassin could be a Barbarian. It'd be a very messy assassin, but with the right equipment and skill, it's doable.
As such, I don't tie the PrC to any alignment or require the "you must kill someone just because" requirement. The PrC seems more in line with a Guild assassin, but we already have the Red Mantis Assassins to fill that role, so I just leave the regular assassin PrC open to all.
|
What i don't understand is why the complaint is about the aligment limitations of the paladin and not about the aligniment system itself. Why not honorable barbarians, crazy monks or anything else ? How many time we lost about aligniment discussions and having to declare a polemic acts as good or evil ? Down with aligniment i say.
|
Assassins are not, as the very concept of killing people for no other reason than you were paid to do so is an evil act in the game world.It's easier to wrap your head around if you have an Assassin who doesn't kill people JUST to get paid.
To go back to the Assassin's Creed example, their entire reason for existence is to oppose the Templars, who want to enslave the world ("For the Greater Good").
Now, to be fair, they may not individually be Good, many are Neutral at best, but the organization's purpose as a whole is CG-ish.
Templars and creed boys seem one and the same to me. Ends justify the means. Maybe not evil, evil, but certainly not good.
What i don't understand is why the complaint is about the aligment limitations of the paladin and not about the aligniment system itself. Why not honorable barbarians, crazy monks or anything else ? How many time we lost about aligniment discussions and having to declare a polemic acts as good or evil ? Down with aligniment i say.
The Paladin is just the most blatant of the evils the Alignment system perpetrates, hence why there are more and heated arguments about Paladins than any of the other sins.
Templars and creed boys seem one and the same to me. Ends justify the means. Maybe not evil, evil, but certainly not good.Assassins are not, as the very concept of killing people for no other reason than you were paid to do so is an evil act in the game world.It's easier to wrap your head around if you have an Assassin who doesn't kill people JUST to get paid.
To go back to the Assassin's Creed example, their entire reason for existence is to oppose the Templars, who want to enslave the world ("For the Greater Good").
Now, to be fair, they may not individually be Good, many are Neutral at best, but the organization's purpose as a whole is CG-ish.
Sorta kinda, and I see your point, but the difference becomes really apparent as you go on in the series. The Assassins are, at the very least, into "Greatest good for least evil". They kill a number of key people, and everything falls apart.
They don't enslave people, do any of this corporate take-over stuff the Templars try in the present day, they don't start wars, or any of the other big things the Templar do that, essentially, drag EVERYONE into their personal struggle against the Assassins.
Basically, Assassins keep it very clearly "Assassins vs Templars" where Templars very much try to make it "Templars vs The World".
Assassins are not, as the very concept of killing people for no other reason than you were paid to do so is an evil act in the game world.It's easier to wrap your head around if you have an Assassin who doesn't kill people JUST to get paid.
To go back to the Assassin's Creed example, their entire reason for existence is to oppose the Templars, who want to enslave the world ("For the Greater Good").
Now, to be fair, they may not individually be Good, many are Neutral at best, but the organization's purpose as a whole is CG-ish.
Honestly, 'assassin' is just a profession. A Druid could be an assassin, who cultivates poisons to use on victims. A wizard could be an assassin who uses enchantments and possibly illusions (after all, why kill the king yourself, when you can cast charm person on the king's servant, and have them do the deed). Or an assassin could be a Barbarian. It'd be a very messy assassin, but with the right equipment and skill, it's doable.
As such, I don't tie the PrC to any alignment or require the "you must kill someone just because" requirement. The PrC seems more in line with a Guild assassin, but we already have the Red Mantis Assassins to fill that role, so I just leave the regular assassin PrC open to all.
And that would be a NE Druid.
There are professions that are intrinsically evil. Torturer comes to mind. Graverobbers. Brigands (as opposed to bandits).Assassins are paid murderers. That's what they do. The fact they are paid to kill in no way changes the fact that they are murdering people.
The Assassin class is a rendition of a person who kills for money. No more, no less. The 'job' of being an assassin can certainly apply to anyone, but it's the same thing with 'fighter' being anyone that fights, and 'fighter' being a class with the job to fight.
Assassin PrC's are murderers who sell their skills at death for coin, uncaring of their victims. While others CAN do the job, these people are DEFINED by their job. Their features and skills are developed specifically to help them in the art of murder.
==Aelryinth
Lets face it. If there where CG paladins, than the Thrune uprising would have lasted a whole 1 day, and Cheliax would be a very different place. No Hellknights, Asmodeus would be some minor pseudodeity, and no amount of creator fiat would matter. Granted, I'm not really seeing a downside, so I am sort of loosing my own conviction on no non-LG paladins, . . .
If there were CG paladins, they likely wouldn't have existed in great numbers in Cheliax. Even before the Thrune uprising, Cheliax was an LN empire. And remember, even with CG paladins, they'd still have the Hellknights to contend with, who were largely well trained knightly orders which already existed, as formed by king Gaspodar. Moreover, Asmodeus would never be a "minor pseudodeity" even with CG paladins. He's one of the first two gods to come into being, and arguably the most powerful of even the major gods. Sure, some upstart CG paladin might try to challenge him. And he'd crush that paladin, with barely the flick of a wrist. Asmodeus is #1 on the list of "Beings thou shalt not F*ck with" and it's only through regret for straight up murdering his brother, that he's let the world alone, and not literally turning it to Hell on Earth (or rather Hell on Golarion).
|
|
Lets face it. If there where CG paladins, than the Thrune uprising would have lasted a whole 1 day, and Cheliax would be a very different place. No Hellknights, Asmodeus would be some minor pseudodeity, and no amount of creator fiat would matter. Granted, I'm not really seeing a downside, so I am sort of loosing my own conviction on no non-LG paladins, . . .If there were CG paladins, they likely wouldn't have existed in great numbers in Cheliax. Even before the Thrune uprising, Cheliax was an LN empire. And remember, even with CG paladins, they'd still have the Hellknights to contend with, who were largely well trained knightly orders which already existed, as formed by king Gaspodar. Moreover, Asmodeus would never be a "minor pseudodeity" even with CG paladins. He's one of the first two gods to come into being, and arguably the most powerful of even the major gods. Sure, some upstart CG paladin might try to challenge him. And he'd crush that paladin, with barely the flick of a wrist. Asmodeus is #1 on the list of "Beings thou shalt not F*ck with" and it's only through regret for straight up murdering his brother, that he's let the world alone, and not literally turning it to Hell on Earth (or rather Hell on Golarion).
|
|
What i don't understand is why the complaint is about the aligment limitations of the paladin and not about the aligniment system itself. Why not honorable barbarians, crazy monks or anything else ? How many time we lost about aligniment discussions and having to declare a polemic acts as good or evil ? Down with aligniment i say.The Paladin is just the most blatant of the evils the Alignment system perpetrates, hence why there are more and heated arguments about Paladins than any of the other sins.
Templars and creed boys seem one and the same to me. Ends justify the means. Maybe not evil, evil, but certainly not good.Assassins are not, as the very concept of killing people for no other reason than you were paid to do so is an evil act in the game world.It's easier to wrap your head around if you have an Assassin who doesn't kill people JUST to get paid.
To go back to the Assassin's Creed example, their entire reason for existence is to oppose the Templars, who want to enslave the world ("For the Greater Good").
Now, to be fair, they may not individually be Good, many are Neutral at best, but the organization's purpose as a whole is CG-ish.
Sorta kinda, and I see your point, but the difference becomes really apparent as you go on in the series. The Assassins are, at the very least, into "Greatest good for least evil". They kill a number of key people, and everything falls apart.
They don't enslave people, do any of this corporate take-over stuff the Templars try in the present day, they don't start wars, or any of the other big things the Templar do that, essentially, drag EVERYONE into their personal struggle against the Assassins.
Basically, Assassins keep it very clearly "Assassins vs Templars" where Templars very much try to make it "Templars vs The World".
I can kinda see that. One thing I often wonder though is why everything has to be good these days? I mean I understand evil alignments can be really disruptive to a group dynamic. However, if you pitched your assasin creed character im sure most "no evil" GMs would allow it. Whats wrong with playing non-disruptive evil types like assasins and necromancers?
What i don't understand is why the complaint is about the aligment limitations of the paladin and not about the aligniment system itself. Why not honorable barbarians, crazy monks or anything else ? How many time we lost about aligniment discussions and having to declare a polemic acts as good or evil ? Down with aligniment i say.
Alignment is good as a guideline. If nothing else, it provides a neat two-word summary of your character's morals and ethics. Obviously it only being a two word summary, there's room for deviation within each alignment (an LG worshiper of Sarenrae wouldn't get along too well with an LG worshiper of Torag, much like an LN worshiper of Erastil wouldn't get along with an LN worshiper of Abadar), but it's a neat little way of summarizing the moral and ethical basis of a character.
It's also helpful in getting new people to the hobby to start Role Playing. It gives them a facet to the character to latch on to when making moral decisions. Now, hopefully they'll be able to flesh out their character more than just class, race, and alignment, but it's a start.
The big problem with alignment is where it oversteps its bounds as a guideline. It's why I'd prefer if D&D/PF cut ties with alignment mechanically, and left it solely as a role-play tool. Spells like Detect Evil would have to go away (or be altered to not rely on alignment), but Smite Evil could just become Smite. It wouldn't vastly increase the power of the ability, and it cuts down the issues with running a game where the primary antagonists aren't evil. But most importantly, it'll solve, once and for all, the issue of paladins falling and other alignment restrictions for classes.
I think the point is that a paladin who goes around killing lawful neutrals as his target of choice is hardly good because he is no longer fighting true villians but targeting regular folk like judges and the city guard instead.an anti-law paladin. That goes against the concept of a champion of good.Huh? That makes no sense. The two are unrelated.
But a normal Paladin does not going around, randomly killing evil people, either (or at least, they shouldn't). There are such things as Evil characters who aren't villains, and non-evil characters, who are villains. A Paladin doesns't oppose everyone who is the opposite of their alignment; they just oppose those who are actively oppositional to the ideals they uphold. A CG Paladin wouldn't attack judges or city guardsmen, but might attack LN slave traders.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, that's like a LG paladin going around killing CN gypsies and nomad barbarians isn't doing it right.
Now, killing LE corrupt cops, crooked judges, and dirty politicos? Meat and drink!
Fighting against the beauacracy trying to eradicate the last vestiges of freedom from the innocent? Oh yes, break the rules, create confusion, make them worry about getting the counts for their paper clip requisitions and histories of sewer maintenance back in order before they can think about inflicting rigid adherence to their mundanity back upon you!
Keep in mind that a champion of chaos would see that any 'law' is worthless that he didn't personally swear support to is worthless, and those that try to enforce it upon him are lower then dirt and to be expunged if they dare to raise their hands against him or those he is sworn to. Judges who enforce laws against the free are not 'servants of the state', they are PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for every decision they make, 'that's the law' is NO EXCUSE, and they will be held to every account for their blithering adherence to written words.
Likewise, every LN bureaucrat, warrior, watchman and the like who attempts to enforce such things has made the personal decision to stand against you, and you will treat their decision with the contempt it deserves. They voted to become the faceless sheep of soulless law, and you will harvest them as sheep are meant to be harvested.
Note: That's a CN view, not CG...although any LE regime is going to be seen that way by a CG paladin. By swearing adherence to the LE regime, you've made your choice, you're supporting the killer at the top of the throne, and you will be dealt with accordingly.
Remember, for chaotics, it's ALL personal. The Law is no excuse. None whatsoever. Your decisions are yours, and you will be held to them.
==Aelryinth
|
|
The big problem with alignment is where it oversteps its bounds as a guideline. It's why I'd prefer if D&D/PF cut ties with alignment mechanically, and left it solely as a role-play tool. Spells like Detect Evil would have to go away (or be altered to not rely on alignment), but Smite Evil could just become Smite. It wouldn't vastly increase the power of the ability, and it cuts down the issues with running a game where the primary antagonists aren't evil. But most importantly, it'll solve, once and for all, the issue of paladins falling and other alignment restrictions for classes.
Then why dont we get rid of character aligniment and each character has a patron god (who has his aligniment), that way spells detect the patron aligniment but cant really say anything about the character.
I can kinda see that. One thing I often wonder though is why everything has to be good these days? I mean I understand evil alignments can be really disruptive to a group dynamic. However, if you pitched your assasin creed character im sure most "no evil" GMs would allow it. Whats wrong with playing non-disruptive evil types like assasins and necromancers?
Not a damn thing. My favorite character to date is my LE Monk.
However, it would be nice to have those archetypes WITHOUT being evil. I mean, at least Neutral would be a nice option. Especially where Necromancy is involved.
Well, that's like a LG paladin going around killing CN gypsies and nomad barbarians isn't doing it right.
Now, killing LE corrupt cops, crooked judges, and dirty politicos? Meat and drink!
Fighting against the beauacracy trying to eradicate the last vestiges of freedom from the innocent? Oh yes, break the rules, create confusion, make them worry about getting the counts for their paper clip requisitions and histories of sewer maintenance back in order before they can think about inflicting rigid adherence to their mundanity back upon you! ...It would be better having some type of folk-hero class for that (like William Tell of Switzerland, or Robin Hood of England, or Grote Piet of Frisia).
Paladin is an English word, so its meaning bleeds into the class. Having contrary classes like chaotic paladin, pacifist barbarian, atheist cleric, or magic-hating wizard is just wierd.
I could totally see a Chaotic champion, but I'd never call it a paladin, even back handedly. And just 'reskinning' the class abilities simply belittles all the paladin labors under.
Peaceful barbarian tribes are definitely possibilities. A peaceful 'rager' would likely be a LN barbarian tribe...who can't rage, but might be unduly tough, hard, stoic workers.
We have atheist 'clerics' in today...they are generally called philosophers. There was a whole faction of them in Planescape, I believe.
And a magic-hating 'intellectual' who knows magic but fears and hates it is like the archetype of every Mythos scholar, no?
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's certainly possible to be an evil assassin, but the choice to kill your enemies is common to good people in the game. Even paladins are killers for their god? It's Smite Evil, not Send Evil To The Naughty Step!
So the techniques of assassins can be learned by anyone of any alignment. It's how you use those skills that define you as good or evil, not the skill knowledge.
So the class shouldn't be limited to evil.
3.5 had the Avenger class which was basically the Assasin's. The entrance requirement was that you had to kill an important evil political figure.
They even wore white hoods.
So a person has to be honorable to be good now?
So a person has to be honorable to be good now?Yep, some sort of fair play code. That is the nature of good.
Villains are the ones with the anything goes attitude.
In that case, Evil will always triumph because Good is dumb.
Then why dont we get rid of character aligniment and each character has a patron god (who has his aligniment), that way spells detect the patron aligniment but cant really say anything about the character.
The big problem with alignment is where it oversteps its bounds as a guideline. It's why I'd prefer if D&D/PF cut ties with alignment mechanically, and left it solely as a role-play tool. Spells like Detect Evil would have to go away (or be altered to not rely on alignment), but Smite Evil could just become Smite. It wouldn't vastly increase the power of the ability, and it cuts down the issues with running a game where the primary antagonists aren't evil. But most importantly, it'll solve, once and for all, the issue of paladins falling and other alignment restrictions for classes.
This actually would be an interesting possible system, using deities as "alignments," but would require some finessing of either the magic rules to account for people who worship/associate themselves with multiple gods or are atheists, or the setting so that those people don't exist.
Also, I can get behind and would probably work to houserule paladin-equivalents that have to be lawful evil and work against chaos and have to be chaotic good and work against law, maybe with feats or options to change what they work against. But they would need more changes than just a find>replace in the class writeup.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So a person has to be honorable to be good now?Yep, some sort of fair play code. That is the nature of good.
Villains are the ones with the anything goes attitude.
This isn't the nature of good. It's a way to play a good character, but it's not required in order to be good. A good character could also choose that evil must be thwarted no matter what; screw fair play, those evil people are subjugating innocents, and murdering without a second thought.
So a person has to be honorable to be good now?Yep, some sort of fair play code. That is the nature of good.
No, the nature of good is helping and improving life. Honor has nothing to do with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if we scrapped alignment, and just made it so that Positive Energy equals Paladin, and Negative Energy equals Blackguard?
Knights who learn to channel Positive Energy (which is also the source of their spells), whether through study or worship of a deity that grants Positive Energy, do so in order to heal/protect/etc. Knights who learn to channel Negative Energy do so in order to harm the living/heal the undead/etc.
This isn't the nature of good. It's a way to play a good character, but it's not required in order to be good. A good character could also choose that evil must be thwarted no matter what; screw fair play, those evil people are subjugating innocents, and murdering without a second thought.So a person has to be honorable to be good now?Yep, some sort of fair play code. That is the nature of good.
Villains are the ones with the anything goes attitude.
Right, and a Paladin is not the end-all-be-all of Goodness, they go above and beyond Goodness. They have a vision of righteous Goodness fused with Lawfulness sometimes, a vision that often is unrealistic and causes them problems, but that's their schtick.
|
|
It's certainly possible to be an evil assassin, but the choice to kill your enemies is common to good people in the game. Even paladins are killers for their god? It's Smite Evil, not Send Evil To The Naughty Step!
So the techniques of assassins can be learned by anyone of any alignment. It's how you use those skills that define you as good or evil, not the skill knowledge.
So the class shouldn't be limited to evil.Assassination (as a profession not a one off) is invariably evil, because its completely dishonorable.
Even cultures that the game defines as chaotic - Vikings, Homeric Greek, ancient German barbarians, and so on - abhored assassins.
Warrior cultures probably hated them even more than civilized culture, because a man's strength was his skill at arms, and someone who would slay him while he was sleeping or who used poison was the scum of the earth.
By that token, every single sniper has an evil alignment.
What is there, mechanics-wise of the prestige class, that makes it evil? I'm not talking about entry requirements; those could easily be tweaked. Imagine a government trained assassin, who's job is to kill the very same enemies that the paladins are trying to kill. Being trained in instant death techniques is no more evil than hacking someone to death with an axe!
So a person has to be honorable to be good now?Yep, some sort of fair play code. That is the nature of good.
Villains are the ones with the anything goes attitude.
*Looks incredulously at the Chaotic Good alignment*
Are you seriously serious right now or just messing with me?
Right, and a Paladin is not the end-all-be-all of Goodness, they go above and beyond Goodness. They have a vision of righteous Goodness fused with Lawfulness sometimes, a vision that often is unrealistic and causes them problems, but that's their schtick.
What do you mean, above and beyond goodness?
Because it seems to me like you're saying Paladins (and by extension Lawful Good) is the "best Good".
Over in 4E
I know. :P
Maybe we can get him a work visa for Pathfinder?
Add another yes for each no then.Then make that 1,001 times no.Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.Paladins should be of any and every alignment.No, no, a thousand times no.
Add two Maybes for each yes and three Whats for each no.
You should see the set-theorist/logician version of that...(with inaccessible cardinals) :PAdd another yes for each no then.Then make that 1,001 times no.Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.Paladins should be of any and every alignment.No, no, a thousand times no.Subtract one yes each time you add one.
How old are we now? Will someone eventually pull out "infinity plus one"? :)
Inaccessibles are small... Let's jump straight to a supercompact cardinal. :P
To answer the thread headline:
No, I'm okay with the way the paladin is as written now - though the code could probably do with some polishing.
That said, the paladin as written is, in my humble opinion, unnecessarily restrictive - adding archetypes or alternate class options to allow CG paladins etc doesn't hurt anyone and adds options to those who want to play it that way.
It's a bit like the monk and the martial artist, really.
In short, could the paladin have been modified into a more general class to accommodate all alignments, or would it have to remain the same due to licenses and such?
Paladins remaining exclusively LG is perhaps the clearest example of why PF never became my game of choice.
With a few small tweaks that a monkey could have made within ten minutes, the Paizo team could have opened this class up to eight more archetypes and uncounted rp opportunities. There's no backwards-compatibility issue with the change, as LG paladins could have simply stayed LG. Instead, the Paizo team kept the same old alignment exclusions that have been causing debate and restricting rp options since Gary made some stuff up he thought'd be fun. And then told people to make some stuff up they think'd be fun.
Exclusively LG paladins probably isn't the biggest problem I have with PF, but it does clearly demonstrate why I left Paizo's agonizingly slow march toward progress for a more forward-thinking game.