| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um, I always see posts like this this.
Well get f+!!ing used to it, cause they ain't going anywhere.
|
IRL, each country believes that they are good and the enemy is evil. When their soldiers kill ours then it's those evil murdering bastards slaughtering our brave boys in uniform who are only there to protect our loved ones. When our soldiers kill their's then our brave boys took the fight to the enemy, hampering their villainous plans for world domination.
Spies working for our enemy are vile deceivers who worm their evil way into the affections of decent, honest folk so that they can murder and destroy in a most cowardly manner.
Spies working for us are brave souls who risk life and limb to infiltrate the enemy and attempt a surgical strike that could end the war with the death of a single enemy leader instead of thousands of deaths on both sides. What heroes these brave men are!
In our fantasy worlds, good and evil are real forces. There really are good kingdoms and evil kingdoms, and they do go to war. And yet the forces on both sides do the above stuff to each other. Do the good guys become evil by fighting a just war against those who would enslave them? Do paladins fall the first time they successfully use Smite Evil on the grounds that killing people is wrong?
No! The good guys in our fantasy worlds aren't pacifists but warriors, who kill the bad guys! And this is sanctioned by the forces of good. Paladins could not exist otherwise.
In war, your duty to your loved ones is to defeat the enemy so that they cannot harm those to whom you have a duty. We all have a right to defend ourselves and our loved ones, and governments and soldiers have a duty to do so, and that involves killing.
So, if the evil enemy is on your doorstep with overwhelming force that your army cannot hope to match, and the enemy are on the verge of victory and enslaving and murdering those women and children who you have a duty to protect, then if the opportunity for victory presents itself, is it evil to take it? Is it evil for one of our soldiers to kill one of their soldiers? Is it evil to have one of our commandos kill one of the enemy generals...?
'Commando' is a name for our soldiers who have undergone specialised training, including but not limited to, assassination. Was every commando evil? Does merely undertaking commando training turn you evil, or do you have to be evil before you can take the training?
Just so im clear, how long did you spend in the combat arms portion of the military to get so cynical?
Indeed, many freelancers write for both 4E and PF.He is freelance you can always hire him for your table.Over in 4EI know. :P
Maybe we can get him a work visa for Pathfinder?
I think you are confused. We're talking about he unaligned paladin in 4th Ed. Not a real person. :P
|
Just so im clear, how long did you spend in the combat arms portion of the military to get so cynical?
Just so I'm clear, I don't think that commandos are evil, nor that killing in defence of your country or loved ones is evil, nor that paladins are evil.
But the fluff around the Assassin PrC, as well as the entry requirements, forces them to be evil. This is a waste. The same mechanics could have alignment-free fluff and let us create our own motivations, just like the other classes. Then, players can decide for themselves if their own character murders babies for money, or takes out evil enemy generals. Their alignment will be based on the actions they actually take.
As for paladins, the reason I think that they should be 'any good' is because their concept is 'champion of good'; law has nothing to do with it.
Law has everything to do with it, it would be strange to suggest otherwise when you think about it.
Laws, fair and just, applied to all equally.
Order, maintained and reliable, so that the populace is protected from needless misfortune due to avoidable issues - and cooperation engendered through having clear communication and social charters between people.
Chaotic 'but I think I am above all that and can just do what I want instead and make up rules as I go, or abandon them as I see fit' does not do the greatest good for the many.
Chaos is the good of self.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just so im clear, how long did you spend in the combat arms portion of the military to get so cynical?Just so I'm clear, I don't think that commandos are evil, nor that killing in defence of your country or loved ones is evil, nor that paladins are evil.
But the fluff around the Assassin PrC, as well as the entry requirements, forces them to be evil. This is a waste. The same mechanics could have alignment-free fluff and let us create our own motivations, just like the other classes. Then, players can decide for themselves if their own character murders babies for money, or takes out evil enemy generals. Their alignment will be based on the actions they actually take.
As for paladins, the reason I think that they should be 'any good' is because their concept is 'champion of good'; law has nothing to do with it.
Your argument is then about alignment, and absolutely nothing else.
Those of us who like alignments will not agree with you. We enjoy alignments being addressed and part of the mechanics of the game. Paizo in general shares that attitude as part of the fantasy and fantastic nature of the game, and part of its heritage. It's why Paladins remain what they are, and why we don't have one for each alignment. Doing so cheapens the original in all ways, especially without the code there as an offset.DM's have been houseruling alignment away for years. You are free to do so. But don't expect it to ever be a part of the core game.
Likewise, the paladin is and always will be the ideal of the true blue heroic character, knightly or otherwise. It's a concept embedded in the core of the game's history, heritage and appeal. It's not going to go away just because you want all a paladin's goodies without all the strings attached. Those strings are why the paladin gets what he does.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the Paladin isn't more powerful than many, many classes with no code of conduct and no alignment restriction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the Paladin isn't more powerful than many, many classes with no code of conduct and no alignment restriction.
Logic? In a paladin debate? You fool! All traditionalists understand is "This is the way it's always been!" Personally, I could suggest pointing out how 4e and soon 5e have created a new generation of D&Ders for whom rp freedom is "How it's always been," and alignment restrictions are alien and un-D&D.
But the traditionalists would argue that, for some nonsensical reason, 4e and 5e don't count. The No True Scottsman Fallacy would probably be used. So I simply write off the traditionalist opinions. I just can't respect an opinion in which one's fun requires that others not have fun, due to petty intolerance over semantics.
Maybe PF 2.0 will have a better paladin class; until then, I have other games.
|
|
Your argument is then about alignment, and absolutely nothing else.
That's not my take on it at all!
Those of us who like alignments will not agree with you. We enjoy alignments being addressed and part of the mechanics of the game. Paizo in general shares that attitude as part of the fantasy and fantastic nature of the game, and part of its heritage. It's why Paladins remain what they are, and why we don't have one for each alignment. Doing so cheapens the original in all ways, especially without the code there as an offset.
DM's have been houseruling alignment away for years. You are free to do so. But don't expect it to ever be a part of the core game.
I don't think paladins should be any alignment. They should be any good alignment, in accordance with their concept.
I'm also fine with alignments as they are. My problem is with those people who misunderstand it, and think that LG is 'better' than other kinds of good. Lawful people obviously think so, but this cannot be objectively true if the games alignment system has any meaning at all.
Likewise, the paladin is and always will be the ideal of the true blue heroic character, knightly or otherwise. It's a concept embedded in the core of the game's history, heritage and appeal. It's not going to go away just because you want all a paladin's goodies without all the strings attached. Those strings are why the paladin gets what he does.
I agree. But this description of the paladin is, of course, all about good, not law. Your very own description illustrates that.
How is 5E by the by? I never liked 4E very much the couple of times I tried it, but haven't heard much about 5E.
|
Yah, the playtests where specifically very limited, so those are not really any sort of gauge on what to expect. There is a lot of talk about how much it went back to the 3E style for many things, but it's got some noticeable 4E/2E/1E in there, too. The playtest is a very simplistic game, but I think you will find a lot of opinions on it relate very heavily on 2 things. Which version of the playtest is being referred to, as each focused on different things, and the persons feelings about the previous editions, particularly 3E and 4E, with 2E a distant third, but I'm sure there will be different views on even that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Law has everything to do with it, it would be strange to suggest otherwise when you think about it.
Laws, fair and just, applied to all equally.
Order, maintained and reliable, so that the populace is protected from needless misfortune due to avoidable issues - and cooperation engendered through having clear communication and social charters between people.Chaotic 'but I think I am above all that and can just do what I want instead and make up rules as I go, or abandon them as I see fit' does not do the greatest good for the many.
Chaos is the good of self.
Classic lawful propaganda!
Whether a system of government would be described as Lawful or Chaotic in terms of D&D/PF alignment depends on the answer to a simple question: are the rights of the individual less important than the needs of the state, or does the state regard the rights of the individual as sacrosanct?
In Soviet Russia, the state would not tolerate dissent. It was the state's way or the highway (or 'mental hospital': you must be crazy if you can't see that this is the best state in the world!).
Contrast this with the ideals of the United States of America, with it's Bill of Rights, possibly the greatest chaotic document of all time.
Law= Order. Chaos= Freedom. Most 'good' states want both, but err on the side of freedom: do whatever you want, so long as you don't mess with another person's freedom. Most 'evil' states want order above all, and if that messes with your personal freedom, tough!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Soviets' stated justification for throwing dissidents in mental asylums was actually even more sinister than that. The line was: Anyone mad enough to propose reform was a danger to his own safety, because he had clearly lost all sense of self-preservation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Law has everything to do with it, it would be strange to suggest otherwise when you think about it.
Laws, fair and just, applied to all equally.
Order, maintained and reliable, so that the populace is protected from needless misfortune due to avoidable issues - and cooperation engendered through having clear communication and social charters between people.Chaotic 'but I think I am above all that and can just do what I want instead and make up rules as I go, or abandon them as I see fit' does not do the greatest good for the many.
Chaos is the good of self.
Classic lawful propaganda!
Whether a system of government would be described as Lawful or Chaotic in terms of D&D/PF alignment depends on the answer to a simple question: are the rights of the individual less important than the needs of the state, or does the state regard the rights of the individual as sacrosanct?
In Soviet Russia, the state would not tolerate dissent. It was the state's way or the highway (or 'mental hospital': you must be crazy if you can't see that this is the best state in the world!).
Contrast this with the ideals of the United States of America, with it's Bill of Rights, possibly the greatest chaotic document of all time.
Law= Order. Chaos= Freedom. Most 'good' states want both, but err on the side of freedom: do whatever you want, so long as you don't mess with another person's freedom. Most 'evil' states want order above all, and if that messes with your personal freedom, tough!
The bill of rights is not a chaotic document. It is a Good document.
Rights have nothing to do with Chaos. Chaotics will freely ignore the rights of others. After all, it's all about me, baby!
The Bill of Rights enshrines into Law those rights. That makes it a LG document of the highest order, but without a doubt, it is using the Law to make its point. It is building the Law around a Good Thing.
The Soviet State is LN to LE at best. It doesn't give a dang for rights or the individual, and abused them both.
The paladin is not 'good' because the concept of a 'true blue' hero does not cater to Chaotic Good characters, who are freely allowed to defy the law, lie, cheat, steal, cause havoc. Even if they are CG, they are clearly not 'true blue'. They have their own colors and archetypes, from grim vigilantes to Robin Hood and his merry men to Harpers of Faerun to lonely rangers far out in the wilds calling no man master, yet the first line of defense against the dangers of the border.
The paladin is meant to be 'true blue'. He works with the law, for the law, but never lets the law twist what it means to be good. He is meant to be a representative of the best of what being Lawful can be, and that means a tighter restriction on what he is allowed to do then being 'all Good.' He is an unabashed extremist and idealist, and it's very, very hard to understand his point of view and rather inflexibility of behavior in continuing to be the best of things...but that's what we want our paladins to be!
==Aelryinth
Yah, the playtests where specifically very limited, so those are not really any sort of gauge on what to expect. There is a lot of talk about how much it went back to the 3E style for many things, but it's got some noticeable 4E/2E/1E in there, too. The playtest is a very simplistic game, but I think you will find a lot of opinions on it relate very heavily on 2 things. Which version of the playtest is being referred to, as each focused on different things, and the persons feelings about the previous editions, particularly 3E and 4E, with 2E a distant third, but I'm sure there will be different views on even that.
Indeed. 3.x fans see too much 4e in 5e, and 4e fans see too much 3.x in it. And the OSR crowd sees nothing but new school garbage in 5e.
I'm sure that 5e will attract its share of fans...but it sure ain't gonna unite D&Ders under one edition.
Tholomyes above mentioned "semantics" as irrelevant, but ... it seems to me that this is far less about class abilities and limitations and far more about redefining the word "paladin" to suit the purposes of whosoever wins the argument.
This.
Do I think they should have changed Paladins? Not in the least. Paladins have a long tradition of being what they are. LG holy warriors.
If they had changed that, then people would have been longing for a class that reminded them of the one they USED to play... and we'd be in the same boat.
People want to be able to play a paladin, but not play a paladin... They want holy warriors... but the holy warriors that are available don't fit their concept...
There is a lot being tagged with the word 'paladin'.
Are the rights of the individual less important than the needs of the state, or does the state regard the rights of the individual as sacrosanct?
The state IS the people in LG land.
In LG nothing is sacrosanct, and everything is open for debate and thorough examination - by holding things as above scrutiny it lays the foundation for oppression and abuse - there must always be robust debate and continual efforts made on improvement for the common good.
Perhaps in an enlightened society you'd find that enlightened people held more enlightened views and they would accept that their rights came with communal responsibility. Somebody paid for those rights after all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is a perfect example of the troubles with alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the Paladin isn't more powerful than many, many classes with no code of conduct and no alignment restriction.
sooooo to turn this argument around, there shouldn't be any problems leaving it alone as it is and not pining for paladin powers if you've got access to all those other classes, right?
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the Paladin isn't more powerful than many, many classes with no code of conduct and no alignment restriction.sooooo to turn this argument around, there shouldn't be any problems leaving it alone as it is and not pining for paladin powers if you've got access to all those other classes, right?
==Aelryinth
None of those classes have the same abilities, however.
"Not more powerful" doesn't mean undesirable.
|
|
The bill of rights is not a chaotic document. It is a Good document.
The Bill of Rights, taken as a whole, is a chaotic good document. It limits the power of government over individual liberties.
Rights have nothing to do with Chaos. Chaotics will freely ignore the rights of others. After all, it's all about me, baby!
Chaotics want the right to be chaotic! Those that are chaotic good realise that the only way for everyone to be free is to guarantee those rights to all. This means realising that the logical limit on freedom is when you try to limit someone else's freedom! Thus the need for a Bill of Rights. A lawful good society would have instead created a Bill of Duties.
The Bill of Rights enshrines into Law those rights. That makes it a CG document of the highest order, but without a doubt, it is using the Law to guarantee freedom for all. It is building the Law around a Chaotic Good Thing.
Fixed it for you.
|
|
Wouldnt writing everything down as a law that has to be followed to give those individuals there liberty and freedom of oppression, oh... i dont know, Be seen as lawful. It seems kind of strange that you are using a document creating rules as a basis for something chaotic. Might just be my opinion though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having a paladin's abilities without being lawful good is a perfect example of talking the talk without walking the walk.
How so?
Paladins, again, are about as Lawful mechanics AND fluff-wise as my farts are.
|
Yah, the playtests where specifically very limited, so those are not really any sort of gauge on what to expect. There is a lot of talk about how much it went back to the 3E style for many things, but it's got some noticeable 4E/2E/1E in there, too. The playtest is a very simplistic game, but I think you will find a lot of opinions on it relate very heavily on 2 things. Which version of the playtest is being referred to, as each focused on different things, and the persons feelings about the previous editions, particularly 3E and 4E, with 2E a distant third, but I'm sure there will be different views on even that.Indeed. 3.x fans see too much 4e in 5e, and 4e fans see too much 3.x in it. And the OSR crowd sees nothing but new school garbage in 5e.
I'm sure that 5e will attract its share of fans...but it sure ain't gonna unite D&Ders under one edition.
Too bad maybe folks could stop crying all over the internets about how they wish this game was like that game but also like another game. I am amazed anybody plays TTRPGs at all with the amount of complaining.
I am amazed anybody plays TTRPGs at all with the amount of complaining.
When the dice hit the table, complainers go out the window.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins, again, are about as Lawful mechanics AND fluff-wise as my farts are.
(Your farts are) particularly lethal to undead, dragons and evil outsiders?
Particularly lethal to undead, dragons and evil outsiders?Which speaks to the Good component. Not so much the Lawful one.
True, I'm just imagining the smiting farts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having a paladin's abilities without being lawful good is a perfect example of talking the talk without walking the walk.How so?
Paladins, again, are about as Lawful mechanics AND fluff-wise as my farts are.
religious orders of holy warriors of other alignments, should have a means to access a paladin's mechanical package without being forced to be lawful good. it opens up other types of charismatic full bab 4th level divine spellcasting crusaders with smite and divine grace.
if you don't want them to have the name paladin because it offends you, change it to crusader or divine warrior, and put a note that lawful good members might call themselves paladins
but, a lot of AD&D sacred cows need to choke on a pretzel and die of asphixiation. alignment is the one that needs it most, the concept of trapmonkey as a class is the second, and warriors whom can't do anything worthy of their level of epic prowess is a third.
Having a paladin's abilities without being lawful good is a perfect example of talking the talk without walking the walk.
Except none of the abilities a paladin gets are inherently Paladin*-specific. Many have come to be associated with that type of character, due to the fact that paladins are the ones that get those abilities, but being able to detect and deal extra damage to evil targets (replace evil with other alignments as needed) is not inherently more tied to the traditional paladin, nor are the other benefits, particularly. Replace "Paladin" with an associated title for any other alignment equivalent, and are any mechanics invalidated? At most you change positive energy to negative energy or such, like you would for clerics.
But otherwise, what prevents there from being alternate Paladins (even if they're not called "Paladins") for other alignments beyond LG and CE?
*For this use of paladin, I'm referring to the traditional paladin as a character concept, rather than as a class mechanically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having a paladin's abilities without being lawful good is a perfect example of talking the talk without walking the walk.Except none of the abilities a paladin gets are inherently Paladin*-specific. Many have come to be associated with that type of character, due to the fact that paladins are the ones that get those abilities, but being able to detect and deal extra damage to evil targets (replace evil with other alignments as needed) is not inherently more tied to the traditional paladin, nor are the other benefits, particularly. Replace "Paladin" with an associated title for any other alignment equivalent, and are any mechanics invalidated? At most you change positive energy to negative energy or such, like you would for clerics.
But otherwise, what prevents there from being alternate Paladins (even if they're not called "Paladins") for other alignments beyond LG and CE?
*For this use of paladin, I'm referring to the traditional paladin as a character concept, rather than as a class mechanically.
the historical paladins weren't even lawful good to begin with, they were brigands with fancy titles and a bad attitude. nothing pure about them, they killed others for interfering with their quest. even helpless peasants, women and children.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The bill of rights is not a chaotic document. It is a Good document.The Bill of Rights, taken as a whole, is a chaotic good document. It limits the power of government over individual liberties.
Rights have nothing to do with Chaos. Chaotics will freely ignore the rights of others. After all, it's all about me, baby!Chaotics want the right to be chaotic! Those that are chaotic good realise that the only way for everyone to be free is to guarantee those rights to all. This means realising that the logical limit on freedom is when you try to limit someone else's freedom! Thus the need for a Bill of Rights. A lawful good society would have instead created a Bill of Duties.
The Bill of Rights enshrines into Law those rights. That makes it a LG document of the highest order, but without a doubt, it is using the Law to guarantee freedom for all. It is building the Law around a lawful Good Thing.Fixed it for you.
No, you didn't.
Chaotic Good wouldn't put ANYTHING into law. They would refuse the very idea that law is needed to require these things, that traditions, guidelines, and just "right thinkin'" would be all that's required, and mind yer own business and I'll mind mine.
Putting such things down on a piece of paper and making them Law would spoil it for true Chaotics as much as anything. You put them on paper, them become fixed and immutable, and lose what makes them special. Freedom is a living thing, and you can't bind it to paper. Trying to base a legal system on it would be self-defeating.
And you know, we've probably proven the chaotics right, but that doesn't mean we aren't trying.
There are no decent CG societies in the world that I can think of, except maybe smaller primitive villages run on a communal basis, and those are probably far more socialist lawful the chaotic free. Chaotic societies really don't have structure as we know it, so saying American Freedom is Chaotic is really pushing things. There's simply too many laws wound up within our system to call it chaotic even as a backhanded compliment. There's probably subsystems in gangs and immigrant communities you could call chaotic, but even they tend to have rules, and most of them likely ain't CG.
==Aelryinth
the historical paladins the class is built on were the peers of Charlemagne and knights of the Round Table, not the knights of the Crusades who were basically church-sanctioned conquerors.
Yes, they were heavily romanticized, but its the romantic ideal we fell in with, not the brutal nature of war. Just like we have idealized visions of our soldiers, we have idealized visions of those who fought in the name of God, king, and honor in those old tales.
Lift identical sorts out of non-European cultures, and you have a strong foundation for the Paladin in many cultures. Indeed, Hiawatha in the old 1e Legends and Lore had some paladin levels! The image of the paladin has broadened to many cultures since then from the iconoclastic European pious knight, but it's still a romantic ideal people don't want to tarnish.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the historical paladins the class is built on were the peers of Charlemagne and knights of the Round Table, not the knights of the Crusades who were basically church-sanctioned conquerors.
Yes, they were heavily romanticized, but its the romantic ideal we fell in with, not the brutal nature of war. Just like we have idealized visions of our soldiers, we have idealized visions of those who fought in the name of God, king, and honor in those old tales.
Lift identical sorts out of non-European cultures, and you have a strong foundation for the Paladin in many cultures. Indeed, Hiawatha in the old 1e Legends and Lore had some paladin levels! The image of the paladin has broadened to many cultures since then from the iconoclastic European pious knight, but it's still a romantic ideal people don't want to tarnish.
==Aelryinth
doesn't change the fact the peers of Charlegmane and the knights of the round table were really little more than brigands with fancy titles. the romanticized view excludes other divine knights of other religions and alternate alignments
plus there is nothing inherently lawful nor good about the mechanics themselves except maybe aura of good, smite evil isn't inherently good, it's merely anti-evil.
True, I'm just imagining the smiting farts.Particularly lethal to undead, dragons and evil outsiders?Which speaks to the Good component. Not so much the Lawful one.
Worry more about the raging ones.
Godwin's Law be DAMNED!!!!
DOWN WITH THE COMMUNISTS!!!!!!!!