| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I am with Jaelithe. A Paladin should be a paragon of Good and Law. Anything less isn't a Paladin... it's a rainbow variety of the moment holy warrior; and should have lesser or different powers.
Remember kids, your paladin is the right paladin and everyone else is doing it wrong, and its your duty to tell them they are 'lesser' and be sure to remind them they are doing it wrong at every chance on the internet and real life if they even suggest doing it another way.
Its the one true way. No other way to do it or have fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
why is this in this thread instead of the paladin thread
oh because paladins
|
Well I am with Jaelithe. A Paladin should be a paragon of Good and Law. Anything less isn't a Paladin... it's a rainbow variety of the moment holy warrior; and should have lesser or different powers.
I'm okay with you seeing paladins that way. It's entirely appropriate that people play the game the way they see it, and character concepts the way they see them, including paladins.
But I wouldn't change the alignment requirement from 'only LG' to 'only 'CG', even if I saw paladins that way, because it's not up to me to tell other players the 'right' way to see the game or the class.
We could both be in the same game, both playing paladins and yours being LG and mine being CG. Mine being CG wouldn't invalidate yours in any way.
Let me ask you this: Why do you have to call your chaotic good "warrior for good" a paladin? (Please don't answer, "Because he is," OK?)
Because the paladin in the game has always been, as you say yourself, the 'warrior for good'. Not for lawful good. For good.
That's the fluff. The crunch looks after itself, because the abilities are as perfect for a CG or NG paladin as they are for a LG paladin.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Paladin should be a paragon of Good and Law. Anything less isn't a Paladin.
This bit of subtle bias almost snuck by!
Here it is again! The bias that, somehow, Lawful Good is a better, purer, more good kind of good than any other. No wonder you think that paladins must be LG, because you think that paladins should be the most good!
Well, I also think that paladins should be the most good. But I'm not fooled by the pro-Law prejudice! The Good/Evil axis is entirely independent of the Law/Chaos axis; all three types of Good are equally 'good'.
The original association of Law with Good and Chaos with Evil is partly down to the history of the game (where there were only three alignments: Law, Neutrality and Chaos), partly down to one of Gygax's inspirations for the alignment system, Moorcock's Eternal Champion cycle (even Moorcock admits that although Law/Chaos was not Good/Evil, that's the way it turned out in the Elric books), and partly down to the real world bias of organised government and religion that espouses order over freedom.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
paladin privilege
|
|
...all three types of Good are equally 'good'.Assertions aren't facts ... and that's nothing more than an opinionated assertion.
I respect your decision to bow out of the paladin hijack, and I don't take that as 'giving up'.
But on the wider issue of alignment generally, I expect everyone to have a subjective opinion of whether Lawful or Chaotic is 'better', but is anyone seriously claiming that the game system itself, since the twin axes of Law/Chaos and Good/Evil were both part of the game giving the nine alignments, has the objective viewpoint that Law is more 'good' and Chaos is more 'evil'?
Chaotic Good is the alignment I typically gravitate towards. I've played every alignment at one time or another and I think this is the easiest to play when trying to get along with NPCs and other party members.
My favorite to play however is Chaotic Evil. I've had countless sessions where something I've done with the character was so much fun it literally had me giddy. There is nothing quite as satisfying as seeing the look of shock on the other players faces when the perfect opportunity to do some horribly evil act presents itself and you without hesitation seize the moment.
A Paladin should be a paragon of Good and Law. Anything less isn't a Paladin.This bit of subtle bias almost snuck by!
Here it is again! The bias that, somehow, Lawful Good is a better, purer, more good kind of good than any other. No wonder you think that paladins must be LG, because you think that paladins should be the most good!
Well, I also think that paladins should be the most good. But I'm not fooled by the pro-Law prejudice! The Good/Evil axis is entirely independent of the Law/Chaos axis; all three types of Good are equally 'good'.
The original association of Law with Good and Chaos with Evil is partly down to the history of the game (where there were only three alignments: Law, Neutrality and Chaos), partly down to one of Gygax's inspirations for the alignment system, Moorcock's Eternal Champion cycle (even Moorcock admits that although Law/Chaos was not Good/Evil, that's the way it turned out in the Elric books), and partly down to the real world bias of organised government and religion that espouses order over freedom.
I see now why when the game evolved from 3e to 4th they discarded the two axis alignment system and simplified it to one axis with Lawful Good at the most holy end and chaotic evil at the most vile end. In a way the developers of the game were by your logic saying exactly that LG is more good. I see the logic behind it even if I don't fully agree. In my view LG isn't more good... it IS however uncompromising in it's view that there isn't just a higher goal to attain but that your methods in achieving that goal are every bit as important as the end itself. Not so wishy washy as CG with their whatever works approach. So stricter to the ideals than other good not necessarily more good. I however feel that devotion should be rewarded with status if nothing else. A paragon of virtue and the earned title of Paladin!
|
|
Personally, CG, NG, and LG are all equally good, with equal capacity to have that goodness bolstered or hindered by the ethical component. LG being harder much of the time doesn't actually mean "better", especially if the lawfulness interferes with doing the right thing. The same can be said for CG. If I had to pick one to call "pure good", it would be NG, but even it can fall victim to failings many can easily imagine both chaos and law throwing into the mix. (one thing it is not is "wishy-washy good" as so many dismiss it as being; NG takes a stand just as CG and LG does)
As for "why would the general 'holy warrior' a paladin", it's because that's what a paladin is for many of us. My first paladin that was called a paladin was Cecil Harvey from Final Fantasy IV. I've been in love with the idea ever since. Some might argue him as LG, some NG. In some personal writings, I've got a character who would map to NG in D&D/PF terms. He's a paladin.
The way I see it, what's most good is when CG, NG, and LG complete each other and work together. That's why the Big Good trinity of deities in my homebrew setting spans the three.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From a gameplay point of view, because that's really the only objective point of view, only the following aspects of the class reference alignment:
1. The "Smite Evil" ability
2. The "Detect Evil" ability.
3. Weapon qualities gained via Divine Bond (holy and axiomatic)
4. Spells (Protection from Evil/Chaos, etc.)
Of these, only the first 2 are universal to every paladin—while a paladin may take a mount as his divine bond, eschew using the aligned weapon qualities, or choose not to prepare the relevant spells, Smite Evil and Detect Evil are always there.
And argument can be made that Good must be more essential to what a paladin is than Lawful, because opposition to Evil is the only permanent part of the class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Despite having pretty strong opinions on paladins, I'm not throwing any fuel on that fire.
On topic: My go to alignment is Lawful Good.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, essentially all of them other than basic martial stuff reference alignment; because by what is written LG is a rules requirement for having those abilities.From a gameplay point of view, because that's really the only objective point of view, only the following aspects of the class reference alignment:
1. The "Smite Evil" ability
2. The "Detect Evil" ability.
3. Weapon qualities gained via Divine Bond (holy and axiomatic)
4. Spells (Protection from Evil/Chaos, etc.)Of these, only the first 2 are universal to every paladin—while a paladin may take a mount as his divine bond, eschew using the aligned weapon qualities, or choose not to prepare the relevant spells, Smite Evil and Detect Evil are always there.
And argument can be made that Good must be more essential to what a paladin is than Lawful, because opposition to Evil is the only permanent part of the class.
And if PF changed the alignment requirement to 'any Good', what powers would absolutely need to change and why?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, essentially all of them other than basic martial stuff reference alignment; because by what is written LG is a rules requirement for having those abilities.From a gameplay point of view, because that's really the only objective point of view, only the following aspects of the class reference alignment:
1. The "Smite Evil" ability
2. The "Detect Evil" ability.
3. Weapon qualities gained via Divine Bond (holy and axiomatic)
4. Spells (Protection from Evil/Chaos, etc.)Of these, only the first 2 are universal to every paladin—while a paladin may take a mount as his divine bond, eschew using the aligned weapon qualities, or choose not to prepare the relevant spells, Smite Evil and Detect Evil are always there.
And argument can be made that Good must be more essential to what a paladin is than Lawful, because opposition to Evil is the only permanent part of the class.
You're missing the point.
Instead of looking at the paladin through your LG goggles, pretend you know nothing about this class or its alignment restriction, and are only reading the level-up table and ability description.
It would be clear that this class is supposed to be Good because all of its abilities reference fighting Evil, but there is nothing there about fighting chaos. You would then be left to wonder why the L restriction is there, because nothing seems to mandate it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Welp, time to hide this thread.
In ultimate magic, one of the spells on the paladin's spell list IS 'arrow of law'
What if I told you... That if you made a paladin that could use all alignments he would have access to arrow of law's chaotic equivalent as well? Following the rules of divine casting of course, and mind you that's a really easy change.
Also, I remember when this thread was about what alignments you play, those were the days! Happiness talking about who you like being.
So you are now going from talking about what IS there as a class feature vs what you WISH was there as a class feature?
No.
In ultimate magic, one of the spells on the paladin's spell list IS 'arrow of law'
Protection from Chaos is as well...but as I believe I addressed, specific spells are not a mandatory aspect of the class. Many paladins never prepare that spell, while every paladin uses Smite and Detect Evil.
Lawful Neutral. I like character that are just trying to get by in the world they live in by following the rules. Its allowed me to play characters with a lot of different opinions and outlooks on life without being too extreme about any one thing.
... However no arrow of chaos or protection from law is even available as an option. Wonder why?In ultimate magic, one of the spells on the paladin's spell list IS 'arrow of law'Protection from Chaos is as well...but as I believe I addressed, specific spells are not a mandatory aspect of the class. Many paladins never prepare that spell, while every paladin uses Smite and Detect Evil.
Because he wouldn't be able to cast it anyway as written? Divine casters can't cast spells of the opposite alignment. Wouldn't be a point to writing those spells down since no paladin can cast it. What's your point?
Are we still on that paladin thing...?
|
Personally, I end up playing neutral good more often than not. It's easier, it's the least objectionable alignment, and it helps to get along with the party best. Of course, I dabble in other forms of good. Lawful Good is pretty easy for me to pull off, since it's only one step away from what I perceive as my real alignment (LN), and Chaotic Good is a little hard to pull off, unless I'd watched a ton of shonen anime or Iron Man movies recently. I almost never play evil, because I get tired of it too easily, and the neutral alignments are far too nebulous for me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's see : in recent years, I played
- LN Patrician
- CG Barbarian
- N Ranger who became LG Ranger/Paladin
- CG PFS multiclass
- NG Sorceress
- N Cleric
So, mostly Good with some bit of Chaotic.
I seem to always gravitate towards Good when playing, even when I try to play Evil or closet Evil characters :-( It comes very naturally to me but I feel that I miss something being stuck in the Good mindset.
Lawful Good is pretty easy for me to pull off, since it's only one step away from what I perceive as my real alignment (LN)...the neutral alignments are far too nebulous for me.
Wouldn't TN basically be you, sans the strong adherence to whatever makes you Lawful? And wouldn't CN be that, with the addition of 'screw tradition!'*
Not criticizing; your two comments just seem odd together.
*Hey, maybe I'm more CN than I thought...
I try to be bad but it never sticks for longOh, man, is this true for me. I suck at being a bad guy; I suck so, terribly much.
Me: "Hi! I'm a chaotic evil murder-mage!"
GM: "Okay, so, you've finally cornered your foe, the one who murdered your parents and drove you to ruin, forcing you to delve into dark bargains, and selling your soul! He is now completely at your mercy, his wounds oozing blood and pus, and your dark magic cursing him terribly! He holds a blade in his hand, and you have him dominated, so he can't fight anything you tell him to do, even suicidal orders..."
Me: "Oh, that poor man! Well, first of all, I have him give me the dagger and put him in manacles. Then, I dress all his wounds, remove all the curses, and force him to write an honest confession of all his illicit crimes. After which, I use excessive diplomacy (not the dominate effect) to convince him of the error of his ways, and to convert to the worship of Sarenrae and to take in orphans and widows and widowers, using his vast wealth to help uplift them."
GM: "Uh... but... his 'vast wealth' won't take care of everyone."
Me: "Oh, that's okay! I'll donate... hm, let's say I'll donate 50% of my treasure. I have all the crafting feats anyway, and that's like free money. So together, after calculating, we have more than enough, especially since I donate my time and money to make all those orphans, widowers, and widows lots of rings of sustenance with constant endure elements and keep watch spells, as well as at-will scholar's touch!"
GM: "... scholar's touch is a 3.5 spell, not found in PF."
Me: "Oh... right! Well, I research the closest variant of it in PF and then put that in."
GM: "... and how do you do all of...
I wanted to mention, from my earlier post, that I actually honestly do fairly well with evil characters... as a GM. As a GM, they're... well, awful. I shan't go into detail, but they range from over-the-top cartoonish to exceedingly disturbing morally-revolting-but-vitally-necessary individuals who somehow manage to either justify their actions to the general public or otherwise negate or ignore the consequences of their actions, and continue into maliciousness in a more-or-less unstoppable manner (except, of course, for the PCs... and sometimes, very rarely, even then).
They do generally have one... fatal... glaring... flaw... though: diplomacy. Dag-gummit, if I haven't lost more primary villains to diplomacy than sword-edge. ()
Outside of that one tendency to be foiled by their own secret reasonableness, the evil that I play as GM tends to be quite sinister, and awful, to the point that I've managed to get more than one player to demand the villain's blood forever*.
*
Thirding this. I do play characters of other alignments... but not very well.Lawful Good, even on non-paladins.Same.
Also, I want to point out that this is entirely suspended as a GM, and, in fact, sometimes as a player. I'm fairly good at neutral goods, and, though my chaotic goods suffer sometimes from "sort-of-chaotic" syndrome (I've still never managed to play a wild mage... dang it) I do manage to do fairly well as long as it's good. I'm not so hot at the morally neutrals, though I've managed to have my Red Wizard not shift alignments (*).
**
***
|
I've played most of the non-evil alignments[never played in an evil campaign], and tend to lean more towards CG then anything else. Not that I play CG incredibly often, but I often play CN and NG characters because its easier for me to play a character who helps people, and its easy to play a character who dedicates himself to evading traditions [but occasionally adhering to them, just 'cause]. Though since I play Paladins rather rarely, it doesn't come up most of the time.
My characters default to NG. I like doing what is right in whichever situation I'm in without being biased either towards or against external authority systems (which I use as a marker for whether one if Lawful or Chaotic).
As for the paladin debate that has sprung up: I have no problem with paladins of any extreme alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me it is NG. If not NG then TN, both with a tendency towards lawfulness.
I mostly play Lawful Good. Don't much like playing paladins, though.
CN - i enjoy the freedom....