| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alternately, I could say, why are you so insistent it HAS to be the paladin, only the paladin, exactly as is with no changes PERIOD!!!How is Divine Health Lawful but not Chaotic?A champion of freedom as I would have it would include things similar to, for example ... Gaining powers similar to those of the liberation domain. Instead of divine health implement a strong resistance to, or immunity to, mind effecting spells or spells that force the character's will. Etcetera.
Because its a holy champion guy with smite and divine grace and a four level spell list with litanies?
This just suggests to me that the non-archetype side of the debate wants it for crunch and not concept, which may be indeed, where the dividing line is.
All this really means in the end though, is that a well-made archetype or two would quickly spin these opinions on their head and result in a rapidly changing tune.
...you'd still get the anti-alignment arguments though, which is a large part of what this is, too. It's just that one class was made the poster child for it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
homebrew whatever you want to homebrew in your homebrew games
|
And I didn't suggest you couldn't have your Freedom's Champion. Just that it should be a cool new car rather than a different set of paint and some seat covers, along with a pair of fuzzy dice.
If we're going for car analogies, I want a Ferrari but since I live in Britain I need a right-hand drive version. What's that? I'm not allowed to have a right-hand drive (but otherwise identical) Ferrari, I have to have a completely different car? Why?
Of course you can invent alternate abilities. Every single paladin archetype already does! But making up a comprehensively new set of abilities would only make it impossible to use any other archetypes. Change only what needs changing, and every archetype remains compatible.
So if anyone does want to play a very different CG paladin then use a combination of those other archetypes to do the job while leaving the rest of us the choice to play any version we like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember waaay back during the Alpha/Beta days, I tried to talk Jason and James into allowing "paladins" of all alignments, because "paladin" really should just mean "the most fervent holy warriors of a particular deity.". Unfortunately, they wanted to maintain the Paladins are only LG trope.
-Skeld
Live your dream, run your games as you wish it was, because I've known other dms who did exactly what you suggested.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
homebrew whatever you want to homebrew in your homebrew games
Brew until you like it, and then share a few brews with your friends.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed.
I've homebrewed and have played in games where every or most gods have their own paladins, each with diff alignment requirements and codes.
I, however, do not want the one in the CRB altered.
That class is the mechanical representation of a specific ideal, not all ideals. It's been that way since it was put in DnD, leave it alone.
None at all. It's an archetype.
It doesn't change the CRB Paladin's alignment or Code requirements.
I'm ok with an archetype. I'd have a very hard time calling it a Paladin though.
Notadins will abound :)
Alternate class would be better. Then there would be no confusion of what a Paladin is supposed to be.
Call it the Notadin. It'd be sweet.
|
|
And in what way are your harmed if instead there is an alternate class tailored to the subject?
The class' powers and abilities are perfect as they are. I want them as they are. Having to change them hurts me.
On the other hand, if others get to play that archetype, how does that make your game worse?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would however, prefer to have them sufficiently different to more closely represent the alignments they champion. Possibly with some rules hack allowing them to swap out equivalent features when taking paladin archetypes.
Especially as you move farther from LG, it seems to me that the actual abilities should be different. The spell list will definitely need changes beyond "Swap law for chaos".
The only thing I'd stress there is that the NG and CG paladins need to be portrayed as equally Good as vanilla paladins in their abilities. On of the things that frustrated me about the two Irori Paladin options was the emphasis on smiting chaos, which leads to weirdness like paladins being able to smite azatas. And that just isn't a paladin thing to do, regardless of what any Judge Dredd-alike PCs might say. I wouldn't want NG or CG paladins to fall into that same trap.
Differently flavored auras and mercies stand out as possibilities at the moment.
If one wants to change the paladin's alignment or code, but keep most everything else intact, why not come up with oaths that do this?
They seem to be the way to modify paladins the least, Oath against Chaos, Oath against Injustice, etc.
Mebbe?
|
|
The differences between 'any Good' paladins and a non-good version are that the Good paladins don't need to change the class abilities (crunch), and paladins are already Holy Warriors of Good who fall if they willingly commit an evil act (fluff). So CG and NG paladins work without change.
I'd advocate that the Blackguard/Anti-Paladin should be 'any Evil'.
|
|
The differences between 'any Good' paladins and a non-good version are that the Good paladins don't need to change the class abilities (crunch), and paladins are already Holy Warriors of Good who fall if they willingly commit an evil act. So CG and NG paladins work without change.
I'd advocate that the Blackguard/Anti-Paladin should be 'any Evil'.
So, in other words, you'd like to see paladins for fully six of the nine alignments, correct?
There's just something so distasteful about that (for me).
I guess my preference, were I forced to expand it, would be "lawful paladins only." Paladin/monk would be, for me, a natural synergy.
For clarity, I prefer the paladin (as is) to be available for the three Good alignments, and the Blackguard/Anti-Paladin (which is a different class!) to be available to the three evil alignments.
This reflects the moral battle between Good and Evil. I'm not as convinced about military conflict based on philosophy only; I don't think that Lawful only and Chaotic only would resemble either paladins or anti-paladins, if they existed at all.
Note that despite my opinion on Lawful/Chaotic equivalents I wouldn't campaign against the rights of other people who can envision them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Live your dream, run your games as you wish it was, because I've known other dms who did exactly what you suggested.
Aye, the weird thing about the way things are though is that a lot of games are run RAW that I've been in. There isn't a thought as to "what the player wants" or even "what I want" as much as "What the game is". Pathfinder wasn't built like a toolbox, it was built with someone else's setting. Not a lot about that sort of thing in the books to help make it into a toolkit either.
That class is the mechanical representation of a specific ideal, not all ideals. It's been that way since it was put in DnD, leave it alone.
Well, every edition has had a different paladin actually. Different restrictions and mechanics across the eras too. Not sure if its fair to say any paladin is your grandpa's paladin but your grandpa's paladin. If that makes sense.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Live your dream, run your games as you wish it was, because I've known other dms who did exactly what you suggested.I remember waaay back during the Alpha/Beta days, I tried to talk Jason and James into allowing "paladins" of all alignments, because "paladin" really should just mean "the most fervent holy warriors of a particular deity.". Unfortunately, they wanted to maintain the Paladins are only LG trope.
-Skeld
No worries there. I've never been a GM that feels like I have to follow the rules. :D
-Skeld
Live your dream, run your games as you wish it was, because I've known other dms who did exactly what you suggested.Aye, the weird thing about the way things are though is that a lot of games are run RAW that I've been in. There isn't a thought as to "what the player wants" or even "what I want" as much as "What the game is". Pathfinder wasn't built like a toolbox, it was built with someone else's setting. Not a lot about that sort of thing in the books to help make it into a toolkit either.
That class is the mechanical representation of a specific ideal, not all ideals. It's been that way since it was put in DnD, leave it alone.Well, every edition has had a different paladin actually. Different restrictions and mechanics across the eras too. Not sure if its fair to say any paladin is your grandpa's paladin but your grandpa's paladin. If that makes sense.
Early on it was a toolbox, and a variant to 3.5. Later it became someone else's setting with less flexibility and more confidence inserted into that ruleset (this is how it is going to be, that sort of attitude). It started as a 3.5 offshoot, then became more cocky.
Speaking personally, I'm not a fan of Paladins for any alignment. To me Paladin is all about his commitment to an ideal, whether that ideal be Justice, Freedom, Authority-over-others, or something else entirely.
Granted I'm also the type who sees classes as packages of abilities with RP suggestions rather than 'identities' for characters.
i can agree with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They can be quite glorious and really shine when the paladin's commitment to the ideals of good put them against the scheming clerics of good and neutral churches.
It has been rather cool when it goes that way. The dodgy clerics for their faith seem world fixated, but the paladin has the real moral authority. Also an example of when a pal can stand against an LG faith and not fall.
... And why is it required that this class be a "paladin", rather that a "holy warrior of Freedom" or a Sanctified champion of Good, or a "Paragon of Pure Law' ... Etcetera.Why is it required that he not be a paladin? Did you call dibs? Is there a new rule that different alignments of the same class have different names? If so I totally want to vote that the CN rogue is now called the Cliché. LG will be mascara! CG will be blush.
But NE is the Rouge, right?
Also, I will say that while you can call anything a paladin, there's a point where it gets...well, pointless. You can't call a bearded ale-drinking miner an elf without getting some eye rolls.
I'm not saying this is that case, but I expect some people see it as such. A rose by any other name makes people think you're just trying to be "original" and not have to deal with what it's actually called.
A bearded ale-drinking miner could be a paladin though.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A real paladin doesn't play a paladin. He's someone who fights for what's right, and knows that the only way to ensure the right course of action is to follow what is good, knowing that, while peoples' opinions on what constitutes the best implementation of good may change, goodness itself exists regardless of that litigation.
And a paladin can't do that.
Naa, if it can be roleplayed it can be done.
You may have to argue with a dm, or they might set it up that good has to conflict with good for the greater good (lol).
And I didn't suggest you couldn't have your Freedom's Champion. Just that it should be a cool new car rather than a different set of paint and some seat covers, along with a pair of fuzzy dice.
I've already explained this:
Most DMs just don't have the time/skill/interest in writing up a special snowflake class. So if they want to allow non-LG paladins, the simplest solution is to drop/change the code, the alignment restriction, and tweak the paladin's aligned powers appropriately.
Besides, it's not like the game is a stranger to many archetypes being kludged into the same class: The cleric was originally a Van Helsing undead-hunter concept. It was slowly reconceptualized into a Templar sort of archetype, and its mechanics still reflect that -- d8 HD, average BAB, and heavy armor prof. And yet all kinds of holy archetypes get kludged into this one class, from dark cultists to priests of subtle sneaky deities to holy scribes of learning and peace.
__________________________________________________
This just suggests to me that the non-archetype side of the debate wants it for crunch and not concept, which may be indeed, where the dividing line is.
We just want want non-LG paladins for the crunch? Please! We play casters when we want great crunch; our interest in the paladin is opening up a class to more character concepts.
__________________________________________________
Now ... all that said ... and said mostly because your tone irritated me ...
This probably won't surprise you -- at least I hope it doesn't -- but the tone of my OP was inspired by your tone and the overall tone of the paladin side-conversation in the Which Alignment...? thread.
__________________________________________________
Considering how inextricably intertwined the concept of a traditional D&D paladin is with ideas of "One True Way" and "sanctity," I'm surprised you didn't note the irony of your own statement, considering that, above, you're all about irony—which is also ironic.
...
Not currently, it doesn't—unless you'd care to show me the chaotic good 'paladin' in the pre-4th D&D or Pathfinder rules. :P
See, this is where the big disconnect is. My camp doesn't care about what the RAW is. Did the great civil rights activists ever say "Well black folks and women can't vote; thems the rules, so that's that"? Did the Wright Brothers say "Well people have legs, not wings, so that's that"? Did the writers of the New BSG say "Well 1978 BSG is a trite Star Trek knock-off, so that's what we're going to write"?
The fact that PF paladins must be LG by the RAW is notable only because it affects organized play, and because it gives gamers with quirky ideas about paladins a convenient vehicle to impose those quirky ideas on others.
By supporting the idea that the paladin should remain exclusively lawful good in the Core Rules, and supplying justification for that position that satisfies the paladin traditionalists and doesn't those who wish to expand the game (not the dictionary) definition, there's no attempt to "dictate" to others what they do with Rule Zero at their own tables. One can find something distasteful, in defiance of its original spirit, and irritating without saying, "You can't do that, anywhere, ever!" I mean ... come on, man.
I don't much care what you do at your table, but the people at your table do. And unless one of your interview questions for new players is "Paladins: Only LG, or more?", chances are good that your idea of paladinhood has affected players at your table.
We all accept a certain amount of DM quirkiness, because every DM's got 'em. I mean if you had an otherwise cool DM who said "All barbarians are raving morons, so they have to be CN, and they lose all Rage if they ever knowingly follow a civilized law," you'd probably roll your eyes and pick another class to play. If another player said the same thing, I imagine you'd be notably less sanguine about it. The only difference between the paladin and the barbarian example is that, by some twist of history, all the quirky ideas that gamers have about paladins happen to be supported by the RAW.
Did the great civil rights activists ever say "Well black folks and women can't vote; thems the rules, so that's that"? Did the Wright Brothers say "Well people have legs, not wings, so that's that"? Did the writers of the New BSG say "Well 1978 BSG is a trite Star Trek knock-off, so that's what we're going to write"?Are you seriously setting yourself and those who agree with your position up as the champions of progressivism?
Well, certainly beats being that guy on the other side of the fence don't you think? Besides, 'we had it first' is never the best reasoning, might may or may not be the point.
Did the great civil rights activists ever say "Well black folks and women can't vote; thems the rules, so that's that"? Did the Wright Brothers say "Well people have legs, not wings, so that's that"? Did the writers of the New BSG say "Well 1978 BSG is a trite Star Trek knock-off, so that's what we're going to write"?Are you seriously setting yourself and those who agree with your position up as the champions of progressivism?
No; just trying to explain why "Show me where PF says that paladins can be CG" is a pointless challenge. We all know what the RAW says -- we 'progressives' just don't care.
... by some twist of history, all the quirky ideas that gamers have about paladins happen to be supported by the RAW.Which likely means that many of those gamers, developers and DMs don't consider them "quirky," despite your label. (I note also that because it does not suit your desires, it's a "twist of history.")
The specific paladin restrictions really are a twist of history, considering even the relative freedom of the cleric class, but after I wrote my post I did regret using 'quirky' to describe gamers' ideas about the paladin. 'Unusually specific ideas about the paladin class' would have been better.
(Meaning that among all other classes, the RAW and gamers in general have very specific ideas of the paladin; not that people with specific ideas about the class are unusual.)
While I'd likely still only allow lawful good (or, perhaps, neutral good with strong lawful tendencies in a veteran) paladins in my own two long-standing campaigns because the underlying tone and cosmology in each would be violated otherwise, if one accepts the M-W definition of paladin as valid (and I must, because it's right there in black-and-white), then one would have to accept the idea that some might say, "I allow the 'four corners' (LG, LE, CG, CE) for paladin," "I allow all good alignments for paladin," or even (blecch), "I allow any exemplar of an alignment to be a paladin."
Seems to me that's all you should require: I don't (and will never) like it, but am not going to b*!$& if that's the way it eventually goes.
Yeah, I got this from your last post, and I appreciate your candor. I just wanted to attempt to shed a little light on my camp's side of things.
And "we had it first" and "it's traditionally so" are valid arguments----to a traditionalist.
Yeah, but they aren't ones that have a counter argument, which is why you use them. Its not really a valid way to do things. Its the facts that back them that matter, and ideally your judged on those.
Not a big fan of talking like that dontcha' know.
We all know what the RAW says -- we 'progressives' just don't care.We differ on what constitutes "progress." ;-)
Your word, not mine. ;)
Admittedly though, there is a certain parallel between my reaction to the paladin issue and certain real world issues. Civil rights are of course infinitely more important than any game rule, but I am as baffled by "Paladins must be LG because that's what a paladin is" as I am by "Voters must be white males because Reasons." The difference of course is in the degree of outrage that the two statements warrant -- the latter is worth fighting for, while the former is really only worth arguing about on a game forum with random strangers.
As I'm sure you can agree with. ;)
The specific paladin restrictions really are a twist of history, considering even the relative freedom of the cleric class ...They're certainly drawn from an extremely narrow set of assumptions.
Perhaps the paladin should be a prestige class, defined for individual campaigns. While I much prefer the status quo, I understand the desire to soften the requirements.
I remember that the 3.0 Unearthed Arcana presented the paladin as a PrC, though I'm not sure if anything but time will cool the controversy.
In my last group, I DMed for a generally affable guy who told me he that never even considered playing paladins due to past experiences. Mind you, this guy had mild character ADD, and never played the same class twice. Additionally, this was in a 4e group, where as you probably know, paladins not only can be any alignment, but can't even fall!
That was the one and only time that I heard that player rant about anything. It was pretty weird.
Wait, they can't fall in 4th ed?
For anything?
Not even for Gypsy card tricks in the street? Not even if it is really slippery?
2d6 burn damage.
There's a point where your conversation is just one guy scoffing at anything, making accusations and insults, and not actually trying to talk any sort of reason.