I'm going to agree with Weirdo. There really is a lot of wiggle room within a paladin's code. To the point it could even apply to someone who is CN or True Neutral.
The reason that I have a beef with one alignment getting a nice thing is that:
2) That class is the only one to fit the major niche of "charisma-based divine warrior" which means that some concepts like a dashing divine champion of Cayden Cailean are harder to pull off than they should be.
3) The other alignments don't have comparable nice things.
Note that the Anti-paladin is CE. So yes, other alignments do have a comparable class.
Bbns can't be Lawful- but Monks must be, Druids must be Neutral, etc.
The Order of the Star Cavalier is a "charisma-based divine warrior" .
Do we have a "dexterity-based divine warrior" ? A "constitution-based divine warrior" a "intelligence-based divine warrior" ?
And sure, I have no issues with Paladin archetypes like "Knight Errant" for CG, etc. But they are not Paladins, just like the Anti-paladin is not called a "Paladin".
2) That class is the only one to fit the major niche of "charisma-based divine warrior" which means that some concepts like a dashing divine champion of Cayden Cailean are harder to pull off than they should be.
This is really the biggest issue with it, in my opinion. It occupies a mechanical niche that people want access to outside of Lawful Good. Inquisitors or clerics have completely different mechanics and a different gameplay style, compared to a Full BAB 4 level charisma-based caster. It doesn't have to be a Paladin, but something should fill that thematic/mechanical niche.
I don't like the idea that every niche has to be filled for every alignment. To me, that makes the alignments feel like Team Green vs. Team Purple rather than fundamental moral/ethical differences.
Yes, making a special class/archetype for each Alignment is a rather... iffy way to go about it.
The best solutions are ones that don't need special rules for special situations, they work in all or nearly all situations on their own.
To that end:
Is anyone against having Paladins with other alignments (NG, LN, etc?)?
Most of what's being said is "This is what it is.", "This is how it was." or "People just want it because blah."
While it is interesting to see why something is, where it came from, and assuming things about why people would question the Status Quo (People just want a full BAB caster for mechanical reasons, why does LG only get nice things?), what does everyone think it SHOULD be, if anything?
Should we return full on to the origin of Paladins, and be simply a force of personal righteousness? Should paladins be unshackled by alignment, and instead be dependent on Codes or a God? Insert another solution I haven't thought of, but you likely have. Or, should we remain in this middle ground, with PRC's, alternate classes and archtypes fulfilling certain special alignments, and an unclear source of a Paladins Divine power and purpose with one foot set in the past, and one foot set on the unstable present?
Thoughts? :)
(Edited because my attempt at humor came out Snarky, whoops XD)
Is anyone against having Paladins with other alignments (NG, LN, etc?)?
Yes- I am. Archetypes with different names, such as the Anti-paladin already is, that's fine.
|
Note that the Anti-paladin is CE. So yes, other alignments do have a comparable class.
Fine, CE gets comparable nice things. The other 7/9 alignments are under-appreciated.
Bbns can't be Lawful, but Monks must be. Druids must be Neutral
I think those are a bad idea too, but they're all less restrictive than a single alignment. More importantly, saying Barbarians can't be lawful is not equitable in terms of alignment-based goodies to saying that two core classes must be lawful only. Someone seems to have decided that law is better than chaos, despite the fact that the sourcebooks' discussion on alignment claims they are equally valid.
Order of the Star Cavalier is a "charisma-based divine warrior"
Sure, and a hershey's kiss is a "dessert." Two abilities based on charisma, one of which takes a standard action and is thus impractical in combat, and the other you don't get until level 8. Plus none of it is magical - the Order of the Star cavalier has to follow his religion as per his edicts, but doesn't have a special personal link to his deity. It's fine for adding a little religion to your knight, but when you're looking for a charisma-based divine warrior you want a better mix than 90% warrior, 5% charisma, 5% divine.
From the Guide to the Cavalier: "Order of the Star (AKA Order of the Why didn’t I just roll a Paladin or Inquisitor?)" (Implied answer: you can't play a paladin without drama and you're settling.)
Do we have a "dexterity-based divine warrior" ? A "constitution-based divine warrior" a "intelligence-based divine warrior" ?
No, but if we did and they were core classes they shouldn't be alignment restricted. It's like if the oracle were chaotic-only because their curses made them outsiders by nature.
I don't like the idea that every niche has to be filled for every alignment. To me, that makes the alignments feel like Team Green vs. Team Purple rather than fundamental moral/ethical differences.
Do fundamental moral/ethical differences have to have broad mechanical effects?
Heck, removing alignment restrictions might make alignment a more fundamental moral/ethical issue because you're arguing about which is more philosophically valid, rather than arguing about whether a paladin or an antipaladin would win in a fight. And wondering whether the fact that LE and CG get no love means that they're somehow less fundamental to the nature of the universe.
|
|
Separate post because the other one was getting long:
Is anyone against having Paladins with other alignments (NG, LN, etc?)?
Of course there are, and many of them are as passionately against it as I am passionately in favour of the "any Good" paladin (and some are in favour of the "god's champion" paladin). And because one of the people who is passionately against opening up paladins is James Jacobs, we are not getting them any time soon.
My advice is to figure out what paladins mean conceptually to you and your group, and whether that actually requires an alignment restriction. Often it doesn't. Then realize that there is no mechanical reason to restrict paladins to LG - the mechanics are easy to adjust for other alignments. Then decide, as every group has to decide whether your paladins are LG or not, how to handle the Code.
Then enjoy whatever you're playing and don't let anyone tell you you're doing it wrong.
|
|
So, what is left, paladins use charisma as a casting stat? That is paper thin at best--use find and replace wisdom for charisma on the paladin's section of the rules book and what suddenly doesn't work? Not much (if anything) that I can tell.
If you're roleplaying your mental stats with zeal, a wisdom-based paladin plays very differently from a charisma-based paladin. With a martial class, you rarely have room for more than one really good mental stat, so a paladin whose class abilities key off Wisdom will have at best an average charisma. All other things being equal, they will likely be less confident, have less presence, and be a less capable leader than a charisma-based paladin, but will be more insightful, perceptive, and stronger-willed. They might be more patient, and are probably a better listener than talker - better at reading people beyond "evil or not?" but not as good at convincing people not to be evil.
I switched my LG-knight character from paladin to inquisitor primarily because I realized I wanted a wisdom-based character rather than a charisma-based character.
If those differences reflect an objective ontological reality, as they do in the game, then I think there should be mechanical differences in them as well. That's why I changed the DR of certain beings in my game. Fiends still have DR /good but celestials have DR /- and high level paladins have DR that only works against evil.
Well, that's interesting because among other things it makes Good definitively better than Evil. And I don't disagree that the objective reality of alignment can have mechanical consequences. In my current setting, where the Law/Chaos divide is more important cosmologically than the Good/Evil one, I've given Demons and Azata DR/lawful, and Devils and Archons DR/chaotic.
I don't think, though, that emphasizing the objective reality of alignment through mechanics makes it less like a set of teams. The way that members of that alignment act - whether they slay their enemies or show them mercy, whether they reform within the system or tear it down from outside - is what defines alignment as philosophy, not whether one alignment gets a particular feat or spell or class. Someone should be a paladin because they believe in what the paladin stands for, not because it comes with neat mechanical perks they can't get any other way.
Which is why in my above game "paladin" is a title and "champion" is the class, which can be adapted to fit many different philosophies.
The LG premise doesn't work very well for alignments that are not extremes. LG and CE are the extremes of D&D alignment, and have the paladin and blackguard/anti-paladin as their champions. There are actions that could only be categorized as LG, but many good actions would be taken by a NG or CG character as well.
CG and LE are equally extreme in that they both involve a commitment to two alignment components. This isn't 4E with a linear LG-G-N-E-CE alignment scale.
And there are many actions that could only be categorized as CG. For example, urging someone to break off an arranged marriage that will make them unhappy. Or acting as a conductor on the underground railroad. Or participating in revolutions against one's own tyrannical government (rather than trying to reform the government from inside).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strictly speaking, Evil has all sorts of goodies given 'free' to them over good.
Murder, rape, slaughter, poison, lie, cheat, steal without ANY CONSEQUENCES from your alignment.
Yeah, those are some pretty nice benefits for side evil. Good guys just can't DO that stuff.
Chaotics can do the lie thing freely, and steal from the rich to give to the poor. Evil can make excuses for almost everything chaotics can do, and CE? Completely free of restrictions.
Saying every alignment should have a paladin is basically ignoring everything a paladin has to give up to be played.
And that's why people don't like paladins of other alignments. They get all the goodies with none of the drawbacks...or the drawbacks are so loose they are irrelevant. "I wanna play a paladin without worrying about the code" just doesn't go over well with us.
And that's even with the looseness of the code Paizo uses.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Evil is indeed often easier than good because it only has to worry about what's good for itself, not others, so having fewer but stronger champions of Good works out just fine.
Chaos however is not easier than law, because chaos is not just the absence of restrictions, it's an active rejection of order and hierarchy in favour of adaptability and self-determination. I'm going to quote a previous post of mine on the subject:
The Law-Chaos axis isn't a scale running from "has to strictly follow the law" to "does whatever he wants," it's a scale from "has a compulsion to follow the law" to "has a compulsion to rebel."
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel.If you don't actually feel compelled to rebel against lawful restraints you're not chaotic, and even without a formal code that's enough for Chaotic Champion to fall. A formal code is not the only kind of restriction on a person's behavior. The need for an extremely restrictive code is not an obstacle to a chaotic champion.
The chaotic character bridles at what they see as restrictions, and seeks freedom for themselves and (if CG) others, but if they accept orderly structures they cease to be chaotic, and thus paradoxically are just as restricted in their actions as the lawful character - the restraints are merely less visible because they are internal rather than external. Only neutral characters are truly free to "act naturally in any situation, without prejudice or compulsion."
Then enjoy whatever you're playing and don't let anyone tell you you're doing it wrong.
QFT!
I don't like the idea that every niche has to be filled for every alignment. To me, that makes the alignments feel like Team Green vs. Team Purple rather than fundamental moral/ethical differences.
Alignments already are Team Green vs. Team Purple vs. Team Yellow vs...., in addition to being a grid of ethical values. See: The planes, clerics, oracles, etc. D&D has a long and honored history of turning morality into sporting teams.
Should we return full on to the origin of Paladins, and be simply a force of personal righteousness? Should paladins be unshackled by alignment, and instead be dependent on Codes or a God? Insert another solution I haven't thought of, but you likely have. Or, should we remain in this middle ground, with PRC's, alternate classes and archtypes fulfilling certain special alignments, and an unclear source of a Paladins Divine power and purpose with one foot set in the past, and one foot set on the unstable present?
This is all way too much philosophizing for a philistine DM like me. :) I think of paladins essentially as clerics who spent more time on the training field than in the cloister; my players can think of their paladins however they like. Which is IMO what role playing should be about -- role playing your own character, not someone else's overly-specific view of whatever class you chose.
If for nothing more than the experience of it, I suggest you allow non-LG paladins in your next campaign -- or ask your DM to allow them. Maybe just any Good paladins, maybe any-aligned paladins; the idea is to experiment, see what fun is had by all, and form your own opinion!
Chaos is not about compelled to rebel, either. It's about yourself being the highest position of authority, and never acknowledging a compulsion to obey.
A chaotic person can act surprisingly disciplined in the right situations, can have extremely strong ties to others, and form a society based on mutual respect and acknowledgement of shared values.
However, nobody higher up can impose upon them without using force to back it. The truly chaotic obeys only those they respect, not because some nameless law or greater society says they must.
The entire spectrum of Lawful behaviors exist within the possibilities of Chaos, if they so choose to act that way, just like the entire spectrum of Good behaviors exists within the possibilities of Evil actions. The reverse in both cases is not true, however.
==Aelryinth
Yes- I am. Archetypes with different names, such as the Anti-paladin already is, that's fine.Is anyone against having Paladins with other alignments (NG, LN, etc?)?
To be fair that's a terribly way to build a class since you turn one class into as many as the core rulebook has in it. Makes more sense to make one class that's flexible for 9 alignments, or just flexible at all. Could you imagine if every divine caster class was split into 9 alignment based archetypes and what that might do to archetyping? Archetypes don't even exist in the CRB, they were introduced in APG.
On top of that alignment isn't even the best measure of tenants, which is a whole nother' issue. One paladin for every god could get pretty crazy. A champion of Besmara is probably going to look a lot different than one of Gorum, or Groetus, or Hei Fang, or Sun Wukong, or probably a lot of other gods.
inb4 we talk about how valuable the name paladin is...
|
|
@MrSin - On the cleric analogy, I think a domain-based paladin/champion class would be a great thing! You pick one or two domains of virtue like justice, liberation, mercy, charity, purity, protection, and honour and get appropriate abilities - skills, spells, class features - but have to live by corresponding principles. You could either include all alignments within one class or make one good and one evil version with the evil version using the antipaladin base and tied to separate vice domains like tyranny, cruelty, and destruction.
Chaos is not about compelled to rebel, either.
That's contrary to the description in the CRB.
It's about yourself being the highest position of authority, and never acknowledging a compulsion to obey.
...
However, nobody higher up can impose upon them without using force to back it. The truly chaotic obeys only those they respect, not because some nameless law or greater society says they must.
The entire spectrum of Lawful behaviors exist within the possibilities of Chaos, if they so choose to act that way, just like the entire spectrum of Good behaviors exists within the possibilities of Evil actions. The reverse in both cases is not true, however.
If chaos is about never acknowledging a compulsion to obey, and the truly chaotic obeys only those they respect, then admitting a compulsion to obey, or obeying someone they do not respect, is within the spectrum of lawful behavior but not within the spectrum of chaotic behavior.
A chaotic person can act surprisingly disciplined in the right situations, can have extremely strong ties to others, and form a society based on mutual respect and acknowledgement of shared values.
I agree with that. I also believe that a lawful person can be surprisingly flexible in the right situation, can be extremely innovative, and respect the individual rights of others even when it would be better for the collective good to overlook the needs of the few, or the one.
This is because I believe alignment is not a set of nine boxes with rigid boundaries, but a set of coordinates describing within a vast field of possibility what general sort of situations and actions a person feels most comfortable with. Most people wander a fair bit over that field and their alignment only describes a tendency - and a vague tendency at that, since each alignment comprises a bundle of philosophically associated ideas and not everyone will prefer all of them equally.
Lawful people can do chaotic things! Chaotic people can do lawful things! Evil people can do good things, and good people can do evil things! But if you find yourself performing a lot of actions in another part of the field, it probably reflects that you are now more comfortable in that moral area and your alignment has changed. Now, there's some precedent for redemption from good to evil being an uphill climb, because the dark side is faster, easier, and more seductive. But the only place we get guidelines for a law-chaos transition is in Ultimate Campaign, which suggests that there should be exactly no difference between the difficulties of becoming more lawful vs more chaotic.
@MrSin - On the cleric analogy, I think a domain-based paladin/champion class would be a great thing! You pick one or two domains of virtue like justice, liberation, mercy, charity, purity, protection, and honour and get appropriate abilities - skills, spells, class features - but have to live by corresponding principles.
Maybe, I'm not a fan of domains either to be honest. I think they don't reflect deities very well and they can be restrictive and they aren't friendly to new ones being added, and that not everyone agrees with what domains should go to who. I think having access to a variety of class features representing ideals is cool though. YMMV.
The Paladin Alignment and restrictive code was there for 1E and I guess they kept it to nostalgic.
1st and 2nd Edition D&D worked differently that 3E and PF. There was point buy so you rolled stats and depending what you rolled allowed entry into a class. Better more powerful classes required higher stats and came with restrictive caveats like the Paladin Code and Alignment.
In 3E and PF I don't really get why they have these anymore. The Paladin while a tough class compared to the fighter or rogue is middle of the pack with every other class.
That is a good point, but I have to wonder why certain gods would want heavily armored weapon users for champions. Irori and Nethys would seem to favor other kinds of champions (and heavy armor plus ocean is a bad combination for Besmara's champion). Maybe "champion of X" should be a template?
Ideally, all divine classes should have substantial changes to their core mechanics depending on the deity they worship.
That is a good point, but I have to wonder why certain gods would want heavily armored weapon users for champions. Irori and Nethys would seem to favor other kinds of champions (and heavy armor plus ocean is a bad combination for Besmara's champion). Maybe "champion of X" should be a template?Ideally, all divine classes should have substantial changes to their core mechanics depending on the deity they worship.
It would be pretty awesome in theory yeah, but it would be pretty hard to actually have a class/archetype(gosh forbid a combo of each class!) for every deity in the book.
I also don't think that's too homebrew friendly. Definitely not as newbie or homebrew friendly as a single flexible class imo.
I think the paladin class should be renamed and made more flexible so it can be used by multiple alignments.
Yeah, called something like "Zealot" or some such.
That is a good point, but I have to wonder why certain gods would want heavily armored weapon users for champions. Irori and Nethys would seem to favor other kinds of champions (and heavy armor plus ocean is a bad combination for Besmara's champion). Maybe "champion of X" should be a template?Ideally, all divine classes should have substantial changes to their core mechanics depending on the deity they worship.It would be pretty awesome in theory yeah, but it would be pretty hard to actually have a class/archetype(gosh forbid a combo of each class!) for every deity in the book.
I also don't think that's too homebrew friendly. Definitely not as newbie or homebrew friendly as a single flexible class imo.
IIRC one of the devs mentioned that early on in Pathfinder they'd wanted to add more diversity to the cleric, but quickly realized that it would make the cleric's class entry incredibly long and complicated. The only RPGs I've played that substantially differentiated "clerics" depending on the deity are ones that had a much shorter god list than the traditional D&D-esque panetheon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you want a Paladin that just emulates the God they've selected?
That's a Cleric
Why would you want a Paladin that just emulates the God they've selected?
That's a Cleric
Because a paldin is a full BAB 4 level caster with auras and smite and a cleric is a 3/4 BAB class with domains and 9 level casting? They're mechanically two different classes?
Why would you want a cleric when you can play an inquisitor? Why would you want an inquisitor if you can play an warpriest? Why would you want a warpriest if you can play a paladin? Why would you want a paladin if you could be AM BARBARIAN!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you want a Paladin that just emulates the God they've selected?
That's a Cleric
Because a paldin is a full BAB 4 level caster with auras and smite and a cleric is a 3/4 BAB class with domains and 9 level casting? They're mechanically two different classes?
Why would you want a cleric when you can play an inquisitor? Why would you want an inquisitor if you can play an warpriest? Why would you want a warpriest if you can play a paladin? Why would you want a paladin if you could be AM BARBARIAN!
Pretty much everyone wants to date the Paladin but nobody wants to marry her becasue of the baggage.
Pretty much everyone wants to date the Paladin but nobody wants to marry her becasue of the baggage.
Because players just want to have fun!
The Paladin epitomizes that holy warrior who believes in something outside himself, larger than himself. Which is why he doesn't fit the rebellious spirit of chaotic good, nor the uninvolved fence sitter of True Neutral.
So... A chaotic good guy can't believe in his cause or that its above him and that's why he acts the way he does and a true neutral guy can't champion the cause of balance because balance? They have to be some guy who sits around and in the final moments of life says "Tell my wife I said... Hello." and a CG guy has to believe he's the lovable rogue doing it for himself or to be rebellious or something?
I think they're more than capable of believing that their causes are important and beyond them or affect other people. That might be the major reason they do the things they do!
The Paladin is not centered on a personal code of honor... That's the cavalier or the samurai.
Errant/Ronin has a personal code, every other cavalier has his edict chosen for him though, by his vague but apparently omnipotent and strict order. Cavaliers/Samurai are weird in that they can fall without being supernatural, and what they lose is actually entirely unrelated to their order but apparently if you mess up your order's edicts you fall.
If I remember right, I was once told the cavalier was argued to be a lawful only character because of the way his edicts worked, but it fell otherwise. Probably for the best they have some free will imo, though cavalier is probably the least played class for me. I've only ever seen one at my table.
Yes. I've seen it done in the past, and not even the creator was satisfied with the result.
Is anyone against having Paladins with other alignments (NG, LN, etc?)?
Was probably overthinking things.
Rookie mistake. :D
So... A chaotic good guy can't believe in his cause or that its above him and that's why he acts the way he does and a true neutral guy can't champion the cause of balance because balance? They have to be some guy who sits around and in the final moments of life says "Tell my wife I said... Hello." and a CG guy has to believe he's the lovable rogue doing it for himself or to be rebellious or something?The class your'e looking for is Monte Cook's Champion. Alignment has nothing to do with what he's about.
Okay? What does that have to do with all the alignment stuff I just mentioned? Or the futurama reference?
|
|
I think domains are a decent compromise between differentiating clerics of different deities and not having too many versions of the same divine classes. Archetypes and variant channeling help, though inquisitors could use maybe a bit more differentiation (especially since they get limited customization from domains), and we could use more options to trade away armour proficiency.
OTOH, why do we have to assume that all the gods even have clerics at all? Most everyday priestly functions could be performed just as easily by an expert or aristocrat, or even a commoner. Healing shrines or other miraculous places can be created as desired/needed. A cleric is only required if the deity wants somebody using magic in their name on a daily basis.
A lot of deities do want someone using magic in their name on a daily basis - it ups your profile to have active, powerful followers, and in some campaigns you're competing for attention with the local witch or wizard solving problems with secular magic. Empowered clerics also have more tangible authority than nonmagical priests in terms of preaching and ritual, are more mobile than holy sites, and are capable of acting as competent physical warriors of the faith if necessary.
I think the paladin class should be renamed and made more flexible so it can be used by multiple alignments.Yeah, called something like "Zealot" or some such.
I like "Champion." "Zealot" has negative connotations.
The class your'e looking for is Monte Cook's Champion. Alignment has nothing to do with what he's about.
Maybe it is. What's this class actually like?
A lot of deities do want someone using magic in their name on a daily basis - it ups your profile to have active, powerful followers, and in some campaigns you're competing for attention with the local witch or wizard solving problems with secular magic.
Look at Aroden, he took a break from giving out superpowers and now everyone thinks he's dead!
A lot of deities do want someone using magic in their name on a daily basis - it ups your profile to have active, powerful followers, and in some campaigns you're competing for attention with the local witch or wizard solving problems with secular magic.Look at Aroden, he took a break from giving out superpowers and now everyone thinks he's dead!
Wait, he's not?
Blast it. I thought that was a killshot confirmed thing!
I like "Champion." "Zealot" has negative connotations.
For Adun!
In Andy Collins book and a Dragon article they actually stated out "paladin" of various alignments. They weren't popular and I have never seen them played.
So, other that the "alignment is BDAWRONGFUN!" crowd, I don't think the buying public is demanding "paladins" of every alignment.
If they were, then they'd have them. Simple.
In Andy Collins book and a Dragon article they actually stated out "paladin" of various alignments. They weren't popular and I have never seen them played.
So, other that the "alignment is BDAWRONGFUN!" crowd, I don't think the buying public is demanding "paladins" of every alignment.
If they were, then they'd have them. Simple.
Core is played more than dragon magazine and third party? No way!
I don't think a demand means that something happens. Sometimes its just the opposite that happens.
In Andy Collins book and a Dragon article they actually stated out "paladin" of various alignments. They weren't popular and I have never seen them played.
So, other that the "alignment is BDAWRONGFUN!" crowd, I don't think the buying public is demanding "paladins" of every alignment.
If they were, then they'd have them. Simple.
DnD Next is going to test that premise. They've made paladins multi-alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DnD Next is going to test that premise. They've made paladins multi-alignment.
Actually 4th had multi-alignment paladins too, and the avenger class and other cool things. There are also other games with multi-alignment paladins, some video games and others tabletop.