|
What is the push to get rid of the Paladin's alignment restriction? Being a pure hearted champion of good is the core of the Paladin. It would be like taking magic away from a Wizard, lawful good is what makes the Paladin what it is.
We have never experienced those catch 22 situations we hear about on these forums so playing a lawful good character with a code of honour has never been a problem.
Is it because people just want the Paladin's power and not the restrictions?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
because why can't i be a pure hearted champion of law, or chaos, or chaotic good...
though generally it's the same reason I think assassin shouldn't be evil locked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, the restrictions work well.
The problem is, the paladin's code, as it stands in Pathfinder, can be easily done by 5 out of the 9 alignments. A sixth would only have a few problems with it, so realistically it could be done by 2/3 of the alignments without violating their alignment or the code. I've actually seen chaotic evil characters with stricter codes.
The other problem is that, as martial champions of gods, they don't work so well with how restricted they are. Neither do blackguards/anti-paladins.
So, realistically, they should be opened up on the alignment range. And given a code for each alignment that they must abide by. And the same restrictions on losing abilities. Thus, a paladin with a CN code who becomes CG would lose their paladin abilities.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because alignment is dumb.
Because power-loss mechanics suck.
Because it makes no sense that only one alignment gets a martial champion.
Because mechanics and roleplay are separate entities.
Because alignment restrictions are bullplop in general.
Because roleplaying restrictions do not, in any way, serve as balance to mechanics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather see Paladin as a PrC. Anything with that level of restriction feels to me like it shouldn't really be a base class. I kinda like the idea of a L1 Fighter or Cleric being an initiate in a Paladin order and having to prove themselves (or, indeed, find out whether it's the lifestyle they really want to have before making the decision.)
I have no issues with the alignment restriction as such, but I also feel there should be some similar alignment champions available. Some of the Paladin class itself is based around their lawful-goodness, so I do feel it would be inappropriate to just remove the restriction and use the exact same class. A list of class features per-alignment would also work, though.
Being a holy warrior is the core of a Paladin to me. The alignment restriction is a sacred cow that should be dropped (well, alignment in general should be dropped, but the restrictions at least).
Lawful Good is my favorite alignment, but something about being forced to play it if I want to be a heavily-armored, full-BAB divine caster sets my teeth on edge.
|
|
Druid: A druid who wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited
shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her
supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so
and for 24 hours thereafter.
Barbarian: Any nonlawful
Clerics: A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required
by her god loses all spells and class features, except for
armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with
simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a
cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the
atonement spell description). A cleric’s alignment must be within one
step of her deity’s, along either the law/chaos axis or the
good/evil axis (see Chapter 7).
These classes here have restrictions as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, unless I'm playing an alignment restricted class, I don't even put it on my sheet. If the DM needs to know what alignment I am for some effect, I ask him to tell me.
Druid: A druid who wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited
shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her
supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so
and for 24 hours thereafter.Barbarian: Any nonlawful
Clerics: A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required
by her god loses all spells and class features, except for
armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with
simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a
cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the
atonement spell description). A cleric’s alignment must be within one
step of her deity’s, along either the law/chaos axis or the
good/evil axis (see Chapter 7).These classes here have restrictions as well.
While they do have restrictions, they're not really at the same level as the Paladin restriction - the Cleric can still be any alignment, they just have to stick mostly to their initial choice, the Barbarian gets a choice on the alternative axis, and the druid's restriction is pretty easy to avoid unless (and this is debatable) you're KOed and strapped into a suit of prohibited armor.
The Paladin, on the other hand, feels far more like something an individual needs to really go out of their way to qualify for - in the same way as the majority of PrCs, and is only available to one of the nine alignment choices.
Personally, I like the flavor of the lawful-good Paladin - I just don't feel it's appropriate as a base class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the wizard without spells is a good analogy since a Wizard without spells is just a physically weak intelligent guy whereas a Paladin minus the alignment restriction still has a a range of martial and divine abilities.
I think what people want is not the mechanics without the restrictions but rather they want the mechanics of the Paladin but with the restrictions of a different code other then lawful good. An example could be a LN Paladin of a LN god that opposes oath-breakers - their purpose would be to bring individuals who break oaths and contracts to justice regardless of the reasons that individual breaks the oath in question. A pure champion of Law.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Druid: A druid who wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited
shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her
supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so
and for 24 hours thereafter.
Not being able to use metal is stupid mechanically and thematically. Why would a Druid care about using worked metal? Humans have been metalworking for millenia, well into prehistory and before civilization.
Barbarian: Any nonlawful
Which is stupid thematically. I feel this kind of attitude is actually kind of racist, since it implies more 'tribal' people don't have any kind of law or order (in fact, tribal people ARE lawful, as they're typically very tradition bound).
Clerics: A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required
by her god loses all spells and class features, except for
armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with
simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a
cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the
atonement spell description). A cleric’s alignment must be within one
step of her deity’s, along either the law/chaos axis or the
good/evil axis (see Chapter 7).
See, the difference is that there's more than two dozen gods out there who you can align your character with. That means you can be ANY alignment, and have any kind of code of conduct you want - since there's a god for it. It's barely even a restriction at all.
In fact, you don't even NEED a deity if you want!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because it's an archaic and unnecessary restriction that proves exactly what is wrong with alignment mechanic in general. It tries to create an objective "Best alignment" in an inherently subjective thing.
Druid: A druid who wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited
shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her
supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so
and for 24 hours thereafter.Barbarian: Any nonlawful
Clerics: A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required
by her god loses all spells and class features, except for
armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with
simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a
cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the
atonement spell description). A cleric’s alignment must be within one
step of her deity’s, along either the law/chaos axis or the
good/evil axis (see Chapter 7).These classes here have restrictions as well.
And they're just as dumb. The Cleric's significantly less so, but still unnecessary.
Barbarian: Any nonlawfulWhich is stupid thematically. I feel this kind of attitude is actually kind of racist, since it implies more 'tribal' people don't have any kind of law or order (in fact, tribal people ARE lawful, as they're typically very tradition bound).
I just assume that "Barbarian" is only one of many different types of tribal character. Those without the chaotic inclination just get represented in-game as Fighters, Rogues, or whatever else fits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Shallowsoul: You forgot the Monk.
But I hate alignment restrictions for Monks, Paladins and Barbarians with a passion.
* Inner discipline and chi is not the same as lawful or ordered. There are many proponents of martial arts that aren't very ordered, in thinking, morals or approach to delivey of their "way". Chaotic is a bit of an outlier, bu still works for me, and the concept of being beyond wordly concerns for the more ascetic types screams neutrality.
* Many "barbarian" cultures were big on "lore as law" and were reactionary with regard to accepted customs. You can't get more Lawful Neutral than customary law. Not that this fits all barbarian concepts, but still.
* Paladins as originally appearing in RPGs definitely emulated chivalric, Charlemagnian and Arthurian concepts. But alternate paradigms exist, and if you are going to have an alignment system then it seems likely you will have champions of those alignments.
(further derailment, sorry)
* No Metal Armor for Druids is a vestgial and pointless Gygaxian holdover - learher armor - made from naturally occurring material. Metal armor - made from naturally occurring material.
Finally, just because other restrictions exist doesn't provide justification for keeping them nor a valid argument for the restriction you prefer.
*****I really get folks who like their LG Holy Paladin, with his code and alignment restriction. And I understand "falling" has become a thing. It wasn't huge when I ayed a Paladin in 1e, but yes, it happened. Was fantastic for roleplay as well. I guess i just see that other folk (like me) don't see the need to have a blanket restriction, and like more options that expand the concept.
There's nothing more delicious than a Paladin encountering a Myrikhan, Garath, Paramander, Fantra, Illrigger, Arrikhan or Lyan* or Blackguard or Antipaladin or any other oly warrior/exemplar** and finding them just as "holy" and devout and passionate and sure of their divine mandate to serve their deity.
* Alternate alignment paladins from Dragon Magazine back in the day...Elghinn Lightbringer, Bardess and I did a conversion you can find in the Conversion subforum...
** There is currently a "Let's all create an Exemplar" thread in the Suggestions, Houserules and Homebrew subforum...
@OSW was mostly ninja'ed by CommandoDude. ;)
I just assume that "Barbarian" is only one of many different types of tribal character. Those without the chaotic inclination just get represented in-game as Fighters, Rogues, or whatever else fits.Barbarian: Any nonlawfulWhich is stupid thematically. I feel this kind of attitude is actually kind of racist, since it implies more 'tribal' people don't have any kind of law or order (in fact, tribal people ARE lawful, as they're typically very tradition bound).
A barbarian is a lot of things, originally he was an illiterate too. The idea that lawful makes you lose rage, especially when there are other lawful ways to gain rage(including lawful gods with the rage domain), is sort of silly though. What really makes the barbarian anymore is rage, the fact he wasn't perfect at representing a type of barbarian(especially with totems now), and the fact he can work with other concepts, is sort of proof the alignment thing might not be right with him. Of course its a legacy restriction.
Anyways, plenty of reasons to want to play a less restricted paladin. Maybe you want a different kind of holy warrior, maybe your guy is totally fitting with the code and mechanics but not perfectly by lawful good, or maybe you just want to role-play the smitey goodness guy in a different way. Paladin restrictions are also pretty archaic and very well may not actually add anything to your game, but instead take things away.
Technically Antipaladin delves into Lawful Evil.
If we want to go to second edition D&D, one of the deities book has Paladins of Horus as being Chaotic Good. This really threw groups for a loop as restrictions were very tight on Paladins in second edition.
PFS play will always have Paladins as LG only.
For my personal homebrew games, I will allow Paladins of any Good and/or lawful alignments, so long as they still have a sensible code of conduct written out (at least 5 major items), and follows a deity of the exact same alignment. Again, that's a house rule.
To answer the original post - because I would like good or lawful deities that are not LG to have divine, martial champions. The deities of the other four alignments (N, CN, NE, CE) can just make due with rangers or fighters. XD
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being a pure hearted champion of good is the core of the Paladin. It would be like taking magic away from a Wizard, lawful good is what makes the Paladin what it is.
Not a really fair comparison. You take the magic away from a wizard and he's pretty much unplayable. You take the LG from the paladin and he has a massive pile of still working mechanics and possibly the code to shape his character.
Its the difference between painting a car teal instead of blue and ripping out the engine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think all classes except Clerics and Paladins should have their alignment restrictions removed (Clerics stay the same, Paladins any non-neutral).
Classes which used to have alignment restrictions instead have a Code of Conduct which either A) The player can write themselves (up to 3 items they must follow at least) or B) Has a dozen+ mini codes (like monk oaths) which the player selects 3 of. (Same with Paladin, Cleric stays the same).
Not being able to use metal is stupid mechanically and thematically. Why would a Druid care about using worked metal? Humans have been metalworking for millenia, well into prehistory and before civilization.Druid: A druid who wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited
shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her
supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so
and for 24 hours thereafter.The Druids came from cultures which were did not wear iron armor. When these cultures were driven to extinction, they became the basis for fey legends. Since it was iron weapons and armor that drove them to extinction, that became the source of the fey iron bane. Since druids have always been associated with the fey, it makes since that they would not take up armor of iron.
Iron is the symbol of axes and civilisation that which always seeks to squeeze out or fetter nature. So yes, it makes a lot of sense thematically.
Imo, would make a lot of sense(or at least obvious sense) if that actually translated well into mechanical balance, everyone knew it, or if our fantasy world had any explanation for it. I don't think anyone I've ever played with thought about it that way or more to the point, actually strived to play a character all about those things.
@Shallowsoul: You forgot the Monk.
But I hate alignment restrictions for Monks, Paladins and Barbarians with a passion.
* Inner discipline and chi is not the same as lawful or ordered. There are many proponents of martial arts that aren't very ordered, in thinking, morals or approach to delivey of their "way". Chaotic is a bit of an outlier, bu still works for me, and the concept of being beyond wordly concerns for the more ascetic types screams neutrality.
Disciplined is a synonym of ordered. To me, the alignment restrictions for the monk (lawful only), druid (any neutral), and clerics (within 1 step of their god) make sense. I personally think the paladin should have the alignment restriction of "same as their god", and have a code that is dependant on which god they worship.
The no metal armor for druids makes sense to me, and it wanders into the evil "flavor text determines mechanics", in that being encased in metal dilutes and cuts off your ties with nature. But that part is just me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Iron is the symbol of axes and civilisation that which always seeks to squeeze out or fetter nature. So yes, it makes a lot of sense thematically.
And then you remember Druids can and will use metal weaponry, including axes and scythes, which are both metal AND symbols of civilization.
Whoops.
Also Druids have kind of veered well enough away from Celtic myth and legend with desert, savannah, tropical island nature types. Where metal is likely not so practical. But still... its a legacy restriction that should be dropped.
Personally, I think Druids should just not have any armor or shield proficiency at all. No restrictions against them, they just need to buy the feats.
Wearing armor is really nice for them at lower levels though. All the divine casters in game tend to wear it and use their abilities to augment their own combat abilities. Until you get your wild shape being a druid without armor sounds kind of bleh to me, especially if your building for combat.
The Druids came from cultures which were did not wear iron armor. When these cultures were driven to extinction, they became the basis for fey legends. Since it was iron weapons and armor that drove them to extinction, that became the source of the fey iron bane. Since druids have always been associated with the fey, it makes since that they would not take up armor of iron.Iron is the symbol of axes and civilisation that which always seeks to squeeze out or fetter nature. So yes, it makes a lot of sense thematically.
Well, first off - there's no Druidic prohibition on using iron or even cold iron weapons. So that major contradiction completely blows out of the water any idea that Druids are particularly averse to crafted iron.
Second off, how is any of that Golarion canon?
Being a pure hearted champion of good is the core of the Paladin. It would be like taking magic away from a Wizard, lawful good is what makes the Paladin what it is.
The problem is that many people disagree with this. To me, being a warrior that has divine abilities is what makes a Paladin what it is. Because a full BAB, divinely empowered, minor divine caster is what a Paladin is. It is reasonably easy to describe them as martial champions of a faith, but there are gods that are not lawful good. Some people enjoy having divinely empowered warriors that represent other gods than the lawful good ones.
To many people, lawful good is what prevents the Paladin from being a useful class.
Personally, I think Druids should just not have any armor or shield proficiency at all. No restrictions against them, they just need to buy the feats.
I can get behind this to a point, and the same for summoners, alchemists and oracles. But PF is kinda combat oriented, and these guys all fall in the 3/4 BAB bracket and so are kind of combat versions of their thematic archetypes...
And you'll also remember that for the most part they were bronze age cultures, not steel. And those same cultures did not produce metal armor. Remember we're talking about fairly primitive ones here, Pre-Roman Celts and Picts, not the Franks. It's why Ars Magica allowed their faeries bronze weapons. They did not have the anathema of cold iron.
Iron is the symbol of axes and civilisation that which always seeks to squeeze out or fetter nature. So yes, it makes a lot of sense thematically.And then you remember Druids can and will use metal weaponry, including axes and scythes, which are both metal AND symbols of civilization.
Whoops.
The Celts used iron quite extensively.
And the iron wasn't a weakness of the Celts... it's a leftover from Celtic mythology as a weakness of the people they drove out of the British Isles when they invaded.
The only reason druids don't wear iron in fantasy games is because of a modern anti-civilization bent that came about before DnD was written. Basically, it's a case of the druid class being a DnD form of hippies.
Now, what does any of this have to do with paladins?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason for paladin conflict mostly has nothing to do with the paladin of or its code.
1) if you use the boards as an example a lot pf pf players have no real concept of morality. This is probably ly further eroded as pfs has gone out of its way to remove alignment outside of mechanical issues (there are reasons for this but that is a different issue)
2) players often do not communicate with their dm about the dm vision of paladins. If this is done correctly paladins should never fall by accident.
3) this is partly connected to issue 1 but a lot of the time when a player is genuinely trying to be a good paladin they think over their actions carefully and those of their allies. This doesn't work if a fellow player used chaotic alignment. To justify any. Umber of criminal acts.
4)paladins are the only class dm deliberately place moral challenges for. I've read any number of stories where dm deliberately set up paladins to fall. This rarely happens to clerics or druids because no one writes stories to cause the cleric to fall.
Tldr if you make a paladin talk to your dm. If your friend says next campaign he's making a paladin its not a good time to try a morally grey concept or an unread focused necromancer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh good gods.
Imo, all the Paladin should have changed is it's alignment restriction to Any Good and have corresponding codes for those alignments. Paladins of Freedom, Order or what have you should be their own variants.
LG only has proven time and again to be a detriment to many games. Just a quick search on 3.5 or PF boards will show up thousands of threads on the matter.
Conceptually, opening up the alignment restriction can only create more diverse characters. But variety is bad I guess.
We're talking about the class design inspiration itself, not Golarion canon.
The Druids came from cultures which were did not wear iron armor. When these cultures were driven to extinction, they became the basis for fey legends. Since it was iron weapons and armor that drove them to extinction, that became the source of the fey iron bane. Since druids have always been associated with the fey, it makes since that they would not take up armor of iron.Iron is the symbol of axes and civilisation that which always seeks to squeeze out or fetter nature. So yes, it makes a lot of sense thematically.
Well, first off - there's no Druidic prohibition on using iron or even cold iron weapons. So that major contradiction completely blows out of the water any idea that Druids are particularly averse to crafted iron.
Second off, how is any of that Golarion canon?
That makes even less sense then.
And by the way, does this look like Wizards of the Coast to you? Anything that went into the original DnD got dumped by Paizo - this is their own setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it because people just want the Paladin's power and not the restrictions?
Nope. It's because I like giving my players the option to role play whatever theme they like, and because I see no good reason to treat paladins differently than clerics. Believe it or not, it's about role play, not roll play.
Druid: ...
Cleric: ...
Both of these class restrictions make sense, and aren't overly onerous or restrictive.* And like I said, I treat paladins like I treat clerics.
*Well the druid restriction is silly in the details, but it's alright conceptually.
Barbarian: Any nonlawful
This restriction, as well as every other non-deity-related restriction, gets ignored in any game I run. Yes, even the monk restrictions. :o
Return Question: Why are some people so dead set on keeping the LG restriction? "Because that's what paladins are" is not a valid answer.
Game mechanics-wise, non-metal armor wearing druids allows there to be a reason why dragon-hide armor exists. Because who besides a druid would ever wear dragon-hide armor when they can wear mithral?
Game mechanics-wise, non-metal armor wearing druids allows there to be a reason why dragon-hide armor exists. Because who besides a druid would ever wear dragon-hide armor when they can wear mithral?
Because dragon-hide armor is bad ass?
If the dragonhide comes from a dragon that had immunity to an energy type, the armor is also immune to that energy type, although this does not confer any protection to the wearer. If the armor or shield is later given the ability to protect the wearer against that energy type, the cost to add such protection is reduced by 25%.
Plus cheaper resistance enchantments?