Why are some people so dead set on trying to get rid of the Paladin's alignment restriction?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sensitive ROLEplayer wrote:
The LG alignment is the core of Paladin class! This is tradition! This is how Gary did things! This is how you underscore the fact that LG is the "goodest" alignment! That's how us, true roleplayers prefer!

Note how people wanting to play a chaotic Paladin will find Appeals to Tradition rather unconvincing.

If the Paladin should stay lawful good, then there need to be compelling reasons why it cannot be chaotic. "Because it's tradition" is a poor logical fallacy which is not accepted currency.

And the fact that Anti-Paladins exists makes the argument against LE and CG Paladins even weaker.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Scythia wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
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.

Divorce yourself from the mechanics for a moment. A divine warrior and a champion of the faith is nothing but a cleric, always has been.

Being Lawful Good is what makes a paladin what it is. A paladin is not a champion of the faith, it is a champion of the most good and pure hearted as you can get, which BTW os the lawful good alignment. If you want an actual divine warrior who has partial divine magic then a fighter/cleric is what you want, but then again it's not the most optimal.

No... the cleric has always been the priest.. the pastor.. the minister of faith. The cleric has always been the divine equivalent to a wizard. The armor and BAB was given to them because their spells are not quite as potent in combat as a wizard and so the creators gave them a bone to help balance it out a bit vs arcanes.

Ehhhhh no.

The default cleric was a full plate wearing, shield toting, mace swinging warrior of the faith.

You could choose to wear no armour and carry no weapon but that wasn't the default.

No, again, the reason he was given the Armor proficiency and BAB is because the divine spell list is sub-par vs an Arcane. If the cleric spell list matched the...

The Cleric did not gain Armor proficiency or BAB, he LOST it. The Cleric went from being a full plate full BAB fighter with spells to a half fighter with spells.

In this case, you're just wrong.

Silver Crusade

Dread Knight wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Being a pure hearted champion of good is the core of the Paladin.

This screams Neutral Good to me not Lawful Good. I also personally find the other restrictions that have been mentioned in this thread and agree with what others have said.

I also find other alignment restrictions stupid such as Necromancy and Intelligent free willed Undead always being evil; but enough about that back to Paladins I think it would be better if they were restricted to Any Good, Anti-Paladins to Any Evil, and finally another class similar to them which could be Any Neutral and could decided to Smite an alignment that doesn't match theirs(LN can pick Chaos, Good, or Evil), Channel Positive or Negative(Which would decided if they get Lay of Hands/Touch of Corruption and Mercies/Cruelties), their weapons are as their alignment and they get DR opposite that(LN weapons Lawful DR/Chaotic Neutral picks one and it can't be changed), etc.

What about that screams neutral good?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CommandoDude wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Scythia wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
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.

Divorce yourself from the mechanics for a moment. A divine warrior and a champion of the faith is nothing but a cleric, always has been.

Being Lawful Good is what makes a paladin what it is. A paladin is not a champion of the faith, it is a champion of the most good and pure hearted as you can get, which BTW os the lawful good alignment. If you want an actual divine warrior who has partial divine magic then a fighter/cleric is what you want, but then again it's not the most optimal.

No... the cleric has always been the priest.. the pastor.. the minister of faith. The cleric has always been the divine equivalent to a wizard. The armor and BAB was given to them because their spells are not quite as potent in combat as a wizard and so the creators gave them a bone to help balance it out a bit vs arcanes.

Ehhhhh no.

The default cleric was a full plate wearing, shield toting, mace swinging warrior of the faith.

You could choose to wear no armour and carry no weapon but that wasn't the default.

No, again, the reason he was given the Armor proficiency and BAB is because the divine spell list is sub-par vs an Arcane. If the cleric
...

I am speaking from the initial creation of the game. The cleric was supposed to be the divine wizard. When creating the cleric though, they gave the cleric armor and weapons because:

1) Many of the cleric's spells require going up front with the fighter (healing spells as an example) so he had to have a good AC to not just immediately die

2) The Cleric's spell list is just not as robust as the wizards. The wizard is able to do just about ANYTHING with his spells. The cleric is much ore focused on certain areas. So the weapons are armor were provided to give the cleric something to do when his situational spells (heals, restores, rez, ect.... i.e. 90% of his spell list) are nto quite so useful at that moment.

Other editions have changed up just how much the cleric gets, but the reason the cleric had them at all is because of spell lists.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
countchocula wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Because the Paladin is a cool class with nice mechanics which is overly restricted by alignment restrictions.

(Also, Anti-paladin code screws them out of ever being a reliable party member)

So basically you just want access to cool mechanics without the restrictions?

This is an RPG BTW.

I imagine he just wants to have people not tell him how to play his character.

It's not that simple. Paladins are built with a default assumption. This isn't a discussion about homebrew, you cam homebrew anything you like. Are you going to go to one of the devs amd tell them to remove each and every restriction because you feel they are trying to tell you how to play your character? If that's how someone feels then I would actually suggest a system like GURPS.

Part of what makes D&D/Pathfinder a unique game is it's default flavour.

thank you for proving my point .. repeatedly it is adherently obvious that you and I have different opinions on the class, game and over all outlook on LG so why should I have to conform to your opinion of LG or force you to conform to mine I feel like you ask 20 different people about their outlook on LG you will get 20 different answers and the best part about it is that none of them are wrong

also I would like to point out (in case you haven't noticed) that you have a very rude way of replying to people on this topic.


Quote:
No... the cleric has always been the priest.. the pastor.. the minister of faith.

CRB:

Quote:
Role: More than capable of upholding the honor of their deities in battle, clerics often prove stalwart and capable combatants. Their true strength lies in their capability to draw upon the power of their deities, whether to increase their own and their allies' prowess in battle, to vex their foes with divine magic, or to lend healing to companions in need.

Regarding the Paladin:

I can only say it again: Lawfull don't mean to obey the laws of the land, it means you stay true to ONE special code, if it's yours, your orders or the one of the King doesn't matter.

I think people would be supprised how much (normal adventuring) you can do without "falling" as a paladin.

- sneaking toward a orc camp to infiltrate it instead of frotnal assault, possible
- starting a good-old bar fight - possible
- working with a criminal organisation to bring down a tyrannt - totally legit
- Even working with a devil to defeat a arc-demon who wants to bring armageddon to the land o f the living is totally legit

I say you can do all the "normal" adventurer stuff while being Lawfull Good, without any change of falling!

P.S.:

Quote:
I am speaking from the initial creation of the game. The cleric was supposed to be the divine wizard. When creating the cleric though, they gave the cleric armor and weapons because:

Why do you know that? Did you talked to Gary or is it just your asumption?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Dread Knight wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Being a pure hearted champion of good is the core of the Paladin.

This screams Neutral Good to me not Lawful Good. I also personally find the other restrictions that have been mentioned in this thread and agree with what others have said.

I also find other alignment restrictions stupid such as Necromancy and Intelligent free willed Undead always being evil; but enough about that back to Paladins I think it would be better if they were restricted to Any Good, Anti-Paladins to Any Evil, and finally another class similar to them which could be Any Neutral and could decided to Smite an alignment that doesn't match theirs(LN can pick Chaos, Good, or Evil), Channel Positive or Negative(Which would decided if they get Lay of Hands/Touch of Corruption and Mercies/Cruelties), their weapons are as their alignment and they get DR opposite that(LN weapons Lawful DR/Chaotic Neutral picks one and it can't be changed), etc.

What about that screams neutral good?

Maybe the part where the neutral good character is concerned primarily with goodness, and handles order/chaos decisions on a case by case basis instead of being conflicted between a sense of law/tradition and doing what is good.

And don't go "But the Paladin follows a code and that is lawful behavior!"
Anti-Paladins are CHAOTIC evil with a code.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry, but the Anti-Paladin is a very bad designed class at all (they simply exchanged LG with CE in the description).
Have to say the Black Guard from 3.0/5 was much better (design and flavour wise) then the Anti-Paladin.

Don't want to offend you guys at Paizo, but think you really have to redesign the Anti-Paladin!

Also being chaotic doesn't mean you can't have your own code.. you'are simply a little bit more "flexible" with it. ;)


Tryn wrote:


Regarding the Paladin:
I can only say it again: Lawfull don't mean to obey the laws of the land, it means you stay true to ONE special code, if it's yours, your orders or the one of the King doesn't matter.

I think people would be supprised how much (normal adventuring) you can do without "falling" as a paladin.

- sneaking toward a orc camp to infiltrate it instead of frotnal assault, possible
- starting a good-old bar fight - possible
- working with a criminal organisation to bring down a tyrannt - totally legit
- Even working with a devil to defeat a arc-demon who wants to bring armageddon to the land o f the living is totally legit

I say you can do all the "normal" adventurer stuff while being Lawfull Good, without any change of falling!

Unless your DM says that sneaking around, rabble-rousing, or consorting with evil for even a second is against the code, then you fall.

And the Anti-Paladin is Chaotic evil and sticks to a code, so no dice on your defense of the lawful restriction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tryn wrote:

Sorry, but the Anti-Paladin is a very bad designed class at all (they simply exchanged LG with CE in the description).

Have to say the Black Guard from 3.0/5 was much better (design and flavour wise) then the Anti-Paladin.

Don't want to offend you guys at Paizo, but think you really have to redesign the Anti-Paladin!

Also being chaotic doesn't mean you can't have your own code.. you'are simply a little bit more "flexible" with it. ;)

And the Paladin is badly designed, they really need to redesign it, but it is what it is just like the Anti-Paladin.

The Anti-Paladin Code is no more flexible than the Paladin's. *winkyface*


Shadowkire wrote:
Unless your DM says that sneaking around, rabble-rousing, or consorting with evil for even a second is against the code, then you fall.

And that is for me the reason why people want to remove the restriction, they fear their DM decided this way...

For ME I always sit down with a Paladin player before the game and talk to him about his characters code, try to write down the cornerstones of it, so we both then have some guide lines.

Quote:
The Anti-Paladin Code is no more flexible than the Paladin's. *winkyface*

It seems we have a little different understanding of code, flexibile and what LG means...


Tryn wrote:


And that is for me the reason why people want to remove the restriction, they fear their DM decided this way...

For ME I always sit down with a Paladin player before the game and talk to him about his characters code, try to write down the cornerstones of it, so we both then have some guide lines.

Which is a good practice, but the paladin is badly designed because the code that decides if it keeps its powers has subjective elements with direct gameplay consequences. It may be alright if Paizo added in a paragraph in the code of conduct that a player and DM should get together and come to a consensus about the code. OR they could have gone into detail on what does/n't violate the code.

In addition the Paladin's flavor has been changing for years. At first it was just a champion of good, outside the domain of deities. Now it is a mix of skining knight and holy warrior. This frustrates players because they can't be one or the other.

Players who want to be holy warriors are stuck with some good and 1-2 LN gods and a restrictive code beyond their deity's. Shining knights who don't realize(or have DMs insist otherwise) that paladins don't need gods are now restricted by that god's dogma. An example would be a paladin of Sarenrae who defeats a bunch of evil orcs then beheads them, nothing against that in the paladin's code but it goes against the goddess of redemption's teachings.


Saranrae also has a "they have refused redemption! BURN !" aspect to her that some clerics play up too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The paladin is basically designed to be the highest standard of good, but many just see it as a holy warrior, and wonder why it has to be held to LG.

There is also the problem of table variant due to various issues. I think it is a class the the player and GM should discuss in advance, and I also think the GM's should be more tolerant in situations where you have to choose the lesser of two evils. Damned if you, damned if you don't is not fun for many players.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Saranrae also has a "they have refused redemption! BURN !" aspect to her that some clerics play up too.

I didn't go into to much detail in that example to keep my post short, but I meant the paladin executes the orcs while they are unconscious from their wounds with no attempt to redeem them.

Such an action is not against the paladins code(subjectively debatable) but would anger Sarenrae. Thus a paladin can be given the addition alrestrictions of a cleric on top of the others.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Let's just start off with a caveat: The following is my opinion.

The paladin is not the champion of lawful good. The paladin is the champion of Good. It is the strict adherence to the Paladin's code that makes him lawful. The Paladin is Good and only Good, no exceptions. Chaotic and Neutral Good allow for exceptions.

I think a lot of the "Paladin Hate" comes from players who want to play a character how they want to (which is fine, not trying to present that as a negative), while a paladin has to be played as their code dictates.

So again (in my opinion), a Paladin is not Lawful Good. A Paladin is Good, lawfully.

This is the best OPINION ever posted on the board. 8)

He gets it.
The point of Codes of Conduct is that they require an internal discipline. The ability to put aside personal needs and desires to adhere to a structure that has a purpose.
This is not to say that Chaotic or Neutral characters cannot adhere to a code, however the defining trait of Chaotic is the personal takes precedence over the group. Neutrals choose the decision that best fits a situation or the default to the other Axis.

They're is already an EVIL counterpart to the Paladin.
So the desire to strip out the alignment restriction on Paladins is not so much an issue of "Mechanical Justice" it is an issue of not understanding Alignment as a Mechanic. If a player cannot Play a Paladin as LG, that player really can't play a Paladin. Not for Flavor; they can't play the character who places everyone and thing ahead of his own well being as a mechanic.

Alignment is a Mechanic in PFRPG. It's not flavor. If you don't understand the Alignment system then you don't understand the Mechanic. It means something. Understanding what the various combinations of the Alignment Permutations do is actually more than just the Devils of Hell want to subjugate and oppress or that the Axiomites want to impose "Pure" order. The alignment of these creatures determines their actions, determines how they play. The Paladin is closer to the Devils and Demons in this respect than they are to Wizards or Clerics. Even Clerics of their own faith are tied to dogma and church Politics, the Paladin is not a creature tied to an ideal or concept, the Paladin IS the ideal or concept.

Taking that away from the class is a waste. You might as well have Solars killing babies, Demons rescuing puppies from the streets and Devils letting mortals make mistakes as learning exercises for personal growth.

One of the true downsides to Alignment is that once you fully understand it, you might have to actually reflect on your own real world behavior and face the fact that you may not be one of the "Good Guys".
Gygax added alignment to prevent D&D from turning into a pre-pubescent S&M fantasy. At the time it was going down that road. With the Heroes doing some pretty awful things, even by our standards. We may play "Murder Hobos", but I doubt the players in this thread regularly indulge in Fictional Rapes, Fratricide, Infanticide and human sacrifice. That crap happened, not infrequently, once. Alignment was installed to dillineate the moral and ethical lines that get crossed in the game. It may seem quaint in the age of Grand Theft Auto and movies where villains are the protagonist but those mediums have limitations on behavior this medium does not.


CommandoDude wrote:
Sensitive ROLEplayer wrote:
The LG alignment is the core of Paladin class! This is tradition! This is how Gary did things! This is how you underscore the fact that LG is the "goodest" alignment! That's how us, true roleplayers prefer!

Note how people wanting to play a chaotic Paladin will find Appeals to Tradition rather unconvincing.

If the Paladin should stay lawful good, then there need to be compelling reasons why it cannot be chaotic. "Because it's tradition" is a poor logical fallacy which is not accepted currency.

And the fact that Anti-Paladins exists makes the argument against LE and CG Paladins even weaker.

First, the anti-paladin is a horrible class that should have never become "official."

Second, strict adherence to a code is lawful behavior. Which is why the anti-paladin code has a "do whatever you need to" escape clause. It is in their code that they don't have to follow their code. That's chaotic. It's stupid but it's chaotic.

(Just to be clear, I mean no insult to you. I just really, really, really hate the anti-paladin.)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Like it or not the Paladin is the type of class one should discuss with the DM prior to character creation. It helps to get a feel for how you both view the class and its stipulations. Every group is going to have a different view on adventuring and interparty relations. Run the damn Paladin the way your group wants to. Being LG doesn't mean preclude acting like a normal person with faults and doubt, nor does it mean you should be Robocop or your party's Blue Falcon.

*Blue Falcon: military term for the guy who narcs on everyone, slang for Buddy Frakker, also the guy who won't count your 100th push up because you were .5 seconds over*

Grand Lodge

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:
Sensitive ROLEplayer wrote:
The LG alignment is the core of Paladin class! This is tradition! This is how Gary did things! This is how you underscore the fact that LG is the "goodest" alignment! That's how us, true roleplayers prefer!

Note how people wanting to play a chaotic Paladin will find Appeals to Tradition rather unconvincing.

If the Paladin should stay lawful good, then there need to be compelling reasons why it cannot be chaotic. "Because it's tradition" is a poor logical fallacy which is not accepted currency.

And the fact that Anti-Paladins exists makes the argument against LE and CG Paladins even weaker.

First, the anti-paladin is a horrible class that should have never become "official."

Second, strict adherence to a code is lawful behavior. Which is why the anti-paladin code has a "do whatever you need to" escape clause. It is in their code that they don't have to follow their code. That's chaotic. It's stupid but it's chaotic.

(Just to be clear, I mean no insult to you. I just really, really, really hate the anti-paladin.)

I agree, except for Warduke. Warduke was my favorite as a kid. Dont know why other than he looked really cool.

Edit* while technically Fighter, I always saw him as an antti-paladin iconic.


Some people are haters and want what they cannot understand despite cause and effect.

Paladin Class

Based largely on the character of Holger Carlson from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, as well as Anderson's original sources, Charlemagne's paladins in the medieval French chansons de geste ("songs of deeds"), particularly The Song of Roland and Ariosto's Orlando Furioso. The paladin's tie to a special war-horse is also from Three Hearts and Three Lions.

I do not mean a saint, but a warrior whom God gave more than common gifts and then put under a more than common burden. —Martinus, Three Hearts and Three Lions

http://www.hahnlibrary.net/rpgs/sources.html


I may have come off too preachy in my previous post.
Sorry about that.

However, it's pointed out above that the Anti-Paladin is a bad to terrible PC class, and does more harm than benefit to a party.

That's going to be true of any "Pure Virtue" class.
A LN paladin is a tyrant that will kill the fun of everyone else.
A LE paladin should seek to dominate his peer group, if they resist they get broken.
A Neutral paladin is a stupid idea.
A CG paladin is a Lone Wolf that dumps his playmates at the first sign of inadequacy, the freedom angle falls short since freedom is less important than good, sucks but it's the truth.
A CN paladin will get everyone killed in his life long quest for true anarchy.
A CE paladin is an Anti-Paladin, which has proven to not play well with others.
A NG paladin is a regular paladin that couldn't cut it.
A NE paladin is a CE paladin.

The LG version is the only one that really works within a party dynamic, he will accept the failings of others to effect the greater good, he knows they can't keep up, but trying is want matters.

If you can't be GOOD all the time don't bother with this, the class isn't that great mechanically without the GOOD part included.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think a lot of people are hung up on the name. Mechanically, the Paladin is a great tank and does a lot of what people want a tankish character to do (way better than some classes). The mechanical chassis of the Paladin is very well tuned and balanced, and it's a shame it's saddled with such a horrible alignment restriction and code. It's like having a great body, but only being able to wear this one white outfit (which might not flatter you) and every so often people try to spill stuff on you to be a jerk.

I wouldn't mind if we changed the name to Templar, and gave it to every alignment. That's what I'll be doing in my games (or rather, creating my own replacement).

The Paladin is a minefield for most players, the kind that is rarely worth it. Sure there's a lot of potential for roleplay, but that's true for every class.

And to reiterate what others have said THE CODE IS NOT A 'VALIDATION' FOR ITS POWERS. The Paladin is a pretty good class, up there with Ranger and Barbarian as solid full BAB bros. But it's not "so powerful that it needs a code to balance it." Flavor balancing mechanics is horrible, and rarely works. Having a class that has an off switch that the GM can pull whenever they want is nerve wracking, and it really deters from the fun of the class.

If flavor restrictions were truly a balancing act, the Wizard would never be allowed to do anything due to how many restrictions it would need to make it in line with everything else.

EDIT: Also as an aside, I really don't think shallowsoul made this thread in good faith, as they seem to want to mock and ridicule anyone who disagrees with them. It's very off putting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@K177y C47

The Original Cleric is based on the Knights Templar.
He wore Plate Mail and carried Big Heavy bludgeoning weapons, since his medieval precedent carried big heavy bludgeoning weapons. They wore Proscribed from using edged weapons since "spilling blood" was bad or something.

His original spell list was full of biblical stuff like making bushes burn, turning sticks into snakes and parting water.

The Cleric has never been the religious Wizard traditionally, that's actually a very modern interpretation relative to D&D.


Shadowkire wrote:
Tryn wrote:


Regarding the Paladin:
I can only say it again: Lawfull don't mean to obey the laws of the land, it means you stay true to ONE special code, if it's yours, your orders or the one of the King doesn't matter.

I think people would be supprised how much (normal adventuring) you can do without "falling" as a paladin.

- sneaking toward a orc camp to infiltrate it instead of frotnal assault, possible
- starting a good-old bar fight - possible
- working with a criminal organisation to bring down a tyrannt - totally legit
- Even working with a devil to defeat a arc-demon who wants to bring armageddon to the land o f the living is totally legit

I say you can do all the "normal" adventurer stuff while being Lawfull Good, without any change of falling!

Unless your DM says that sneaking around, rabble-rousing, or consorting with evil for even a second is against the code, then you fall.

And the Anti-Paladin is Chaotic evil and sticks to a code, so no dice on your defense of the lawful restriction.

The DM you are describing does not understand the MECHANIC of ALIGNMENT.

Alignment is more than Damage Reduction. Reducing it to that is just lazy and or cheating.

The Anti-Paladin's code is that he is supposed to just ruin everything, that's not hard for an exemplar of EVIL. It's also got a Chaotic escape clause for extra Evil.


Ah...are folks forgetting that the Paladin's code goes well above and beyond 'retain a lawful good alignment'? Because some of the posts I'm seeing seem to think that's as restricted as the Paladin gets, which just isn't true. Lemme quote:

Quote:

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

Part of why I don't use the written code is because, well, it has a very narrow vision of what 'lawful good' means. In addition to causing headaches when it comes to the party - as by being a Paladin you are, in a way, telling people how they can and cannot roleplay their characters - it notably does not actually encourage any Good behaviors. Respecting authority, following a code of honor, and punishing the guilty are all Lawful, not Good, behaviors. Can they entail Good? Sure, why not. But as it sits, the code a Paladin is expected to follow makes him come off as Judge Dredd.

Furthermore, the ambiguity of wording leaves several important aspects of Good up in the air. A Paladin can only ally with evil associates 'to defeat a greater evil'. Does that mean a Paladin is not allowed to travel with someone evil in the hopes of redeeming them? A Paladin cannot offer someone aid if they'll use it for Chaotic ends; does that mean they cannot support a rebellion against a Lawful Evil government? How about freeing slaves?

I prefer my Paladins among all stripes of Good, but even for lawful good Paladins the code they're expected to follow is...not representative of their concept. It isn't Good. Just Lawful, and badly Lawful at that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Im not a big fan of removing the paladin's alignment, since its lawfulgoodness (whatever that means in your game) is so integral to the class. nonetheless, i think its a shame that most of the alignments dont have a similar "paragon of..." class.

I'd personally prefer for paizo to create a separate champion for at least the other two "corner" alignments but probably all the missing seven. I think trying to extend the paladin in all cases would feel a little contrived.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

When I get my ACG PDF, I'm gonna write "LG Warpriests are sometimes known as Paladins" in Warpriest's description, put it up online for 3$ as "Complete Handbook of Holy Warriors for Every Alignment" and proceed to book a holiday on Curacao.


Aren't there paladin codes of conduct in one of the Golarion Campaign book (Champion of good or something like this)?
Maybe they will bring some insight here..


6 people marked this as a favorite.

My take so far, reading the comments, is that the "Paladins MUST be LG!!!" people tend to come across as Lawful Evil in alignment. It almost seems that we're often seeing variations of the following:

  • Appeal to tradition, but generally only traditions they approve of.
  • "The rules give me what I want and deny the same to others. Those are perfect rules that should never be changed!"
  • Shifting stance to suit personal agenda, while claiming authority all the while: "Well, only the story is important!" suddenly becomes "The mechanics support the story" which in turn becomes "The flavor text is needed to balance the awesome mechanics!"
  • Claiming superior status/insight based on adherence to rules, and attempting denigrate others the same way.
  • Projection/attribution of motives: "You're just trying to get away with stuff you don't deserve!"
  • "Choices are bad! Obedience [to me] is good!"
  • If all else fails, appeal to authority.

    I'd find the arguments in favor of LG-only paladins more convincing if the arguments themselves seemed LG.


  • 1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Ridiculous.
    Every class has something cool, and something not cool.
    Everyone wants to play the cool stuff, and find ways to mitigate or remove the not cool stuff.

    Doesn't matter if you're a rogue that wants to contribute more to combat,
    A monk who wants to be chaotic, an inquisitor that wants to use a great sword (without having to pay a feat for it) regardless of the god they follow, or necromany being evil in and of itself.


    Tryn wrote:

    Aren't there paladin codes of conduct in one of the Golarion Campaign book (Champion of good or something like this)?

    Maybe they will bring some insight here..

    The changes are dependent on the patron deity chosen, and there's still a code.


    Tryn wrote:

    Aren't there paladin codes of conduct in one of the Golarion Campaign book (Champion of good or something like this)?

    Maybe they will bring some insight here..

    Faiths of Purity has different ones based on the god worshipped (erastil, iomedae, sarenrae, shelyn, torag only). Faiths of Balance also has a paladin code for those that worship Abadar (LN deity).


    Seems to me you could make a case for paladin "restrictions" outside of the alignment system totally. Let's say the developers were to totally remove the alignment system from the game in PFRG 2.0. The paladin section could still list a tight, strict code of conduct that requires the paladin to act to honorably, respect the local laws of the land, etc, etc and never once mention they have to have the big LG on their character sheet.

    Because at the end of the day, its all pretty much interprative between player and GM right? What one GM finds a code breaker, another just hand waves.

    I always considered the point of the restrictions was that a paladin was an extremely powerful class, and that game designers throughout the years "tried" to balance this with a restriction on their behaviors. Problematic? Yes. But, I would offer that perhaps the solution is to offer other cool, but unique, martial champion options. (Anti-Paladin, Blackguard, Holy Liberators, etc.) Not sure whether they should all be PRC or base classes, but you get the gist of it.

    *Edit for spelling.


    N. Jolly wrote:
    EDIT: Also as an aside, I really don't think shallowsoul made this thread in good faith, as they seem to want to mock and ridicule anyone who disagrees with them. It's very off putting.

    This is pretty much Shallowsoul's MO. :/

    Also, excellent analogy and post!


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Matt Thomason wrote:
    Alternatively, strip the class of a few abilities in return for losing the restrictions, and allow taking the restriction as an option (which then gains you the extra abilities in return.)

    Not safe to balance mechanics with roleplay imo. "I don't eat pork, so I get superpowers!" isn't really mechanically balancing, and "If I eat pork, I lose all my powers I chose to use because I thought they were fun and become a burden and not fun to play and my GM can sneak pork into my dinner" isn't that great either.

    There's also a thing where you may as well give everyone the option to take those restrictions to get superpowers. LG fighter with the paladin code doesn't get anything for being a just heroic defender of justice. At best he just doesn't lose his class features if he ever has to lie to save lives. Of course a guy who loses his powers for doing the right thing and is supposed to be the paragon of good just seems sort of wrong to me too.


    Tequila Sunrise wrote:
    N. Jolly wrote:
    EDIT: Also as an aside, I really don't think shallowsoul made this thread in good faith, as they seem to want to mock and ridicule anyone who disagrees with them. It's very off putting.

    This is pretty much Shallowsoul's MO. :/

    Also, excellent analogy and post!

    Careful, its the people who point that out that get in trouble! Not the guy who makes the thread.


    shallowsoul wrote:
    K177Y C47 wrote:
    shallowsoul wrote:
    kyrt-ryder wrote:

    Because the Paladin is a cool class with nice mechanics which is overly restricted by alignment restrictions.

    (Also, Anti-paladin code screws them out of ever being a reliable party member)

    So basically you just want access to cool mechanics without the restrictions?

    This is an RPG BTW.

    And? The mechanics of the Paladin are interesting and sometimes people want to play a Paladin-esque character, but wants to play as say... a harbinger of Law and the absolution of law. The Warpriest, the cleric, and the Inquisitor can mimic it to some extent but lacks things like Smite that really bring the flavor to the forefront. Say, as an LN "Paladin" you would have Smite Chaos, and you would basically be flavored as smiting down chaos with the absolute power of law.

    Oh BTW, this is a RPG...i.e. YOU PLAY ROLES... WHATEVER ROLE YOU WANT...

    In a homebrew game you can play what ever you want, but this isn't the homebrew section. We are discussing the default of the game which cannot be ignored in these conversations. Can you play any way you want? Sure you can, but the game is set up with a specific default flavour and that flavour has carried on for over 30 years now.

    Dismissing the lawful good alignment with the paladin is dismissing the paladin itself. If you remove the restriction you no longer have a paladin, you have something else.

    Not really, no. If you changed the alignment requirement to Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral, you'd still have a paladin -- just with different hoops to jump through.

    There is nothing intrinsic to the Lawful Good alignment for the paladin anymore than there was to require them to have a 17 Charisma back in the day. It was a prerequisite, the early stages of what we now have for prestige classes. The early bard class had even more hoops to jump through.

    The paladin is God's hammer -- in this case Lawful Good God. It isn't a requirement to be LG, and I'm not utterly convinced that LG is the bestest good, but that's a discussion for elsewhere. The paladin existed to give the players something to strive for, some extra zing above the fighter in the old days. You got the scores? Sweet, have this assortment of abilities and go kill some demons my child.

    As the years went on, that idea was left behind and they have become just another class instead of, as some have said, a prestige class or even nine prestige classes. If I were to house rule it -- and I have -- each god would have their own flavor of "paladin" for their specific religion with specific codes and requirements and flavor.

    So IMO people are not trying to get rid of the alignment restriction as much as drag the class into more modern times and ways of telling stories and playing. Being Lawful Good isn't a requirement to be a paladin, it is a vestigial fragment left over from The Good Old Days.


    I've often wondered why LG is considered to be restrictive but other alignments aren't. Shouldn't CG be just as restrictive, just in a different way?


    Thac20 wrote:
    I've often wondered why LG is considered to be restrictive but other alignments aren't. Shouldn't CG be just as restrictive, just in a different way?

    Really you could make any class or alignment highly restricted. Just throw in a bunch of requirements and possibly some "but thou must!" things, you could even make them go full on Chaotic stupid by having to say, fight slavers on sight or lose all their powers or steal or switch sides to the losing side to retain balance. Use the Kender write-up for 'roleplaying suggestions' and use it as a list of requirements!

    Doesn't means you should, but you can.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Thac20 wrote:
    I've often wondered why LG is considered to be restrictive but other alignments aren't. Shouldn't CG be just as restrictive, just in a different way?

    I think it's not "Lawful Good is too restrictive" so much as "Being confined to Lawful Good as the only choice" is too restrictive. Especially when the default code of conduct adds more restrictions on top of that.


    shallowsoul wrote:

    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.

    Terrible analogy. Spells are the core of the wizard's gameplay. A paladin's core gameplay is a divinely inspired warrior. The latter mechanic could just as easily be accomplished by a champion of Chaos or Law or Good or Evil or Chaotic Good as it could by a champion of Lawful Good.

    People don't like it because you're taking a perfectly good chassis and stapling on an alignment restriction that doesn't need to be there and just takes away player choice. Honestly I can't see how that could possibly be a good thing.


    shallowsoul wrote:
    Being Lawful Good is what makes a paladin what it is. A paladin is not a champion of the faith, it is a champion of the most good and pure hearted as you can get, which BTW os the lawful good alignment.

    No. Being "the most good and pure hearted as you can get" is a Neutral Good thing, being pure hearted or good has nothing to do with the Law. You can check at the description of the Lawful alignment in the book.

    If the paladin was "the most good and pure hearted as you can get", then the alignment restriction should be either "Neutral Good only", either "Any Good".

    Silver Crusade

    GâtFromKI wrote:
    shallowsoul wrote:
    Being Lawful Good is what makes a paladin what it is. A paladin is not a champion of the faith, it is a champion of the most good and pure hearted as you can get, which BTW os the lawful good alignment.

    No. Being "the most good and pure hearted as you can get" is a Neutral Good thing, being pure hearted or good has nothing to do with the Law. You can check at the description of the Lawful alignment in the book.

    If the paladin was "the most good and pure hearted as you can get", then the alignment restriction should be either "Neutral Good only", either "Any Good".

    I would go back and read up on Lawful Good and Neutral Good.

    Silver Crusade

    swoosh wrote:
    shallowsoul wrote:

    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.

    Terrible analogy. Spells are the core of the wizard's gameplay. A paladin's core gameplay is a divinely inspired warrior. The latter mechanic could just as easily be accomplished by a champion of Chaos or Law or Good or Evil or Chaotic Good as it could by a champion of Lawful Good.

    People don't like it because you're taking a perfectly good chassis and stapling on an alignment restriction that doesn't need to be there and just takes away player choice. Honestly I can't see how that could possibly be a good thing.

    Once again, it is a spot on analogy. Being Lawful Good "is" the paladin. At the core of the whole concept is the Lawful Good follow a code ideal. It is what makes the paladin unique. The same goes with a wizard and magic. Magic is the heart of a wizard.

    A Champion of Chaos is not a paladin. I don't think you get what the name of the class means.


    to OP:

    If people are looking for power, they wouldn't be looking at the paladin. Not saying it's a bad class, but all people want it more power, they would be looking at T1 classes. The reason people want the alignment restriction gone is because it puts severe handicaps on how you can role play that character. By putting such heavy restrictions of the paladin, you make it so inflexible that the only thing you can do with it is a standard knight in shining armor, champion of chivalry thing. Now, it's not a problem if you DO want to play like that, but even if the paladin had no alignment restriction, you wouldn't be prohibited from playing this, removing the alignment restrictions simply opens up new opportunities for role playing.

    Playing LG is not, and should not be considered a restriction for balance purposes. In many cases, I think LG is one of the easiest alignments to play by simple virtue that we have a lot of good LG characters from stories to look at for inspiration. The problem is, not all of us (myself included) are very compelled by LG. My favorite alignment is CG, and would love to be able to play a CG paladin, but as the rules are now, any chance of that requires me to make an agreement with the DM. I also would not say that CG is any easier to play than LG. CG is not "good, but allowed to do questionable things", CG is "promote freedom and hope". People think that being more willing to break the law makes an alignment easier to play, but it really doesn't. Breaking the law has real consequences. CGs who kick up too many hornet's nests fighting for what they believe in might find themselves being hunted by all sorts of authorities on their mission to help the people, but in most areas, LG never runs into that problem. LG gets the hero's greeting. Playing CG means that you have to know Good is worth fighting for, regardless of what you have to go through in order to bring it. It's knowing that even if the law doesn't like what you do, and that they may not thank or reward you for your efforts, you will keep doing Good anyways, because everybody deserves freedom and the chance to make their own path in the world. It's doing the right thing in spite of what the law might say.

    I can even offer two examples of how he paladin's mechanics can fit the theme of both something commonly asked for (a CG paladin) and a far more controversial one (a TN, non religious paladin)

    Kyoko, CG paladin of Desna

    Spoiler:
    Kyoko is a cheerful school girl who loves life. She dedicates her life to bringing enjoyment and sparking spontaneity in the hearts of those who would otherwise be too afraid to take risks for excitement, or those so shackled to their daily routines that they let the delightful pleasures of life pass them by. Her friends sometimes find her trouble making antics exhausting, but they tend to find Kyoko's energy uplifting. Most days, dark, ominous evil isn't a threat, and during these times, Kyoko creates activities for her friends to participate in or draws lighthearted graphic novels with silly but entertaining plots, for no other reason outside of making someone smile. However, when evil DOES threaten the land, Kyoko stands stalwartly against it. Kyoko carries a bow and a stock of various arrows of different metals, as many of the horrific demons Desnans fight come equipped with wings or other means of flight as well as an array of bizarre defenses. She puts herself between the weak and the enemy, knowing that her faith and determination will carry her through the most grave of wounds as she lays down suppressing fire, her bow empowered by her divine bond to the spirits of Cynosure. She will not turn away help from the populous, as it means they too have been inspired to take a stand against nightmare and fear.

    Donny, TN knight of the holy light

    Spoiler:
    Donny is spry farmer boy who happened to find himself in a situation far beyond what he expected. A great evil is on the verge of waking, and heralding the coming of this near cosmic power, the dead have started to rise as twisted aberrant husks of their former selves. Donny was happy to let the military deal with it... that is, until a group of them started destroying his crops. Donny fought them off with a scythe and realized that he was no longer safe just sitting by. He reforged his trusty scythe into a form more suited to war and rode off on his strong and dependable draft horse to join the army. He hopes to one day return back to the hard but honest life of a farmer, and this desire gives him the will to push onward. He overcomes his wounds with sheer willpower, and his simple and humble goal resonate with his fellow militia men. Donny's not a trained fighter, but when fighting the creatures that threatened his peace and safety, he finds himself filled with extra confidence and purpose, and his cuts become far more accurate and damaging. Eventually, he becomes a beacon of inspiration, and his work ethic rubs off on his allies. They put in the extra effort to ensure good work, and they can push through dire injuries, put extra power behind their attacks, and find themselves filled with resolve.


    Both would make excellent warpriests. Or clerics. Or inquisitors. Or oracles.


    Kryzbyn wrote:
    Both would make excellent warpriests. Or clerics.

    Or inquisitors, or rangers, or fighters, or... or... or...

    Misses the point though.


    Well I can write fluff from a couple of characters too. What point is there to that?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    You know when you are driving down the road and you suddenly hit traffic, about a half hour later you see that a car wreck caused it.

    That kind of sums up my feelings on threads like this, I just had to look

    Silver Crusade

    I think what a paldin truly is is what's being missed.

    101 to 150 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why are some people so dead set on trying to get rid of the Paladin's alignment restriction? All Messageboards