|
The problem with Paladins of non-Lawful Good alignment is that once they're allowed, everybody will want to play them.
It's like Lawful Good has a terrible stigma upon it, which is unfortunate.
If you don't believe me, take a look around and find some non-Paladins who chose to be LG. They're probably more rare than the Paladins!
|
|
The problem with Paladins of non-Lawful Good alignment is that once they're allowed, everybody will want to play them.You say this, like it's a bad thing.
I think Paladin in an inherently powerful class. Maybe the most powerful on low levels.
Yes, I can see it being a bad thing if the table is full of Paladins.
EDIT: I see the real "bad thing" being the fact everybody shies away from LG like it's a huge disadvantage to their character.
The Paladin is about as good as the Barbarian and the Magus, hardly the "most powerful" class. Furthermore, four Paladins is a much worse team composition than one Paladin and three people who do stuff other than smacking enemies and self-healing.
I've played two non-Paladin LG characters (including a Monk that is still my favorite RP character) and I still think Paladin-like options should be opened up to other alignments.
I kinda like paladins being LG-only. It encourages and emphasizes use of a way under-appreciated alignment. Plus, it's cool to have a whole class specifically dedicated to a moral and ethical code.
If there were paladin counterparts, I definitely wouldn't want them to be called paladins. :P
|
Can we not turn this into an alternate alignment paladin thread? Because then it will turn into an argument and I was enjoying the fuzzy feelings.
EDIT: I see the real "bad thing" being the fact everybody shies away from LG like it's a huge disadvantage to their character.
I rolled up a LG barbarian for a recent game. :/
Yes because this whole thread has been about the Paladin being a Lawful class, not a class based around being and doing good.
I wish LG barbarians were technically possible. Still want to play my barbarian/paladin concept.
But yeah, let's move off this subject.
I don't wanna play a paladin/sorcerer/barbarian. I want to play a paladin who occasionally enters berserk rages and who struggles with said rages immensely. Her rages are rooted in her orcish lineage, so random sorcererish magic would be ill-placed. :P
I don't wanna play a paladin/sorcerer/barbarian. I want to play a paladin who occasionally enters berserk rages and who struggles with said rages immensely. Her rages are rooted in her orcish lineage, so random sorcererish magic would be ill-placed. :P
A Sacred Servant Paladin can get the Rage subdomain from Ragathiel. That takes a prohibitively long time to come online, though.
Yeah, I think I'd rather just try to convince the GM to waive the barbarian's requirement. Faster, and more indicative of whether I'm going to agree with many of the GM's policies in the future. ;D
This does make me think that a Ragathiel-based raging Paladin archetype would be a fantastic addition for a splat book, though. Maybe swap out Lay On Hands for rage and get rage powers instead of Mercies.
I suggested that further up thread, and it's not "easily enough" because with an effective cleric level of -3 for your rage subdomain you can't actually do any raging until level 11. You don't even get 3rd level spells with which to cast rage until level 10.
Sacred Servant doesn't really work because, among other things, they need to have the rage ASAP. Hell, by 11th level I'd have expected them to have started to work past it as an emotional issue. Or they'd have failed to do so and fallen. Either way, it's too late. :P
Bloodrager is fine and dandy, but it still has that bloodline. Even if I were okay with reflavoring (I am, for the most part), barbarian simply matches the best. The alignment restriction is stupid and I would expect most GMs to not really care.
This is not really what this thread should be about, though. I'm gonna drop it.
Aren't you the one who just said you only wanted a LG Pally yet the Barbarian alignment restrictions are stupid?
Though I agree all alignment restrictions on classes needs to be a narrative aid not a hard restriction. A guideline not a rule.
Barbarian and Monk alignment restrictions are stupid.
|
|
I agree.
At least they have more than one alignment option.
That is the one thing that gets me.
Pathfinder is all about options.
Archetypes, feats, traits, etc.
Having a class with no options on alignment, just doesn't makes sense anymore.
I feel as though they should have had at least one other possible option by now.
Maybe, an archetype, of some sort.
If the name is an issue, call them The Paragon class. Paragon of Lawful Good, Paragon of Lawful Evil, etc.
Same class mechanics just different name.
Aren't you the one who just said you only wanted a LG Pally yet the Barbarian alignment restrictions are stupid?
Though I agree all alignment restrictions on classes needs to be a narrative aid not a hard restriction. A guideline not a rule.
There's a pretty obvious difference between "class guided by a moral code of conduct" requiring LG and "class that enters rages" requiring nonlawful. Paladins are explicitly about being Lawful Good. That's part of their flavor. Changing them wouldn't just be adding options, it would be intrinsically changing what they are.
Barbarians are not defined by anarchy. There's nothing in their description explaining how they follow a rigid code of nonlawfulness. The restriction should have gone the way of the bard's alignment limits.
|
I think the reasoning is that a CG person doesn't have a CODE as much as they have "guidelines." That for a true paladin, the code is part of what empowers them, and CG characters have a lot more willingness to bend even their own personal rules in pursuit of what they think is right.
Generally speaking, a CG and LG character can BOTH stand for freedom (just look at Captain America), the difference is in how much the powers of good "trust" the person. A paladin is someone they KNOW they can rely on, while a CG character may decide to cross lines a lot more readily, and thus runs the risk of falling harder (this is why I personally find CG to be the hardest Good alignment to play).
So, why would a CG Paladin, not be a Paladin?
Do only LG PCs have morals, or a personal code of conduct?
I think you're going after me because I showed an "inconsistency", but you're assuming I really care about the paladin thing. I made one remark basically amounting to, "I like paladins being LG because it encourages people to play LG." I'm not very invested in this. If you want to continue the argument, and you shouldn't, argue with the people who give a s~@#.
Only LG people have rigid codes like the paladin. That's why so many people dis the LG paladin. A CG character might have a code, but the code will be massively more flexible. A LG character, by contrast, sees laws and codes as an end in and of themselves—ethics used right force people to stick to a nonbiased moral standard.
I shouldn't have to argue what the differences are between "lawful" and "chaotic". We know all that. The paladin as it is now is a Lawful Good class, associated with heroism, chivalry and a strict code of conduct (as states their Google definition). You may not like that code being so strict, but it's that strictness that allows scenes like the famous "Give me an excuse to fall" intimidation check. Personally, I'd prefer if a Neutral Good variety was not called a paladin for that reason. Let paladins be their own thing.
While I may be the "weakest link" in this debate, that's because I don't care. Go argue with someone who does. Preferably on a thread that was actually created with this dead horse in mind.
I'm going to be a bit blunt here:
Tell it to someone who cares.
On another thread.
You asked me my reasons, I gave them, I'm done.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I'm not the best pick to bring this topic back 'round since I've never had the chance to play a paladin, but since someone's gotta do it:
The paladin is my favorite class I've never played. The closest I ever came was with a kobold crossbowman. He was heading down the paladin route, but the campaign died before he could take the first level.
Adalclak was bitter, arrogant and unbelievably sarcastic. He groveled and patronized like a pro. Kids scared him and he couldn't stand elves or elf magic. He was a fighter, and damn good at dealing lots and lots of damage. And at sneaking. Fighter or no, he was still a kobold.
Adalclak did have a good side, though. He liked to help people. He looked out for his own, and kept to his own rules: Do no harm to those that don't deserve it, never show hesitance, and, most importantly, every good-aligned life is significant. Adalclak would willingly run into a deathtrap to save even a single innocent, even if doing so would keep him from being able to save anyone else in the future on account of being dead and all. Adalclak never relaxed. He couldn't relax, and because of that, he was always on the move do-gooding.
That said, in hindsight, I don't think he would have been chosen to be a paladin. Adalclak just didn't have the kindness.
A paladin needs to be kind. They can be an a~~$@!#, but they still need to sincerely hate suffering and want to make people happy, and that needs to be what drives them. Adalclak was driven mostly by a feeling of obligation. He wasn't a bad guy—he was Lawful Good—but he did what he did more out of a sense of law than a sense of good. And his selfish rule-keeping got in the way on numerous occasions—like the time he refused to go along with an elf woman without his weapon, jeopardizing the whole mission.
He was around 12th level when the Lawful Good dwarf god kinda called him out on it in a dream, and Adalclak might have changed a bit given more time. But I think Adalclak is a good example of what I wouldn't see as a great paladin—someone who does the right thing because their rules, Code and god oblige them to, and not because they truly want to.
You think I am specifically targeting you.
It's not all about you.
Understood. I apologize. Let me rephrase my post:
Tell it to someone.
On another thread.
This is a discussion of ways to roleplay paladins, not an argument about paladin interpretations. :P
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi! I'm Asha! Monk 4/paladin of Shelyn 7 (hit 8 midway through the adventure) built for and played through a PbP version of The Ruby Phoenix Tournament.
First of all, I need to admit that I both lectured the PCs once and blackmailed them into doing the right thing once during the course of the adventure. (The Eternal Rose and I are both pretty firmly against cutting the throats of unconscious opponents, especially when there are non-murder options available.) That said, while "I'm a paladin" and "I'm a monk" are both large and visible parts of who I am, that's not really where I stop as a character. I'm a dancer, in point of fact, and that's probably more central to my identity than either of the other two. (Also note: while I may have danced on a pole once or twice in my life, "pole dancer" and "polearm dancer" do mean different things.)
I like helping people. I like people in general, in fact - I like finding the parts of them that make them beautiful, and sometimes helping them find those parts too. I like it when they surprise me and challenge my own assumptions. The soul of every being appreciates beauty, although many have been twisted too far up into themselves to really make contact with that part of themselves. But a skilled gardener can, with patience and time, straighten out the branches of a gnarled rosebush so that the blooms can blossom.
People are no different.
There is nothing in all creation more beautiful than the moment when someone's soul blossoms that way.
There ARE differences in culture as it evolves through time. The 50's and 60's did not enshrine Greed as a virtue the way the 80's did. Just as there are differnces between American and other cultures of the present day, there are differences between Americans of different times. In the 60's Superman was the idealised hero... now our ideals are anti-heroes like Wolverine.History pretty much proves people weren't more moralistic and nice to each other in the past, your falling into the trap of every generation of panicking about the morality of youth whilst wearing rose tinted spectacles about what went on with past generations. Not even the knights of the round table came close to being as inhumanily good as a d&d paladin is meant to be.I never understood why there is such a hate for paladins. They are powerful, yes, but they are also the ones who are meant to throw themselves in harms way, to do all they can to ensure the good for all, protect life, help the innocent, and ensure that goodness in the world survives. My groups have never had an issue with paladins (only with who might be playing them, as they might not be up to the challenge).It's not so hard really. We live in more cynical times, and we live in a culture that preaches self-indulgence. We find the concept of Boy Scout heroes like Clark Kent to be rather silly. Or their presence holds up a brutal mirror into what we've become, and challenges the ways we now validate ourselves.
So it's not surprising that we look for the flaw, the thing that will expose these four-color heroes for the falsities we feel they must be.
60's Superman was also a jerk who did such things like adopting a kid (Jimmy Olsen) and then immediately started mistreating him so that the kid would WANT to end the adoption.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still have my Aasimar Iroran Paladin, and devout follower of Arshea, build to play.
Basically, a nude, well oiled, muscular Paladin, that is a champion of beauty, love, physical wellness, and charity.
But does he sparkle? I'm sure you all know how manly sparkling is.
|
|
But does he sparkle? I'm sure you all know how manly sparkling is.I still have my Aasimar Iroran Paladin, and devout follower of Arshea, build to play.
Basically, a nude, well oiled, muscular Paladin, that is a champion of beauty, love, physical wellness, and charity.
With the Halo alternate racial trait, sparkle is set to 11.
With the Halo alternate racial trait, sparkle is set to 11.But does he sparkle? I'm sure you all know how manly sparkling is.I still have my Aasimar Iroran Paladin, and devout follower of Arshea, build to play.
Basically, a nude, well oiled, muscular Paladin, that is a champion of beauty, love, physical wellness, and charity.
You do Arshea proud, son. You do Arshea proud.
There ARE differences in culture as it evolves through time. The 50's and 60's did not enshrine Greed as a virtue the way the 80's did. Just as there are differnces between American and other cultures of the present day, there are differences between Americans of different times. In the 60's Superman was the idealised hero... now our ideals are anti-heroes like Wolverine.History pretty much proves people weren't more moralistic and nice to each other in the past, your falling into the trap of every generation of panicking about the morality of youth whilst wearing rose tinted spectacles about what went on with past generations. Not even the knights of the round table came close to being as inhumanily good as a d&d paladin is meant to be.I never understood why there is such a hate for paladins. They are powerful, yes, but they are also the ones who are meant to throw themselves in harms way, to do all they can to ensure the good for all, protect life, help the innocent, and ensure that goodness in the world survives. My groups have never had an issue with paladins (only with who might be playing them, as they might not be up to the challenge).It's not so hard really. We live in more cynical times, and we live in a culture that preaches self-indulgence. We find the concept of Boy Scout heroes like Clark Kent to be rather silly. Or their presence holds up a brutal mirror into what we've become, and challenges the ways we now validate ourselves.
So it's not surprising that we look for the flaw, the thing that will expose these four-color heroes for the falsities we feel they must be.
Eh, I'd say the age of the gritty manpain antihero is finally starting to come to an end. Movies like The Winter Soldier and Pacific Rim are starting to reconstruct the ideals of goodness that were deconstructed with the 90's grimdark era, and with kids being raised by cartoons like Adventure Time I definitely expect this trend to continue.
