"Paladin" refers to one of the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne. Little is known of the historical figures, other than that Paladin comes from Palatinus, an official in the Roman empire connected to the Palatine Hill which later became a catch all term for high ranking court officials. They were made famous by the Medieval Chivalric Romance "The Song of Roland". That, in turn, would form the background for Poul Anderson's seminal fantasy novel "Three Hearts and Three Lions". That's where "Paladin" enters the fantasy lexicon, and the book's protagonist does act in a manner that would generally be considered Lawful Good. That book was one of several such novels that highly influenced Gary Gygax when he was developing Dungeons and Dragons, and when combined with his love of Arthurian mythology lead to the development of the Paladin class.
The class wasn't meant to simply be the champion of a god, it was meant to be a modern recreation of that idealized perfectly virtuous chivalric Christian knight who never existed outside of fantasy anyway. The divine empowerment was likely meant to as a nod to the chivarlic ideal of God granting victory to the just and righteous, as well as Gygax's own religious beliefs. Same thing with the LG requirement (also, Law was Good in, I believe it was OD&D?)
Now, you can feel free to do anything you like with Paladins, it's your game after all. But that is where the name, and alignment restriction, actually comes from.
Just to preempt a 50 page argument over what a Paladin is supposed to be.
Hellknight prestige classes or exalted wont be close enough?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Prince Yyrkoon wrote: "Paladin" refers to one of the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne. Little is known of the historical figures, other than that Paladin comes from Palatinus, an official in the Roman empire connected to the Palatine Hill which later became a catch all term for high ranking court officials. They were made famous by the Medieval Chivalric Romance "The Song of Roland". That, in turn, would form the background for Poul Anderson's seminal fantasy novel "Three Hearts and Three Lions". That's where "Paladin" enters the fantasy lexicon, and the book's protagonist does act in a manner that would generally be considered Lawful Good. That book was one of several such novels that highly influenced Gary Gygax when he was developing Dungeons and Dragons, and when combined with his love of Arthurian mythology lead to the development of the Paladin class.
The class wasn't meant to simply be the champion of a god, it was meant to be a modern recreation of that idealized perfectly virtuous chivalric Christian knight who never existed outside of fantasy anyway. The divine empowerment was likely meant to as a nod to the chivarlic ideal of God granting victory to the just and righteous, as well as Gygax's own religious beliefs. Same thing with the LG requirement (also, Law was Good in, I believe it was OD&D?)
Now, you can feel free to do anything you like with Paladins, it's your game after all. But that is where the name, and alignment restriction, actually comes from.
Just to preempt a 50 page argument over what a Paladin is supposed to be.
Agreed.
That is the inspiration for the Paladin.
I will state, however, that the real issue here isn't the Paladin. The real issue is with the disturbing modern trend that, for some reason, Good is no longer considered "cool" as the kiddies would say.
The modern audience wants evil to be better. They want evil to be "good" so they don't feel bad about playing an evil character. They want freedom from restriction and rules, they want to do as they wish without consequence and have the power to do so.
When I was writing comic books we called this the Punisher effect. The Punisher begat a genre of iron age heroes. Suddenly the guy with the gun was the hero and Superman was a joke.
Tights and capes? Please. Code against killing? Dream on. Wolverine is ten times better and twenty times more lethal Cable is willing to kill anyone who gets in his way. The Punisher doesn't put a bad guy behind bars so that they eventually escape and kill more people, he puts a bullet in their head.
The only way you could get away with a code against killing was to be Batman. You had to be dark and edgy. You had to be scary and do not-nice things.
There were still holdouts.
Usually those of us in the older ages. We still remember what Superman stood for. (That isn't a slam on young people, that is actually the target age demographic. Superman does well with the kids and the older adults, but the teens and young adults he tanks in. Oddly those dark and edgy heroes fall in popularity with older adults. There is a social statement somewhere in there...)
But yes, originally the Paladin, and if you think the Paladin has any inspiration aside from the D&D version then you are insane, was intended to be a Paragon of good. They served a God, yes, but they were a Paragon. The ultimate hero of heroes.
For them to be considered... "Just a class" is... Disconcerting.
Maybe because I remember how hard it was back in the day to get a Paladin. Rolling 3d6, straight down the line, none of this point buy stuff, and getting a 17 in Charisma (there were no Sorcerers and nobody cast through Charisma... Not even Paladins...) was the call.
You were either a Paladin or you refused the call.
One slip up. On tiny stumble and you became a Fighter unless you went on a quest for atonement. You ever dual classed? You were done. No more Paladin for you.
You had to be human. Back then humans got nothing. No extra skill points (there were no skill points) and no extra feats (there were no feats) and no +2 to a stat (Hah!) you made the sacrifice and played the Paladin.
The hero of heroes.
And if you got a Holy Avenger... You were a God.
High level mages trembled with fear and ran at your mere sight as your spells, so long as they were lower than the level of the Paladin, could not penetrate his magical aura. (And spells topped at 9th level mind you.) No dragon could make him afraid. No wizard could smite him. Demons trembled in fear of his 1d10+5 (+ strength bonus) damage weapon!
Ahh... Good times.
Prince Yyrkoon wrote: "Paladin" refers to one of the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne. Little is known of the historical figures, other than that Paladin comes from Palatinus, an official in the Roman empire connected to the Palatine Hill which later became a catch all term for high ranking court officials. They were made famous by the Medieval Chivalric Romance "The Song of Roland". That, in turn, would form the background for Poul Anderson's seminal fantasy novel "Three Hearts and Three Lions". That's where "Paladin" enters the fantasy lexicon, and the book's protagonist does act in a manner that would generally be considered Lawful Good. That book was one of several such novels that highly influenced Gary Gygax when he was developing Dungeons and Dragons, and when combined with his love of Arthurian mythology lead to the development of the Paladin class.
The class wasn't meant to simply be the champion of a god, it was meant to be a modern recreation of that idealized perfectly virtuous chivalric Christian knight who never existed outside of fantasy anyway. The divine empowerment was likely meant to as a nod to the chivarlic ideal of God granting victory to the just and righteous, as well as Gygax's own religious beliefs. Same thing with the LG requirement (also, Law was Good in, I believe it was OD&D?)
Now, you can feel free to do anything you like with Paladins, it's your game after all. But that is where the name, and alignment restriction, actually comes from.
Just to preempt a 50 page argument over what a Paladin is supposed to be.
^
I love the history lesson.
Edit: Also, is this what usually happens to a paladin thread on here? Everyone seems to have become angry at each other.
Dunmuir wrote: Edit: Also, is this what usually happens to a paladin thread on here? Everyone seems to have become angry at each other. Not just here. Everywhere!
I have a theory. First, early Paladins were powerful. You had to get just the right kind of rolls to play one. Similar to bards and druids in that respect. This led players and DMs to be jealous and annoyed that they steamrolled challenges, respectively. Second, they all come with a built in self-destruct button that the player has no control over. This frequently leads to resentment from players who've had their shiny toy taken away for real or perceived @#$%^&* reasons. Third, they all come with a bunch of extra baggage in terms of what people think a "paladin" actually is. In fact, I'd wager that they're the highest, by a wide margin, in "that's not how you play a <class>". I've even had someone tell me on this board that they couldn't see how a character I actually ran would have stayed a paladin. Just, unsolicited "your paladin should fall".
So in every paladin debate everyone has a specific, rigid view of what they mean and cannot comprehend that other viewpoints exist, and bitter, angry memories of playing with/as/against a paladin so they lash out at everything they disagree with.
This is all hyperbole, clearly, but with far too much of the truth in it. I think we'd save a lot of trouble if the paladin code was just "do the right thing, try to follow the rules while you do" rather than arguing what was or wasn't honorable.
Bob Bob Bob wrote: Dunmuir wrote: Edit: Also, is this what usually happens to a paladin thread on here? Everyone seems to have become angry at each other. Not just here. Everywhere!
I have a theory. First, early Paladins were powerful. You had to get just the right kind of rolls to play one. Similar to bards and druids in that respect. This led players and DMs to be jealous and annoyed that they steamrolled challenges, respectively. Second, they all come with a built in self-destruct button that the player has no control over. This frequently leads to resentment from players who've had their shiny toy taken away for real or perceived @#$%^&* reasons. Third, they all come with a bunch of extra baggage in terms of what people think a "paladin" actually is. In fact, I'd wager that they're the highest, by a wide margin, in "that's not how you play a <class>". I've even had someone tell me on this board that they couldn't see how a character I actually ran would have stayed a paladin. Just, unsolicited "your paladin should fall".
So in every paladin debate everyone has a specific, rigid view of what they mean and cannot comprehend that other viewpoints exist, and bitter, angry memories of playing with/as/against a paladin so they lash out at everything they disagree with.
This is all hyperbole, clearly, but with far too much of the truth in it. I think we'd save a lot of trouble if the paladin code was just "do the right thing, try to follow the rules while you do" rather than arguing what was or wasn't honorable. I have played D&D since the mid 80's and throughout the years the only class that ever got seriously alignment checked was the paladin. Still see it to this day. And as for the perceived image of the class, the fact that 5e now lets paladins be any alignment from any god pretty much validates my earlier thoughts on what a "paladin" really is.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote:
There is no such thing as a Neutral act save for taking no action.
This is such a crazy, ridiculous assertion I'm not even sure where to begin refuting it.
Would a paladin fall for forgetting his friend's birthday? For zoning out in a conversation?
Does this mean neutral exemplars (outsiders made of neutrality) are literally incapable of taking actions? How do you explain a four-axis alignment system if all actions are good or evil?
I just...
Yeah.
I assume you're talking about the Pathfinder world, incidentally. Hopefully.
Grond wrote: Bob Bob Bob wrote: Dunmuir wrote: Edit: Also, is this what usually happens to a paladin thread on here? Everyone seems to have become angry at each other. Not just here. Everywhere!
I have a theory. First, early Paladins were powerful. You had to get just the right kind of rolls to play one. Similar to bards and druids in that respect. This led players and DMs to be jealous and annoyed that they steamrolled challenges, respectively. Second, they all come with a built in self-destruct button that the player has no control over. This frequently leads to resentment from players who've had their shiny toy taken away for real or perceived @#$%^&* reasons. Third, they all come with a bunch of extra baggage in terms of what people think a "paladin" actually is. In fact, I'd wager that they're the highest, by a wide margin, in "that's not how you play a <class>". I've even had someone tell me on this board that they couldn't see how a character I actually ran would have stayed a paladin. Just, unsolicited "your paladin should fall".
So in every paladin debate everyone has a specific, rigid view of what they mean and cannot comprehend that other viewpoints exist, and bitter, angry memories of playing with/as/against a paladin so they lash out at everything they disagree with.
This is all hyperbole, clearly, but with far too much of the truth in it. I think we'd save a lot of trouble if the paladin code was just "do the right thing, try to follow the rules while you do" rather than arguing what was or wasn't honorable. I have played D&D since the mid 80's and throughout the years the only class that ever got seriously alignment checked was the paladin. Still see it to this day. And as for the perceived image of the class, the fact that 5e now lets paladins be any alignment from any god pretty much validates my earlier thoughts on what a "paladin" really is. In my group there were clerics and druids who had alignment check issues, and in Jade Regent we had a wizard with alignment issues*.
*this was a LN wizard that had an imp familiar, at the end of book 3 he became LG and lost his imp.
[/argument]
@OP- the Champion of the Faith warpriest archetype is designed to offer a very paladin-esque option for other alignments. They can self heal as a swift action, detect their opposed alignment at will, and can smite their opposed alignment as a paladin's smite evil. They're still a 3/4 BAB 6 level casting class, so it's not exactly the same, but it should give the right flavor with a lot of similar mechanics.
[argument]
HWalsh wrote: Prince Yyrkoon wrote: "Paladin" refers to one of the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne. Little is known of the historical figures, other than that Paladin comes from Palatinus, an official in the Roman empire connected to the Palatine Hill which later became a catch all term for high ranking court officials. They were made famous by the Medieval Chivalric Romance "The Song of Roland". That, in turn, would form the background for Poul Anderson's seminal fantasy novel "Three Hearts and Three Lions". That's where "Paladin" enters the fantasy lexicon, and the book's protagonist does act in a manner that would generally be considered Lawful Good. That book was one of several such novels that highly influenced Gary Gygax when he was developing Dungeons and Dragons, and when combined with his love of Arthurian mythology lead to the development of the Paladin class.
The class wasn't meant to simply be the champion of a god, it was meant to be a modern recreation of that idealized perfectly virtuous chivalric Christian knight who never existed outside of fantasy anyway. The divine empowerment was likely meant to as a nod to the chivarlic ideal of God granting victory to the just and righteous, as well as Gygax's own religious beliefs. Same thing with the LG requirement (also, Law was Good in, I believe it was OD&D?)
Now, you can feel free to do anything you like with Paladins, it's your game after all. But that is where the name, and alignment restriction, actually comes from.
Just to preempt a 50 page argument over what a Paladin is supposed to be.
Agreed.
That is the inspiration for the Paladin.
I will state, however, that the real issue here isn't the Paladin. The real issue is with the disturbing modern trend that, for some reason, Good is no longer considered "cool" as the kiddies would say.
The modern audience wants evil to be better. They want evil to be "good" so they don't feel bad about playing an evil character. They want freedom from restriction and rules, they want to do as they... I think it's pretty cool when people are passionate about something so I honestly applaud you for that.
Buuuuut maybe just a few things. Yes, a Paladin (IMO is the key thing here) is an individual of almost if not complete dedication to their deity. However, saying that anything they do that isn't "good" would make a Paladin fall is completely ridiculous.
A campaign I have for my friends is an Emperor who was chosen by the gods to lead, while casting his twin (just post birth) to the infernal regions as part of an underlying pact. Turns out that the Emperor is insane with his power, believing all who aren't on the same page his deities are impure and must be converted or "purged" fore the good of the world. So any paladins who are in service to the said same deities/Emperor would pretty much be automatically fallen. (1) Paladins would fall because if they were to champion for the emperor, they would be committing/allowing for mass genocide of innocent lives. Not really good right? It would be lawful to carry out said laws/crusade, however according to you they would be out of alignment and fail. (2) If they opposed such a sanctioned leader, much less "purge/crusade", then though they may be a champion of defending innocent people, they would be breaking the laws of the chosen leader and their deities. Now they aren't pure Lawful Good.
Or to make it simpler we'll Batman vs Joker this. Two people are about to have their lives tragically cut short, and you have no personal information about them. You can ONLY save one no matter what you do. If you choose one, then the other dies, allowing someone to die isn't really a "good" thing a champion of truth and justice is and is as guilty as the ones pulling the trigger. If you do nothing, you just made it twice as bad because you CHOSE to let both die. It's a lose-lose situation with no real "good" option, so by your strict "code" or "opinion" (not hardcore by the book fact) a paladin would fall. That is how You would play, not how others HAVE to play.
In summary yes, ideally Paladins are beacons of light and are the mortal representations, but even the gods (stated in their lore) are prone to faltering. It doesn't mean EVERY time they fall in grace and are no longer considered worthy. But that is mine and others opinions, take it how you see fit.
BONUS: Plus about the evil part, you sound incredibly condescending.
Quote: I will state, however, that the real issue here isn't the Paladin. The real issue is with the disturbing modern trend that, for some reason, Good is no longer considered "cool" as the kiddies would say. I've rooted for the villain/anti-heroes since i was a very very young boy. Does that make me a "kiddie"? Really... Disturbing? So what if more people like to play the badder guys? No one says you have to, it's a Role-Playing Game. Not "Hwalshfinder". Good for you you found a way to Role-play passionately about something, honestly. Don't railroad others or make them feel like what they choose to play is idiotic because they like something different than what your tunnel-visioned, hipster mindset is.
To the OP, if your GM will flex and houserule, just ask to be a lawful-evil anti Paladin. It's not like your asking for something of an incredible amount. Just slightly change your code requirements. Or be Chaotic Evil, it can actually give you a lot of flex. PM me and I'll send you an example bio of a CE character I made that can party with even LG heroes. :D
see way of the wicked for lawful evil anti paladin rules. I honestly always felt they should be lawful evil over chaotic evil, due to code of contact and other things. it is the dark knight after all. More of a Ra's Al Ghul then Joker.
HWalsh wrote: So in the case of a LE...
"You see someone being mugged, the mugger asks you to help him."
You're done.
You fall.
There is no way out.
You have to follow the law, so you can't help the mugger. However you cannot perform a non-evil act. So you can't do nothing (that's good as you are refusing to help a criminal) you can't save the civilian (that's good) you can't demand the victim to promise to pay you to help (that's blackmail and is non-lawful) and you can't help the mugger because while that's evil, its not Lawful.
You have no real option here.
You could kill the mugger for breaking the law (assuming in your example that mugging is illegal) and then arrest the victim for disturbing the peace.
Vutava wrote: HWalsh wrote: So in the case of a LE...
"You see someone being mugged, the mugger asks you to help him."
You're done.
You fall.
There is no way out.
You have to follow the law, so you can't help the mugger. However you cannot perform a non-evil act. So you can't do nothing (that's good as you are refusing to help a criminal) you can't save the civilian (that's good) you can't demand the victim to promise to pay you to help (that's blackmail and is non-lawful) and you can't help the mugger because while that's evil, its not Lawful.
You have no real option here.
You could kill the mugger for breaking the law (assuming in your example that mugging is illegal) and then arrest the victim for disturbing the peace. Doesn't work. In killing the mugger, for breaking the law, you performed a good act because you still saved the victim. Instant fall. It doesn't matter that you arrest the other guy, you still have to run, shell out a ton of GP to get the atonement.
CECShocktrooper wrote: A campaign I have for my friends is an Emperor who was chosen by the gods to lead, while casting his twin (just post birth) to the infernal regions as part of an underlying pact. Turns out that the Emperor is insane with his power, believing all who aren't on the same page his deities are impure and must be converted or "purged" fore the good of the world. So any paladins who are in service to the said same deities/Emperor would pretty much be automatically fallen. (1) Paladins would fall because if they were to champion for the emperor, they would be committing/allowing for mass genocide of innocent lives. Not really good right? It would be lawful to carry out said laws/crusade, however according to you they would be out of alignment and fail. (2) If they opposed such a sanctioned leader, much less "purge/crusade", then though they may be a champion of defending innocent people, they would be breaking the laws of the chosen leader and their deities. Now they aren't pure Lawful Good. Actually... There is a way out...
Paladins only fall if the commit an evil act. They can perform unlawful acts until they alignment shift.
Lawful doesn't mean the laws of the kingdom, it means the code they swore to uphold.
So here is what would happen:
The God/Emperor says, "Kill all those who refuse to convert!"
The Paladin says, "No, this command is unlawful." Then begins to protect the innocent. They could avoid the fall easily. This falls largely into the whole unlawful order.
Now, if the Deity suffered an alignment shift then the Paladins would most likely fall anyway as they aren't in-line with the Deity's alignment anymore.
What would most likely happen in this situation is as follows:
The Paladins, who no longer agree with the ideals of their God as the God has changed alignment, abandon the God and go to a different God and swear fealty to that God. That deity gives them power and now that God has a whole slew of Paladins who are now equipped to battle it.
Remember though:
Paladins are not a common class. They are rare. A Kingdom who had a ton of Paladins wouldn't dare do what you mentioned because their Paladins would turn on them.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: Vutava wrote: HWalsh wrote: So in the case of a LE...
"You see someone being mugged, the mugger asks you to help him."
You're done.
You fall.
There is no way out.
You have to follow the law, so you can't help the mugger. However you cannot perform a non-evil act. So you can't do nothing (that's good as you are refusing to help a criminal) you can't save the civilian (that's good) you can't demand the victim to promise to pay you to help (that's blackmail and is non-lawful) and you can't help the mugger because while that's evil, its not Lawful.
You have no real option here.
You could kill the mugger for breaking the law (assuming in your example that mugging is illegal) and then arrest the victim for disturbing the peace. Doesn't work. In killing the mugger, for breaking the law, you performed a good act because you still saved the victim. Instant fall. It doesn't matter that you arrest the other guy, you still have to run, shell out a ton of GP to get the atonement. No disrespect but I wouldn't touch a game like that with a twenty foot pole. I am here to have fun, and that seems a rather pointlessly restrictive setup just waiting to punish someone just for trying to play the concept they have in their head.
For the record I believe the Anti-Paladin class also includes a clause stating that evil does not care about the method, only the result. An Anti-Paladin is fully capable of committing a "good" act in the pursuit of greater evil. This clause is in reference only to the good/evil axis, not the Law/chaos axis, so I don't see why a Lawful Evil Anti-Paladin would be incapable of committing a good act while pursuing a greater evil, or indeed holding up the Laws or Oaths they are sworn to regardless of their good/evil ramifications.
In the end the game is only what you make of it. If you are enjoying such a restrictive setup for Paladins, then great for you. Dont go judging people on how they enjoy playing a less restrictive version of a Paladin in their game.
HWalsh wrote: CECShocktrooper wrote: A campaign I have for my friends is an Emperor who was chosen by the gods to lead, while casting his twin (just post birth) to the infernal regions as part of an underlying pact. Turns out that the Emperor is insane with his power, believing all who aren't on the same page his deities are impure and must be converted or "purged" fore the good of the world. So any paladins who are in service to the said same deities/Emperor would pretty much be automatically fallen. (1) Paladins would fall because if they were to champion for the emperor, they would be committing/allowing for mass genocide of innocent lives. Not really good right? It would be lawful to carry out said laws/crusade, however according to you they would be out of alignment and fail. (2) If they opposed such a sanctioned leader, much less "purge/crusade", then though they may be a champion of defending innocent people, they would be breaking the laws of the chosen leader and their deities. Now they aren't pure Lawful Good. Actually... There is a way out...
Paladins only fall if the commit an evil act. They can perform unlawful acts until they alignment shift.
Lawful doesn't mean the laws of the kingdom, it means the code they swore to uphold.
So here is what would happen:
The God/Emperor says, "Kill all those who refuse to convert!"
The Paladin says, "No, this command is unlawful." Then begins to protect the innocent. They could avoid the fall easily. This falls largely into the whole unlawful order.
Now, if the Deity suffered an alignment shift then the Paladins would most likely fall anyway as they aren't in-line with the Deity's alignment anymore.
What would most likely happen in this situation is as follows:
The Paladins, who no longer agree with the ideals of their God as the God has changed alignment, abandon the God and go to a different God and swear fealty to that God. That deity gives them power and now that God has a whole slew of Paladins who are now equipped to battle it.... Well first off a couple things.
Firstly you yourself said that decisions for Paladins are black and white, and that there are no neutral decisions for them. So either you make a good decision, or you fall. That is black and white.
Second, it is completely lawful because said ruler is the RULER of said kingdom. His word is law, and as appointed by the gods his words may as well be from the deities themselves and they define the code. Left to his own devices, they can retain their alignment while he can go on his zealout ways yet still represent them.
Thirdly, as you mentioned
Quote: "a Paladin has to be wholly invested in their God or Cause to the point that they give themselves up" So if one were to devote themselves entirely WITHOUT ANY QUESTION to said deities, then they wouldn't just simply covert. By your own reasoning in several posts on this thread, they serve their deities without any question, and if they had any or performed any they would fall. Furthermore if by some abstract way that a Paladin DID convert, he would lose all his strengths (in this case levels/abilities) as a Paladin because he was granted those powers by his deity. He'd essentially have to start over. Additionally what good will a "whole slew of Paladins" if they are all practically so much weaker. (If you were to rule that they would get the same levels and abilities as the former deity, then you just against yourself two ways. One the point of Paladins existing for other deities of another alignment being granted similar/same powers existing, and second Paladins (and arguably the stronger point) aren't beholden to serve a specific, unquestioning purpose which makes them not unique, not directly exclusive, and gives room for paladins to be able to interpret what THEY believe is good and lawful, not just the deity. Plus how can a "slew of paladins" exist if they are so rare?
Fourthly good/evil are merely relative. One persons good can be anothers evil.
Lastly you never answered my last scenario.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Prince Yyrkoon wrote: "Paladin" refers to one of the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne. Little is known of the historical figures, other than that Paladin comes from Palatinus, an official in the Roman empire connected to the Palatine Hill which later became a catch all term for high ranking court officials. They were made famous by the Medieval Chivalric Romance "The Song of Roland". That, in turn, would form the background for Poul Anderson's seminal fantasy novel "Three Hearts and Three Lions". That's where "Paladin" enters the fantasy lexicon, and the book's protagonist does act in a manner that would generally be considered Lawful Good. That book was one of several such novels that highly influenced Gary Gygax when he was developing Dungeons and Dragons, and when combined with his love of Arthurian mythology lead to the development of the Paladin class.
The class wasn't meant to simply be the champion of a god, it was meant to be a modern recreation of that idealized perfectly virtuous chivalric Christian knight who never existed outside of fantasy anyway. The divine empowerment was likely meant to as a nod to the chivarlic ideal of God granting victory to the just and righteous, as well as Gygax's own religious beliefs. Same thing with the LG requirement (also, Law was Good in, I believe it was OD&D?)
Now, you can feel free to do anything you like with Paladins, it's your game after all. But that is where the name, and alignment restriction, actually comes from.
Just to preempt a 50 page argument over what a Paladin is supposed to be.
Yes, which is why historically they were lawful and Gary Gygax made them good. That's my point about how paladins as a trope are representative of the highest honor bound codes that were ever made. The sense of morality in 1115 was strongly based in "the law is good, and the church (which had a major stake in the law) was good" which in today's gaming table is more likely going to be presented as lawful evil than lawful good.
HWalsh wrote: I will state, however, that the real issue here isn't the Paladin. The real issue is with the disturbing modern trend that, for some reason, Good is no longer considered "cool" as the kiddies would say.
The modern audience wants evil to be better. They want evil to be "good" so they don't feel bad about playing an evil character. They want freedom from restriction and rules, they want to do as they wish without consequence and have the power to do so.
It's like it's 1974 and Gygax pitches the paladin. This is the rant of someone who simply refuses to change and invents a boogeyman to justify their stance instead of just being willing to open their mind a little. It's a bad way to rationalize.
What "modern audiences" want are more nuanced alignments than the original good and evil set on D&D, and somehow made worse during the 3.5 years. Having a system built around good being an absolute force and evil being an absolute force is a terrible way to create narratives, and are largely ignored or argued over because it is inherently irrational.
The fact that two countries in Pathfinder cannot have two orders of paladins raised to fight evils and right wrongs go to war over political issues is ridiculous. The original Song of Roland is chivalrous Christian knights fighting Muslim knights, not good versus evil. Two good countries can war endlessly because there are so many human viewpoints that can lead to war, and paladins of those countries - whether of two different deities or not - should not get some weird "get out of moral conundrum free card" by scanning the battle field and just saying "these are good people" and then go home. They know their king is good, they know their enemy is good, and they probably know the other king is good because of the diplomacy efforts before war. This is something that has happened and does happen, and it is a complex and interesting narrative that requires a lot of roleplaying. Nothing in this political conflict must require a obvious and present evil.
I want to play a knight with convictions for my deity and my country, and I don't have that except for Cavalier which is just a bad paladin clone. I want to fight honorable but evil swordsmen who have gained favor from Asmodeus or infernal dukes, not just mindless orphanage burning CE villians.
Cel'Daren wrote: HWalsh wrote: Vutava wrote: HWalsh wrote: So in the case of a LE...
"You see someone being mugged, the mugger asks you to help him."
You're done.
You fall.
There is no way out.
You have to follow the law, so you can't help the mugger. However you cannot perform a non-evil act. So you can't do nothing (that's good as you are refusing to help a criminal) you can't save the civilian (that's good) you can't demand the victim to promise to pay you to help (that's blackmail and is non-lawful) and you can't help the mugger because while that's evil, its not Lawful.
You have no real option here.
You could kill the mugger for breaking the law (assuming in your example that mugging is illegal) and then arrest the victim for disturbing the peace. Doesn't work. In killing the mugger, for breaking the law, you performed a good act because you still saved the victim. Instant fall. It doesn't matter that you arrest the other guy, you still have to run, shell out a ton of GP to get the atonement. No disrespect but I wouldn't touch a game like that with a twenty foot pole. I am here to have fun, and that seems a rather pointlessly restrictive setup just waiting to punish someone just for trying to play the concept they have in their head.
For the record I believe the Anti-Paladin class also includes a clause stating that evil does not care about the method, only the result. An Anti-Paladin is fully capable of committing a "good" act in the pursuit of greater evil. This clause is in reference only to the good/evil axis, not the Law/chaos axis, so I don't see why a Lawful Evil Anti-Paladin would be incapable of committing a good act while pursuing a greater evil, or indeed holding up the Laws or Oaths they are sworn to regardless of their good/evil ramifications.
In the end the game is only what you make of it. If you are enjoying such a restrictive setup for Paladins, then great for you. Dont go judging people on how they enjoy playing a less restrictive version... Exactly... or you know if he is going to make up rules saying Anti-Paladin-esque characters can't do something good, he can just murder the mugger and loot him himself. Personal gain + evil act = win.
This is more or less why I think Paladins should be beefed up a bit (some bonus feats maybe?) and the restrictions on the code tightened. Bring back tithes or something. Make them awesome, but at a price.
Also, I'm thinking some of the people posting in this thread would be better off houseruling paladins out of their games and encouraging people to play Warpriests instead.
Quote: Yes, which is why historically they were lawful and Gary Gygax made them good. That's my point about how paladins as a trope are representative of the highest honor bound codes that were ever made. The sense of morality in 1115 was strongly based in "the law is good, and the church (which had a major stake in the law) was good" which in today's gaming table is more likely going to be presented as lawful evil than lawful good.... Thaaaaank you. I should've used this but my history has been a bit lacking!
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
If you want to stay within the rulest, consider the WarPriest.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Sorry for the broken link earlier, even though it would not have been impossible to look at the adress bar and remove the part that obviously does not belong into the URL.
Here is the working link.
Cel'Daren wrote:
No disrespect but I wouldn't touch a game like that with a twenty foot pole. I am here to have fun, and that seems a rather pointlessly restrictive setup just waiting to punish someone just for trying to play the concept they have in their head.
For the record I believe the Anti-Paladin class also includes a clause stating that evil does not care about the method, only the result. An Anti-Paladin is fully capable of committing a "good" act in the pursuit of greater evil. This clause is in reference only to the good/evil axis, not the Law/chaos axis, so I don't see why a Lawful Evil Anti-Paladin would be incapable of committing a good act while pursuing a greater evil, or indeed holding up the Laws or Oaths they are sworn to regardless of their good/evil ramifications.
In the end the game is only what you make of it. If you are enjoying such a restrictive setup for Paladins, then great for you. Dont go judging people on how they enjoy playing a less restrictive version...
I don't detect any disrespect, I understand why those restrictions would be less than appealing and that is fine but one of the things about the Paladin code, the reason why the Paladin (and Anti-Paladin) have restrictive codes built into the classes is specifically to restrict the class.
The class is supposed to place restrictions on what the character can do. That is actually a class feature of the class. If you don't want to be restricted then don't play a class that has restrictions.
If you want to be a Lawful Evil Paladin-esque character... Go Warpriest, go Celestial Bloodrager, go the Hellknight Commander PrC at level 6.
Then you can be whatever alignment you want (in the case of Warpriest you only need to remain within 1 step of the deity) (or lawful in the case of the Hellknight) and go nuts without ever having to worry about the pitfalls of being a Paladin.
But if you have a less restricted Paladin then you need to give something up. The Paladin's powers come at the cost of those restrictions after all.
I wasn't kidding with my earlier post that you gave a non answer to. If every act is good or evil, what act is pooping?
Saying it depends is not an answer, thanks.
Core Rulebook wrote: Code of Conduct: 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.
(emphasis mine)
It seems to me that when the ruler decides that all whom he deems "infidel" must be slaughtered, the paladin would no longer consider his authority legitimate.
The paladin is not bound to follow authority blindly. The paladin does not define justice as "a state in which all laws ave been enforced"*.
I think that for most characters, actions define alignment. The player chooses the character's alignment based on what the character is likely to do. With the paladin, It is different. The paladin is sworn to behave in a certain way - alignment defines action.
I have seen a paladin refuse to attack an disarmed opponent, even though said opponent was clearly evil. His foe had been the victim of a Grease spell, and the paladin allowed him to retrieve his dropped weapon without taking an attack of opportunity. As he said, "Being a paladin is not a part-time job. Attacking an unarmed foe is dishonorable, and not appropriate for a paladin."
*R. Daneel Olivaw's definition of justice in The Caves of Steel by Isaac Asimov
There's a Mythic option that that lets you ignore alignment stuff, I think. If you're deity isn't happy with that, get Divine Source and worship yourself.
Other than that, no.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
QuidEst wrote: There's a Mythic option that that lets you ignore alignment stuff, I think. Not quite..the Beyond Alignment power makes you immune to alignment based effects, but you are still subject to any code of conduct the class itself imposes.
Grumiō Grumiōnis wrote: Core Rulebook wrote: Code of Conduct: 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.
(emphasis mine)
It seems to me that when the ruler decides that all whom he deems "infidel" must be slaughtered, the paladin would no longer consider his authority legitimate.
The paladin is not bound to follow authority blindly. The paladin does not define justice as "a state in which all laws ave been enforced"*.
I think that for most characters, actions define alignment. The player chooses the character's alignment based on what the character is likely to do. With the paladin, It is different. The paladin is sworn to behave in a certain way - alignment defines action.
I have seen a paladin refuse to attack an disarmed opponent, even though said opponent was clearly evil. His foe had been the victim of a Grease spell, and the paladin allowed him to retrieve his dropped weapon without taking an attack of opportunity. As he said, "Being a paladin is not a part-time job. Attacking an unarmed foe is dishonorable, and not appropriate for a paladin."
*R. Daneel Olivaw's definition of justice in The Caves of Steel by Isaac Asimov I don't know how we got here but paladins in Golarion don't follow the standard paladin code but rather their own God's code. It can be quite different.
HWalsh wrote: CWheezy wrote: There are no neutral acts, lol.
How about pooping? Is it good or evil?
Depends on where you poop.
Leaving a floater might be considered exceptionally evil. If you poop on someone's cat, that is probably evil too. I guess they grow up reading "You're A Naughty Child And That's Concentrated Evil Coming Out The Back Of You."
Also on the note of how you can't be Neutral Paladin...
In the world of Sanctuary there are the Paladins of Zakarum which are just as you'd expect, aka LG.
The Crusaders of Zakarum are similar, though rather than being religious zealots, they're crusading to discover the source of the corruption of their faith. Also LG.
The Priests of Rathma are champions of Balance. Called Necromancers by the ignorant masses, they believe that their world would be lost if it were to lean to far towards the Good of the High Heavens or the Evil of the Burning Hells. So they struggle to maintain a balance, making sure neither side holds sway over mankind for long. LN.
There was one extreme case where one of them believed that they'd been fighting the demons so long that the Balance had tipped too far towards Good. He set to work to unleash a powerful demon into the world to maintain the balance...Of course, he may have been a little out there and was defeated by another of his faith.
While they may not go by the name of Paladin, the Necromancers of Rathma are the very image of a Neutral Paladin.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: I'm afraid your black and white outlook on paladins is completely incompatible with mine. That's the entire point of the Paladin.
They ARE black and white. That's why there is a Paladin (Lawful Good only) and an Anti Paladin (Chaotic Evil only) they are literally intended to be black and white.
They each represent an extreme for a reason and that's why they aren't just "Holy Warriors" (those are called Clerics) they are literally special.
When a person sees a Paladin, they know the Paladin is going to help. They are a beacon of hope. An embodiment of all that is good and just in the world. They are built to destroy evil. To see it, to sense it, to Smite it.
When a person sees an Anti Paladin, they know the Anti-Paladin will bring suffering and sorrow. They are a walking darkness. They seek to destroy all that is good in the world. They are built to destroy good. To see it, to sense it, to Smite it. Err. You are gravely mistaken. You seem to think Paladins are Jesus. The only major things paladins do is A) try to follow a code to the best of their ability, and if they fall short it is expected as they are mortals, B) Obey all laws and customs so far as doing so is not evil, C) Be a champion of good.
I honestly think of them Arthurian Knights from the Malory. They are still effectively humans, and everyone slips up every now and again, even paladins. The real question is what they do about their failings. Expect Paladins to do a lot of praying, make amends and fight extra hard for their ideals in response to personal failure. Expect them to offer people compassion in their failings. One example is a paladin looks at a brutal and crazed murderer who is killing a group of people. He asks this killer why he is doing what he does, and with a good enough diplomacy is privy to the man's story. It turns out this "murderer" is instead of a path of revenge, as the people whom he hunts are the ones who killed his family (or something equally deserving of vengeance). This changes the scenario from a crazed axe murderer to someone who desperately needs guidance and help, which is where the paladin steps in to potentially redeem this person. With a few more diplomacy checks the Paladin manages to get the man to surrender without a fight, takes him to a temple of his god (most goodly nations will allow a Paladin to take someone, partially because they don't want a war with Paladins and partially because they know, for sure, that the paladin has the best of intentions), and tries to show him a better path. On top of that, this "mad man" now has an entire temple and allies of the paladins looking into his claim of vile misdeeds. Expect judgement and redemption.
This is a similar argument in where people argue that Paladins can't work with evil characters, even though the Iconic Paladin (LG) is allies with the Iconic Eldritch Knight (LE) with the pursuit of redeeming him.
Black and white thinking doesn't work in reality, and it doesn't work in game either. The entire reason paladins are likely to have high charisma and diplomacy is that they are supposed to try to reason with people and pull them towards a righteous path.
To put it a different way, you can have a LE Lich be allies with a LG Paladin so long as they agree to a set of terms, probably revolving around "Don't murder people or animate the dead, and let me do the talking. So long as you aren't hurting anyone, I'll let you do your research if you're willing to help do things that help people live their lives." Having a pocket lich isn't that bad of an idea. It makes you actually being there somewhat important since, "Hey, you know, if you kill me this Lich that wants to murder everyone might take it as a reason to declare total war on your kingdom. So, lets discuss this trade agreement."
Please, just end the thread. It's getting kind of out of hand...
Dunmuir wrote: Please, just end the thread. It's getting kind of out of hand... Looks like a usual forum thread to me. Hopefully you checked out each response, I saw a couple that had some good links/examples!
However, it's getting nowhere.
Dunmuir wrote: However, it's getting nowhere. That's business as usual on the internet. Welcome! Enjoy your stay! Our scheduled "how do you kill a 20th level wizard" thread is still active, and shortly a "Tiers don't exist I have fun with my core rogue that's all that matters" thread should arrive on its weekly schedule. If you hang around for a month or so you might even see the "It's time for pathfinder 2.0" thread crop up again!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
K-kun the Insane wrote: HWalsh wrote: CWheezy wrote: There are no neutral acts, lol.
How about pooping? Is it good or evil?
Depends on where you poop.
Leaving a floater might be considered exceptionally evil. If you poop on someone's cat, that is probably evil too. I guess they grow up reading "You're A Naughty Child And That's Concentrated Evil Coming Out The Back Of You." I guess that means all AntiPaladins/Blackguards are very constipated.
The crux of the issue is that, in Golarion, at least, "Good" and "Evil" aren't abstract moral concepts; they are forces as real as Electromagnetism is to us. "Good", "Evil", "Chaos" and "Law" are tangible forces according to the Pathfinder system. Angels aren't just "good and lawful"; they are literally made of Good and Lawful energy. Note the capitalization. Paladins, likewise, draw their abilities from this same Good energy (not the capitalization).
However, that doesn't mean the system has no room for improvement. Here's one I came up with:
Three axis alignment. Instead of the traditional "Good vs Evil" and "Law vs Chaos", characters have 3 axes; Good vs Evil, Axiomatic vs Anarchic, Heroic vs Villainous. Good characters are driven by Honor, Altruism, and Cooperation. They believe that everyone rises or falls together. Evil characters are driven by Power, Conflict, and Competition. They believe that, in order for one to come out ahead, another must correspondingly fall. Axiomatic characters are driven by Discipline; doing what should be done, even if you don't want to (and, conversely, not doing what shouldn't be done even if you do want to). Anarchic characters are driven by Pride; doing what they want to do even if they shouldn't (and, conversely, not doing what they don't want to do, even if they should). Lastly, Heroic characters are the what we would currently call "the Good guys". They are the Heroes of the story. Villainous characters are the opposite; "the Bad guys". Paladins would have to be Heroic and also have an corner alignment because they need the strength of two axes of devotion to guide their power. Axiom/Good Paladins are guided by Honor and Discipline; they believe that Good, honorable people like themselves are needed to do the right thing as a matter of principal. Anarch/Good Paladins are driven by Honor and Pride; they want to do the right thing more than anything else. Axiom/Evil Paladins believe that most people are weak, pathetic, and need to be protected and that true power must be granted to those who are strong and capable of using it without being corrupted. Anarch/Evil Paladins want Power more than anything else because they need to be stronger than the bad guys.
For our next adventure, a Skinsaw antipaladin drops a deuce in the urinal
Chengar Qordath wrote: HWalsh wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: I'm afraid you lost me there. Paladins and antipaladins are allowed to perform Neutral acts. There is no such thing as a Neutral act save for taking no action. So, what is the paladin eating breakfast? I wouldn't call it a good act: he could be giving that toast to a begger, and he murdered several unborn chickens for his eggs and a pig for the bacon.
So does that mean eating breakfast is evil? Well it's not good, and if all non-good things are evil...
Guess Paladins can't eat breakfast. Actually...
When I was a child going to Sunday school, one of my teachers taught us of a particular nun who spent every waking moment devoting every action she took to God. Even something as simple as cleaning up after a meal was done for God. In Catholicism, this is not an uncommon practice for devout Catholics to devote every action they take to God. Using the given example of eating breakfast, they would devote their breakfast to God and thank God for the opportunity to eat. I wouldn't call that neutral; I would call that a Good act, at least in the eyes of God. It is showing surrender to a higher power, which I think is where the Paladin's goodness comes from and is what grants his abilities.
Disclaimer: I am not a Catholic but I played one as a child.
Kazaan wrote:
However, that doesn't mean the system has no room for improvement. Here's one I came up with: Interesting idea (though, as in the Pathfinder game world, "Good" and "Evil" have absolutist connotations). I've thought about it myself - Altruism (capital or lowercase A) is not inherently good, nor is self-interest inherently evil. For an example of the former, consider Sofia Lamb from the second Bioshock game, so concerned with "the needs of the many" that an individual is essentially meaningless as far as she's concerned. Conversely, someone good-hearted may appear not to show concern for others but only because he knows that people would rather be left alone than have "help" they don't want pushed on them, and decides the best way to help people is to keep his own house in order.
Another way to look at it, as on TVTropes, is Discipline vs. Harmony. Law, and to a lesser extent Evil tend to fall under Discipline (the ruthless, ambitious, competitive, Darwinist aspects) while Chaos and Good both loosely align with Harmony. Look at the Jedi vs. the Sith. Both embody both aspects in a certain way: Jedi use discipline to control their emotions as a way of achieving enlightenment and harmony with the universe, while the Sith encourage their passions (Harmony) in order to achieve galactic domination (Discipline). This puts the Sith Empire in the curious position of being both Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil antagonists.
Really, it's bringing complex moral issues into a board game for ages 12+ that was never meant to address these kinds of things, so there's no perfect answer. Someone who sticks by his principles no matter what could be considered Lawful, and someone who's willing to compromise them for "the greater good" could too, despite them being diametric opposites in terms of ethical beliefs.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vutava wrote: HWalsh wrote: So in the case of a LE...
"You see someone being mugged, the mugger asks you to help him."
You're done.
You fall.
There is no way out.
You have to follow the law, so you can't help the mugger. However you cannot perform a non-evil act. So you can't do nothing (that's good as you are refusing to help a criminal) you can't save the civilian (that's good) you can't demand the victim to promise to pay you to help (that's blackmail and is non-lawful) and you can't help the mugger because while that's evil, its not Lawful.
You have no real option here.
You could kill the mugger for breaking the law (assuming in your example that mugging is illegal) and then arrest the victim for disturbing the peace. That's not a Paladin... that's Judge Dredd, the first movie version. "5 years for saving my own life!"
|
