Non Lawful paladin


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 440 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Oh, okay, I get it now. (I somehow missed the last word in your previous post.)

Shadow Lodge

Arachnofiend wrote:
Granted, "I have my own code of honor that I abide by strictly but have no intention of enforcing it on others" sounds like a pretty chaotic ideal to me but nobody will ever agree on what law and chaos mean.

Winner winner chicken dinner.

Arachnofiend wrote:
For Irori's Lawful Evil followers... You cannot choose how others live their life, but the path to perfection is a difficult one and so many people are intent on getting in your way. If they don't grasp the importance of your goals, then so be it.

Which sounds totally appropriate to Irori, but also by my standards NE instead of LE.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My take on Lawful (including Paladin) and the letter/spirit of the Law (greatly inspired by RL Japan) is that you respect as much as you can the laws of society, but the rules and traditions of your native culture/environment are sacrosanct.

If the law and the tradition come into conflict, a Lawful person makes the respect of his tradition his first priority and does his best to find a way to obey the letter of the law, even as he completely ignores its spirit.

Because openly disrespecting a law's letter weakens all legalistic systems (and thus Law itself), it is to be done only as the very last resort and with a heavy heart.

Atonement soon after would be good for the soul of the Lawful person who had to openly break the letter of a law.


Popular culture has been subverting the classic Lawful Good Paladin for ages now, the restriction feels comedic by now.

The truth is that no mortal ever would like to live under pure alignment. Lawful Good at its purest would be ultimate sacrifice, you forsake both your self and freedom for the better of others. A willing slave so to speak, with no rights to own something for himself, everything to be shared in the gesture of ultimate altruism.

Mortal sensibility dilutes it down to being nice and not breaking rules.


Envall wrote:

The truth is that no mortal ever would like to live under pure alignment. Lawful Good at its purest would be ultimate sacrifice, you forsake both your self and freedom for the better of others. A willing slave so to speak, with no rights to own something for himself, everything to be shared in the gesture of ultimate altruism.

Mortal sensibility dilutes it down to being nice and not breaking rules.

What do you mean with there are not activist or people greatly dedicated to a cause?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weirdo wrote:

You can't use sleeping poison even if it would save a life?

You can't tell a lie ever, or even mislead someone, even if it's the Nazis looking for Jewish children hiding in your attic? Sorry kids, we're making a heroic last stand here...

To the poison: It's a matter of trust. Paladins as a whole need people to trust them not to use poison.

To the lie: Just because they can't lie doesn't mean that they have to spill their guts. Just let the rogue do the lying and have the paladin say "I trust him with my life" if asked to weigh in.

And again - it's a matter of trust. As soon as the first paladin lies for a good reason - sure it'll help in the short term - but people will no longer trust paladins implicitly.

Note: Paladins who try to hold the rest of their party to their code are straight up Lawful Stupid.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Weirdo wrote:

You can't use sleeping poison even if it would save a life?

You can't tell a lie ever, or even mislead someone, even if it's the Nazis looking for Jewish children hiding in your attic? Sorry kids, we're making a heroic last stand here...

To the poison: It's a matter of trust. Paladins as a whole need people to trust them not to use poison.

To the lie: Just because they can't lie doesn't mean that they have to spill their guts. Just let the rogue do the lying and have the paladin say "I trust him with my life" if asked to weigh in.

And again - it's a matter of trust. As soon as the first paladin lies for a good reason - sure it'll help in the short term - but people will no longer trust paladins implicitly.

Note: Paladins who try to hold the rest of their party to their code are straight up Lawful Stupid.

The counter, at least by some in this thread, is that people DON'T trust Paladins implicitly in the first place.


HWalsh wrote:
The counter, at least by some in this thread, is that people DON'T trust Paladins implicitly in the first place.

The difference is between "all people" vs "most people". Most people should trust paladins. There would be clear exceptions, but those are exceptions.

Liberty's Edge

HWalsh wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Weirdo wrote:

You can't use sleeping poison even if it would save a life?

You can't tell a lie ever, or even mislead someone, even if it's the Nazis looking for Jewish children hiding in your attic? Sorry kids, we're making a heroic last stand here...

To the poison: It's a matter of trust. Paladins as a whole need people to trust them not to use poison.

To the lie: Just because they can't lie doesn't mean that they have to spill their guts. Just let the rogue do the lying and have the paladin say "I trust him with my life" if asked to weigh in.

And again - it's a matter of trust. As soon as the first paladin lies for a good reason - sure it'll help in the short term - but people will no longer trust paladins implicitly.

Note: Paladins who try to hold the rest of their party to their code are straight up Lawful Stupid.

The counter, at least by some in this thread, is that people DON'T trust Paladins implicitly in the first place.

I read it more as people don't recognize Paladins for what they are. Which could happen I guess. But I expect most people in civilized lands to know of the holy orders of divine warriors with their god-granted powers and their famous codes

Shadow Lodge

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Weirdo wrote:

You can't use sleeping poison even if it would save a life?

You can't tell a lie ever, or even mislead someone, even if it's the Nazis looking for Jewish children hiding in your attic? Sorry kids, we're making a heroic last stand here...

To the poison: It's a matter of trust. Paladins as a whole need people to trust them not to use poison.

To the lie: Just because they can't lie doesn't mean that they have to spill their guts. Just let the rogue do the lying and have the paladin say "I trust him with my life" if asked to weigh in.

And again - it's a matter of trust. As soon as the first paladin lies for a good reason - sure it'll help in the short term - but people will no longer trust paladins implicitly.

Note: Paladins who try to hold the rest of their party to their code are straight up Lawful Stupid.

I don't trust someone who isn't going to choose innocent life over... pretty much anything else. Think of this from the point of view not of the interrogator, but as the innocent in the attic, or the parent who has entrusted their child to this paladin.

And in this hypothetical, there is no rogue, no one else to do your lying for you. It's just you and some overwhelmingly powerful force of evil asking you directly whether you are hiding any fugitives.


Weirdo wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Weirdo wrote:

You can't use sleeping poison even if it would save a life?

You can't tell a lie ever, or even mislead someone, even if it's the Nazis looking for Jewish children hiding in your attic? Sorry kids, we're making a heroic last stand here...

To the poison: It's a matter of trust. Paladins as a whole need people to trust them not to use poison.

To the lie: Just because they can't lie doesn't mean that they have to spill their guts. Just let the rogue do the lying and have the paladin say "I trust him with my life" if asked to weigh in.

And again - it's a matter of trust. As soon as the first paladin lies for a good reason - sure it'll help in the short term - but people will no longer trust paladins implicitly.

Note: Paladins who try to hold the rest of their party to their code are straight up Lawful Stupid.

I don't trust someone who isn't going to choose innocent life over... pretty much anything else. Think of this from the point of view not of the interrogator, but as the innocent in the attic, or the parent who has entrusted their child to this paladin.

And in this hypothetical, there is no rogue, no one else to do your lying for you. It's just you and some overwhelmingly powerful force of evil asking you directly whether you are hiding any fugitives.

In the words of Gwyn of Iomedae:

"I have little to say to thee, foul creature of darkness, other than this.I fear thee not and I will flee from thee not. If thou wishes to battle me to see if I hide that which thou seek then thou may, but know this, I am Gwyn of Iomedae, Paladin of Iomedae and each villain who sought to vanquish me has failed and been sent scurrying back to the shadows "


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weirdo wrote:
And in this hypothetical, there is no rogue, no one else to do your lying for you. It's just you and some overwhelmingly powerful force of evil asking you directly whether you are hiding any fugitives.

Exactly why it's valuable to have a Paladin code that prohibits lying. Because if he ever gets into one of those contrived situations where lying is the only way to save lives, he can lie for the first time ever, and the overwhelming evil will believe him.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Weirdo wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Granted, "I have my own code of honor that I abide by strictly but have no intention of enforcing it on others" sounds like a pretty chaotic ideal to me but nobody will ever agree on what law and chaos mean.

Winner winner chicken dinner.

Arachnofiend wrote:
For Irori's Lawful Evil followers... You cannot choose how others live their life, but the path to perfection is a difficult one and so many people are intent on getting in your way. If they don't grasp the importance of your goals, then so be it.
Which sounds totally appropriate to Irori, but also by my standards NE instead of LE.

Irori represents the 'personal Dao' trope, where everyone has their own path to enlightenment...but they MUST follow it. Not following it/losing your way destroys your chance at enlightenment.

A NE person would never unfailingly adhere to their code if something easier or more profitable came along.

Which is also why Irori is LN. He believes in all roads to enlightenment, but the road of 'Daoism' is basically Lawful, a Chaotic person simply can't stay on the path.

==Aelryinth

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't consider "consistency" to be a core component of the distinction between law and chaos, though it may be a secondary effect.

My interpretation of law and chaos rests on two components: valuing collectivism vs individualism and valuing stricter vs looser structures.

A very lawful person says "Everyone should collectively follow these strict rules."

A very chaotic person says "Each person should act according to their own values or desires."

Someone who believes that "Each person should follow their own strict rules" falls somewhere in neutral territory, as would a hypothetical "Everyone should as a unified collective act according to their own values or desires" though I'm not sure how that would actually work. Maybe in a small community of very similarly-minded people with a closely-aligned set of values.

Now, you'll note that while strict rules generally result in more consistent behavior than more big-picture values or desires, someone with very strong values and desires could still act consistently without ever formalizing a rule set in a lawful way - even when living by their values isn't easy. For example, I've never formulated any strict or detailed rules for budgeting or saving money, but because I value frugality and self-sufficiency I've been consistently living well below my means for years, even though that means foregoing certain pleasures or making an extra effort to save money.

This is why I don't see chaos as being incompatible with some form of code. The code simply needs to be presented as a set of core values that include respect for individuality rather than a set of specific rules that include respect for authority and tradition. "I respect the rights of others to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" rather than "I will not lie."

Matthew Downie wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
And in this hypothetical, there is no rogue, no one else to do your lying for you. It's just you and some overwhelmingly powerful force of evil asking you directly whether you are hiding any fugitives.
Exactly why it's valuable to have a Paladin code that prohibits lying. Because if he ever gets into one of those contrived situations where lying is the only way to save lives, he can lie for the first time ever, and the overwhelming evil will believe him.

But does the overwhelming evil know that with innocents on the line, the paladin will likely break his code and lie?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Does the overwhelming evil know that trying to use the paladin's code to further Evil goes against the essence of the code and the paladin won't be penalized for lying, too?

==Aelryinth


^Overwhelming Evil laughs deep down inside, secure with the knowledge that even if this particular Paladin does not fall, the very concept of Paladinhood has begun to fall.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

It is Good that Overwhelming Evil continues to delude itself!

==Aelryinth

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Even if the paladin does fall for lying, they might still lie, placing the lives of the innocents above their own moral purity and power. So a smart villain should not be confident of a paladin's word if they know innocents are on the line.

The villain can only trust the paladin in this situation if they can be confident that a paladin would not lie even to save innocents. Which, again, leads to dead innocents. And that's either Lawful Stupid OR we have to invoke a cosmology in which the purity of the paladin's oath or soul is on some cosmic level more important than the lives of innocents. Either way, it makes it hard for innocents to trust that a paladin will do anything it takes to keep them safe.

It's a sad day when Evil can trust a paladin, and innocents can't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would doubt that the nazis wouldn't storm the building depending on the answer, so the best option for the paladin might be fighting the nazis in order to cause a distraction and give a chance of escape to the others

he would likely die but it wouldn't be a senseless sacrifice

Liberty's Edge

Why would locking up a Paladin lead to political suicide in the first place. It's not a fantasy version of modern day Earth. I wish gamers would stop tacking on modern day morality in fantasy setting where there usually is none.

The only time it might harm a npc or pc politically is if the Paladin was the leader or very well liked in the community. Even then the average person let alone the run of the mill peasant is not going to do a damn thing imo. Rise up against the king or similar figure of authority lawful or not. Then risk losing everything including ones life.

You can forget about it if the player or npc is one of the Lawful Stupid or Dirty Harry style of Paladins. not only are is no one going to do anything. They will cheer from the sidelines as the Paladin is locked up and/or sentenced to die.

It's a different thing in home games espcially ones with more political themes. Average rpg setting at the store. Sorry but no 21st century earth like legal system included.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you're the DM, make an exception but still hold him to alignment. Take the Paladin of Freedom Code of Conduct as its not mechanics specific and can be 100% ported to Pathfinder. I'm not seeing a problem here...?

Liberty's Edge

memorax wrote:

Why would locking up a Paladin lead to political suicide in the first place. It's not a fantasy version of modern day Earth. I wish gamers would stop tacking on modern day morality in fantasy setting where there usually is none.

The only time it might harm a npc or pc politically is if the Paladin was the leader or very well liked in the community. Even then the average person let alone the run of the mill peasant is not going to do a damn thing imo. Rise up against the king or similar figure of authority lawful or not. Then risk losing everything including ones life.

You can forget about it if the player or npc is one of the Lawful Stupid or Dirty Harry style of Paladins. not only are is no one going to do anything. They will cheer from the sidelines as the Paladin is locked up and/or sentenced to die.

It's a different thing in home games espcially ones with more political themes. Average rpg setting at the store. Sorry but no 21st century earth like legal system included.

Paladins do not come out of nowhere. They belong to an order and are backed by a deity. This should be taken into consideration while not being a Get out of jail free card. And what ensures this is the code

Liberty's Edge

True they don't simply come out of nowhere. But having the backing of a deity. Does not mean the average peasant is simply going to bow to their whims. Or accept their word as law. It's worse if the pc/npc acts Lawful Stupid or Dirty Harry backed by his deity. Unless their a good reason or at the very least the Paladin behaves properly. The average person is not going to risk themselves let alone care. I think people forget the average person is not going to act heroically or self sacrificing like player characters.

As unlike pcs they don't have the power, resources, let alone the bravery to do so. More often than not the laws favor those in power. Good or bad. Rather than the average person. Again Golarion is not 21st century earth. As much as players want it to be it's not. The average person in my game actually behaves like one.

Liberty's Edge

I get it, I think. But the Paladin's superiors might inquire and intervene IMO

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If you want to stick to the rules in the books, you could perhaps make things work with a paladin of a NG deity. They can sometimes (within the rules) hover right on the LG/NG border, and their codes may work better in such a party.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

Yes, Irori is an odd case. I wrote what I said above based upon his official alignment of Lawful Neutral, but from the writings on him, he seems a bit short of fully Lawful and possibly a bit above the Neutral line on the Good/Evil axis. Wonder who he has for Lawful Evil worshippers? (In contrast, for Abadar, the answer to that last question is pretty obvious, and reconciling Abadar with Good is the hard part.)

Probably not many evil worshippers. Most of those would probably be monks of the Scarlet Brotherhood mentality for those Greyhawk fans.

In the old AD+D parlance, Irori would probably be described as Lawful Neutral (with Good tendencies)


The Raven Black wrote:
I get it, I think. But the Paladin's superiors might inquire and intervene IMO

Assuming that they're aware of the Paladin's troubles and in any position to do anything about it. It's not like Pathfinder Paladins get a phone call from the local jail to let HQ know they're imprisoned, and then their superiors can hop on a jet and be there the next day. If the paladin is adventuring far afield (as adventuring paladins are known for doing) it might be months before anyone even learns he's in trouble.

Plus, while many paladins are part of some larger centralized order, it's not a baked-in requirement. Some Paladins do operate more-or-less independently.

Liberty's Edge

What I don't get is that people see Paladins as ones that can't execute people.

Oathbound Paladins can pretty much work like Judge Dread.


Yure wrote:

What I don't get is that people see Paladins as ones that can't execute people.

A lot of people view killing as evil, and so would say a paladin should avoid killing whenever humanly possible.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am of the opinion that if you are not Lawful Good you are not a Paladin. The Paladin gets his ability’s through being a paragon of faith, following a strict code for the good of mankind. You could be a holly warrior upholding the ideals of your faith but that isn’t quite the same thing.

I would recommend War Priest, or Inquisitor to be Paladin like without being a Paladin.

I love the Paladin class, but it is tricky to play. As long as the party doesn’t egregiously violate that Paladin’s code while in the presence of the Paladin they should be good. It can be a lot of fun having one character “handle” the paladin while another party member does something shady. And honestly as long as it is not way evil like torturing someone the Paladin can be flexible. I have lectured a few party members on the virtue of honesty a time or two.

As long as the conflict is kept in perspective and in game world only it should be all fine.


Rule of thumb: It's too far when you start arguing out of character.

Liberty's Edge

137ben wrote:
Yure wrote:

What I don't get is that people see Paladins as ones that can't execute people.

A lot of people view killing as evil, and so would say a paladin should avoid killing whenever humanly possible.

That's why you carry manacles.

"Surrender and face justice later. Or face justice now." Throws manacles at bad guys feet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TimrehIX wrote:

I am of the opinion that if you are not Lawful Good you are not a Paladin. The Paladin gets his ability’s through being a paragon of faith, following a strict code for the good of mankind. You could be a holly warrior upholding the ideals of your faith but that isn’t quite the same thing.

I would recommend War Priest, or Inquisitor to be Paladin like without being a Paladin.

I love the Paladin class, but it is tricky to play. As long as the party doesn’t egregiously violate that Paladin’s code while in the presence of the Paladin they should be good. It can be a lot of fun having one character “handle” the paladin while another party member does something shady. And honestly as long as it is not way evil like torturing someone the Paladin can be flexible. I have lectured a few party members on the virtue of honesty a time or two.

As long as the conflict is kept in perspective and in game world only it should be all fine.

And as long as that's Paladin: the Concept, then I agree. Regardless of what class you pick (Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Warpriest, or Paladin), if your character is supposed to be a Paladin, then that invites a higher standard and an additional level of scrutiny.

But picking "full BAB, 4/9 divine spellcasting, and not the nature-y bent that the Ranger has" is not the same thing as playing Paladin: the Concept. Picking Paladin: the Class is not me signing up for those standards or that scrutiny.

As for settling for Inquisitor or Warpriest, all the Paladin is is a divine warrior of a concept, which just happens to be Lawful Goodness. So in all fairness, if not-Paladin-the-Concept can be sufficiently expressed by the Inquisitor or the Warpriest, then so can Paladin-the-Concept and no one should get Paladin-the-class. OR, if not-Paladin-the-class is insufficient for Paladin-the Concept, then it is likewise insufficient for not-Paladin-the-Concept and they should not have to settle for Inquisitor or Warpriest. For being an icon of unflinching justice, it's ironic how fundamentally unfair the Paladin is.


In theory the Warpriest was on part born to fill the "paladin of every alignment" niche. Is a real pity that it completaly fails on doing so,on my eyes at least.
On antipaladin I find problematic that the basic idea is "fight better good". I don't think a champion of an evil deity will be so based on that. I find more creible the basic idea is "fighting better all those who oppose my deity/ideas". Evil is not a happy family. Luckily, the Insinuator archetype covers this with little problem.
Random idea/ thought; will people (on both sides of this debate) be happy to get archetypes for paladin and antipaladin to cover all alignments? There has been some little steps on that direction, but I'm talking about a clear effort to cover all posibilities. It seems like an passable happy medium between preserve the paladin status (the base anti/paladin remains the same) and having those options to everyone.


The Good/Evil distinction is far more meaningful (and defined) in Pathfinder than the Law/Chaos one. Paladins are explicitly allowed to adventure with good and neutral characters, and only with evil ones in exceptional circumstances; there is no mention of chaos here.

So there's no problem having a Paladin in the party with LN, NG, TN, CG, or CN characters, per RAW.

So the only real reason to need a Paladin of a non-lawful variety is in case your GM is requiring Paladins to be within one alignment step of the deity they worship (which is not RAW, it is a house rule, it just happens to be one PFS uses.)


PossibleCabbage wrote:

The Good/Evil distinction is far more meaningful (and defined) in Pathfinder than the Law/Chaos one. Paladins are explicitly allowed to adventure with good and neutral characters, and only with evil ones in exceptional circumstances; there is no mention of chaos here.

So there's no problem having a Paladin in the party with LN, NG, TN, CG, or CN characters, per RAW.

I don't think many people are doubting the ability to go adventuring with people of different alignment. The thing is playing yourself as one.

Dark Archive

Ultimate Intrigue has the gray paladin, which allows one to be within a step of LG.

Shadow Lodge

Alaryth wrote:
Random idea/ thought; will people (on both sides of this debate) be happy to get archetypes for paladin and antipaladin to cover all alignments? There has been some little steps on that direction, but I'm talking about a clear effort to cover all possibilities. It seems like an passable happy medium between preserve the paladin status (the base anti/paladin remains the same) and having those options to everyone.

In theory, I think this would be great. It would give more people the opportunity to create the characters they really want to play.

In practice, based on the "little steps," I think that it is unlikely any such efforts will actually produce satisfying archetypes. Paizo's design team seems to be quite attached to the Lawful Paladin model. That is, that paladins are supposed to be powerful because they are restrictive - because they provide a roleplaying challenge - and that Lawfulness is the only way to create the type of strong moral code that will provide this sort of challenge.

This evident in the fact that the Grey Paladin is essentially a paladin with fewer roleplaying restrictions and also less power.

I think this idea that LG is the "paragon" alignment is also related to the suggestion that people who want a nonlawful paladin should play a Warpriest. It's a more martial cleric, and that's what a nonlawful paladin is, right? Well, many of us want to play the paladin because it is a paragon - we just want to play a paragon of the CG alignment. Which is, as this thread illustrates, a hard thing for a lot of people to visualize.


It's funny that the Core Rulebook paladin code doesn't say you can't commit chaotic acts or you fall. You just can't commit evil acts.

Chaotic people can still follow the rest of the code and still be chaotic. Rules you live by don't make you Lawful automatically.

Silver Crusade

Azten wrote:

It's funny that the Core Rulebook paladin code doesn't say you can't commit chaotic acts or you fall. You just can't commit evil acts.

Chaotic people can still follow the rest of the code and still be chaotic. Rules you live by don't make you Lawful automatically.

Correct, a Paladin committing Chaotic acts would only "fall" if they committed enough Chaotic acts to move themselves into NG.


Chris Ballard wrote:
Ultimate Intrigue has the gray paladin, which allows one to be within a step of LG.

Gray Paladin isn't a very good archetype (and doesn't really work right for Lawful Neutral characters, since it doesn't change anti-Evil abilities to anti-Chaos and doesn't even let you take Oath Against Chaos), and it still requires worship of a deity that is within 1 step of Lawful good.


HWalsh wrote:
The counter, at least by some in this thread, is that people DON'T trust Paladins implicitly in the first place.

That actually is a meme in one of the Harper books, where a group of Paladins is getting together to form a stronghold and one character makes a comparison to an orcish horde.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Chris Ballard wrote:
Ultimate Intrigue has the gray paladin, which allows one to be within a step of LG.

Gray Paladin isn't a very good archetype (and doesn't really work right for Lawful Neutral characters, since it doesn't change anti-Evil abilities to anti-Chaos and doesn't even let you take Oath Against Chaos), and it still requires worship of a deity that is within 1 step of Lawful good.

I would argue the contrary.

The archetype is very good at depicting a paladin that learned to fall on his feet. It was never meant to be paragon of the other alignment extremes.


^As far as the rollplaying aspect is concerned, I'll give you that. Mechanically, it isn't very good.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

^As far as the rollplaying aspect is concerned, I'll give you that. Mechanically, it isn't very good.

As it should be. It is a Paladin that isn't in harmony with the power that makes a Paladin a Paladin.


^Which brings back around to the question of why Lawful Good has been declared to be the only Paladin-enabling alignment (and until recently, why Chaotic Evil was declared to be the only Antipaladin-enabling alignment -- a weird combination, which gets even weirder when you have several deities who do not correspond exactly to those alignments, but nevertheless commission Paladins or Antipaladins).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

^Which brings back around to the question of why Lawful Good has been declared to be the only Paladin-enabling alignment (and until recently, why Chaotic Evil was declared to be the only Antipaladin-enabling alignment -- a weird combination, which gets even weirder when you have several deities who do not correspond exactly to those alignments, but nevertheless commission Paladins or Antipaladins).

Paladins are not just warriors who serve a God. They are Warriors who possess a spark that is activated by 2 things:

1. A God of Good Alignment, or the Universal Good.

2. A pure heart and belief in order and justice.

Those two things hit the spark and a Paladin is created.

As to why this is? The guy who created the AD&D Paladin, Gary Gygax, decreed it so. This was carried into D&D 3.x and, since Pathfinder is built from 3.5, it is so here.

Paladins are not "just a class" they have a special place in the cosmology.

Grand Lodge

Though I do place consideration that as a player or DM I make sure it is agreed that if forced to choose between what is good and right or instead allowing a evil and injustice to be done simply because the law says so a Paladin can and should chose to stand against the evil.

Again, this goes into the detail of whether or he feels a figure of authority is legitimate. If given the choice of helping free others from a tyrant or allow the tyrant to continue his rule because the law says it is okay, I feel a paladin show be allowed to be the freedom fighter without falling as long as it is then established a more just order. Still, mattering the deity they worship this many or many not be acceptable for other reasons.

If forced to choose between being lawful and being good, a paladin should be allowed to stay on the side of good and do what is right.


Your game your rules.

In my own games 'Paladin' is just a title, anyone of any alignment can be a Bonded Hero to a God or- as is the case of the Paizo PF Paladin- an Ideal 'Justice in this case.'


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think there is value in keeping Paladin as one of the few classes where the class actually becomes a real job description in the world with its widely established lore.

Because they are so universally strictly defined holy warriors, they make sense as that. By now, there is a lot of loaded expectation to it that everyone knows instantly. Describing someone as Fighter tells the players nothing, but saying someone is a Paladin gives them right away good idea what they are dealing with. And I don't think this still limits your ability to tell any story, Paladins can still be either kind or mean, humble or arrogant and so worth in their quest.

Not only that, but there really is no NEED to detach Paladin from his flavor. There are ways to be divine warrior, get smite, etc. I don't see any gain in making any alignment paladins.

201 to 250 of 440 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Non Lawful paladin All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.