|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just have a problem when people start telling me that I and everyone else has to play the game a certain way based on their internalized, idealized, romanticized, white-washed and over-simplified concepts of in the best case scenario, deeply complex and flawed fictional characters and in the worst case actual despots who committed actual atrocities.
While I've agreed with most of your points, the pedant in me has to speak up. The Arthurian Paladin ideal isn't really based on Arthur (who was very flawed) and is more based on Lancelot (who could be said to be the first fallen Paladin) and Galahad (who was literally perfect and had basically superhuman abilities because of his sinlessness and piety).
But yeah, just because someone enjoys playing a particular archetype doesn't mean everyone should be shackled to the same archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just have a problem when people start telling me that I and everyone else has to play the game a certain way based on their internalized, idealized, romanticized, white-washed and over-simplified concepts of in the best case scenario, deeply complex and flawed fictional characters and in the worst case actual despots who committed actual atrocities.While I've agreed with most of your points, the pedant in me has to speak up. The Arthurian Paladin ideal isn't really based on Arthur (who was very flawed) and is more based on Lancelot (who could be said to be the first fallen Paladin) and Galahad (who was literally perfect and had basically superhuman abilities because of his sinlessness and piety).
But yeah, just because someone enjoys playing a particular archetype doesn't mean everyone should be shackled to the same archetype.
Fair play, there.
|
I just don't see why we should be shackled to a bad idea just because someone had said bad idea before I was born.
I guess our main difference at this point stems from the fact that when reading a book (in this case: an RPG Core Rulbook) I am absolutely interested in the artistic view of the designers while I'm absolutely not interested in the view of the readership (or in this case: the players).
At the time of reading that is. And if the designers think they need to restrict the Paladin to LG, I'm totally fine with it, because I'm also totally fine with changing anything if the need arises at my own game table. Because that's my responsibility as the GM anyways.
In this case, I like the restriction personally, but I won't force my personal preference onto my players. In other cases, I don't like the restriction very much, so I might change it, if the players are ok with it. And sometimes (especially when running a homebrew) I might even add new restrictions that are not in the official rules.
All in all, restrictions like this one are storytelling tools for me. There is a reason why (generally) only lawful good paladins exist, but if you want to be an exception of that rule, that is actually a great thing because the answer to the question how this exception came to be is awesome story fodder. And even if I decide to do away with this exception, it forces me to answer the question "What instead".
On the opposite, simply to do away with restrictions in the rules because some players feel that it inhibits them from realizing some character concepts is not something that I'm comfortable with, because in my mind it puts to much emphasis on the gamistic aspects of the game and that is something I can't stand at all. YMMV, of course.
{. . .} The Arthurian Paladin ideal isn't really based on Arthur (who was very flawed) and is more based on Lancelot (who could be said to be the first fallen Paladin) and Galahad (who was literally perfect and had basically superhuman abilities because of his sinlessness and piety). {. . .}
I knew this was going to happen if we kept talking about Arthurian legend. Now I've got Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail stuck in my head again . . . .
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .} The Arthurian Paladin ideal isn't really based on Arthur (who was very flawed) and is more based on Lancelot (who could be said to be the first fallen Paladin) and Galahad (who was literally perfect and had basically superhuman abilities because of his sinlessness and piety). {. . .}I knew this was going to happen if we kept talking about Arthurian legend. Now I've got Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail stuck in my head again . . . .
"Let me face the peril!"
"No, it's too perilous."
I just don't see why we should be shackled to a bad idea just because someone had said bad idea before I was born.
That's like your opinion man.
But seriously no one is saying you can't play the way you want or that's its wrong. There are plenty of games that don't have alignment restrictions and would allow you to play how you want.
But Pathfinder does have alignment, does use restrictions, and hopefully will continue to do both. It's part of why I enjoy the game.
At least stop bashing other people's opinions...it doesn't make you look cool or whatever.
You don't like it...I get that. But that's how the game was written and you have plenty of alternatives to choose from.
Why not play 5e (which I love, other than the watered down alignments for classes)?
Or why not use the optional rules in Pathfinder Unchained to get what you want?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't see why we should be shackled to a bad idea just because someone had said bad idea before I was born.That's like your opinion man.
But seriously no one is saying you can't play the way you want or that's its wrong. There are plenty of games that don't have alignment restrictions and would allow you to play how you want.
But Pathfinder does have alignment, does use restrictions, and hopefully will continue to do both. It's part of why I enjoy the game.
At least stop bashing other people's opinions...it doesn't make you look cool or whatever.
You don't like it...I get that. But that's how the game was written and you have plenty of alternatives to choose from.
Why not play 5e (which I love, other than the watered down alignments for classes)?
Or why not use the optional rules in Pathfinder Unchained to get what you want?
Ok, took a few days off from this thread to cool down, only just now came back to see this was addressed to me.
To answer your question, my issue isn't entirely a rules one. My issue is partly - I would say, mostly - a setting one.
I take issue with the fact that the current set up, through implication, makes the forces of Chaotic Good out to be either impotent or foolish, because either they are incapable of empowering heavy armor/martial weapon proficient followers with the power to smite evil, project an aura that either buffs allies or debuffs enemies, and having a touch that either heals or harms, or they do not see the objective usefulness of having such followers.
I can play whatever I want, yes. Either by using a third party archetype, using Pathfinder's Unchained rules about removing alignment from the game, by playing either 4th or 5th edition D&D(though personally I rather dislike 5th edition, that's just me).
But that doesn't address the setting issue, which is that the official published setting, the forces of chaotic good are either stupid or impotent. And that irks me. Just like it irked me when Anti-Paladins were chaotic evil only and Asmodeus and the archdevils couldn't have anti-paladin servants even though in my opinion the archetype of this black knight figure fights with them far more than it does with, for example, Rovagug or Lamashtu.
And it irks me that as part of the established setting you have anti-paladins and evil clerics and inquisitors and war priests of Gorum and Calistria enjoying their afterlives in Elysium, the Chaotic Good plane, but their aren't any paladins there. That seems viscerally wrong to me.
There is that prestige class that is aimed at Chaotic Good Desna followers. It is not super strict to be only for Chaotic Goods, but it is out there.
Paizo could write those classes, and you can ask why they have not done it by now. Or why Paizo makes so few releases in general.
But that doesn't address the setting issue, which is that the official published setting, the forces of chaotic good are either stupid or impotent. And that irks me.
Okay. Maybe you should pay more attention then. Since Chaotic Good gods do get some special treatment in the setting. Perhaps not in the way you personally want but they still get it.
Stargazer, Ashavic Dancer, Brewkeeper, Rose Warden, and Sphere Singer to name a few.
Not to mention the plethora of stuff Desna gets that's special.
Warpriest (Champion of the Faith) of Desna. You can do some awesome stuff with that since it combines well with Desna's Shooting Star.
So Chaotic Good doesn't have a lack of options. You just don't like the options.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that doesn't address the setting issue, which is that the official published setting, the forces of chaotic good are either stupid or impotent. And that irks me.Okay. Maybe you should pay more attention then. Since Chaotic Good gods do get some special treatment in the setting. Perhaps not in the way you personally want but they still get it.
Stargazer, Ashavic Dancer, Brewkeeper, Rose Warden, and Sphere Singer to name a few.
Which would be fine if you wanted to play a prestige class bard, alchemist, rogue, or slightly different bard. Not if you wanted to play a Paladin. Also if you worship the specific gods involved.
Not to mention the plethora of stuff Desna gets that's special.
Warpriest (Champion of the Faith) of Desna. You can do some awesome stuff with that since it combines well with Desna's Shooting Star.
Which, again, would be fine if the warpriest were a Paladin. It is not.
So Chaotic Good doesn't have a lack of options. You just don't like the options.
The thing is, LG can also play rogues, bards, and alchemists. CG can't play Paladins.
The thing is, LG can also play rogues, bards, and alchemists.
Those are not the same thing as what I mentioned.
Those were all special stuff that Chaotic Good gets that Lawful Good doesn't get.
CG can't play Paladins.
CG also can't play Anti-Paladins, or Tyrants, or Druids.
LG can't play those either. It also can't use those special prestige classes.
They get different things.
CG will most likely never have a "Paladin" they will perhaps get something "Paladin-like" or have their own options that are limited to just CG.
Hell chances are if/when Pathfinder comes out with a CG "Paladin-like" class people still won't be happy since it won't be a carbon-copy of the Paladin.
I realized that Radiant Charge Gorum's Swordsmanship Smite is too awesome an opener to not have.
I do feel like it's more appropriate for the "CG specific stuff" to be something other than "a heavily armored military leader" type, just insofar as we want the mechanics of the alignments to represent what they mean.
Like the champions of Chaotic Good should be wise hermits, clever barbarians, revolutionary leaders, lone wolves, etc. Just porting the Paladin over to CG and keeping it the same (heavy armor, leader, charisma focused) just seems wrong to me.
If we are speaking of fantasies, Paladin also could be bit more interesting than it is right now. The main perpetrators are all those immunities and auras.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not going to pour through 450+ posts and 10 pages, so with that said...
Alignment-based restrictions are, overall, a terrible idea. At one time they had their place, an attempt to curb what was otherwise seen as some broken stats and mechanics when it was hard to "become" one. Paladins back in AD&D 2e and before were hard to come by because they were hard to create. You needed requirements in specific stats and you had to be human. Back then people were sometimes asked to roll in order (sometimes 4d6, drop the lowest) or sometimes 3d6 in order. So to get the required 13 in Wis, 17 in Cha, etc. was difficult. But when you did they were basically Fighters with benefits.
Jumping to 3e and Pathfinder Paladins are OK but they're about on-par with Fighters. So they lost the requirements for Humans only. They lost the requirements for their stats. Yet retain the Alignment crutch. Why? who knows? Nostalgia probably.
The funny thing is, there have been Paladins of alternate alignments going back to 1st edition Dragon magazines plus the inclusion of the anti-paladin (basically a paladin in black armor who's evil). In 3e we also got Paladins of Slaughter (CE), Tyranny (LE), AND Freedom (CG(.
There's a reason why the next couple of iterations of Dungeons and Dragons has done away with all alignment requirements, it's because they're obsolete and doesn't necessarily make for great role-playing. It forces a particular behavior and stifles creativity.
Or looking at it another way, if Alignment restrictions are a good thing then why aren't all the classes saddled with them to force their stereotype? I mean how can you possibly explain Wizards being chaotic? Doesn't the study of magical forces require some basic discipline? And if you say you can be chaotic and have discipline, then how do you explain the Monk's required Any Lawful. And what about the Ranger, why did he lose his Alignment requirement of "Good"? I mean it made just as much sense for the Ranger to be Good as it did for the Paladin to be Lawful Good. Yet now we can have evil rangers running about.
I realized that Radiant Charge Gorum's Swordsmanship Smite is too awesome an opener to not have.
And now I seem dumb because it can be done with Base Antipaladin, since
This ability is modified by any feat, spell, or effect that specifically works with the lay on hands paladin class feature. For example, the Extra Lay On Hands feat grants an antipaladin 2 additional uses of the touch of corruption class feature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like the champions of Chaotic Good should be wise hermits, clever barbarians, revolutionary leaders, lone wolves, etc.
Why can't any of those people be Lawful, besides the Barbarian with his own pointless alignment restriction?
Even revolutionaries tend to be motivated by some ideology or principle, a vision of how things ought to be, rather than simply to replace order with anarchy.|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like the champions of Chaotic Good should be wise hermits, clever barbarians, revolutionary leaders, lone wolves, etc.Why can't any of those people be Lawful, besides the Barbarian with his own pointless alignment restriction?
Even revolutionaries tend to be motivated by some ideology or principle, a vision of how things ought to be, rather than simply to replace order with anarchy.
Yeah, I don't get this whole "LG should be the dudes in big armor, CG is more sneaky/sagey/whatever." No alignment has the market on armored great sword wielding tanks.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No alignment has the market on armored great sword wielding tanks.
Well it makes as much sense as 'people that get angry' are Chaotic [barbarians], 'people that punch' [monks] are Lawful and 'people that like nature are Neutral' [druids]...
The normal arguments:
But Rage = chaotic!!! Viking fighters can rage and be any alignment.
But ki = lawful!!! Ninja's have ki and can be any alignment.
But nature = neutral!!! IMO the argument is just a sacred cow... Wildshape? Totemic Skald does that without alignment restrictions. Druid spells? Classes, like a Fey Trickster, can cast druid spells with any alignment.
Really, we need to get rid of all the alignment requirements... Well other than matching your deity, as that's the only one with any validity IMO.
Yeah, I don't get this whole "LG should be the dudes in big armor, CG is more sneaky/sagey/whatever." No alignment has the market on armored great sword wielding tanks.
How many "heavily armored great sword wielding tanks" can you find in popular culture or mythology that you would say should be considered CG? For me, I can't think of any which is why I would prefer to keep those out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many "heavily armored great sword wielding tanks" can you find in popular culture or mythology that you would say should be considered CG?
For me, I don't see any "heavily armored great sword wielding tanks" that were so narrowly defined so as to be just one alignment. I can't see pointing at any one figure and saying 'that guy is clearly LG'. For instance, depending on which legends you read, you can make a case for king arthur being chaotic, lawful, good and evil...
For instance, in one the leader of a band of superhuman heroes who live in the wilds of the landscape. in another, he launches assaults on Otherworldly fortresses in search of treasure and frees their prisoners. In yet another, his warband in the earliest sources includes former pagan gods, and his wife and his possessions are clearly Otherworldly in origin.
So in some he's got more of a 'robin hood' feel [cg]. In some, he is a great and ferocious warrior, who laughs as he personally slaughters witches and giants and takes a leading role in all military campaigns [leaning towards n or e]. In some he's the "do-nothing king", whose "inactivity and acquiescence constituted a central flaw in his otherwise ideal society"[n].
No single figure of "popular culture or mythology" that's the least bit complex is easily summed up by a simple alignment...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like a Robin Hood who runs around in the forest in Plate Mail is absurd. Plate Mail is the sort of thing historically that requires you to be pretty darn rich, which is not the sort of thing that people out of the system can afford (even if they had access to someone who could make it to.) Plus, if you're the sort of person who apt to run afoul of the authorities (who outnumber you) you're going to need to be able to run away, something that "super heavy armor" actively prevents you from doing...
I think the mutability of any given character through an alignment lens shows something else though. If a player came to the table with a fully formed idea for a CG character in a class that does not allow CG, I would wonder why the same character could not be portrayed with a different alignment? There is, in my experience, no practical difference between NG and CG after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the mutability of any given character through an alignment lens shows something else though. If a player came to the table with a fully formed idea for a CG character in a class that does not allow CG, I would wonder why the same character could not be portrayed with a different alignment? There is, in my experience, no practical difference between NG and CG after all.
Exactly! No reason a cg character can't pretend they are lg and play a paladin! There should be no "practical difference" between Lg and ng and as you've said there is little "practical difference" between ng and cg...
Sound right? It makes AS much sense as playing something else and pretending to be a paladin...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't get this whole "LG should be the dudes in big armor, CG is more sneaky/sagey/whatever." No alignment has the market on armored great sword wielding tanks.How many "heavily armored great sword wielding tanks" can you find in popular culture or mythology that you would say should be considered CG? For me, I can't think of any which is why I would prefer to keep those out.
Boranel of Breland, Logan Grimnar (that's more armor and chainsword, but still fits), Gerrard Capashen (in his early appearances he's more a swashbuckler, doublet and rapier type, but when he goes to Phyrexia he's in full plate and carrying a big-ass sword), Tirion Fordring (starts as an LG Paladin, gets kicked out for going rogue, still channels the Light despite going chaotic), Tassadar, the Brotherhood Without Banners (though they do eventually drift toward more neutral/evil stuff as the war drags on and they start following Stoneheart) to name a few. It's kinda difficult because trying to apply D&D/PF alignments to people outside of the game is difficult. Reasonable arguments can be made that various characters could be either lawful or chaotic depending on your point of view.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heavy vs Light armor dictiomony does not really feel right after some considering. Gorumites exists to stomp around in as much steel wrapped around their bodies as possible after all. Armor is just matter of time and place. Chaotic Good holy warrior ought to be more attack-oriented than lawful good holy warrior. Chaos is inherently tied to activism over the lawful passive systems.
Paladin is a wall. Liberator would be a hammer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright so I've said this before and I'll probably say it again because it is entirely reasonable that someone wouldn't want to read through this entire thread at this point; I'm not counting prestige classes for the purposes of this discussion. Prestige classes are a different animal from what we're talking about.
Anyway. There are currently ten divine spellcasting classes. Antipaladin, cleric, druid, inquisitor, hunter, oracle, paladin, ranger, shaman, and warpriest. Eleven if you want to count the zealot vigilante archetype.
Of those ten, druids, hunters, and rangers get their powers "from nature", shaman get their powers through communion with spirits, and oracles get their powers imposed on them by the gods without their knowledge and consent.
Clerics, inquisitors, and warpriests get their powers through communion with and dedication to a specific deity, in service of that deity's cause, ideology, and faith on the mortal plane, and loses their power if they violate and/or stray too far from their deity's teachings.
The paladin/antipaladin either gets their power the same way as clerics/inquisitors/warpriests, or they get their powers by not being chaotic good, chaotic neutral, or true neutral, given that there are paladin/antipaladin archetypes that cover NG, LN, and all the evil alignments.
You want to say that there's something about a monk's abilities that it requires a level of discipline and dedication that is to such an extreme that it can only be held by an individual with a lawful alignment, okay, fine, I can accept that. You want to say that there is something inherent to a barbarian's rage that it is incompatible with a lawful alignment, alright, that follows. You want to say that a druid's connection to nature demands a level of neutrality because nature is an inherently neutral force, yeah, I see what you're saying.
I may or may not agree with all of these alignment restrictions, but I can see and understand the reasoning and the logic behind them. What I cannot see and understand is why, apparently, TN, CN, and CG are the only alignments incompatible with being able to smite.
Now, I get that most people who are arguing against a type of CG paladin are against the archetypes that cover all the other alignments to start with. In some cases, up to and including the existence of the antipaladin to start with. And if I'm being perfectly fair and honest, I'd say that I can understand the internal logic behind keeping paladins LG only - saying that only that extreme combination of dedication and virtue can bring about those powers makes a type of sense.
I still vehemently disagree with it, I would still argue strenuously against it, I still find it to be ultimately arbitrary, and I still disagree categorically with the notion that restricting the paladin to that one alignment makes it better or more special in any way. But I can at least see where they're coming from.
But the line has moved. Between the variants of paladins dating back to the earliest editions of the game, to the removal of the alignment restrictions from 4th and 5th edition, to the existence of the gray paladin, the antipaladin, the insinuator and the tyrant in Pathfinder, we are so far beyond the point of LG only in print that arguing that the line moves this far and no further is utterly nonsensical to me. The sacred cow is out of the barn. What are you defending at this point?
Equally utterly nonsensical as this notion of taking away the heavy armor proficiency from a hypothetical chaotic good paladiod. I can play a CG Fighter/Cavalier/Warpriest/Armored Hulk Barbarian, but god forbid they have the ability to smite. All because you can't think of a heavily armored martial character that you'd consider CG?
Look, I get it, some people - a lot of people - want to play characters that are inspired by fiction that they like, whether to the point of straight up playing that actual character at the table, to playing a name-changed clone of that character, to simply using that character as a jumping off pad for their own creation. And I say that without judgment - I've done and do a lot of that myself.
But I don't want that governing the game. I want to be equally able to make wholly original characters - insofar as that's really possible in this day and age - as I am able to make characters in the likeness of fiction that I'm a fan of. Whether or not you or anyone recognizes it as something similar to popular or obscure fiction.
I actually have this problem with several other classes in that I think they're a little too married to one person's idea of what the class should be. Alchemists to start were a little too madscience pulp; witches are a little too fairy tale. I think the weapon restrictions on magus and swashbuckler are a little strict - I don't see why I need two separate feats to make a swashbuckling pirate who uses a damn cutlass.
Yeah, I get it, some/most/all of these are made to invoke certain specific archetypes from literature and folklore. And I'm ultimatley not arguing that they be completely divorced from those archetypes to the point of becoming utterly uncrecognizable. But I think there are certain creative nooses that need to be loosened.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering the only thing mechanically lawful about the paladin is the class's code, it would be easy to open it to "any good" and replace the code with the cleric restriction:
A paladin who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with martial weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a paladin of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).
Done.
Likewise, the anti-paladin could be opened to "any evil" with the same code of conduct.
I think the thing that is worth bearing in mind is that no matter what we think, that has little bearing on what Paizo is going to do. If they print a Paladin archetype that can be CG, it's because enough people on staff wanted to do it; if they don't, it's because there weren't. It's not as though Paladin archetypes are that popular anyway (the base class is so strong most are downgrades), so it wouldn't be surprising if this never happens.
If you want to create one, or make an exception for a home game, then go right ahead, no one will stop you.
But that aside my personal preference for the future of the Paladin class is:
1) Drop alignment from the game entirely, but require the Paladin to be nonetheless a disciplined and virtuous warrior who is bound by a code.
2) Keep Paladins LG.
If we're talking about "Holy Warriors for all the alignments" I would honestly prefer there be more varieties than just "Paladin Variants." A class for every alignment extreme whose mechanics reflect that alignment would be great. Personally I abhor the antipaladin and have deleted its existence entirely from my setting because of how silly I think the whole thing is, but an "evil knight" divorced from "Paladin" would be fine. It just doesn't make sense to me that the greatest champions of every alignment would be heavily armed charismatic advocates.
But printing a CG Paladin archetype/option is unnecessary since it's zero work to make Paladins playable as CG, if you want, and people on both sides of this issue are going to know immediately whether or not they'll allow it right away. Printing an official one just forces PFS to confront the issue (and they don't allow the Virtuous Bravo, so it probably won't fly.)
the evil market has plenty of heavy armor wearing great sword wielding tanks
General Kael, the skull-helmed warrior in Willow movie was a great depiction of a heavy armor wearing great sword tank of Evilness
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Printing an official one just forces PFS to confront the issue (and they don't allow the Virtuous Bravo, so it probably won't fly.)
Why is this an issue? PFS disallows stuff all the time so that's not a reason to NOT make it. For instance, they have a no drow policy... They still make things involving drow [see armor and weapons in armory 2 book]. PFS has a no crafting policy: the new armory book included feats for crafting. Knowing PFS isn't going to like it isn't any reason for something to not be made and clearly isn't the current thinking.
If you want to create one, or make an exception for a home game, then go right ahead, no one will stop you.
I play online with an ever changing set of DM's. I don't have the luxury of being able to make up a class for play and having to ask for exceptions just slows down the process of joining [or may turn people off]. 'you can house rule it' isn't a cure all to fix anything that comes up. And the reverse can be said too: if paladin becomes any good, nothing would stop you from playing a LG paladin or making an exception to restrict the alignment you prefer.
I play online with an ever changing set of DM's. I don't have the luxury of being able to make up a class for play and having to ask for exceptions just slows down the process of joining [or may turn people off]. 'you can house rule it' isn't a cure all to fix anything that comes up. And the reverse can be said too: if paladin becomes any good, nothing would stop you from playing a LG paladin or making an exception to restrict the alignment you prefer.
I feel like that this is a polarizing enough issue as is (c.f. this thread) that even if Paizo were to publish a "CG Paladin" type, that a lot of people (even online GMs) are going to house rule against it right off the bat.
So there's no real difference between "Asking the GM if you can play a CG paladin" and "the GM says 'no CG Paladins'" and one of those two things requires column inches and effort and the other doesn't.
Like, there's nothing about online campaigns that preclude talking to the GM or the GM having house rules, is there?
I simply feel that, barring a PF 2.0 (that I personally hope happens) that the discussion about alternative Paladins or loosening Paladin requirements is best suited for house rules. It's not something Paizo really ought to be spending time on.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sighs, for those DM that would be willing to consider CG Paladins, why not simply pick an alternate class like the Anti-Paladin? Again, the consideration of a CG Liberator.
You have a heavily armour holy warrior who can smite good, has divine grace, offers lay of hands, and the majority of the rest of Paladin abilities but not exactly the same. Though with somewhat different flavor, as I feel is only appropriate.
The differences being in class skills, spell list, divine bond, aura of justice, and an alternate code of conduct.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So there's no real difference between "Asking the GM if you can play a CG paladin" and "the GM says 'no CG Paladins'" and one of those two things requires column inches and effort and the other doesn't.
You're wrong here: there is a HUGE difference. The requirements are normally 'official rule listed on an online site'. That means I always seeking permission your way but my way a DM list an exception and I don't have to ask. My way problem free and yours is always a hassle...
Like, there's nothing about online campaigns that preclude talking to the GM or the GM having house rules, is there?
No but some just don't want to bother and want it online for reference and even if they are open to it that just means multiple messages back and forth JUST to get to the starting point of making a character which can already take quiter a bit of time and effort with back and forth messages. So again, if you have a home game it's super easy for you to just say 'paladins are only lg here' while I have a bunch of hoops to jump through to play a cg paladin house-ruled each and every time the dm changed... It's pretty clear which is easier and which is harder.
I simply feel that, barring a PF 2.0 (that I personally hope happens) that the discussion about alternative Paladins or loosening Paladin requirements is best suited for house rules. It's not something Paizo really ought to be spending time on.
It's as relevant as any other supplement/addition to the game. I don't see why THIS is off limits. We got a trait for non-lawful monks and a trait to treat asmodeus as a ln god so I'm REALLY not seeing the issue with a non-lg paladin... I mean is it THAT much of a sacred cow?
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like that this is a polarizing enough issue as is (c.f. this thread) that even if Paizo were to publish a "CG Paladin" type, that a lot of people (even online GMs) are going to house rule against it right off the bat.
So there's no real difference between "Asking the GM if you can play a CG paladin" and "the GM says 'no CG Paladins'" and one of those two things requires column inches and effort and the other doesn't.
This highly underestimates how much stock some people put in the official rules. There have been a number of times where a DM refuses to give on something they don't like, but does when there is official support. The one that most readily jumps to mind (which, appropriately, deals with arbitrary class restrictions) is when I wanted to make a multi class monk/Paladin in 3.5. DM was firmly against it, was (for whatever reason) a huge proponent of the "no multiclassing for monk or Paladin thing. Then Ascetic Knight comes around, suddenly he'll accept it now that WotC gave an official method of doing so. I've seen this happen in a multitude of ways over the years. A DM is a lot more likely to allow something they don't personally care for that has official support than they are to house rule in something they don't personally like.
|
I've got it on good authority that a:
Paladin of Cayden
=
Alignment: A gray paladin can be lawful good, lawful neutral, or neutral good, though she must still follow a lawful good, neutral good, or lawful neutral deity.
+
In the decades that followed, Taldor’s fortunes declined, yet word of Kurgess’s luck, skill, and bravery spread. People took to calling upon his memory for luck and favor during competitions, and it’s said that Cayden Cailean and Desna themselves raised him to godhood for his deeds.
=
Paladin of Kurgess
;)
:P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanics that a Champion of the Faith Warpriest lacks which, *thematically*, a holy champion of Cayden Cailean should have:
* Full BAB: I am a dedicated swashbuckling hero who's raison d'etre is to kick evil in the teeth.
* Divine Grace: I worship and emulate a God known as the *Lucky* Drunk, embodying sheer heroic audacity, who survived unspecified but mythically daunting challenges to become a god while blitzed out of his mind--surely, CHA to saves makes *more* sense for such than an exemplar of, say, Torag who seems like he would expect you to get by on your own hard work?
* Aura of Courage: Cayden Cailean is, in fact, Golarion's God of Bravery.
* Aura of Resolve and Aura of Righteousness--Chaotic Good is defined by it's individualistic ideals and a resistance to being ruled. These abilities that foil charms and compulsions in fact *originated* on a Chaotic Good Paladin variant published by Dragon for 3.5.
* Aura of Justice--I suppose I'm less attached to this one than the others, but this would be a very suitable ability for leading a peasant uprising against a dictator, giving the average citizen a powerful weapon against their oppressive forces, and I would hope if this was traded out, the variant would be similarly useful in such a situation.
I'm still not convinced that you can't have a Lawful Good Paladin of Cayden. The "one step between you and your deity" is a rule for Clerics (also Warpriest, Inquisitors, etc.) it is curiously absent in the rules for Paladins.
There's nothing weirder about an LG Paladin who worships Cayden than an LG Wizard who worships Nethys.
|
|
Mechanics that a Champion of the Faith Warpriest lacks which, *thematically*, a holy champion of Cayden Cailean should have:
* Full BAB
* Divine Grace
* Aura of Courage
* Aura of Resolve and Aura of Righteousness
* Aura of Justice -- I suppose I'm less attached to this one than the others.
Again, I provided a link above that allows for all that... except replacing the Aura of Justice with the Aura of Freedom, which surely could be argued is even more appropriate right?
I'm still not convinced that you can't have a Lawful Good Paladin of Cayden. The "one step between you and your deity" is a rule for Clerics (also Warpriest, Inquisitors, etc.) it is curiously absent in the rules for Paladins.
There's nothing weirder about an LG Paladin who worships Cayden than an LG Wizard who worships Nethys.
With the trait that allows you to treat Asmodeus as a LN god, it should be technically possible to be a paladin of his. You can even match his alignment exactly with the trait as a grey paladin. ;)
Pact Servant [Distant Shores pg. 23], Basic (Faith) trait:
Divine casters may treat Asmodeus as if he were a lawful neutral deity for the purposes of determining their alignment.
PS: I paraphrased the trait, as it's wordy for no reason. :P
I mean, I'm not against a Paladin of Rovagug (in the style of the Appeaser cleric archetype) personally.
That is to say, evil is powerful, and the Paladin is the person who can be best trusted to put the power of evil to good ends, and that evil must be kept contained, and who is better to contain the evil than the Paladin. It's a dark, and difficult path, but it would be an interesting challenge for an LG character to walk it.
Personally, I'd be happier to drop the alignments of all the deities (which is a thing I did in my game) than to drop the LG requirement on Paladins. "Beyond Morality" is a mythic power (hence accessible to deities) after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a trait for a specific heretical faith of Asmodeus from a specific land, it's not for every worshippers of Asmodeus, just that small cult from Holomog. And it's "wordy" cause of flavor.
And the author of the trait says it completely goes against the trait for a Paladin to take it and was never intended to do so.
So paladins aren't divine spellcasters...? Because that is the only prerequisite for the trait to work.
As to Holomog... It is...? *rereads trait* Nope! no prerequisite to be from there. I could come from the plane of fire and pick up the trait.
If the author wanted the trait to do something else or to be restricted, he could have done so as he could have easily cut down on the other wording. For instance, there is NO reason to list specific classes when you end it with divine caster [wasted word count]. Heck, it's a basic faith trait so it's NOT limited to worshipers of anyone: a worshiper of Cayden could pick it up.
So to sum up, you can't point to things outside of the actual text/rules to override what's written. Nothing in the trait excludes paladins, requires you be from an obscure place or even requires you worship Asmodeus... If that's not what was intended, it SURE isn't indicated in the trait itself. Do I need to research every feat/trait/ect to see if there is some hidden rules that prevents it from working the way it's worded? Do I add prerequisites to rules/feats/trait because of some fluff someone dug up on the internet that isn't referenced AT ALL in the actual wording? For me, that's a big NO.
As to the authors comment/reasonings... I don't agree. He wouldn't empower people to fight evil? He has a LOT of evil enemies/rivals for a sect of paladins to fight and he'd enjoy the sweet irony of both sides getting used by him as he points his followers in the right direction. I see no issues to stop it and it works perfectly WITHIN the current setting. Just because HE never intends to add a paladin of Asmodeus in a setting book doesn't mean he didn't add support for it in the official rules. Some people just lose their minds when talk comes up of a non-LG paladin for some reason.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pact Servant
Source Distant Shores pg. 23
Category Basic (Faith)
The faith of Holomog focuses on finding the good in unusual places and appreciating the nuances of virtue in the world. You may treat Asmodeus as if he were a lawful neutral deity for the purposes of determining your own alignment as a cleric, inquisitor, or other divine spellcaster. You may not select the evil domain unless your own alignment also contains an evil aspect.
------------------------
Also, if the creator of the trait says that it was not intended to be comatible with a paladin that essentially means that it's been FAQed so arguing for allowing it is kind of stupid.
Seriously, it does go completely against the concept of a paladin to have them worshiping the deity that is essentially the epitome of the lawful evil Devil/Satan that you should avoid making contracts or deals with.
|
|
Do I need to research every feat/trait/ect to see if there is some hidden rules that prevents it from working the way it's worded?
Doesn't hurt, as the rules aren't hidden, they just aren't all put up on d20.
The most obvious one I can think of is if you go solely off of d20 you wouldn't know you have to be wearing a specific type of armor when using armor style feats as that rule is in the preface for the armor style feats section in Armor Master's Handbook, rather than in each individual Feat.
|
|
"The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not necessarily the intent of those who wrote the law."
I have no respect for those who try to argue the use of RAW instead of RAI in trying to justify something that should be obviously be stupid and not intended. Especially when the author of said rules clarifies that such was not intended.
... Admittedly that is exactly the sort of thing a follower of Asmodeus would do, especially when it's to their advatage and they think they can get away with it. Loophole abuse, to get what you want, all by arguing rules as written instead of how they're intended to be used.
|
|
If you already disregard the author, the developers, and any FAQ and Errata that disagrees with you then I don't really see what issue you might have doing your own thing.
(Tangent, I never understood this FAQs "aren't errata no matter how much the devs might think so" stance people take. They're the devs, they make the rules. Telling a dev they can't make or change rules is kinda odd. When they post FAQs they are confirmation for those who have been running that ruling that way, and it's errata for those who haven't.)