Those are mechanical changes that make the class stronger, this wouldn't make the class stronger just available to more types of character.
People aren't saying do away with codes, they're just saying let their be codes for all alignments.
I don't even think the class is even mechanically interesting or particularly want to play it, I just don't think it would hurt the game balance at all to allow it and would enable a lot of character concepts and make a lot of people happy.
Also don't think the sparks being exclusively lawful good makes any sense. At all.
Sure it would make the class stronger.
Mechanically, if you remove the Paladin restrictions on behavior... I will show you a Paladin that is WAY more effective than a proper Paladin. It'll backstab, ambush, fight dirty, toss honor right out the window, it will lie, cheat, steal... Do whatever it takes to win...
That will make the class stronger.
-----
Normal Paladin approaches a sleeping enemy, "Blaggard! Wake up I would have words with thee!"
Non-restricted Paladin approaches a sleeping enemy, "I coup de grace it."
-----
Normal Paladin wants an evil lord to step down, he storms his keep and demands it.
Non-restricted Paladin wants an evil lord to step down, let's see if he has any family we can kidnap and leverage...
-----
Normal Paladin wants to go after bandits that he knows are in a building where there are innocents? He kicks the door in and goes looking for some bandits.
Non-restricted Paladin wants to go after bandits that he knows are in a building where there are innocents? He burns the place to the ground in the middle of the night, there may be innocents but for the greater good right?
-----
The point of the Paladin's powers are so they can win when they fight fairly. You take that stuff away? Suddenly you have a supernaturally endowed warrior that has the power to win if they fight fair but *absolutely no reason* to actually do that.
Pretty sure Chaotic Good Paladins wouldn't burn down buildings with innocent people in them, or kidnap a warlord's innocent family. Coup de grace a sleeping enemy maybe, but they could already do that with a wizard in the party.
Plus, I don't see being less attached to honor as being a bad thing. Honor is a system of rules whose primary goal is making sure the powerful stay powerful and keeping the powerless oppressed. So many evil things have been done in the name of honor that honestly, a Paladin who does things for honor should fall.
Pretty sure Chaotic Good Paladins wouldn't burn down buildings with innocent people in them, or kidnap a warlord's innocent family. Coup de grace a sleeping enemy maybe, but they could already do that with a wizard in the party.Sure, maybe the CG one might not... Maybe...
However how long will it be if we let the CG one that someone gets an LE one? A CE one? A CN one? This IS the slippery slope. Once it becomes a situation of, "Well, alignments and codes are just fluff, they don't matter..."
That is one step closer to destroying the class.
Plus, I don't see being less attached to honor as being a bad thing. Honor is a system of rules whose primary goal is making sure the powerful stay powerful and keeping the powerless oppressed. So many evil things have been done in the name of honor that honestly, a Paladin who does things for honor should fall.I disagree. Any GM who would make that claim against a Paladin, when honor is part of the code, shouldn't be GM'ing for paladins. There is nothing noble, at all, in fighting dishonorably.
Those who act without honor are the people who create those rules where the powerful stay powerful. Honorable people care deeply about fairness.
Fairness for who? Honorable people care deeply about being seen as being honorable. That often means killing those who you feel have slighted you, including your own family.
Honor is all about appearances. It is all about vanity and pride. There is no goodness in honor.
*Looms ominously with a Barb/Paladin tank already statted.*
Some of us just like more options, you know.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fairness for who? Honorable people care deeply about being seen as being honorable. That often means killing those who you feel have slighted you, including your own family.
Honor is all about appearances. It is all about vanity and pride. There is no goodness in honor.
Pardon my French, but c'est des conneries!
That is a misperception of honor, would have led many to believe such as lawful stupid.
Those with real honor do not do it for vanity or for pride, they do it because they do believe in fairness and that there is such a thing as there being a right way and a wrong way of doing something. Even if it may not always seem like there is goodness and honor there definitely is, and many show both goodness as well as honor.
The honor of you speak of is that a fools, bullies, or tyrants.
Fairness for who? Honorable people care deeply about being seen as being honorable. That often means killing those who you feel have slighted you, including your own family.
Honor is all about appearances. It is all about vanity and pride. There is no goodness in honor.
Pardon my French, but c'est des conneries!
That is a misperception of honor, would have led many to believe such as lawful stupid.
Those with real honor do not do it for vanity or for pride, they do it because they do believe in fairness and that there is such a thing as there being a right way and a wrong way of doing something. Even if it may not always seem like there is goodness and honor there definitely is, and many show both goodness as well as honor.
The honor of you speak of is that a fools, bullies, or tyrants.
It's also the honor that led to Alexander Hamilton throwing his life away in a duel, as well as his son Philip. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
I do believe in goodness, but I don't believe in honor. People who do good should do so because they want to do good, not out of some outdated moral code which compels you to answer all sleights against you with bloodshed.
People still kill people today in the name of honor. It is not good and it is not right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also the honor that led to Alexander Hamilton throwing his life away in a duel, as well as his son Philip. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
I do believe in goodness, but I don't believe in honor. People who do good should do so because they want to do good, not out of some outdated moral code which compels you to answer all sleights against you with bloodshed.
People still kill people today in the name of honor. It is not good and it is not right.
Paladin's honor is about fair play rather than kill for a slight
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's just hoops to jump through, baggage to justify a restriction. There's no legitimate reason why only someone of LG alignment could have this "spark" nonsense. It's fiction, fictional rules to justify the dev's idea of what the class should be.The same could be said for any restrictions on a class. No class has a "legitimate reason" why they have those restrictions.
Why can't my Wizard use Heavy Armor and cast spells?
Why can't my Druid wear a Chainshirt?
Why can't my Good Cleric cast [Evil] spells? etc.
Every class has a set of restrictions placed on them by "fictional rules" used to "justify the dev's idea of what the class should be".
The Paladin is supposed to be Lawful Good and follow a code. That's kinda what the class is all about. Removing the Alignment and or the Code changes the entire idea behind the class. The same way changing other restrictions on classes changes them as well.
People wanted a "holy warrior" for any alignment and got the Warpriest but still aren't happy it seems. A Champion of the Faith Warpriest does exactly that. Want a CG Champion of Cayden? That totally covers it.
In my own opinion people who want the Alignment portion of Paladin removed seemingly want it gone to just use the Paladin abilities without the limitation.
To me that's the same as wanting Druids wearing Metal Armor, Wizards being spontaneous, Clerics casting arcane spells...
Well you're not wrong with your initial statement; all the restrictions in the game are arbitrary in nature in that's just how the dev wanted it to be. Most of them being for mechanical reasons but some(druids not being able to wear metal armor) for flavor reasons.
But they are, for the most part, generally speaking, consistent and to some degree balance each other. A good cleric can't cast [evil] spells but an evil cleric can't cast [good] spells either. Without taking the feats for proficiency and decreasing arcane spell failure, evil and noble wizards are both equally bereft of wearing heavy armor. And whether good or evil, lawful or chaotic, a druid can't wear metal. These restrictions may be somewhat arbitrary to fit with themes and lore and fluff, but they're logically, internally consistent.
But what doesn't make so much consistent, internal sense is why Iomedae gets clerics, warpriests, inquisitors, and paladins while Milani only gets clerics, warpriests, and inquisitors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But what doesn't make so much consistent, internal sense is why Iomedae gets clerics, warpriests, inquisitors, and paladins while Milani only gets clerics, warpriests, and inquisitors.
And neither of them can have Druids but Sarenrae and Shelyn can. And this is without bringing archetypes with further domain or alignments restrictions. Or Prestige Classes
And this is not a problem, every deity has its area of competence that only allows certain category of followers
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But what doesn't make so much consistent, internal sense is why Iomedae gets clerics, warpriests, inquisitors, and paladins while Milani only gets clerics, warpriests, and inquisitors.And neither of them can have Druids but Sarenrae and Shelyn can. And this is without bringing archetypes with further domain or alignments restrictions. Or Prestige Classes
And this is not a problem, every deity has its area of competence that only allows certain category of followers
Maybe it's just me but I don't see druids as being dedicated divine worshipers in the same way that clerics/paladins/inquisitors/warpriests are. I suppose that's a bit of willful ignorance on my part being that worship of a deity can give a druid variant spell lists but I tend to think of a druid of Shelyn/Sarenrae as being no different than a fighter of Shelyn/Sarenrae; they may worship that god but there's still a degree of separation there that a cleric/paladin/inquisitor/warpriest wouldn't have.
Might be that my issue with paladins is the lack of symmetry to the restriction. Lawful good gets paladins, chaotic evil gets anti-paladins, and lawful evil gets an anti-paladin archetype. Chaotic good gets nothing.
I mean, I was really steamed about the anti-paladin initially being CE only because it strikes me as viscerally wrong that a giant bug monster gets archetypal "black knight" servants while Asmoedeus didn't. So I'm certainly not complaining about the Tyrant's existence. But it does leave a big, chaotic good shaped hole in the world of divine warriors. Druid restrictions are, at least, symmetrical.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin class won't and hasn't been destroyed by allowing a similar chassis of abilities to exist in other alignments.
Further, many of the arguments above seem to indicate or suggest that only a paladin can or would not do something dishonorable, would not attack an enemy without warning and so on. This does discredit to the thousands and millions of players who AREN'T paladins that manage, somehow, to be Good without having the paladin class on their sheet.
If the only thing forcing you or your character to make the hard choices is the paladin code then we have more to discuss than the mechanics and flavor of the class. The code can guide RP, but if you are only doing it because you HAVE to, that you are required to, then it seems that it wouldn't seem to mean as much as those that do it because it is Right. They do it without the threat of losing any abilities, without a Divine Overwatch commanding them to.
Why does the Paladin need to be LG?
Let's get rid of that pesky alignment/code problem.
And now that I'm thinking about it...why does a Wizard need a spellbook? I think Wizards should be able to spotaneously cast arcane spells without need for a book.
Actually there's a race in B6 that if they are wizards/witches they store their spells in their mind instead of their spellbook/familiar
The paladin class won't and hasn't been destroyed by allowing a similar chassis of abilities to exist in other alignments.
Further, many of the arguments above seem to indicate or suggest that only a paladin can or would not do something dishonorable, would not attack an enemy without warning and so on. This does discredit to the thousands and millions of players who AREN'T paladins that manage, somehow, to be Good without having the paladin class on their sheet.
If the only thing forcing you or your character to make the hard choices is the paladin code then we have more to discuss than the mechanics and flavor of the class. The code can guide RP, but if you are only doing it because you HAVE to, that you are required to, then it seems that it wouldn't seem to mean as much as those that do it because it is Right. They do it without the threat of losing any abilities, without a Divine Overwatch commanding them to.
Sorry, but that's not a valid argument. Nobody says every Paladin wouldn't be good without the code.
The people who just want the powers? Who care nothing for alignment or lore? Who just want access to Divine Grace?
Yeah. Those guys would. Those guys will take advantage of every mechanical advantage that they can get.
The fact is the basis of the Paladin class is that they are good and they lose their powers if they aren't. Take that away and you take away the balance, the price of those powers.
Not everyone, perhaps not even the majority, are interested in the exact same powers that a paladin has. Rather, there are those that are interested in each alignment or ethos or even each god having their own divine warrior.
The people that aren't interested in the lore or alignment are likely to find ways to get what they want regardless.
The "fact" is that the basis of any class like the paladin is that they have a code of some kind and they lose their powers if they don't. It is balanced if and when the GM decides that the player has violated the code. Whether it is the LG code, the LN code, the NE code or whatever does not matter. The ability to follow a code or be Good are not unique to a paladin.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to point out that 5e outright eliminated alignment restrictions for all classes, paladins included, and the system hasn't imploded as a direct result nor is anyone complaining
Honestly, I hate the 5E paladin. Sacred oath isn't even a core enough concept to be at 1st level. The fact that alignment plays absolutely no role in a class that's supposed all about following a divine moral/ethical code just demonstrates how much of a cop out 5th Edition can be sometimes. They were better off just removing alignments entirely rather than keep them as a blatant feeble attempt to appeal to fans of older editions.
I love the Paladin, and have since 1988. I will not play a 5e Paladin as it's not a Paladin.I would like to point out that 5e outright eliminated alignment restrictions for all classes, paladins included, and the system hasn't imploded as a direct result nor is anyone complainingHonestly, I hate the 5E paladin. Sacred oath isn't even a core enough concept to be at 1st level. The fact that alignment plays absolutely no role in a class that's supposed all about following a divine moral/ethical code just demonstrates how much of a cop out 5th Edition can be sometimes. They were better off just removing alignments entirely rather than keep them as a blatant feeble attempt to appeal to fans of older editions.
Oath of Devotion Paladin basically is the classic early edition Paladin. Be honest, be courageous, heal with your hands, smite your enemies.
I guess you could just ban all of the other oaths in your games if you want to keep that restriction in your game world.
Oath of Vengeance can work for Ragathiel or Torag. Just be a divine executioner of evil and defend the weak and those who cannot protect themselves.
Oath of the Ancients is actually pretty good as a paladin of Shelyn or Sarenrae, defending the goodness of the living from those that would despoil it.
Basically there's not really a need to ban anything other than those evil oaths, like Oathbreaker (Which is really just a blackguard, not necessarily evil, unlike the Oath of Tyranny and...I forget the deceit one's name, but whatever).
I would like to point out that 5e outright eliminated alignment restrictions for all classes, paladins included, and the system hasn't imploded as a direct result nor is anyone complainingHonestly, I hate the 5E paladin. Sacred oath isn't even a core enough concept to be at 1st level. The fact that alignment plays absolutely no role in a class that's supposed all about following a divine moral/ethical code just demonstrates how much of a cop out 5th Edition can be sometimes. They were better off just removing alignments entirely rather than keep them as a blatant feeble attempt to appeal to fans of older editions.
But it's their archetypes. It is actually 90% of their class features. I'm not sure it could be any more core than if they wanted to maintain their archetype system the way they did. The first level is mostly to establish character, while also ensuring they're not easy enough to dip into the class and get divine smite and spellcasting without dipping two levels at the very least. Also, rangers don't get spellcasting until 2nd, so neither should paladin. It was a mechanical design choice, not an aesthetic choice.
|
|
Oath of the Ancients is actually pretty good as a paladin of Shelyn or Sarenrae, defending the goodness of the living from those that would despoil it.
Actually, for Sarenrae, I would suggest the Oath of Redemption from the Unearthed Arcana available on the WotC website.
The Oath of Redemption.
The Oath of Redemption sets a paladin on a difficult path, one that requires a holy warrior to use violence only as a last resort. Paladins who dedicate themselves to this oath believe that any person can be redeemed and that the path of benevolence and justice is one that anyone can walk. These paladins face evil creatures in the hope of turning them to the light, and the paladins slay them only when such a deed will clearly save other lives.
Paladins who follow this path are known as redeemers. While redeemers are idealists, they are no fools. Redeemers know that undead, demons, devils, and other supernatural threats can be inherently evil. Against such foes, the paladins bring the full wrath of their weapons and spells to bear. Yet the redeemers still pray that, one day, even creatures of wickedness will invite their own redemption.
Tenets of Redemption
The tenets of the Oath of Redemption hold a paladin to a high standard of peace and justice.
Peace: Violence is a weapon of last resort. Diplomacy and understanding are the paths to long-lasting peace.
Innocence: All people begin life in an innocent state, and it is their environment or the influence of dark forces that drives them to evil. By setting the proper example, and working to heal the wounds of a deeply flawed world, you can set anyone on a righteous path.
Patience: Change takes time. Those who have walked the path of the wicked must be given reminders to keep them honest and true. Once you have planted the seed of righteousness in a creature, you must work day after day to allow it to survive and then flourish.
Wisdom: Your heart and mind must stay clear, for eventually you will be forced to admit defeat. While every creature can be redeemed, some are so far along the path of evil that you have no choice but to end their lives for the greater good. Any such action must be carefully weighed and the consequences fully understood, but once you have made the decision, follow through with it knowing your path is just.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins kind of are a 20-level prestige class by design. They're very much baked into a specific theme, a much stronger one than others. It's a class where alignment and mechanics are so heavily baked together, I don't like just taping another alignment on it and saying 'go'. This is the one class where alignment restriction actually makes sense.
That said, as a general 'Paragon of this ideal' theme, I love the class, and think it could be expanded to other alignments. People can keep their much-desired charisma-to-saves and smite bonuses, as they represent the character's impeccable devotion - but some things (Mercies, auras, divine bonds, channel energy) should be switched out to better represent the alignment they represent. I did see a Paladin of Freedom homebrew that switched out mercies for short term freedom of movement spell-likes. That was a good touch.
I will say, I love the Insinuator archetype. That archetype is the paragon of ambition, and it was executed brilliantly.
Actually Charisma to Saves is the one I would *not* let people have. That is the main reason people dip Paladin and the main reason people want non-LG Paladins. That is why almost every Paladin dip is only 2 levels.
Move Charisma to Saves to like 5th level, and watch how many people don't like the class so much anymore.
As an aside, how many people actually dip in play? I don't think I've ever seen it done for an actual campaign. Theorycraft, sure, but otherwise I only really see fairly large commitments when multiclasssing. I absolutely believe people do it, but it's not something I tend to come across.
Those are mechanical changes that make the class stronger, this wouldn't make the class stronger just available to more types of character.
People aren't saying do away with codes, they're just saying let their be codes for all alignments.
I don't even think the class is even mechanically interesting or particularly want to play it, I just don't think it would hurt the game balance at all to allow it and would enable a lot of character concepts and make a lot of people happy.
Also don't think the sparks being exclusively lawful good makes any sense. At all.
Sure it would make the class stronger.
Mechanically, if you remove the Paladin restrictions on behavior... I will show you a Paladin that is WAY more effective than a proper Paladin. It'll backstab, ambush, fight dirty, toss honor right out the window, it will lie, cheat, steal... Do whatever it takes to win...
That will make the class stronger.
-----
Normal Paladin approaches a sleeping enemy, "Blaggard! Wake up I would have words with thee!"
Non-restricted Paladin approaches a sleeping enemy, "I coup de grace it."
-----
Normal Paladin wants an evil lord to step down, he storms his keep and demands it.
Non-restricted Paladin wants an evil lord to step down, let's see if he has any family we can kidnap and leverage...
-----
Normal Paladin wants to go after bandits that he knows are in a building where there are innocents? He kicks the door in and goes looking for some bandits.
Non-restricted Paladin wants to go after bandits that he knows are in a building where there are innocents? He burns the place to the ground in the middle of the night, there may be innocents but for the greater good right?
-----
The point of the Paladin's powers are so they can win when they fight fairly. You take that stuff away? Suddenly you have a supernaturally endowed warrior that has the power to win if they fight fair but *absolutely no reason* to actually do that.
Antipaladins can already do all those things, and they don't break the game, even though they recently acquired archetypes that are at least passable that can have Evil alignments other than Chaotic Evil. (Contrast that to Gray Paladin that came out recently, that mostly isn't passable.)
Why are only Lawful Good and (until recently) Chaotic Evil allowed to have d10, full BAB Holy Warriors? Warpriest (including Champion of the Faith) has its own virtue, but is not a d10, full BAB Holy Warrior.
Then again PF is nothing if not asymmetrical.
I mean, there's no Lawful barbarians or Neutral/Chaotic monks and that's before you delve into the madness of PRCs where there's all sorts of nutso asymmetry.
Such asymmetry makes perfect sense for prestige classes of the type that actually have prestige (see both types of Hellknight for examples). For base classes (including Barbarian and Monk), not so much. Paladins/Antipaladins would make more sense with the asymmetry we've been arguing about if they were prestige classes instead of base classes. Then you would have different ones for each religion, philosophy, or other zealous organization (again, taking Hellknight as the Lawful-oriented example).
There is no fiendish equivalent of Angels, where is my symmetry Paizo!?
The paladin class won't and hasn't been destroyed by allowing a similar chassis of abilities to exist in other alignments.
Further, many of the arguments above seem to indicate or suggest that only a paladin can or would not do something dishonorable, would not attack an enemy without warning and so on. This does discredit to the thousands and millions of players who AREN'T paladins that manage, somehow, to be Good without having the paladin class on their sheet.
If the only thing forcing you or your character to make the hard choices is the paladin code then we have more to discuss than the mechanics and flavor of the class. The code can guide RP, but if you are only doing it because you HAVE to, that you are required to, then it seems that it wouldn't seem to mean as much as those that do it because it is Right. They do it without the threat of losing any abilities, without a Divine Overwatch commanding them to.
Sorry, but that's not a valid argument. Nobody says every Paladin wouldn't be good without the code.
The people who just want the powers? Who care nothing for alignment or lore? Who just want access to Divine Grace?
Yeah. Those guys would.
You have yet to explain why this is not a legitimate view to hold.
The answer in crunch heavy rulesets is to release more rules, not less.
I don't know if asymmetry is a bad thing, since you would expect to run into way more LG, NG and CG characters than CE ones (evil people can thrive in politics or business without risking life and limb, after all.) Things that slot into the roles that PCs are expected to play in standard campaigns being over represented is more or less ideal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have not answered me. You went on about why you think a Paladin requires their code, and if I believed there was balance worth preserving by making Paladin and e.g. Barbarian mutually exclusive, your reasoning would have some merit. However, I inquired about taking Paladin, as is or otherwise, without an RP need. That is, the abilities granted from being a Paladin do more than other options, including the drawbacks (e.g. no ability to effectively use poison anyway).
When I have RP need of this class, it is often NG. When I do not, being LG and the code are often of no consequence. So, from my position, either you support playing the class for RP, or you feel it should remain LG. To me, they are mutually exclusive.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like LN and NG flavors of paladins are justifiable, since it basically represents a shift in priorities that is appropriate for an archetype. "Law over everything" or "Good over everything" are Paladins it is reasonable to play without reference to character sheets.
I feel like any other champion of an ideology would be better suited to be a different class. You can give them divine grace if you want, but don't call them paladins.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure it would make the class stronger.
Mechanically, if you remove the Paladin restrictions on behavior... I will show you a Paladin that is WAY more effective than a proper Paladin. It'll backstab, ambush, fight dirty, toss honor right out the window, it will lie, cheat, steal... Do whatever it takes to win...
That will make the class stronger.
so an anti paladin is way more powerful than a paladin?
you act as if their is no mechanical benefit to being a literal beacon of law or good. Thats not true.
Normal Paladin approaches a sleeping enemy, "Blaggard! Wake up I would have words with thee!"Non-restricted Paladin approaches a sleeping enemy, "I coup de grace it."
Normal Paladin wants an evil lord to step down, he storms his keep and demands it.
Non-restricted Paladin wants an evil lord to step down, let's see if he has any family we can kidnap and leverage...
I mean you're pretty much describing the situation in which paladin is the single weakest class in the game, making one more class that gets to kill people asleep won't brake anything. and again I refer to the opposed benefits paladins get for being by definition truthworthy.
pretty sure that no good aligned character is taking a random family hostage so ... yeah..
And Anti Paladins and Tyrants already exist.
Normal Paladin wants to go after bandits that he knows are in a building where there are innocents? He kicks the door in and goes looking for some bandits.Non-restricted Paladin wants to go after bandits that he knows are in a building where there are innocents? He burns the place to the ground in the middle of the night, there may be innocents but for the greater good right?
Again no good character would do that. Neutral characters are meant to avoid innocent death if possible as well. So the only people I really see doing this are evil and 2/3 of the evil alignment already get paladins.
The point of the Paladin's powers are so they can win when they fight fairly. You take that stuff away? Suddenly you have a supernaturally endowed warrior that has the power to win if they fight fair but *absolutely no reason* to actually do that.
Which would be a problem, were it not for the fact that more powerful classes already exist without those restrictions.
I'd say the trade off for being implicitly inspiring and trustworthy in exchange for being able to get a free Coup De Grace if you DM serves one to you on a silver platter is pretty fair.
Sure, maybe the CG one might not... Maybe...
However how long will it be if we let the CG one that someone gets an LE one? A CE one? A CN one? This IS the slippery slope. Once it becomes a situation of, "Well, alignments and codes are just fluff, they don't matter..."
*Cough* *Cough* Tyrants and Antipaladins exist and the class if fine
That is one step closer to destroying the class.
do you get paid by the hyperbole?
Those who act without honor are the people who create those rules where the powerful stay powerful. Honorable people care deeply about fairness.
this feels like a pretty naive, sunny side up only gonna look at one side of the coin opinion.
The people who just want the powers? Who care nothing for alignment or lore? Who just want access to Divine Grace?Yeah. Those guys would. Those guys will take advantage of every mechanical advantage that they can get.
The fact is the basis of the Paladin class is that they are good and they lose their powers if they aren't. Take that away and you take away the balance, the price of those powers.
Not only is this an incredibly shameless example of badwrongfun
but its non to even really true, if you really want to powergame Paladins aren't a particularly exciting class to dip into because their is very rarely reason to go so deep into Charisma. Bards and Oracles... maybe scaled fist monk? are the only things that really spring to mind, anyone ever done scaled fist monk/paladin? sounds like a thing
bringing in CG unlocks Desna's shooting star oracle builds with Paladin dips, but thats a problem with Desna's shooting star, not paladins of different alignments.
There is no fiendish equivalent of Angels, where is my symmetry Paizo!?
they're not really player options. Although I have always found that a little odd. I don't really get Angels.
If you don't think those codes and the alignment rules don't help keep the balance then you are simply incorrect.
Or you simply disagree with your opinion.
*snip*Let me address a few fallacies in your post (It was too long to properly quote)...
1. "Evil Already has Antipaladins!"
Sure they do. Antipaladins aren't Paladins. They have very different powers. A LOT of Antipaladin players would swap out touch of corruption for lay on hands. Which they don't get. Which makes Paladins far more generally durable and, in fact, is one of the main reasons the Paladin has an edge on the Antipaladin in single combat.
2. I addressed the argument of, "No good character would do that!" already previously. The problem is, we can't say that. We toss alignment out the window and a CG Paladin could TOTALLY do those things. One evil act doesn't an evil character make. Without the Paladin code there is no issue.
3. Inspiring and trustworthy
Read these forums. I'm very serious. There are tons of threads about trusting Paladins and the vast majority here... They don't consider Paladins inspiring or trustworthy. They consider Paladins like any other class without any special social considerations.
4. Paladins aren't dipped into...
Oh yes they are. :P One of the most popular builds is the Oradin which is an Oracle X, Paladin 2. There are also a number of recent Bardadins and Sorcadins due to interactions with the Charisma.
To preface, IMO "fallacies" gets used too often on the forums as a substitute for "I don't agree with your opinion". That said, let me touch on the points:
1. Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure there has been a poll of antipaladin players and whether or not they'd want to swap any powers and/or if the paladin has an edge on someone who can cheat (something you say the paladin cannot do.)
2. If we toss alignment out the window, then there isn't a CG paladin to talk about. Again, you are asserting that if someone isn't purely LG that they are more likely to do evil acts. Also, who says that there aren't codes for the other alignments that may preclude these actions? Again, LG doesn't have some monopoly on honor, on not wantonly killing and so on.
3. As I recall, one of your positions from the dozens of threads on paladins is that they are seen universally as paragons of truth and trustworthiness to the point that people everywhere will believe them on sight. That is certainly one idea, but not one that is supported wholeheartedly across the gaming community. To many, paladins ARE just another class without any social considerations because they are not granted any by the rules.
4. Ah, dipping and popular builds. The question is, how prevalent and how popular? Where? Here? On forums? In Kansas? Nevertheless, this is still worrying about the fringe cases rather than whether or not non-LG paladin-type characters would somehow destroy the fabric of the game.
=============
Lawful Good paladins have some abilities and for that they have a code. With that said, there is no reason that other alignments could not have codes as well for their moderate amounts of powers for their divine warriors -- whether or not they mirror exactly what the paladin gets.
There are many, many, MANY other character classes that gain far more power and have zero to minimal restrictions. The restriction for the LG paladin is a hold out from many years ago and doesn't provide nearly the balance that many may believe, in my opinion.
Many of the restrictions AND powers/abilities that are talked about on these forums are more house rule interpretations than something supported by the rules.
In short (too late!), having Divine Warriors that are similar and yet different from the paladin will not destroy the game. They have not destroyed the game. They have been around for years, from rules-legal additions/options provided by first and third party publishers.
Paizo may never support them BUT that doesn't mean that someone is wrong or a Herald of the Fall of Gaming for using them. If they are, then I call dibs on the Pale Horse!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*snip*1. "Evil Already has Antipaladins!"
Sure they do. Antipaladins aren't Paladins. They have very different powers. A LOT of Antipaladin players would swap out touch of corruption for lay on hands. Which they don't get. Which makes Paladins far more generally durable and, in fact, is one of the main reasons the Paladin has an edge on the Antipaladin in single combat.
Which doesn't change the fact that they have viable Paladin variants.
2. I addressed the argument of, "No good character would do that!" already previously. The problem is, we can't say that. We toss alignment out the window and a CG Paladin could TOTALLY do those things. One evil act doesn't an evil character make. Without the Paladin code there is no issue.
Tossing alignment does not mean completely unfettered. A CG Paladin equivalent would still certainly have a prohibition against evil (like the Holy Liberator did in 3.5). Specific gods would probably have more specific codes.
3. Inspiring and trustworthy
Read these forums. I'm very serious. There are tons of threads about trusting Paladins and the vast majority here... They don't consider Paladins inspiring or trustworthy. They consider Paladins like any other class without any special social considerations.
Which is their business. But even so, that latest thread seems to show that most people do trust Paladins, but do not feel that their word should be given special status in a court of law. Personally I think most reasonable Paladins would agree.
4. Paladins aren't dipped into...
Oh yes they are. :P One of the most popular builds is the Oradin which is an Oracle X, Paladin 2. There are also a number of recent Bardadins and Sorcadins due to interactions with the Charisma.
Even if this is the case, so what? I have yet to see how this negatively impacts you, or anyone else for that matter. I still don't really get what you're on about. Sometimes it seems like you're focused on the dilution of the Paladin from an RP perspective, then you'll suddenly shift to how it's bad that people want access to specific mechanics. You seem to also be hung up on the idea that once a Paladin isn't LG suddenly the doors are flung wide to any sort of behavior. Are you also miffed that a Paladin no longer has to perform an act of penance prescribed by a 7th level cleric if they perform a chaotic act or that they no long have to tithe?
No one is saying you can't run whatever sort of Paladin you prefer, they just want their options.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
4. Paladins aren't dipped into...Oh yes they are. :P One of the most popular builds is the Oradin which is an Oracle X, Paladin 2. There are also a number of recent Bardadins and Sorcadins due to interactions with the Charisma.
People talk about it an awful lot on the forums, but of about 36 PbPs played under PFRPG rules(*) I have followed (sometimes more than 1 PbP on the same AP), I have seen just 3 Paladin multiclasses -- 1 Oradin (not sure if that character is going to end up with anything like what people commonly post about as Oradins), 1 Paladin with a starting dip in Unbreakable Fighter, and 1 Paladin with a dip in Rogue (which was actually pretty cool -- turned out to be amazingly fitting for an Abadaran militant). So either 0 or 1 examples of somebody dipping Paladin to boost something else, and 2 or 3 examples of a Paladin dipping something else to get something they needed.
(*)Ignoring 1 5e PbP, that had no Paladins at all last time I checked.
By the way, Neutral Evil now has a Paladin archetype as well (although shared with Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil): the Insinuator -- this archetype even gets self-only Lay on Hands and self-only Mercies (named Selfish Healing and Greeds, respectively). It isn't necessarily the greatest Antipaladin archetype, but it is overall a lot more robust than Gray Paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then again PF is nothing if not asymmetrical.
I mean, there's no Lawful barbarians or Neutral/Chaotic monks and that's before you delve into the madness of PRCs where there's all sorts of nutso asymmetry.
My main argument against that remains that monks and barbarians are dedicated warriors to a specific god in the way a paladin is.
A strict and disciplined lifestyle being necessary for a monk's abilities and antithetical to a barbarian's doesn't make Aizen Myo-o, Ashava, Atonga, Bergelmir, Black Butterfly, Cayden Cailean, Cernunnos, Chadali, Chucaro, Connla, Desna, Findeladlara, Hathor, Hembad, Ibeji, Immonhiel, Itzamna, Jalaijatali, Keltheald, Ketaphys, Kofusachi, Lada, Lalaci, Maahes, Marishi, Milani, Muyingwa, Ogma, Picoperi, Pulura, Qetesh, Reymenda, Selket, Sinashakti, Skode, Skrymir, Thisamet, Tolc, Tsukuyomi, Valani, and Vikramaditya and their respective churches/cults/followings look foolish for not empowering/training warriors with the objectively useful and powerful skills that paladins possess, and actively handicapping themselves when every other corner of the alignment chart has these powerful warriors and they have nothing equivalent to them.
A paladin of Cayden Cailean or Milani strikes me as far more thematically appropriate for what the class represents than a Paladin of, for example, Kelinahat or Ghenshau(nothing against anyone playing paladins of those particular empyreal lords).
I'm not opposed to any restrictions at all; aside from the oft-cited specific codes for specific alignments, and specific codes for specific gods, I'd personally be fine with a restriction of the like of "a paladin cannot have a neutral aspect to their alignment as neutrality runs at cross purposes to a paladin's call to action" or some such hypothetical nonsense, basically making paladins the anti-druid in terms of alignment restrictions. That would, of course, mean that TN gods get screwed and we'd find ourselves here another day, but it would be something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In 2nd Ed the Paladin had a limit of 5 magic items only and every time she gained wealth a fixed % was for the church/order.
In lots of game settings Paladins don't come 'out of nowhere', mostly of the time they have a dedicated order to some aspect of their god/goddess, and they were previously trained as squires before receiving "the call".
Ah yes, and it was a resctricted class for only humans. The variant of the unholy champion also existed, but not neutral paladins, never.
Some people forget that Neutral characters are 'cheaters', they can mingle good and evil without giving a damn. They can choose whatever power suits their needs, and they are inmune/resistant to some harmful spells.
As the old school player that I am, sometimes I miss the game restrictions that came with race alone, for it was a really strong role playing meaning behind race and class, being the LG aligment part of the paladin class. I can still remember true joy when my GM gave me my first Holy Avenger.
Nowadays you can have almost every variant for every class, and with UMD even the restrictions on magic items are gone, halfling sorcerors with a Holy Avenger... horray!
*in angry old fart voice* CG elves with paladin class... the nerve!
And now that I'm thinking about it...why does a Wizard need a spellbook? I think Wizards should be able to spotaneously cast arcane spells without need for a book.
That class already exists, her own body is the 'spellbook', but I do not dare to say the source where this class comes from. Not Paizo of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me address a few fallacies in your post (It was too long to properly quote)...
no fallacies just difference of opinion.
1. "Evil Already has Antipaladins!"Sure they do. Antipaladins aren't Paladins. They have very different powers. A LOT of Antipaladin players would swap out touch of corruption for lay on hands. Which they don't get. Which makes Paladins far more generally durable and, in fact, is one of the main reasons the Paladin has an edge on the Antipaladin in single combat.
Do you have a community of Anti-Paladins telling you what they do and don't like about the Anti-Paladin? Thats nifty, or by a lot do you mean I think?
And yeah Paladin's and Antipaladin's in a fight in ridiculous slug fast because they're both supercharged against eachother thanks to smite, and since paladins have amazing saves Touch of Corruption isn't great for them, but the cruelties you can attach to it against things less likely to make their save are AMAZING.
and you've totally missed the point, they're a paladin variant, they shouldn't have the exact same abilities, I don't think people are saying CG paladins should be exactly the same as Paladins, different variant abilities same chassis is I think what people are after.
2. I addressed the argument of, "No good character would do that!" already previously. The problem is, we can't say that. We toss alignment out the window and a CG Paladin could TOTALLY do those things. One evil act doesn't an evil character make. Without the Paladin code there is no issue.
1) Tossing alignment out the windown =/= giving each alignment a Paladin variant
2) If you toss alignment out the window CG doesn't exist.3) Virtually everyone is the thread who advocates different alignment paladins has already said they also advocate codes for each alignment. Are you even bothering to read this thread or do you just sit and shake your head and yell no?
3. Inspiring and trustworthyRead these forums. I'm very serious. There are tons of threads about trusting Paladins and the vast majority here... They don't consider Paladins inspiring or trustworthy. They consider Paladins like any other class without any special social considerations.
Thats irrelevant (and inconsistent with your own views if I'm remembering your presence in other threads correctly) those people are players with their own opinions who know this lawful good beacon is being played by a flawed player.
NPCs in a DMs world do not know that and assuming they have a basic understanding of the idea of a paladin, as in have heard of them, they should find them trustworthy.
4. Paladins aren't dipped into...
didn't say that.
Oh yes they are. :P One of the most popular builds is the Oradin
literally the second Paladin dip I mentioned. Can you maybe read my posts in future?
which is an Oracle X, Paladin 2. There are also a number of recent Bardadins
the first one I mentioned.
and Sorcadins due to interactions with the Charisma.
weaker than a normal sorcerer, good saves in exchange for a whole level of spells? haha thats bad. Just take Steadfast personality and hope for the best.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That class already exists, her own body is the 'spellbook', but I do not dare to say the source where this class comes from. Not Paizo of course.
If you think that's interesting, you should see how they recharge their spells. An hour! Every day! Must be really good exercise. ;)
AND YOU THOUGHT I WOULDN'T KNOW.