|
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!
I thought it was 10 magic items? I also seem to remember them only being able to own a limited amount of mundane equipment too. Kinda VoP-lite
But, yeah, Pally has undergone a number of changes.
|
didn't you also level up dwarf and elf as a class instead of it being your race? so you would have a fighter, a cleric, a dwarf, an elf and a wizard in a party
That was more in Basic and AD&D 1e, in AD&D 2e races likes elves, dwarves, and halflings could actually take a class... just with restrictions. Not only in which classes they could take but how high of level, such as only being able to reach 12th level in a class. Which one can argue wasn't as much an issue as one might think since DMs were advised not to take a party that far past 10th level, that they would be settling down with a castle, keep, or tower and maybe have a family.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, there are some inaccurate statements being posted in this thread.
First, original DnD only had Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. Good and Evil did not exist in the game yet.
Second, Paladins were Lawful and a subclass of fighter. Avengers were Chaotic and added later. All alignments had their special champions in basic dnd.
Third, the very first DnD paladin was played by Gary's close friend ( Don Kaye) was a cowboy who used magical six shooters (special wands). Bonus, if you can identify the character. The character lived by a specific code.
The concepts of Law and Chaos presented by Moorcock and Anderson were pretty important in the formation of the game. While I struggled to get through Anderson's work, I really enjoyed Moorcock's work. You can clearly see their influence on the game.
What are your thoughts on this?
RicMTheGM
I'm fairly casual with alignment in my game anyway, so this is rarely a problem. That and I have a lot of players who prefer lawful characters.
Actually, at my table, the more useful rule has been for LN and LE "Paladins".
It is actually really easy to just refluf Paladin into a Hellknight base class.
Make it Smite Chaos (instead of Smite evil), keep the code, and make the alignment restriction any Lawful.
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?
In fairness to HWalsh, though I don't recall having said so specifically in this thread, I have advocated and still do advocate for the Paladin class (or Paladin class replacement, where said replacement retains Full BAB and 4/9 divine not-nature-y spellcasting) to be entirely alignment independent AND not contingent on a code of conduct. Though yes, in fairness to you, you did say "virtually everyone", too.
Why? Because when I'm going to the game on Saturday afternoon, I'm doing so to get away from the stresses of the week, not to have them added to. I don't need a Sword of Damocles looming over me just because I committed the grievous crime of picking "Full BAB 4/9 not-nature-y divine spellcasting class" (aka the Paladin) as the vehicle to express my character's abilities. I haven't hit enough deer with my car or kicked enough puppies to deserve that stress. The key component of that stress is the knuckling under that Paladin players have to do to keep their shiny Paladin class features, even if the fluff that dictates said knuckling under has nothing to do with why the Paladin player is using the Paladin class for his character.
Nixing the alignment requirement is a step in the right direction, but ultimately, all that does is reduce the number of things that have to be knuckled under to and does nothing to address the true problem, the knuckling under.
That facet makes everything else about the Paladin and the "Holy Warrior" concept they're supposed to represent to be fruit of the tainted tree. To put it in Klingon terms, "batlhHa' vangIu'taHvIS quv chavbe'lu'", or "One does not achieve honor while acting dishonorably." That "requirement" aspect makes a mockery of the beacon of good and hope that the Paladin class allegedly is supposed to be representing. Especially when other characters of other classes have class abilities just as good (differently good, and better in certain situations and worse in others, but the same level of oomph) as the Paladin's, are capable of deeds just as righteous, and don't need a carrot or a stick to make them behave.
If you want to talk about "Here's the Paladin tenets for each and every deity (LG, CG, N, LE, CE, and all the rest), and if you just want a Paladin empowered by just the cosmic forces, here are the codes of conduct for each alignment. IF you CHOOSE to have your character with the "Full BAB 4/9 not-nature-y divine spellcasting class" (aka the Paladin) behave in accordance with those tenets, then have at it. If not, then still enjoy yourself," then we're good for OPTIONAL codes for each alignment. But in good conscience, I must vehemently object to required codes for each alignment. All that is is a test of how well one player can game his fellows or manipulate the system to avoid getting nerfed.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Full BAB 4/9 not-nature-y divine spellcasting class (aka the Paladin)
Okay, I'm sorry but I take issue with this. That isn't what the paladin is all about, it isn't just a collection of abilities or stats, as it devalues the class when it comes to roleplaying and the way I look at it a player shouldn't be considering a class only because of mechanics but more the fluff and concept itself being a part of each class.
Hell, if that is all which mattered to a player I would consider an alternate class or even suggest they find another table or campaign. I am very disapproving of roleplayers not considering or caring of the setting, lore, and fluff but just wanting a set of useful class features. Seriously, how you kept going on about "Full BAB 4/9 not-nature-y divine spellcasting class (aka the Paladin)" was far to much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not in full agreement with Tectorman but I do agree with them on that; all a paladin is is full bab, proficient in heavy armor/martial weapons, smite, (de)buffing aura, lay on hands, 4/9 casting divine magic.
Now, I don't rp a paladin like that. I rp paladins as devoted, holy warriors of their gods, dedicated to the principles and ethics that their faith represents.
I don't have a problem with LG paladins. I would be no more or less inclined to play a CG paladin than an LG paladin. Most of my favorite characters have been LG. I just do not see a valid reason why CG deities don't have divine servants that have full bab, are proficient with heavy armor/martial weapons, smite, have a buffing aura, can lay on hands, and have 4/9 divine spell casting.
Especially when several of those deities are just as if not far more thematically appropriate for a holy warrior/knight in shining armor archetype style divine servant than several LG deities.
|
|
I am currently roleplaying as a Oathbound Paladin of the People's Council plus another archetype, with a Diplomacy of 20 at only 5th level, who is a worshiper of the goddess Sarenrae. I don't believe there is anything in the rules that says the deity has to be LG, or at least not from what I can remember.
There does seem to be an unwritten rule that a paladin also subscribes to the "within one step" rule that clerics do, only with the restriction working backwards from the paladin's required alignment; i.e., paladin codes only exist for LG, NG, and one or two LN deities. Anti-Paladin codes only exist for CE, NE, and a couple of CN deities. Though they may have done some LE code write ups to account for the Tyrant that I'm unaware of.
Point being that there does seem to be a logical inconsistency in the idea of a paladin at once being restricted to LG while still being devoted to the service of a CG deity; they are at once both more and less restricted than clerics of those deities.
Full BAB 4/9 not-nature-y divine spellcasting class (aka the Paladin)Okay, I'm sorry but I take issue with this. That isn't what the paladin is all about, it isn't just a collection of abilities or stats, as it devalues the class when it comes to roleplaying and the way I look at it a player shouldn't be considering a class only because of mechanics but more the fluff and concept itself being a part of each class.
Hell, if that is all which mattered to a player I would consider an alternate class or even suggest they find another table or campaign. I am very disapproving of roleplayers not considering or caring of the setting, lore, and fluff but just wanting a set of useful class features. Seriously, how you kept going on about "Full BAB 4/9 not-nature-y divine spellcasting class (aka the Paladin)" was far to much.
I'm of the opinion that classes lack any meaning in and of themselves. They are vessels to help players tell stories about the characters that they create. The class description does provide suggested stories to help players define said characters, but they shouldn't be limited to just those stories that the game developers think of.
That's why I get kind of confused when people suggest playing the warpriest. Why should I use a terrible knockoff cleric to portray my badass knight errant fighting for good?
Regarding the "Full BAB, 4/9 caster" thing, how many class features from the Paladin would we have to give a Ranger or Bloodrager archetype before people who want "paladins of any alignment" be satisfied?
Would "use the Paladin spell list", "Heavy Armor Prof" and "Divine Bond" be enough?
|
|
I mean it if was only certain class features or spells list, other small details like that, I would offer my players the 101 Simple Archetype which allows for a fair number of variants if you want somethings slight different.
Regarding the "Full BAB, 4/9 caster" thing, how many class features from the Paladin would we have to give a Ranger or Bloodrager archetype before people who want "paladins of any alignment" be satisfied?
Would "use the Paladin spell list", "Heavy Armor Prof" and "Divine Bond" be enough?
Also need Aura of {Insert_Alignment}, Detect {Insert_Opposed_Alignment}, Smite {Insert_Opposed_Alignment}, some equivalent of Lay On Hands, some equivalent of Divine Grace, some equivalent of Aura of Courage, some equivalent of Divine Health, some equivalent of Mercy, some equivalent of Channel Energy, some equivalents of Aura of {Resolve|Justice|Faith|Righteousness}, and Holy Champion. The equivalents do not have to be the same things, but things that would be considered reasonable trades in an archetype or alternate class, changed to suit the theme of the new archetype or alternate class (or prestige class archetype or alternate prestige class, if I really got to receive my preferences). Antipaladin got these substitutions right, even though the Tyrant archetype forgot to tweak the spell list and certain abilities to match the shift from Chaotic to Lawful.
|
|
So again, a player wanting all the class features and goodies of being a Paladin but not actually being willing to commit to the required alignment and code of conduct? Yah, not really liking the sound of that.
Sighs, I have offered by suggestions on how to do that, counting the Divine Exemplar, but I still feel some sort of code is require even if the alignment is something other then LG.
^Code of Conduct is still okay to have for other alignments, although possibly under another name, and even if called Code of Conduct, it will look different, to suit the other alignment/faith/philosophy.
* * * * * * * *
And for the record, I would like to see Lawful Barbarians and non-Lawful Monks. In particular, with respect to the former, I'd like to see a Hellknight Shock Trooper archetype, most often made by Hellknights capturing some other type of Barbarian and retraining them into paragons of Order's Wrath (not so coincidentally made by application of the spell of the same name)(*). With respect to the latter, we have Martial Artist and Aasimars with the Enlightened Warrior trait, but that's an awfully limited set (and I hate how the latter eats a trait). I remember how in 1st Edition AD&D, even though Monks had the Lawful-only restriction, Githzerai somehow got Monks even though they were Chaotic Neutral. Weird, but I think a good story might be hidden somewhere in there . . . .
(*)And I just stumbled upon the new Geminate Invoker that can be Lawful Neutral, but still has the weird restriction that it must have a Neutral component, like a Druid.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So again, a player wanting all the class features and goodies of being a Paladin but not actually being willing to commit to the required alignment and code of conduct? Yah, not really liking the sound of that.
Why is wanting those things without being handcuffed to a certain morality a bad thing? no other class requires you to make the same commitment and some of the are much stronger than a Paladin, why does Paladin alone need players to tie themselves down.
It may offend you (not sure why) but I agree with everyone who says they're a 4/9 full BAB D10 holy warrior class these things define what the character can and cannot do.
Now for some reason this singular chassis has very strict codes that no other class is burdened with.
People post how they were able to subvert the typical Paladin by making a diplomamcer or just some really friendly type of Paladin, but even in doing that the players character personality/way of being is being defined by its class in a way no other class forces upon you.
This is a problem for people who think they should be free to define their character how they like and the class bit is just there to allow them to interact with the nurmerical subtext of these worlds we play in.
The degree to which I agree with all that I'm not sure but I do think the Paladin code does more harm than good.
EDIT: To clarify by Paladin code as seen in my last sentence I mean exclusively LG Paladin codes.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm perfectly fine with and absolutely in favor of a code of conduct existing for chaotic good paladins. My position is not that I want to be able to play a character that has all of a paladin's powers while also being able to behave however I want.
My position is that the Paladin, Anti-Paladin, and Tyrant being restricted to Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil, and Lawful Evil, respectively, leaves Chaotic Good bereft of a very important and practically useful tool in it's arsenal. Not counting prestige classes that I may be unaware of, there's nothing Chaotic Good has that the other corners either don't have or don't have an answer to, and each of the other corners has something that chaotic good doesn't.
Yes, one could, by the letter of the rules, or rather by the lack of a rule that says you can't, you can have a LG paladin of a CG deity, say Cayden Cailean or Milani. But when one considers that a cleric, inquisitor, or warpriest of either of those deities has to be within one step of their alignment to receive their powers, it really strikes me that what you're doing there is having a paladin who doesn't get their power from a deity and just happens to worship a chaotic deity.
Also the general implication in the game - and I believe at least some of the dev's have said this on the forums though I'm not particularly inclined to look it up - is that if you're a dedicated follower of a god and you're two or more steps away from that god on the alignment chart, you're doing it wrong and likely won't be well received by your god in the afterlife. Hell, as I recall, James Jacobs has actually described clerics who're one step away from their deity as being heretics, though the degree varies - a LG or CG worshiper of Sarenrae would probably be considered less heretical than a TN worshiper.
And it just strikes me as odd that CG is apparently the one corner of the alignment chart that is apparently incapable of generating a warrior who has a full bab, is proficient in heavy armor and martial weapons, has a buffing aura, can smite an opposing alignment, can lay on hands, and has 4/9 casting.
Again, I get a monk's powers being the result of a level of personal discipline that can only exist in a lawful alignment. I get a barbarian's powers being the result of a lifestyle and behavior that is incompatible with a lawful alignment.
But what is it about the philosophy and doctrine of the gods of courage and freedom that makes them inadequate to the task of empowering their faithful with a paladin's powers when CE and LE deities can do the same(if a twisted version there of).
On the subject, consider for a moment that both Calistria and Gorum keep their domains in Elysium, the CG aligned plane. And consider, also, that both of them have CE, anti-paladin followers. So there are more anti-paladins in Elysium than there are good aligned paladins.
Does that seem right to anyone?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding the "Full BAB, 4/9 caster" thing, how many class features from the Paladin would we have to give a Ranger or Bloodrager archetype before people who want "paladins of any alignment" be satisfied?
Would "use the Paladin spell list", "Heavy Armor Prof" and "Divine Bond" be enough?
It's because mechanically the paladin is the most well designed martial in the game. Antipaladin is actually a close second by virtue of palate-swap mechanics with some more offensive modifications.
Seriously, that class is so well put-together and solid that most if not all of it's archetypes are at best sidegrades if not downgrades. This is better than the vast majority of other classes who are either underwhelming from core (fighter, monk, rogue), had to be completely remade due to bad rules (barbarian, monk, rogue), or is strictly more powerful than other classes due to select few abilites and combination of options (barbarian, alchemist).
Paladin is just good. It's REALLY good. But not everyone wants to play virtually the same archetype or story-line for every single paladin they play, so sometimes it would be nice to play something else.
|
|
I look at it this way. The lawful part of their alignment could be them holding to their faith's teachings. A paladin of Cayden Cailean would be about bringing an end to slavery even if it is the law of the land because he holds to a "higher" law. This would also work in a roleplay mechanic where the player has to work within the laws of the land while also trying to undo them.
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!
I thought it was 10 magic items? I also seem to remember them only being able to own a limited amount of mundane equipment too. Kinda VoP-lite
But, yeah, Pally has undergone a number of changes.
Been a couple of few years so maybe you're right. Remember when CHA had no implications besides npc attitude and the poor pally had to invest a minimum of 16 on that attribute?
Third, the very first DnD paladin was played by Gary's close friend ( Don Kaye) was a cowboy who used magical six shooters (special wands). Bonus, if you can identify the character. The character lived by a specific code.The concepts of Law and Chaos presented by Moorcock and Anderson were pretty important in the formation of the game. While I struggled to get through Anderson's work, I really enjoyed Moorcock's work. You can clearly see their influence on the game.
Interesting facts. Now I am curious and eager to find more info on that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Full BAB 4/9 not-nature-y divine spellcasting class (aka the Paladin)Okay, I'm sorry but I take issue with this. That isn't what the paladin is all about, it isn't just a collection of abilities or stats, as it devalues the class when it comes to roleplaying and the way I look at it a player shouldn't be considering a class only because of mechanics but more the fluff and concept itself being a part of each class.
Hell, if that is all which mattered to a player I would consider an alternate class or even suggest they find another table or campaign. I am very disapproving of roleplayers not considering or caring of the setting, lore, and fluff but just wanting a set of useful class features. Seriously, how you kept going on about "Full BAB 4/9 not-nature-y divine spellcasting class (aka the Paladin)" was far to much.
No, it does not "devalue" the class; it reveals the class for what it already is. A class, any class, is the mechanical expression of what characters of a certain archetype can do; that's what informs what class features the devs give it. The fluff they put at the beginning? That's the starting point, the suggestion and inspiration for players to look at that class and have an idea about what sort of a character someone with these abilities might be IF THEY DO NOT ALREADY HAVE ONE ON THEIR OWN.
But if they do, then it isn't a matter of them not caring about concept and fluff and roleplaying and lore and setting. They very obviously already do. Just not the starting point fluff and lore and so on. I will never advocate for any character just having a set of class features with no in-universe explanation; I just oppose there being a mandate on what in-universe explanation we're required to have.
You want fluff for your Paladin character? I want you to have fluff for your Paladin character. You want fluff for my Paladin character? I already ahead of you on that. You think every Paladin character should be a character with a history and a connection to where they are. Agreed. And IF a player DECIDES that they WANT the default fluff for their Paladin, more power to them. If they don't, then I think they should still connect to the setting somehow.
I believe that not only must there be a choice, but that there is a choice, whether you see it or not. For every class, you see the default fluff and you decide to use it or not. That includes the Paladin; that choice exists there, as well. You, Jonathan Wilder, decided to continue using the default fluff; I wish you happy gaming. Others decided for their own selves to also use the default fluff; best wishes to them. You don't think there was a choice? The devs didn't think there was a choice, either, and so made it that much more difficult to exercise their choice the same as you, whether you realized it or not? Well, now, THAT is going too far. The Paladin CAN be the Holy Warrior bastion of virtue, guided by his oaths. But you and the devs do not get to usurp my choice to have my Paladin be or not be a Holy Warrior character and I do resent the tyranny, not least for how it undermines the very Holy Warrior concept you seem to care so much for.
For example, if I didn't give a damn about roleplaying or concept, then if I wanted Bladed Brush solely for the benefit of being able to finesse a polearm, then I'd just write Shelyn on the character sheet and never mention her again unless someone else at the table says something, in which case, I'd be very vocal about my character worshipping Shelyn until the heat died down. If, however, I feel like my personal integrity actually matters, then I'm in a bind if I have a graceful polearm wielder character committing the heinous sin of worshipping another deity instead. It is similarly BECAUSE I care about the lore and fluff of a setting that I object to the alignment and code restrictions of the Paladin.
But let's talk about the starting point lore and fluff. The fluff of the Paladin is the way it is because that's how the devs see characters like that in their Golarion setting, yes? The same Golarion setting with a clear and obvious distinction among arcane and divine and psychic spells? The same Golarion setting that, as of Starfinder, no longer has those distinctions? The divide in the various methods of casting spells is gone; ergo, how magic works at its most fundamental is subject to change in the default setting. Therefore, cosmic forces granting just the right combination of supernatural oomph to Paladin characters was likewise only a temporary and ephemeral thing.
I.e., the Paladin class and its fluff in the Core Rulebook is not some cosmic truth, merely a snapshot of a certain setting and only at a specific point in its history. Except, because of its alignment and code of conduct restrictions, that Paladin fluff/class combo is the default that countless players in countless other settings across the width and breadth of the Pathfinder gaming community have to slog through an uphill battle just to play their own characters just as deeply tied to the settings they're in as the Golarion Paladin is to its setting.
"Paladins are the way they are" isn't even a universal constant in Golarion. For the love of all that's holy, why must it be a universal constant everywhere else? Spellcasters in Ironclaw can only cast their spells if they're wearing the right color robe. Should I demand that Golarion spellcasters be subject to the same restriction? Utterly ridiculous, but it's the same level of ridiculous I'm looking at over here.
I'm of the opinion that classes lack any meaning in and of themselves. They are vessels to help players tell stories about the characters that they create. The class description does provide suggested stories to help players define said characters, but they shouldn't be limited to just those stories that the game developers think of.
That's why I get kind of confused when people suggest playing the warpriest. Why should I use a terrible knockoff cleric to portray my badass knight errant fighting for good?
Yep, starting points. How many races end at the starting point with the runners not having moved an inch? How many gymnastics events involve the gymnast running up to the springboard... and then just standing on it? Every character needs fluff and a connection to the setting and if you don't have one already in mind, use the fluff they gave you; that's what it's there for. But if you already had something in mind, then the default fluff has no business acting above its station.
The other thing is that the devs are human and mortal and falliable. How much errata does this game have? If they were capable of perfectly matching fluff to mechanical expression, we wouldn't have the revised classes in Pathfinder Unchained. Therefore, the fluff/class feature combo of the Paladin, including the way it's exclusive to any other fluff being attached to those class features, is also only their guess and holds the same potential for error. Well, if I've got a character concept tied very intricately to its setting that IS best expressed by the Paladin class, not the Warpriest, then I can tell you that, yes, very much so, they erred.
In the context of D&D multiverse where allignment exists a paladin is LG.
I get that some people want to have a "paladin" that is NG, then CG, then, why not, N, LE, CE etc...
Unfortunately those are not paladins and cannot be paladins in the context of the D&D multiverse.
Note that this doesn't mean you can't have OTHER specific classes devoted to a single allignment, for example the CE ANTI paladin. They won't be called "paladins" though.
The fact that some people just want to remove the allignment restriction for paladins is quite baffling to me, but I suppose there's always a certain number of iconoclasts in any given population.
|
|
I love the Palatina. I have since circa 20 CE. I will not play the AD&D "Paladin" and it's not a paladin. The new-age anime producer who wrote the AD&D so-called "paladin" had no conception as to what a paladin really is. A real paladin is a government official, who swears allegiance to the Emperor of Rome, in connection with Palatine Hill. The AD&D "paladin" is none of those things, so it isn't a paladin. It's an insult to everything paladins have stood for for the previous 1900 years. Full Stop. End of discussion. And don't you dare tell me that the meanings of words change: all words are required to mean exactly the same thing that they meant in ancient times, and modern writers are not allowed to use ancient words like "Paladin" to describe fictional character archetypes that hadn't been invented when the word originated.
Paladins are by far more well known used in describing the twelve peers of Charlemagne's court, even if you can find an earlier use of the word, of Christian valor and beliefs.
Of any case don't you dare going changing the goal post just so you can justify your opinion. The discussion is that of Paladins as use in roleplays such as D&D and Pathfinder, as well popular culture as a whole such as videos like Diablo and World of Warcraft which all share closer origin to that of the original works of Gary Gygax.
No one actually using Paladins in any way connected to the Emperor or of Rome, especially not compared to how the concept has been used throughout the years. Whether you like it or not, paladins have far more claim in Charlemagne's court then the Roman Empire.
So what exactly is the purpose of crunch heavy rulesets?
I know some people say that lot of rules give you lot of customization and options to choose from, but this is somewhat wrong. Or rather, wrong way to say it?
Our imaginations are already giving us tons of options to choose from. Since roleplaying is purely of the imagination, I cannot say that light rulesets give less options than heavy rulesets. I cannot say I can make a character in Pathfinder that I could not make in TWERPS. So the real thing is actually the inverse. The main draw of crunch heavy games like Pathfinder is how much they RESTRICT your options. Each new book does not come with new options as much as create new "locks" for people to unlock.
And that does not seem very positive. Well, it is not by itself. But the real thing is that rules are very good for explaining the world. Worldbuilding. Quite frankly, the only good reason to have lot of these restricting, scarcity forcing rules is to make the world feel more and more tactile to the imagination. Best example of this does not come from DnD, but Shadowrun. Shadowrun rules are infamous for their own right, but playing the setting without them is always missing something. You start skimping on elements that might seem like waste of time, but do provide somekind of atmosphere to the whole experience. You could fit "all of decking" in there if you wanted. In truth, there is no such thing as "setting neutral, rules heavy" ruleset. Rules are fluff. You can scrub all the names with an eraser and make up new stuff, but it would deep down still be the same dungeon crawl game of vancian magic, bows and swords. Of elves, dwarves and so on. Even such core things as 6 second rounds make assumptions of how the setting works.
So, you can make the Paladin less restricted. But it is only going to beg the question "Ok, so where are the alignment restricted archetypes then?". Or why do we stop at Paladin. Why does Barbarian really need a stupid archetype to wear heavy armor? Or why does Magus even EXIST as a class, just let wizards do spell combat from the get go. The hunger to make any character you want is strong, but crunch has always been opposed to it.
[/stream of mind]
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think you will have some people that wont be happy until alignment has no bearing on the game at all. Apart from making alignment meaningless, you will have those wishing to toss it completely.
I mean you see it all over the forums, those arguing about certains spells or acts being evil, arguing alignment restrictions whether for classes/feats/archetypes/prestige classes, or otherwise seeking to invalidate alignment use in any way they can.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love the Palatina. I have since circa 20 CE. I will not play the AD&D "Paladin" and it's not a paladin. The new-age anime producer who wrote the AD&D so-called "paladin" had no conception as to what a paladin really is. A real paladin is a government official, who swears allegiance to the Emperor of Rome, in connection with Palatine Hill. The AD&D "paladin" is none of those things, so it isn't a paladin. It's an insult to everything paladins have stood for for the previous 1900 years. Full Stop. End of discussion. And don't you dare tell me that the meanings of words change: all words are required to mean exactly the same thing that they meant in ancient times, and modern writers are not allowed to use ancient words like "Paladin" to describe fictional character archetypes that hadn't been invented when the word originated.Paladins are by far more well known used in describing the twelve peers of Charlemagne's court, even if you can find an earlier use of the word, of Christian valor and beliefs.
Of any case don't you dare going changing the goal post just so you can justify your opinion. The discussion is that of Paladins as use in roleplays such as D&D and Pathfinder, as well popular culture as a whole such as videos like Diablo and World of Warcraft which all share closer origin to that of the original works of Gary Gygax.
No one actually using Paladins in any way connected to the Emperor or of Rome, especially not compared to how the concept has been used throughout the years. Whether you like it or not, paladins have far more claim in Charlemagne's court then the Roman Empire.
Somebody crit failed their save vs sarcasm
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Charlemagne was a war criminal. If we're really going to be using his top attack dogs as the standard of a paladin then LG goes right out the window.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think you will have some people that wont be happy until alignment has no bearing on the game at all. Apart from making alignment meaningless, you will have those wishing to toss it completely.
I mean, I run games without alignment at all, and I still require Paladins to be extremely moral and honorable, and to believe in an obligation to help those less fortunate and protect the innocent from the depredations of the more powerful. Even though there's no universal sense of alignment you're unmistakably one of the "Good guys."
To be a Paladin, you have to be so admirable the impersonal forces of the universe themselves are invested in your continued survival.
I look at it this way. The lawful part of their alignment could be them holding to their faith's teachings. A paladin of Cayden Cailean would be about bringing an end to slavery even if it is the law of the land because he holds to a "higher" law. This would also work in a roleplay mechanic where the player has to work within the laws of the land while also trying to undo them.
Consider that for a moment. A cleric, inquisitor, or warpriest of Cayden Cailean cannot be lawful good because doing so would be straying too far from his faith's teaching's, but the lawful aspect of a paladin of Cayden Cailean's alignment represents his dedication to Cayden's teachings?
|
|
Why would a follower of Cayden Cailean even want to be a Paladin? I could see them believing them to be stuffy, stick in the mud, or otherwise too serious. Drinking, partying, screwing the rules because they do what they think is right.
Seriously, the Paladin is the wrong class for a follower of Cayden Cailean which means it make sense why the god wouldn't have such followers. They would be a better fit for other classes or archetypes, not a paladin.
Honestly, I think you will have some people that wont be happy until alignment has no bearing on the game at all. Apart from making alignment meaningless, you will have those wishing to toss it completely.I mean, I run games without alignment at all, and I still require Paladins to be extremely moral and honorable, and to believe in an obligation to help those less fortunate and protect the innocent from the depredations of the more powerful. Even though there's no universal sense of alignment you're unmistakably one of the "Good guys."
To be a Paladin, you have to be so admirable the impersonal forces of the universe themselves are invested in your continued survival.
I repeat again: in the context of the D&D multiverse allignment exists and it's actually the foundation of the multiverse itself.
Personally I don't believe in clear cut "allignments" for people but in the context of D&D and Pathfinder it exists.
So I can very well play a World of Darkness game (say Werewolf the Forsaken) where my character feels the righteous need to slaughter all those corporation workers endangering wildlife and cutting down forests and claim he's not really being evil because allignment does not exist in the world of darkness so at most he could have problems with his Harmony trait.
I could do a similar character in D&D (say a druid fighting the Lumber Consortium) but if he slaughtered every logger he met he would soon become evil, no matter how justified or entitled he feels about the "righteousness" of his cause.
It's simply how things are supposed to work in D&D.
By the way note how paladins in D&D are by no means perfect: you can be a paladin with LG allignment and still be at fault, be too rigid or too soft acording to circumstances. Again, the fact that paladins in D&D are LG doesn't make them "right" it just makes them LG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I repeat again: in the context of the D&D multiverse allignment exists and it's actually the foundation of the multiverse itself.
The metaphysics of a specific setting (Golarion, Faerûn, Krynn, etc.) are not inherent to the mechanics of a game that can be played in that setting or any other setting.
D&D, Pathfinder, etc. works perfectly well in a setting where you completely throw out the "alignments exist and are observable reality" and in fact Paizo published rules for how to do this (they're in Unchained.)
It's entirely within the GM's purview to say "the entire house of Thrune have always secretly been lizard people" so why is it not within the GM's purview to throw out good and evil as objective reality, particularly if the game in question in the latter scenario takes place in an entirely different universe?
You can still have Paladins in a subjective morality universe, and still require them to be identifiable as "Lawful Good" if that was actually a thing that people could agree on.
Not every paladin needs to be a boring, uptight, no-fun-allowed curmudgeon. What about the kind of paladin who isn't all that into the whole "worship" thing and only goes along with Cayden Cailean because he's the god whose teachings make the most sense? This guy drinks, he parties, he has a good time. He laughs when he wants to laugh, cries when he wants to cry, hits on a girl if he thinks she's hot and sleeps with her if both of them are okay with it. He also cares a whole about keeping his promises, especially the promise he made to the world to fight for what's right, stand up to evil and defend the defenseless. It doesn't matter if he swore an oath in front of an altar and surrounded by material witnesses or if he was all alone with no one to hear him but himself. He said he was gonna do something, so he's gonna do it. Sure, when it's time to get down to business then business has got to get done, but if you're gonna work hard, you might as well play hard, too.
Not every follower of every god is so diehard and zealous that it affects every element of their personality even in real life. With plenty of people, the only time you can tell who they worship is during times of religious observance.
A paladin doesn't need to worship a deity, it just needs to be LG. So it can feel some sort of affinity for Cayden. Said paladin would risk falling if his appreciation for Cayden's ways brought him TO ACT in ways opposite to its own allignment though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would a follower of Cayden Cailean even want to be a Paladin? I could see them believing them to be stuffy, stick in the mud, or otherwise too serious. Drinking, partying, screwing the rules because they do what they think is right.
Seriously, the Paladin is the wrong class for a follower of Cayden Cailean which means it make sense why the god wouldn't have such followers. They would be a better fit for other classes or archetypes, not a paladin.
Why would a follower of the god of bravery want to be a paladin? A noble warrior sworn to the defense of others?
Imagine for a moment that a paladin of Cayden Cailean wouldn't be quite so stick in the mud as a paldin of Iomedae while still being bound to a code of ethics.
Right now I can make a paladin dedicate to the worship of the empyreal lord of stealth and spies and the empyreal lord of ignorance and simplicity and no one bats an eye. But if I want to make a paladin dedicated to the god of bravery, or a paladin dedicated to the god of devotion, and I'm defiling the spirit of the game.
I repeat again: in the context of the D&D multiverse allignment exists and it's actually the foundation of the multiverse itself.The metaphysics of a specific setting (Golarion, Faerûn, Krynn, etc.) are not inherent to the mechanics of a game that can be played in that setting or any other setting.
D&D, Pathfinder, etc. works perfectly well in a setting where you completely throw out the "alignments exist and are observable reality" and in fact Paizo published rules for how to do this (they're in Unchained.)
It's entirely within the GM's purview to say "the entire house of Thrune have always secretly been lizard people" so why is it not within the GM's purview to throw out good and evil as objective reality, particularly if the game in question in the latter scenario takes place in an entirely different universe?
You can still have Paladins in a subjective morality universe, and still require them to be identifiable as "Lawful Good" if that was actually a thing that people could agree on.
Again, the allignment system is wired into the rules of the game. Everything in D&D has an allignment.
Planes and the whole cosmology of D&D games are built according to the allignment system.So, sure, as with everything else a DM can decide to scrap allignment because Rule 0 rules supreme. But doing so is basically changing D&D to a foundamental level and you soon discover it's a lot of work.
The fact Paizo pubblicated a subset of alternative rules about removing allignment is by itself proof of how much the allignment system is wired into D&D.
Why would a follower of Cayden Cailean even want to be a Paladin? I could see them believing them to be stuffy, stick in the mud, or otherwise too serious. Drinking, partying, screwing the rules because they do what they think is right.
Seriously, the Paladin is the wrong class for a follower of Cayden Cailean which means it make sense why the god wouldn't have such followers. They would be a better fit for other classes or archetypes, not a paladin.
Why would a follower of the god of bravery want to be a paladin? A noble warrior sworn to the defense of others?
Imagine for a moment that a paladin of Cayden Cailean wouldn't be quite so stick in the mud as a paldin of Iomedae while still being bound to a code of ethics.
Right now I can make a paladin dedicate to the worship of the empyreal lord of stealth and spies and the empyreal lord of ignorance and simplicity and no one bats an eye. But if I want to make a paladin dedicated to the god of bravery, or a paladin dedicated to the god of devotion, and I'm defiling the spirit of the game.
Nope, you can do that. Simply remember your actions still need to stay inside what's acceptable for a LG character. Liking Cayden doesn't automatically make you unable to be a paladin, not being LG does though.
Of course this is easily done because Cayden, while chaotic is still Good. It's way more difficult to justify someone liking how Rovagug does things being a paladin than someone who likes to have fun with friends and have a pint of ale or 2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been running D&D with different metaphysics (planes, cosmology, etc.) since the mid-90s, none of this is inherent to the rules of the game itself; where the gods live and what they're like is not exactly relevant to "bandits are attacking the caravan." It's honestly not that much work to remove alignment from the game; the Unchained rules are like 3 pages long and are mostly advice. Personally I have never liked either "there are 9 planes, one for each alignment plus as many other ones as we need" (why specify the initial 9 then?) and "people can know what happens to them after they die" so I got rid of both.
But even if you take away alignment, to leave the Paladin as a thing identifiable as a Paladin you keep the things that make a Paladin LG in a world where that's a thing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would a follower of Cayden Cailean even want to be a Paladin? I could see them believing them to be stuffy, stick in the mud, or otherwise too serious. Drinking, partying, screwing the rules because they do what they think is right.
Seriously, the Paladin is the wrong class for a follower of Cayden Cailean which means it make sense why the god wouldn't have such followers. They would be a better fit for other classes or archetypes, not a paladin.
Why would a follower of the god of bravery want to be a paladin? A noble warrior sworn to the defense of others?
Imagine for a moment that a paladin of Cayden Cailean wouldn't be quite so stick in the mud as a paldin of Iomedae while still being bound to a code of ethics.
Right now I can make a paladin dedicate to the worship of the empyreal lord of stealth and spies and the empyreal lord of ignorance and simplicity and no one bats an eye. But if I want to make a paladin dedicated to the god of bravery, or a paladin dedicated to the god of devotion, and I'm defiling the spirit of the game.
Nope, you can do that. Simply remember your actions still need to stay inside what's acceptable for a LG character. Liking Cayden doesn't automatically make you unable to be a paladin, not being LG does though.
Of course this is easily done because Cayden, while chaotic is still Good. It's way more difficult to justify someone liking how Rovagug does things being a paladin than someone who likes to have fun with friends and have a pint of ale or 2.
And yet I can make a (anti)paladin of Rovagug. And I can make a Tyrant of Asmodeus.
And I can make a paladin of Iomedae who's powers are directly tied to that goddess and who loses them if they violate her specific code while still behaving in a way that is lawful good, because they are specifically tied to her in the same way that a cleric is.
And yet apparently CG is the least of the alignments, too impotent to produce divine agents capable of the acts that a paladin or antipaladin is because the idea of a CG paladin so offends the sensibilities of people who are bound and determined to live in the past.
I absolutely do think there should be a CG Paladin archetype, akin to the Tyrant. My sincere hope is that it's INT or WIS based instead of CHA based, to prevent shooting star abuse.
|
|
There is options if you or your players with to play a CG Paladin.
Divine Liberator
Paladin of Freedom
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is options if you or your players with to play a CG Paladin.
Divine Liberator
Paladin of Freedom
Look at how not published by Paizo those things are.
Granted I'm not as opposed to the use of 3rd party material as I used to be - I've fallen head over heels for Everyman's Unchained Fighter. But I don't think it's too much to ask that Paizo put out something official.
Why would a follower of Cayden Cailean even want to be a Paladin? I could see them believing them to be stuffy, stick in the mud, or otherwise too serious. Drinking, partying, screwing the rules because they do what they think is right.
Seriously, the Paladin is the wrong class for a follower of Cayden Cailean which means it make sense why the god wouldn't have such followers. They would be a better fit for other classes or archetypes, not a paladin.
Why would a follower of the god of bravery want to be a paladin? A noble warrior sworn to the defense of others?
Imagine for a moment that a paladin of Cayden Cailean wouldn't be quite so stick in the mud as a paldin of Iomedae while still being bound to a code of ethics.
Right now I can make a paladin dedicate to the worship of the empyreal lord of stealth and spies and the empyreal lord of ignorance and simplicity and no one bats an eye. But if I want to make a paladin dedicated to the god of bravery, or a paladin dedicated to the god of devotion, and I'm defiling the spirit of the game.
Nope, you can do that. Simply remember your actions still need to stay inside what's acceptable for a LG character. Liking Cayden doesn't automatically make you unable to be a paladin, not being LG does though.
Of course this is easily done because Cayden, while chaotic is still Good. It's way more difficult to justify someone liking how Rovagug does things being a paladin than someone who likes to have fun with friends and have a pint of ale or 2.
And yet I can make a (anti)paladin of Rovagug. And I can make a Tyrant of Asmodeus.
And I can make a paladin of Iomedae who's powers are directly tied to that goddess and who loses them if they violate her specific code while still behaving in a way that is lawful good, because they are specifically tied to her in the same way that a cleric is.
And yet apparently CG is the least of the alignments, too...
A class or archetype dedicated to CG is entirely doable, just as LE and CE classes/archetypes are.
They are just NOT paladins but something else, dedicated to different allignments.The fact Paizo has not yet produced a class/archetype dedicated to CG doesn't mean anything, they'll do it when they have the right idea and time for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think some of the discussion revolves around what you believe a paladin is or is represented by. Is it Captain America (barring the current story lines), the Superman ideal, Galahad, Gygax's various inspirations from Anderson and his sources (reportedly), or can it be a little less uptight.
In my opinion, the Church Knights from the David Eddings Sparhawk books, especially the main heroes, are various takes on paladins. They have been known to drink, to lie, to be less than perfect role models on a number of occasions. They draw power from a VERY Chaotic Good goddess. None of them are saints, and yet all of them do good because that is who they are and what they believe. Heck, even their main nemesis in the first series is a fallen Church Knight who now draws his spell powers from an Evil god.
There is no one way to portray a paladin, nor should their be. Whether or not Paizo decides to support it, the material is out there for a divine warrior of any alignment. A CG "paladin" -- or whatever you call it -- would not have the same code as a LG, nor should they. For that matter, as I recall, the various paladins of the Inner Sea Gods have different beliefs and focuses as well, but they are all paladins.
No, they're paladins, they're just called something else. And if you want to call a CG Paladin archetype/alternative class something else, that's fine. But it's still a paladin.
No, they're paladins, they're just called something else. And if you want to call a CG Paladin archetype/alternative class something else, that's fine. But it's still a paladin.
Nope. They are not paladins, because paladins in D&D are LG.
Their powers may be similar (not identical) but how they gain them and what they need to keep them are very different things.
But this last remark of yours begets the question: do you want to play classes/archetypes dedicated to an allignment whose powers define them according to said allignment or do you just want to strip away the LG defining restriction from the paladin class?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look at how not published by Paizo those things are.
Granted I'm not as opposed to the use of 3rd party material as I used to be - I've fallen head over heels for Everyman's Unchained Fighter. But I don't think it's too much to ask that Paizo put out something official.
There is a lot that Paizo hasn't published, counting a better Fighter or allowing Monk archetypes to actually work with the Unchained Monk, so I say get in line for Paizo not publishing certain things.
Some of the best stuff for Pathfinder is 3rd Party:
----------------------------------------------
Spheres of Power & soon to be published Spheres of Might by Drop Dead Studios
Companions of the Firmament from Geek Industrial Complex
Making Craft Work by Spes Magna Games
Cerulean Seas Campaign by Alluria Publishing
Ultimate Charisma by Rogue Genius Games
Tome of Horrors Complete by Frog God Games
Gothic Campaign Compendium by Legendary Games
Forest Kingdom Campaign Compendium by Legendary Games
Ultimate Plug-In by Legendary Games