|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
They are Paladins if we decide they are. *shrugs* If we strip the alignment requirement they're just as much Paladins as when we stripped the race requirements or the tithe requirements
Wrong. The Mythic Ability Beyond Morality results in a being without an alignment. Alignmentless beings exist.Everything in D&D has an allignment.
Yes, and you need a mythic ability that references allignment in order to avoid having one...
|
|
Wrong. The Mythic Ability Beyond Morality results in a being without an alignment. Alignmentless beings exist.Everything in D&D has an allignment.
Excellent point. A Paladin who takes beyond morality doesn't cease to be a Paladin (they do, however, still fall if they commit an evil act or act without honor)
They are Paladins if we decide they are. *shrugs* If we strip the alignment requirement they're just as much Paladins as when we stripped the race requirements or the tithe requirementsNo, 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?
Yes... I'm sure that "smite evil" class ability would be particularly appropriate for your NE "paladin".
Anyway, if I understand you correctly you are telling me you don't want other classes dedicated to an allignment but "paladins" that are not just LG, am I right?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm of the opinion that, most of the time, when people want to alter rules, they are doing it to gain a mechanical advantage. This scenario seems to fit the bill. Dude could easily play a Gray Paladin or Chevalier, but since both are mechanically weaker than a standard Paladin, he starts asking for rules changes.
All that talk about freedom, describing his pc, and whatever else mumbo jumbo talk are just lame attempts to get the benefits of a paladin without being lawful good.
furthermore, not that anybody was asking, in all my years of gaming, I have found the majority of the "words of wisdom" on these boards to be wrong.
traps are easy, in-combat healing is worthless, rogues suck because xxx, wixards cant be stopped, etc. just a bunch of random people online theory crafting, very little of which, when the game starts and the dice start rolling hold up to be true
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are Paladins if we decide they are. *shrugs* If we strip the alignment requirement they're just as much Paladins as when we stripped the race requirements or the tithe requirementsNo, 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?
Yes... I'm sure that "smite evil" class ability would be particularly appropriate for your NE "paladin".
Anyway, if I understand you correctly you are telling me you don't want other classes dedicated to an allignment but "paladins" that are not just LG, am I right?
I honestly don't have a dog in this fight. I like my LG Paladins. I just think it's silly and pedantic to freak out about the idea of alternate alignment Paladin classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@HWalsh yeah man
6 pages of talk about alignment, character options, the history of "real paladins", various iterations of D&D, who gamed with Gary Gygax, etc just for some dude wanting a mechanical advantage.
ahahahahahahahah
these boards are funny
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm of the opinion that, most of the time, when people want to alter rules, they are doing it to gain a mechanical advantage. This scenario seems to fit the bill. Dude could easily play a Gray Paladin or Chevalier, but since both are mechanically weaker than a standard Paladin, he starts asking for rules changes.
All that talk about freedom, describing his pc, and whatever else mumbo jumbo talk are just lame attempts to get the benefits of a paladin without being lawful good.
furthermore, not that anybody was asking, in all my years of gaming, I have found the majority of the "words of wisdom" on these boards to be wrong.
traps are easy, in-combat healing is worthless, rogues suck because xxx, wixards cant be stopped, etc. just a bunch of random people online theory crafting, very little of which, when the game starts and the dice start rolling hold up to be true
As someone who has never played a Paladin and has no interest in playing one ever regardless of alignment but still think they should not be alignment exclusive. I would like to stand as living proof you are wrong and by assuming that your assumption is write and then disregarding everyone else's argument and thinking you can tarnish everyone with the same brush you're not only wrong but also obnoxious.
Same goes for @HWalsh only to a greater degree as despite others on this forum myself included already telling him this is not the case and doesn't apply to them he has chosen to ignore them and say you're "100% on the money". You aren't, he isn't and what's worse he has already been told he isn't.
So you're both wrongbadfun guilty and he is is also guilty of flatly ignoring people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bingo.You are 100% on the money.
See, there totally are options to be a Paladin of (insert whatever you want here) and be a holy warrior for (insert), but in order to do this you have to take a Paladin archetype that takes away a power.
They instantly jump a million feet backward and scream, "No!"
Why?
Because they never cared about being a holy warrior of X. They never cared about being a Paladin. They want the SPECIAL POWERS of the core Paladin. They wanted Lay on Hands and Charisma to Saves and Smite. It is a very obvious attempt to get mechanical benefits.
That may be true of some posters. Others, like myself, are interested in other options. I don't want a carbon copy of the paladin with a CG on it. I don't care about Charisma to save.
Some of us believe that the paladin isn't and shouldn't be a special case, never to be touched or altered -- as if that ship hadn't sailed years ago. If one is being truthful, the current code and conditions for the paladin is as strong as the GM allowing or preventing the player from running wild over it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who has never played a Paladin and has no interest in playing one ever regardless of alignment but still think they should not be alignment exclusive. I would like to stand as living proof you are wrong and by assuming that your assumption is write and then disregarding everyone's argument and thinking you can tarnish everyone with the same brush is not only wrong but also obnoxious.
....
So you're both wrongbadfun guilty and he is is also guilty of flatly ignoring people.
what am I wrong about?!?!?
I said "most" of the time.
Please explain to me why you want a "paladin" not tied to LG, without referencing mechanics?
you want a "divine warrior" play a martial cleric. you want a "champion of good" play a LG fighter, want Lay on Hands then take believer's hands and believer's boons. immunity to fear = chevalier, want non LG paladin play a gray one
BUT NO
you are specifically calling for a class that does what pAladin does without being LG. You want the mechanics without the ties to alignment. you are seeking an advantage or "removal of rp requirement" which is essentially an advantage.
Nobody is being badwrongfun or whatever the hell that is you are referencing. you and many like you, just want to bend the rules for an advantage and don't want to be called on it. and if you have no intention of playing a paladin, and never would, why post in the thread as much as you have
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
What I want is for Chaotic Good to not be the dead weight of the forces of good. Either they are too stupid to see the value in training divine warriors that have full bab, heavy armor/martial weapon proficiency, smite, aura, lay on hands, 4/9 spell casting, or they're too impotent to create such warriors. Those are the only two options as of right now.
And yes they are paladins because all a paladin is is a divine warrior with full bab, heavy armor/martial weapon proficiency, smite, aura, a lay on hands ability, and 4/9 spell casting.
LG being a requirement or defining feature is nothing but baggage. It does not add to the paladin, it doesn't make it special, it doesn't make it interesting, and it doesn't make it what it is.
And as I have said before in this thread, I'm not particularly interested in actually playing a CG paladin - many of my favorite that I've played are LG.
My interest here is allowing CG something it's being denied for no good, logical, or legitimate reason. There is nothing, outside of prestige classes I may be aware of, that CG has that the other corners of the alignment chart either don't have or don't have an equivalent to, and they all have something(paladins) that CG lacks.
And the only reason I can see for this is "that's the way it was in my day", which is a position I have absolutely no respect for.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who has never played a Paladin and has no interest in playing one ever regardless of alignment but still think they should not be alignment exclusive. I would like to stand as living proof you are wrong and by assuming that your assumption is write and then disregarding everyone's argument and thinking you can tarnish everyone with the same brush is not only wrong but also obnoxious.
....
So you're both wrongbadfun guilty and he is is also guilty of flatly ignoring people.
what am I wrong about?!?!?
I said "most" of the time.
Please explain to me why you want a "paladin" not tied to LG, without referencing mechanics?
you want a "divine warrior" play a martial cleric. you want a "champion of good" play a LG fighter, want Lay on Hands then take believer's hands and believer's boons. immunity to fear = chevalier, want non LG paladin play a gray one
BUT NO
you are specifically calling for a class that does what pAladin does without being LG. You want the mechanics without the ties to alignment. you are seeking an advantage or "removal of rp requirement" which is essentially an advantage.
Nobody is being badwrongfun or whatever the hell that is you are referencing. you and many like you, just want to bend the rules for an advantage and don't want to be called on it. and if you have no intention of playing a paladin, and never would, why post in the thread as much as you have
So, I can play a CG cleric, warpriest, inquisitor, fighter, cavalier, ranger, whatever dedicated to the worship of a CG deity and in service to their church.
And I can play a LG cleric, warpriest, inquisitor, fighter, cavalier, ranger, whatever dedicated to the worship of a LG deity and in service to their church, and I can play a paladin on top of that.
So why does LG get something extra?
A CG fighter -> chevalier with believer's boons and believer's hands, plus a few feats for extra lay on hands has the following
1. immunity to fear and poison
2. smite 1/day
3., and lay on hands 1 + xxx times (extra lay on hands).
4. + 1 to 3 for hit and damage for the first few rounds of every battle depending on traits and such
why is this not good enough for all the people who want to play non LG paladins....that's right.... MECHANICALLY it's not the same. and that's what we are really talking about here.
you can't play a LG barbarian either so LG loses on that, but let's ignore what doesn't fit your argument
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who has never played a Paladin and has no interest in playing one ever regardless of alignment but still think they should not be alignment exclusive. I would like to stand as living proof you are wrong and by assuming that your assumption is write and then disregarding everyone's argument and thinking you can tarnish everyone with the same brush is not only wrong but also obnoxious.
....
So you're both wrongbadfun guilty and he is is also guilty of flatly ignoring people.
what am I wrong about?!?!?
I said "most" of the time.
Please explain to me why you want a "paladin" not tied to LG, without referencing mechanics?
you want a "divine warrior" play a martial cleric. you want a "champion of good" play a LG fighter, want Lay on Hands then take believer's hands and believer's boons. immunity to fear = chevalier, want non LG paladin play a gray one
BUT NO
you are specifically calling for a class that does what pAladin does without being LG. You want the mechanics without the ties to alignment. you are seeking an advantage or "removal of rp requirement" which is essentially an advantage.
Nobody is being badwrongfun or whatever the hell that is you are referencing. you and many like you, just want to bend the rules for an advantage and don't want to be called on it. and if you have no intention of playing a paladin, and never would, why post in the thread as much as you have
So, I can play a CG cleric, warpriest, inquisitor, fighter, cavalier, ranger, whatever dedicated to the worship of a CG deity and in service to their church.
And I can play a LG cleric, warpriest, inquisitor, fighter, cavalier, ranger, whatever dedicated to the worship of a LG deity and in service to their church, and I can play a paladin on top of that.
So why does LG get something extra?
Moreover, if one can do all those things to be a "paladin" of any other alignment .. why have paladins? Certainly a LG character could do all the same things for the same effects, yes?
I fail to believe that only the LG forces/deities possess the wisdom, forethought and where with all to create these divine warriors and no one else has figured out this puzzle in the eons of existence.
And the only reason I can see for this is "that's the way it was in my day", which is a position I have absolutely no respect for.
Funny thing is, that is how it was in my day. Even waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back then we balked and worked on variants because people weren't keen on the LG deity in our campaign (found her too stuffy) and so options were born.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's assume I am only here for mechanical effects, which you seem to be taking as an axiom is bad. Can you explain why that is? Do you have any evidence that non-LG paladins mechanically break games? Not merely better than normal, but to the point where more options are obsolesced than with the restriction. Until then, I see no reason why I cannot support Barbarian- or Hunter-compatible fully functional Paladins.
What power boost is there that is so great it is worth the restriction?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A CG fighter -> chevalier with believer's boons and believer's hands, plus a few feats for extra lay on hands has the following
1. immunity to fear and poison
2. smite 1/day
3., and lay on hands 1 + xxx times (extra lay on hands).
4. + 1 to 3 for hit and damage for the first few rounds of every battle depending on traits and suchwhy is this not good enough for all the people who want to play non LG paladins....that's right.... MECHANICALLY it's not the same. and that's what we are really talking about here.
you can't play a LG barbarian either so LG loses on that, but let's ignore what doesn't fit your argument
My argument ignores all classes that aren't actually dedicated divine servants and focuses on clerics, inquisitors, paladins, and warpriests.
But if we are going to bring in lay-servants of the church I'd point out that monks are the lawful answer to barbarians so CG still comes up short even when barbarians are taken into account.
Your argument relies on me believing that playing Lawful Good is a chore which I don't. My favorite PF characters that I've played include a LG fighter who worshiped Shiziru and a LG warpriest of Falayna. So I don't have a problem playing a LG character.
My issue is that there is no reason why LG should have a monopoly on a paladin when you can also do a LG version of virtually every alternative to the paladin that's been suggested, aside from people being afraid of change and not wanting to admit that bad idea is a bad idea and it sticking around for decades doesn't change that.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A CG fighter -> chevalier with believer's boons and believer's hands, plus a few feats for extra lay on hands has the following
Prerequisites: Wis 13, Believer’s Boon, must be lawful good, alignment must be within one step of your deity’s.
Please check your facts in the future.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
what am I wrong about?!?!?
I said "most" of the time
What you said
More specifically
All that talk about freedom, describing his pc, and whatever else mumbo jumbo talk are just lame attempts to get the benefits of a paladin without being lawful good.
Wrong.
Also you said most of the time when people want to change something ''tis for a mechanical benefit, and this is one of those times. Not that most of the people on this thread were after it for those reasons but that what people were after in this case was for mechanical reasons, you might have meant that it was just the motivation for most people in this thread (still wrong, their are more powerful classes they could pick for mechanical benefit) but I suspect you didn't because it isn't the meaning of what you said.
Please explain to me why you want a "paladin" not tied to LG, without referencing mechanics?
Absolutey no logical reason LG gods have these soldiers in their arsenal whils CG gods physically can't even empower people in this way.
you want a "divine warrior" play a martial cleric. you want a "champion of good" play a LG fighter, want Lay on Hands then take believer's hands and believer's boons. immunity to fear = chevalier, want non LG paladin play a gray one
None of those do what a Paladin does, let's just take the class out completely. You want a divine warrior play a cleric, they're stronger than Paladins anyway, no? You don't want to? Is that maybe because they do something specific you want rather than being simply a case of more power?
BUT NOyou are specifically calling for a class that does what pAladin does without being LG. You want the mechanics without the ties to alignment. you are seeking an advantage or "removal of rp requirement" which is essentially an advantage.
If you bothered to read the thread you'd know I and most others advocated codes for every alignment, no RP requirement removed, just RP requirements for each alignment.
You're just flatly wrong in what you're saying.
Nobody is being badwrongfun or whatever the hell that is you are referencing. you and many like you, just want to bend the rules for an advantage and don't want to be called on it. and if you have no intention of playing a paladin, and never would, why post in the thread as much as you have
No I don't and yes you are. I wouldn't play the CG Paladin even if it existed I just don't see any reason at all why it wouldn't so how am I looking for an advantage?
You're reaction to point fingers at people who want something different to you and called it rule bending is badwrongfunI post in the thread because I think people should be allowed none game breaking options (such as this one) which expand their ability to play the game as long as it isn't taking away something from someone else. Which it isn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do I have to be be one step next to my deity?
Why do I have to choose domains from my deity?
Why can't paladins be CN?
Why can't my Fighter cast 9thevel spells.
Any more parts of the game we ant to change while we are under the hood?
I'm all for fixing broken things, but complaining about an alignment restriction? People will complain about anything. I swear 80% on these boards would have designed a prefect role playifng game if they just had the time.
Here's a list!
Why do I have to be be one step next to my deity?Why do I have to choose domains from my deity?
Why can't paladins be CN?
Why can't my Fighter cast 9thevel spells.
Any more parts of the game we ant to change while we are under the hood?
I've got about 40 years of changes and ideas I'd like to change.
Changes are very common and have been around since the game started.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love how we suggest making a none game breaking change that brings only variety to the game and suddenly we are advocating fighters that have 9th level spells
the game changes, this isn't bad a bad thing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love how we suggest making a none game breaking change that brings only variety to the game and suddenly we are advocating fighters that have 9th level spells
the game changes, this isn't bad a bad thing.
Yes, your aim is clearly "variety" to the game, because fundamentally changing what the paladin class is is going to change the "variety" of the game and make the multitudes waiting for the glorious day they can play their NE "paladin" happy...
Let's be clear here: I think there should be a class RESTRICTED for each allignment. As we have the LG Paladin, and the CE Anti Paladin we should have other classes embodying the ideal of a particular allignment (which is what the paladin is btw), covering all the spectrum. These classes should be different between each other and of comparable power level.
THIS would increase the "variety" of the game. Just taking away the LG restriction would NOT in any way "increase the variety" of the game, it would just take what being a Paladin in D&D means and change it to something fundamentally different in order to appease a very small minority of people demanding "no restrictions"!
P.S.
Limits are necessary to define things. Without limits there's only formless chaos.
What I want is for Chaotic Good to not be the dead weight of the forces of good. Either they are too stupid to see the value in training divine warriors that have full bab, heavy armor/martial weapon proficiency, smite, aura, lay on hands, 4/9 spell casting, or they're too impotent to create such warriors. Those are the only two options as of right now.
And yes they are paladins because all a paladin is is a divine warrior with full bab, heavy armor/martial weapon proficiency, smite, aura, a lay on hands ability, and 4/9 spell casting.
LG being a requirement or defining feature is nothing but baggage. It does not add to the paladin, it doesn't make it special, it doesn't make it interesting, and it doesn't make it what it is.
And as I have said before in this thread, I'm not particularly interested in actually playing a CG paladin - many of my favorite that I've played are LG.
My interest here is allowing CG something it's being denied for no good, logical, or legitimate reason. There is nothing, outside of prestige classes I may be aware of, that CG has that the other corners of the alignment chart either don't have or don't have an equivalent to, and they all have something(paladins) that CG lacks.
And the only reason I can see for this is "that's the way it was in my day", which is a position I have absolutely no respect for.
First of all I honestly doubt CG is "dead weight to the forces of good" because the alignment cannot have paladins. On the same vein one could argue NG is in the same boat because it can't have paladins either. And in D&D cosmology having or not having paladins doesn't mean one alignment is superior to another, it just means the LG allignment allows for that type of class to exist but this doesn't mean there cannot be classes that exemplify the virtues of other alignments (and they have actually been created in the past btw), they just aren't Paladins or anti Paladins.
By your description you just want a paladin that is CG and somehow you claim you want this because you want to "vindicate" the CG alignment against the LG one. I confess I found your reasoning extremely puzzling.
A paladin is a "a divine warrior with full bab, heavy armor/martial weapon proficiency, smite, aura, a lay on hands ability, and 4/9 spell casting that also is LG and only LG". This is a fact and has been such since the Paladin class has existed in D&D. You just want SOME of the rules, not all of them, apparently because you feel the CG alignment "needs" this. I must say I don't see a single reason why making the Paladin class also CG should be so important.
You claim you want to give CG something (I wasn't aware CG was in such dire need of "having something" but hey... my fault) why don't you ask for CG (and all the other alignments maybe) to get a specific class or archetype instead of insisting you "need" the Paladin to lose its restriction?
I'm of the opinion that, most of the time, when people want to alter rules, they are doing it to gain a mechanical advantage. This scenario seems to fit the bill. Dude could easily play a Gray Paladin or Chevalier, but since both are mechanically weaker than a standard Paladin, he starts asking for rules changes.
All that talk about freedom, describing his pc, and whatever else mumbo jumbo talk are just lame attempts to get the benefits of a paladin without being lawful good.
I mean, you can play a Desnan [Gray] Paladin, you just can't take that broken feat that make people want to play Desnan Paladins because you're not CG.
I also feel like a lot of people are missing that CG is not the "Good over all" alignment (that's NG) it's the "Good and also tear down structure" alignment. That the "Tear it down, IDGAF!" part of good is not as successful at getting things done as the rest of the good alignments does make a certain kind of sense.
I also feel like a lot of people are missing that CG is not the "Good over all" alignment (that's NG) it's the "Good and also tear down structure" alignment. That the "Tear it down, IDGAF!" part of good is not as successful at getting things done as the rest of the good alignments does make a certain kind of sense.
CG is the alignment for those who want to help other people and fight against tyrants and the like but don't care for laws or traditions while doing so. They could choose to apply a vast variety of tactics in order to achieve their goals or change their strategy without concern for the "orthodox methods".
CG is all about being good but not feeling any need to conform to rules you think are inane or stupid. Exemples of CG characters are the "mysterious strager" and the "freedom fighter". A CG character can work well with other good alignments as long as those alignments PCs (or NPCs) don't try to coerce the CG character to follow a rigid set of codified rules or traditions...Mmmmh...
Maybe the people arguing for the Paladin not being LG only are all CG?
:P
Dragon #310 (Aug 2003) had a good take (IMHO) and descriptions of 3.5 "paladins" of other alignments. The 3.5 paladin mechanics are a bit under-powered compared to Pathfinder, but the "fluff" is good.
I remember that "Sentinel" was the NG Wanderer protector of the Material Plane (turn Outsiders, not undead). "Avenger" was the CG version, I think, concerned with overthrowing dictators and being a champion of the downtrodden. Neither had divine health. Very much like Pathfinder archetypes, so much so that I'm surprised Paizo never did the same for Pathfinder.
|
|
I also feel like a lot of people are missing that CG is not the "Good over all" alignment (that's NG) it's the "Good and also tear down structure" alignment. That the "Tear it down, IDGAF!" part of good is not as successful at getting things done as the rest of the good alignments does make a certain kind of sense.CG is the alignment for those who want to help other people and fight against tyrants and the like but don't care for laws or traditions while doing so. They could choose to apply a vast variety of tactics in order to achieve their goals or change their strategy without concern for the "orthodox methods".
CG is all about being good but not feeling any need to conform to rules you think are inane or stupid. Exemples of CG characters are the "mysterious strager" and the "freedom fighter". A CG character can work well with other good alignments as long as those alignments PCs (or NPCs) don't try to coerce the CG character to follow a rigid set of codified rules or traditions...Mmmmh...
Maybe the people arguing for the Paladin not being LG only are all CG?
:P
As I said before, it's totally in line for a C- character to adopt a strict code so long as they chose freely to do so. It's the imposition that would turn off C-, not the idea of having rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I want is for Chaotic Good to not be the dead weight of the forces of good. Either they are too stupid to see the value in training divine warriors that have full bab, heavy armor/martial weapon proficiency, smite, aura, lay on hands, 4/9 spell casting, or they're too impotent to create such warriors. Those are the only two options as of right now.
And yes they are paladins because all a paladin is is a divine warrior with full bab, heavy armor/martial weapon proficiency, smite, aura, a lay on hands ability, and 4/9 spell casting.
LG being a requirement or defining feature is nothing but baggage. It does not add to the paladin, it doesn't make it special, it doesn't make it interesting, and it doesn't make it what it is.
And as I have said before in this thread, I'm not particularly interested in actually playing a CG paladin - many of my favorite that I've played are LG.
My interest here is allowing CG something it's being denied for no good, logical, or legitimate reason. There is nothing, outside of prestige classes I may be aware of, that CG has that the other corners of the alignment chart either don't have or don't have an equivalent to, and they all have something(paladins) that CG lacks.
And the only reason I can see for this is "that's the way it was in my day", which is a position I have...
Real Paladins would care about fairness, and seeing that ALL that support the cause of Good be raised by the tide, empowered to stand against Evil.
Thusly, it is clear, that Paladin players who oppose Chaotic Good aligned characters having their own specialized Class that gives them a similar chassis to fight Evil, do not understand the true mindset of a Paladin at all.
FormerFiend, I love you. Marry me, and we'll get away from all this.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm of the opinion that, most of the time, when people want to alter rules, they are doing it to gain a mechanical advantage. This scenario seems to fit the bill. Dude could easily play a Gray Paladin or Chevalier, but since both are mechanically weaker than a standard Paladin, he starts asking for rules changes.
All that talk about freedom, describing his pc, and whatever else mumbo jumbo talk are just lame attempts to get the benefits of a paladin without being lawful good.
furthermore, not that anybody was asking, in all my years of gaming, I have found the majority of the "words of wisdom" on these boards to be wrong.
traps are easy, in-combat healing is worthless, rogues suck because xxx, wixards cant be stopped, etc. just a bunch of random people online theory crafting, very little of which, when the game starts and the dice start rolling hold up to be true
Bingo.
You are 100% on the money.
See, there totally are options to be a Paladin of (insert whatever you want here) and be a holy warrior for (insert), but in order to do this you have to take a Paladin archetype that takes away a power.
They instantly jump a million feet backward and scream, "No!"
Why?
Because they never cared about being a holy warrior of X. They never cared about being a Paladin. They want the SPECIAL POWERS of the core Paladin. They wanted Lay on Hands and Charisma to Saves and Smite. It is a very obvious attempt to get mechanical benefits.
Factually incorrect (though, unsurprisingly, par for the course). I recall the 3.5 Paladin being rather underwhelming in both the quality and quantity of its class features, as well as the Cleric being a much better proxy for a not-LG Holy Warrior sort of character.
And despite that, the arguments haven't changed at all. Neither Paladin, the 3.5 version nor the PF version, is the be-all-end-all walking plot device of mechanical benefits you try to make them out to be, yet we've still been trying to free the Paladin of this insidious One-True-Way-ism since before Pathfinder was a gleam in Paizo's eye. So no, it's not just about or even mostly about the mechanical benefits; it's the principle of the thing.
As someone who has never played a Paladin and has no interest in playing one ever regardless of alignment but still think they should not be alignment exclusive. I would like to stand as living proof you are wrong and by assuming that your assumption is write and then disregarding everyone's argument and thinking you can tarnish everyone with the same brush is not only wrong but also obnoxious.
....
So you're both wrongbadfun guilty and he is is also guilty of flatly ignoring people.
what am I wrong about?!?!?
I said "most" of the time.
Please explain to me why you want a "paladin" not tied to LG, without referencing mechanics?
you want a "divine warrior" play a martial cleric. you want a "champion of good" play a LG fighter, want Lay on Hands then take believer's hands and believer's boons. immunity to fear = chevalier, want non LG paladin play a gray one
BUT NO
you are specifically calling for a class that does what pAladin does without being LG. You want the mechanics without the ties to alignment. you are seeking an advantage or "removal of rp requirement" which is essentially an advantage.
Nobody is being badwrongfun or whatever the hell that is you are referencing. you and many like you, just want to bend the rules for an advantage and don't want to be called on it. and if you have no intention of playing a paladin, and never would, why post in the thread as much as you have
We can turn that around. If it's not supposed to be about the mechanical advantage, as you say, if one should reasonably be expected to settle for a class besides the "Full BAB not-nature-y divine spellcasting class" (aka the Paladin) for their not-LG "Paladin" concept (such as by using the Warpriest, Cleric, or Inquisitor), as you say, then you should have no objection to the same being applied in the other direction.
If Warpriest et al is supposed to suffice for our not-LG "Paladin" concepts, then those classes can suffice for all the LG Paladin concepts that you might have wanted to use the actual Paladin class for. And if that doesn't work for you, if you NEED the Paladin's shiny class features and think you can reasonably expect to use that class to express your concept, then guess what? We get to NEED those same features and get to have just as much reasonable claim.
The Paladin is conceptually supposed to be the beacon of justice and honor. So if you truly want to argue for the sacrosanctity of the existing Paladin class's fluff/class feature exclusivity, I don't think it's too much to ask that you present a fair and honorable case. What you have above (everyone who disagrees should be subject to a restriction you and yours can't be bothered to put up with) does NOT qualify. As I said before, "batlhHa' vangIu'taHvIS quv chavbe'lu'", or "One does not achieve honor while acting dishonorably."
depending on the spell list even giving fighters 9/9 spell casting wouldn't break the gameI love how we suggest making a none game breaking change that brings only variety to the game and suddenly we are advocating fighters that have 9th level spells
the game changes, this isn't bad a bad thing.
It *might* help them even catch up (a little).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love how we suggest making a none game breaking change that brings only variety to the game and suddenly we are advocating fighters that have 9th level spells
the game changes, this isn't bad a bad thing.
Yes, your aim is clearly "variety" to the game, because fundamentally changing what the paladin class is is going to change the "variety" of the game and make the multitudes waiting for the glorious day they can play their NE "paladin" happy...
Let's be clear here: I think there should be a class RESTRICTED for each allignment. As we have the LG Paladin, and the CE Anti Paladin we should have other classes embodying the ideal of a particular allignment (which is what the paladin is btw), covering all the spectrum. These classes should be different between each other and of comparable power level.
THIS would increase the "variety" of the game. {. . .}
Well, that's thing thing. We DON'T have other classes or archetypes embodying the ideal of alignments other than Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil, although Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil have recently come sort of close. Yes, Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good recently got something in name, but it's nowhere near being of comparable power level. And Chaotic Good, Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral are even worse off in that department.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love how we suggest making a none game breaking change that brings only variety to the game and suddenly we are advocating fighters that have 9th level spells
the game changes, this isn't bad a bad thing.
Yes, your aim is clearly "variety" to the game, because fundamentally changing what the paladin class is is going to change the "variety" of the game and make the multitudes waiting for the glorious day they can play their NE "paladin" happy...
Let's be clear here: I think there should be a class RESTRICTED for each allignment. As we have the LG Paladin, and the CE Anti Paladin we should have other classes embodying the ideal of a particular allignment (which is what the paladin is btw), covering all the spectrum. These classes should be different between each other and of comparable power level.
THIS would increase the "variety" of the game. Just taking away the LG restriction would NOT in any way "increase the variety" of the game, it would just take what being a Paladin in D&D means and change it to something fundamentally different in order to appease a very small minority of people demanding "no restrictions"!P.S.
Limits are necessary to define things. Without limits there's only formless chaos.
Yes it clearly is my aim because class restricted for each alignment is what I have been talking about throughout this thread, one of my main examples being, anti-Paladins and tyrants exist why should the other alignments get shafted.
You've come in and said what you want is bad, what would be good is "this" and then described what I want.
I love how we suggest making a none game breaking change that brings only variety to the game and suddenly we are advocating fighters that have 9th level spells
the game changes, this isn't bad a bad thing.
Yes, your aim is clearly "variety" to the game, because fundamentally changing what the paladin class is is going to change the "variety" of the game and make the multitudes waiting for the glorious day they can play their NE "paladin" happy...
Let's be clear here: I think there should be a class RESTRICTED for each allignment. As we have the LG Paladin, and the CE Anti Paladin we should have other classes embodying the ideal of a particular allignment (which is what the paladin is btw), covering all the spectrum. These classes should be different between each other and of comparable power level.
THIS would increase the "variety" of the game. Just taking away the LG restriction would NOT in any way "increase the variety" of the game, it would just take what being a Paladin in D&D means and change it to something fundamentally different in order to appease a very small minority of people demanding "no restrictions"!P.S.
Limits are necessary to define things. Without limits there's only formless chaos.
Yes it clearly is my aim because class restricted for each alignment is what I have been talking about throughout this thread, one of my main examples being, anti-Paladins and tyrants exist why should the other alignments get shafted.
You've come in and said what you want is bad, what would be good is "this" and then described what I want.
Then who are you arguing with? Because no one here said you can't have DIFFERENT classes representing the embodyment of an alignment as long as they are DIFFERENT than the Paladin.
Fact is some people here won't settle for anything less than the removal of the LG restriction, apprently not understanding how that change would affect the class on a foundamental level, and those people are the ones we are arguing with.
Btw I never said what I want is "bad", I just said removing the LG restriction from the paladin class would be wrong while developing different classes with different powers dedicated and restricted to each allignment would be something good for the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thusly, it is clear, that Paladin players who oppose Chaotic Good aligned characters having their own specialized Class that gives them a similar chassis to fight Evil, do not understand the true mindset of a Paladin at all.FormerFiend, I love you. Marry me, and we'll get away from all this.
It is more clear that the CGs don't understand the dedication to a code and want the power it brings without earning it.
I'm all for CG getting a special class... As long as it isn't the Paladin abilities it is getting.
The Paladin is the property of the OG LGs.
A Paladin submits to their god or cause. They say, "I agree to live by the rules YOU lay out. That is how dedicated to YOU I am."
CG by its nature CANNOT do that.
Chaotic characters can be devoted enough to their gods to get spells. How much additional devotion is required to get Paladin class features? Are Chaotic characters capable of sufficient devotion to get 9th level Cleric spellcasting but not enough to get Paladin class features? Is a LG Cleric of Iomedae held to a lower standard of Lawful rigor than a Paladin of Iomedae? Why would they be? Do CE characters (e.g. vanilla Antipaladins) "understand dedication to a code" better than NGs or CGs? Frankly, this whole line of argument is as incoherent as the alignment system itself. So I have a feeling you're pushing it anyways purely because you're compelled, for whatever reason, to fight the munchkin everywhere you see him. And you see him everywhere.
Is it always mechanical advantage people are looking for? Or just that a certain set of mechanics appeal more than others? Many people consider a Cleric of whatever alignment to be more mechanically powerful, especially at high levels, but still play the Paladin because (for example) the mechanics are simpler than those of a Cleric or Warpriest. See the above post pointing out that people have been asking for variant Paladins since 3.5, when Paladins were not mechanically powerful by any stretch. Were the Variant Paladins from Unearthed Arcana out of line, in your opinion?
If these forums had signatures, I'd end all my posts with Furthermore, I believe that alignment ought to be dumpstered.
furthermore, not that anybody was asking, in all my years of gaming, I have found the majority of the "words of wisdom" on these boards to be wrong.traps are easy, in-combat healing is worthless, rogues suck because xxx, wixards cant be stopped, etc. just a bunch of random people online theory crafting, very little of which, when the game starts and the dice start rolling hold up to be true
I too have found that straw forumites are often wrong. As are the people who claim that theirs is the true wisdom because it goes against the crowd, or because their anecdotes constitute a knockdown argument.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Chaotic characters can be devoted enough to their gods to get spells. How much additional devotion is required to get Paladin class features? Are Chaotic characters capable of sufficient devotion to get 9th level Cleric spellcasting but not enough to get Paladin class features? Is a LG Cleric of Iomedae held to a lower standard of Lawful rigor than a Paladin of Iomedae? Why would they be? Frankly I find this whole line of argument to be as incoherent as the alignment system itself. And I have a feeling you're pushing it anyways purely because you're compelled, for whatever reason, to fight the munchkin everywhere you see him. And you see him everywhere.
I'm not interessed in discussing munchkin-ism in relation to paladins and their class features (I'm sure there are people who want the removal of the LG restriction because they hope this will allow them to build more powerful characters, but I don't think they are the majority of the people arguing for the removal), but I need to point out how the amount of devotion a character can express to an ideal has nothing to do with being a paladin or not.
It's not the AMOUNT that matters it's THE CODE. The things required in order to be an exemplar of an alignment. So it's not a matter of devotion: CG characters can be as devoted to their ideals or even more devoted than LG characters. But the things required IN ORDER TO BE A PALADIN are foundamentally different from those a CG character can provide.If, as I hope, Paizo developes a class for every alignment those classes will have their own specific requirements to be fulfilled in order to qualify for them and LG characters won't be able to do so, no matter how capable of devotion to their LG ideal they are.
|
Honestly, with all the bickering I'm starting to think that it would be better as a prestige class. You would have the lawful good paladins that most people are used to, you'd have the chaotic evil anti-paladins/blackguard, the lawful evil tyrants, and perhaps then the chaotic good liberators.
Each of these classes would have their own requirements, perhaps being similar yet different with features that make more sense towards the concept.
So as you may notice the suggestions I offered was specifically for those alignment extremes. Those with a neutral element to their alignment, particularly true neutral, I feel don't have the necessary drive to be a champion of ideals I still very strongly feel would be required.
That and there's definitely options for those of neutral evil or neutral good alignment, so I don't feel creating something particular for them would necessarily or required. That I feel if they can't make a decision on whether or not they're on the side of good or evil and chaos or law, the indecisiveness to prevent them from taking one of these prestige classes.
