Chaotic and Neutral Good Paladins


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 652 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

The Raven Black wrote:

Book of the Righteous from Green Ronin had the Holy Warrior base class with different powers based on what values you upheld. The Paladin was basically the Holy Warrior upholding LG values

I really liked this design concept

I have to check that out, perhaps see if that can be used to help those players that wouldn't want to play a lawful good Paladin.


Jonathon Wilder wrote:
Honestly, with all the bickering I'm starting to think that it would be better as a prestige class.

Low Templar PrC.

Also, Warpriest more or less covers the "Paladin of any alignment" bit.
Gray Paladin, Antipaladin, and Tyrant Antipaladin all exist too, covering other extremes without displacing paladins as what they are.

Grand Lodge

Again though, a lot of people aren't liking the Warpriest nor are they accepting that as an option

In all honesty I don't much care for the class either, as I'd much rather play either Cleric, Inquisitor, or Paladin then take whatever the warpriest has to offer.

The Gray Paladin, while it does make sense to me, is not an option I'd really pick either just given the fact it is weaker than a normal Paladin and I would rather play the original as lawful good.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:


Low Templar PrC.

Also, Warpriest more or less covers the "Paladin of any alignment" bit.
Gray Paladin, Antipaladin, and Tyrant Antipaladin all exist too, covering other extremes without displacing paladins as what they are.

Low Templar requires a lot of things that are even more restrictive than alignment.

Warpriest is a 'blighted urban' version of Paladin. Can it work? Sure.

So can Fighter (if you know what you're doing) or Cleric.

For those on the discussion about alignment and only 'Lawful Good' can go paladin, because Chaos means 'No King, No king, fa la la la', what about Lawful Neutral paladins of say, Abadar?

ie, 'I AM the LAW' in Judge Dredd fashion?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:

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.

I edited part of this next bit into my post after you quoted it. A bad habit of mine, I really should do all of my editing before posting. But I can expand on it now:

Let's leave deities and devotion aside for a moment, and say the characters in question are empowered purely by alignment. Antipaladins have codes too, even the Chaotic Evil ones. How is Chaotic Evil compatible with a code (which admittedly seems like a Lawful thing), but Chaotic Good is somehow structurally incapable of it? The code means the Paladin is held to a more rigorous definition of Lawful Good than is the Cleric (for some reason, even though the Cleric is granted far more supernatural power), and likewise the Antipaladin is held to a more rigorous definition of Chaotic Evil. (I think. Though part of the Antipaladin code requires them to "impose tyranny".) The point is that rigorous standards and definitions of alignment, oaths, and codes of conduct are not exclusive to Lawful deities or characters. So, why is it impossible to have a Chaotic Good exemplar (whatever you prefer to call it) with all the same rules applied?

Unearthed Arcana had a Paladin of Freedom. Sure the 3.5 Paladin is far less powerful than its Pathfinder equivalent, but you can see how a Pathfinder version would translate similarly. Would that really be so out of line?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Athaleon wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:

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.

I edited part of this next bit into my post after you quoted it. A bad habit of mine, I really should do all of my editing before posting. But I can expand on it now:

Let's leave deities and devotion aside for a moment, and say the characters in question are empowered purely by alignment. Antipaladins have codes too, even the Chaotic Evil ones. How is Chaotic Evil compatible with a code (which admittedly seems like a Lawful thing), but Chaotic Good is somehow structurally incapable of it? The code means the Paladin is held to a more rigorous definition of Lawful Good than is the Cleric (for some reason, even though the Cleric is granted far more supernatural power), and likewise the Antipaladin is held to a more rigorous definition of Chaotic Evil. (I think. Though part of the Antipaladin code requires them to "impose tyranny".) The point is that rigorous standards and definitions of alignment, oaths, and codes of conduct are not exclusive to Lawful deities or characters. So, why is it impossible to have a Chaotic Good exemplar (whatever you prefer to call it) with all the same rules applied?

Unearthed Arcana had a Paladin of Freedom. Sure the 3.5 Paladin is far less powerful than its Pathfinder equivalent, but you can see how a Pathfinder version would translate similarly. Would that really be so out of line?

Since the Paladin by definition strives to be and it's empowered by its adherence to LG values and rules of conduct (not by gods, unlike clerics) asking why a CG or NG character couldn't subscribe to the same values and actions and be empowered as a Paladin as well is a moot point. If said CG or NG character did, its alignment would shift to LG and then he could become a Paladin.

In other words: yes, CG, NG, N, CN, LN, CE, NE, LE characters can be exemplars of their alignment, follow a code and SUPPOSEDLY get empowered by it the same way LG does with Paladins. CE does this with the Anti Paladin, LE does this with the Tyrant archetype. It's just they don't become Paladins, they become something else, which Paizo has to define yet.


Rogar Valertis wrote:
Since the Paladin by definition strives to be and it's empowered by its adherence to LG values and rules of conduct (not by gods, unlike clerics) asking why a CG or NG character couldn't subscribe to the same values and actions and be empowered as a Paladin as well is a moot point. If said CG or NG character did, its alignment would shift to LG and then he could become a Paladin.

Clerics need not worship a deity. And when I said CG exemplars should be able to "follow the same rules", I should have said "follow analogous rules", to get an analogous bundle of class features (and not a watered-down Paladin and not a Warpriest or Cleric). Paizo has yet to write such a CG exemplar but the argument in here is whether or not they should write one.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Athaleon wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Since the Paladin by definition strives to be and it's empowered by its adherence to LG values and rules of conduct (not by gods, unlike clerics) asking why a CG or NG character couldn't subscribe to the same values and actions and be empowered as a Paladin as well is a moot point. If said CG or NG character did, its alignment would shift to LG and then he could become a Paladin.
Clerics need not worship a deity. And when I said CG exemplars should be able to "follow the same rules", I should have said "follow analogous rules", to get an analogous bundle of class features (and not a watered-down Paladin and not a Warpriest or Cleric). Paizo has yet to write such a CG exemplar but the argument in here is whether or not they should write one.

And here we disagree: why should people striving to become exemplars of DIFFERENT alignments get the SAME class features as the LG Paladin?

They should get DIFFERENT features suiting their DIFFERENT alignment. And note this has nothing to do with the perceived power of such classes. You assume they'd be "watered down" but this is not a fact. In an ideal world they should be different yet, once everything is done, as powerful as the Paldin.


Rogar Valertis wrote:


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.

Not true, some people did say that, they also said anyone who wants this should just play a cleric or a war priest because the other alignments were not getting the chassis of the Paladin. I also find myself arguing with people that don't seem to bother reading what I say and would rather put words in my mouth and then argue with that. You're the latter.

Quote:


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.

Really? I think I saw one person in this entire thread who might be arguing that, the rest seem to hold a similar position to me and sight the anti-Paladin as evidence. I've seen people respond to this as if people are asking for heavy armour wizards or fighters with 9th level spells. I've also seen people like you strawmaning or simply not reading other people's arguments but mostly I've seen people asking for a Paladin like class of every alignment, or archetypes of the same.

Quote:
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.

Then we agree.

Quote:
they should get DIFFERENT features suiting their DIFFERENT alignment. And note this has nothing to do with the perceived power of such classes. You assume they'd be "watered down" but this is not a fact. In an ideal world they should be different yet, once everything is done, as powerful as the Paladin

They think that cause of the grey Paladin archetype.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Since the Paladin by definition strives to be and it's empowered by its adherence to LG values and rules of conduct (not by gods, unlike clerics) asking why a CG or NG character couldn't subscribe to the same values and actions and be empowered as a Paladin as well is a moot point. If said CG or NG character did, its alignment would shift to LG and then he could become a Paladin.
Clerics need not worship a deity. And when I said CG exemplars should be able to "follow the same rules", I should have said "follow analogous rules", to get an analogous bundle of class features (and not a watered-down Paladin and not a Warpriest or Cleric). Paizo has yet to write such a CG exemplar but the argument in here is whether or not they should write one.

And here we disagree: why should people striving to become exemplars of DIFFERENT alignments get the SAME class features as the LG Paladin?

They should get DIFFERENT features suiting their DIFFERENT alignment. And note this has nothing to do with the perceived power of such classes. You assume they'd be "watered down" but this is not a fact. In an ideal world they should be different yet, once everything is done, as powerful as the Paldin.

Almost the same, that's why I corrected myself to "analogous". I feel like we're on almost the same page here but are getting tripped up over that one word. Though I will say, as the CG Paladin (or whatever you want to call it) Code of Conduct would require only minimal changes, the class features should warrant minimal changes as well. Cross off Lawful and pencil in Chaotic, relax a bit about honor and authority, and add a line about upholding liberty. That's exactly what was done with the Paladin of Freedom, and again, I think there was nothing wrong with it.

The CG exemplar shouldn't be watered down, but as we've seen, that's exactly what happened with the Grey Paladin (and not with the Antipaladin or its Tyrant archetype).


Rogar Valertis wrote:
So I can very well play a World of Darkness game (say Werewolf the Forsaken)

You know, for all the hell you're giving people about what you perceive to be a misuse of words (like the word "paladin"), you really ought not to undermine your own point by getting the name of a game wrong. Werewolf: The Forsaken is not a "World of Darkness game." It is a Chronicles of Darkness game. You might be confusing it with Werewolf: The Apocalypse, which is a Classic World of Darkness game.


It has already been pointed out by others, but removing the alignment requirement from the Paladin, wouldn't change a bit from the class, although I think it would merely move the discussion, to the actual stumbling block (for most players), for the class - the code.

Could be a easily be done though, playing a CG Paladin but sticking to the original code.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
137ben wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:
So I can very well play a World of Darkness game (say Werewolf the Forsaken)
You know, for all the hell you're giving people about what you perceive to be a misuse of words (like the word "paladin"), you really ought not to undermine your own point by getting the name of a game wrong. Werewolf: The Forsaken is not a "World of Darkness game." It is a Chronicles of Darkness game. You might be confusing it with Werewolf: The Apocalypse, which is a Classic World of Darkness game.

Just checked my printed copy of WW:The Forsaken. I'm happy to confirm it's a World of Darkness (WoD) Game. Why I'm claiming this? Because the line referenced World of Darkness, which actually has a specific manual (called "The World of Darkness").

In retrospect I should have specificed "New World of Darkness" (although it's not the line's name) to avoid the confusion with the Old World of Darkness (with "Vampire the masquerade", "Werewolf the Apocalypse", "Mage the Ascension", etc).

Chronicle of Darkness (which I didn't even know it existed until you mentioned it and I googled it) is the name the World of Darkness line of games assumed with their second edition, but I never switched to second edition (I've got a PDF about archmages for "Mage the Awakening" though... pretty impressive stuff to read although I don't know how you can play them).

In short, I believe I didn't undermine anything


IIRC, Chronicles of Darkness is the line of WoD updates put out by Onyx Path Publishing (which consists of a bunch of former WW people) who have licensed the rights to those properties from what remained of White Wolf.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Deyvantius Dragonsong wrote:

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.

Are you familiar with the term "false equivalency"?

At this point I honestly can't tell if you are willfully ignoring or twisting my argument to fit this narrative that you're pushing of "anyone who wants a non-lawful good paladin just wants the mechanics without the responsibility of playing lawful good", or if you've deluded yourself into thinking that's actually what I'm saying.

Because, as Chromantic Durgon was so kind to lampshade, to suggest that what I'm asking for is the equivalent of a fighter that casts 9th level spells is at best a gross use of hyperbole. And I mean gross in every sense of the word.

Because what I am asking for is not that. What I am asking for is a dedicated divine servant of chaotic good, bound by a code of ethics(preferably a separate and individual one for each deity), that has full bab, heavy armor/martial weapon proficiency, an aura of chaos and good that has some mechanical effect either on their allies or enemies, the ability to smite an opposing alignment - preferably evil - and the power to lay on hands and heal their allies, and cast 4/9 spells.

And to explain why that isn't a monumental or gamebreaking thing to ask for, I'll answer two of your questions there - why you have to be within one step of your deity's alignment and why you have to choose your domains from the list of domains your deity offers. Because by the artifically constructed, arbitrary metaphysics of this fictional world, as a divine servant such as a cleric, warpriest, or inquisitor, you gain your powers directly from your deity, and thus select from the powers your deity has to offer and lose them if you stray too far from your deity's alignment.

And, as the artificially constructed, arbitrary metaphysics of this fictional world demonstrate, thanks to the existance of the anti-paladin and the tyrant, there is nothing inherent to either the lawful or good alignments regarding the powerset of the paladin - full bab, aura, smite, lay on, spells.

The only real conclusion we can draw from right now is that there is something about a paladin's powers that are incompatible with the neutral alignment as while Neutral Good and Lawful Neutral deities can empower Paladins, and Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Evil deities can empower Anti Paladins, and while in theory a Lawufl Neutral or Neutral Evil deity could empower a Tyrant, the Paladin/Anti-Paladin/Tyrant still has to be Lawful Good/Chaotic Evil/Lawful Evil, respectively.

So, as far as I can tell, there's nothing inherent to the (artificially constructed and arbitrary) metaphysics of this physical universe to prevent it. And from a narrative, thematic standpoint, there are deities of the Chaotic Good alignment that are certainly at least as suited for having a paladin-equivalent servant as a number of options that already do get them.

And yet we have as of right now, a system where all chaotic good has to offer in terms of divine servants is clerics, inquisitors, and warpriests, while Chaotic Evil, Lawful Evil, and Chaotic good have those three plus one. Which despite Rogar Valertis' disagreements, objectively makes Chaotic Good the least of the four corners of the alignment chart.


Rogar Valertis wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:

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...

Well first off you can honestly doubt it all you want. When Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, and Chaotic Evil can all do the exact same things that Chaotic Good can in terms of divinely impowered servants, and then do one more thing on top of that that Chaotic Good can't do, then objectively, Chaotic Good becomes the least of those alignments.

And I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this but I do not care about the original intention, the inception, the legacy of the paladin. That's not important to me. I don't respect it. I don't think it makes the paladin better or special.

But, honestly, yes. I'll take a paladin archetype or alternate class that can do basically the same things but has to be chaotic good. If it helps you and others that share your opinion protect your sensibilities that Chaotic Good get a paladin so long as it's called something else, then I'm fine with that. At the end of the day, that's basically all I want.

Probably won't even play it, myself, because end of the day I do prefer playing LG characters. I just want there to be a balanced playing field.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
FormerFiend wrote:

Well first off you can honestly doubt it all you want. When Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, and Chaotic Evil can all do the exact same things that Chaotic Good can in terms of divinely impowered servants, and then do one more thing on top of that that Chaotic Good can't do, then objectively, Chaotic Good becomes the least of those alignments.

First of all, CG can empower a class, there's nothing in the cosmology of the game preventing this. It's just there's no rules for it yet. Conversely, the fact there are no rules in PF for a class embodying the "CG ideal" doesn't mean CG can't do that or that Paizo won't make one in the future and it has been done in the past.

FormerFiend wrote:
And I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this but I do not care about the original intention, the inception, the legacy of the paladin. That's not important to me. I don't respect it. I don't think it makes the paladin better or special.

So, why should people who don't share your ideas and your disdain listen to you? There's obviously people who don't share your ideas here, I'm one of them, but there's a difference between not sharing an opinion and not respecting it. Once you make clear you don't respect someone else's point of view there's little room for discussion. Seems like you just want something and are not willing to listen to anyone else's opinion on the matter.

FormerFiend wrote:
But, honestly, yes. I'll take a paladin archetype or alternate class that can do basically the same things but has to be chaotic good. If it helps you and others that share your opinion protect your sensibilities that Chaotic Good get a paladin so long as it's called something else, then I'm fine with that. At the end of the day, that's basically all I want.

Basically you want a carbon copy of the paladin working for other alignments, especially CG. This, you claim, because "CG needs it", which as highlighted above, is a position I don't understand and I think is based on false assumptions.

While I agree all the alignments should have a class devoted to their ideals like the Paladin is for LG I don't think the game would improve by making carbon copies of the Paldin class and handing them to every alignment. On the contrary, it would get repetitive.

FormerFiend wrote:
Probably won't even play it, myself, because end of the day I do prefer playing LG characters. I just want there to be a balanced playing field.

Fact is the playing field between alignments isn't imballanced. An alignment isn't "stronger" or "better" than another because AT THE MOMENT there's just a couple of classes that represent that alignment written down, while others don't have one YET.

In D&D and in Pathfinder there's NOTHING preventing every single alignment from having dedicated classes. Alignments ARE NOT imballanced between each other. They are all equal in the cosmology of the game. The fact that AT THE MOMENT there's rules for just a few classes that embody alignments doesn't mean alignments are "imballanced" and "need" the playing field "balanced".

P.S.

The fact you claim you "probably" won't even play a CG specific class, just want this change implemented because you want "the playing field between alignments balanced" and the fact you made clear you don't respect other people's opinions on this matter doesn't paint a pretty picture, IMO.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

People definitely want to be able to play a paladin with its mechanics. In return they must have a code (and sadly an alignment). So long as the follow the code very little reason to change much else other than alignment flavored powers. No reason to force a paladin of Desna to be a warpriest. Different mechanic, different experience. Traditional is not a good reason to be restrictive,


2 people marked this as a favorite.

All opinions are not worthy of respect, right to an opinion is but not the opinion itself. Racism is an opinion for example that I would reckon vast majority of people would not find worthy of respecting.

And tradition for traditions sake doesn't rank any higher on that scale. If the tradition can't stand on the merit of it's own value it should be discarded as needless. And DnD has a whole lot of those holy cows that need to be taken to the slaughterhouse.


Rogar Valertis wrote:


The fact you claim you "probably" won't even play a CG specific class, just want this change implemented because you want "the playing field between alignments balanced" and the fact you made clear you don't respect other people's opinions on this matter doesn't paint a pretty picture, IMO.

And he's the second one to say as much.

Furthermore, this thread is called Chaotic and Neutral Good Paladins.

Yet some are claiming that they are only arguing for champions of different alignments not Paladins of different alignments...."champions" that have the same powers as a Paladin...but they aren't trying to say they want Paladins of different alignments....and it not about mechanics...but they want the same mechanics...but they'd probably never play one...they are just concerned about the "unfairness" of the alignment system to chaotic people.

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

Why is it so difficult to simply admit "I want to play a paladin, but I don't want to deal with the bs code. I wish they would remove the restriction"


I just want to know why restrictions are being treated as some wierd boogeyman.

I mean, Pathfinder (and DnD in general) was never much of an unrestricted system with clear and obvious analogues to any given concept. There's no Chaotic Hellknight organization and related classes, I can't have a corner aligned druid who hates nature, those pesky deities force me to stay in a certain alignment block and keep certain domains, etc etc.

This stuff isn't new and frankly it's what comes with the territory of a class based system. If you want a mix/match game where there are no chassis save what you make, you're much better served with a classless system. Forcing PF to bash out new classes/archtypes to cover every conceivable corner just feels like square pegs and round holes (while also eradicating class flavor).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deyvantius Dragonsong wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:


The fact you claim you "probably" won't even play a CG specific class, just want this change implemented because you want "the playing field between alignments balanced" and the fact you made clear you don't respect other people's opinions on this matter doesn't paint a pretty picture, IMO.

And he's the second one to say as much.

Furthermore, this thread is called Chaotic and Neutral Good Paladins.

Yet some are claiming that they are only arguing for champions of different alignments not Paladins of different alignments...."champions" that have the same powers as a Paladin...but they aren't trying to say they want Paladins of different alignments....and it not about mechanics...but they want the same mechanics...but they'd probably never play one...they are just concerned about the "unfairness" of the alignment system to chaotic people.

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

Why is it so difficult to simply admit "I want to play a paladin, but I don't want to deal with the bs code. I wish they would remove the restriction"

Because that is not what is being said by everyone. The "bs" code is a part of the class. Some people are suggesting that there be different codes for the different alignments/orders of paladin-like beings.

Moreover, some are even suggesting that "I want to play something like a paladin, but dedicated to another alignment because it is a neat idea."

The counter to all this has been, in some quarters, a remark that people wanting to do this are in it for the mad powers that the class has without any of the restrictions -- a remark that misses what has been said a number of times.

I want a code. Cavaliers seem capable of having orders and edicts regardless of alignment, so the idea seems to work within the Pathfinder rules. The resistance to any change seems to revolve around the way it has always been and backwards compatibility rather than any firm defense of the sanctity of the paladin class, a class I add that has changed and altered over the many years of its existence.

Edit to add: Restrictions are not some weird boogeyman. Unnecessary restrictions based on arbitrary decisions 40+ years ago, however, and brought forward without thought are something that should be considered and, if necessary, dealt with.

After all, people have been clamoring for changes to the Fighter and Rogue, among others, protesting that they should be altered from how they always have been to represent new and old ideas that cannot be duplicated by the class as it stands.

What makes the paladin class so special that it cannot undergo the microscope?

Again, I ask: How is that the LG gods/ideas are the only ones for eons and eons that are smart enough, powerful enough, or whatever enough that they alone get this specific build of champion? CE managed to figure it out and those guys are crazy!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:


So, why should people who don't share your ideas and your disdain listen to you? There's obviously people who don't share your ideas here, I'm one of them, but there's a difference between not sharing an opinion and not respecting it. Once you make clear you don't respect someone else's point of view there's little room for discussion. Seems like you just want something and are not willing to listen to anyone else's opinion on the matter.

Ideas don't have feelings. They are not worthy of anyone's respect. Analysis? Yes. Consideration? At times. But not respect.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wultram wrote:

All opinions are not worthy of respect, right to an opinion is but not the opinion itself. Racism is an opinion for example that I would reckon vast majority of people would not find worthy of respecting.

And tradition for traditions sake doesn't rank any higher on that scale. If the tradition can't stand on the merit of it's own value it should be discarded as needless. And DnD has a whole lot of those holy cows that need to be taken to the slaughterhouse.

Okay, I'm sorry, but did you just put people wanting Paladins to stay Lawful Good on the same level as Racism? Because that's, to make an understatement, a bit of an reach, not to mention rather offensive. If were talking about, say, excluding certain races or genders from having ability scores above a certain point, then maybe it'd be a fairer comparison. But people wanting a certain class to keep what the identity that they attach to it? That's too far.


knightnday wrote:


Because that is not what is being said by everyone. The "bs" code is a part of the class. Some people are suggesting that there be different codes for the different alignments/orders of paladin-like beings.

Moreover, some are even suggesting that "I want to play something like a paladin, but dedicated to another alignment because it is a neat idea."

The counter to all this has been, in some quarters, a remark that people wanting to do this are in it for the mad powers that the class has without any of the restrictions -- a remark that misses what has been said a number of times.

I want a code...

I didn't say everyone, but I do understand the argument and respect it when it's valid.

However, the central premise of this thread was simply -

"How do you feel about PALADINS who are of neutral or chaotic good alignment?"

Not about Champions of different alignments.

Furthermore, the one archetype that offers the chance of a "Paladin" with a different alignment was cast off as weak and basically worthless.


knightnday wrote:

Edit to add: Restrictions are not some weird boogeyman. Unnecessary restrictions based on arbitrary decisions 40+ years ago, however, and brought forward without thought are something that should be considered and, if necessary, dealt with.

After all, people have been clamoring for changes to the Fighter and Rogue, among others, protesting that they should be altered from how they always have been to represent new and old ideas that cannot be duplicated by the class as it stands.

What makes the paladin class so special that it cannot undergo the microscope?

Ultimately all restrictions are utterly arbitrary. Why does the druid chassis need to venerate nature? Why must my Hellknight be lawful? Arbitrary once you get down to the root of it. Paizo evidently wants to keep with the tradition established way back when that the paladin chassis has a hefty amount of associated flavor with it and is confered with certain abilities. Why LG? It's arbitrary ultimately, but that's game design in general. Just because a class in a class based game has flavor restrictions doesn't make it bad. There's enough archtypes and ones that have no real established flavor (like say fighters and rogues) that can give people plentiful freedom to make what they want (or a near approximation thereof).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deyvantius Dragonsong wrote:

I didn't say everyone, but I do understand the argument and respect it when it's valid.

However, the central premise of this thread was simply -

"How do you feel about PALADINS who are of neutral or chaotic good alignment?"

Not about Champions of different alignments.

Furthermore, the one archetype that offers the chance of a "Paladin" with a different alignment was cast off as weak and basically worthless.

Eh, the thread drifted, as they are want to do. It hasn't gotten to the point that people are mentioning the little blue people yet or straying into why paladins fall, so we are doing fairly good at staying close to the topic. :)

Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Ultimately all restrictions are utterly arbitrary. Why does the druid chassis need to venerate nature? Why must my Hellknight be lawful? Arbitrary once you get down to the root of it. Paizo evidently wants to keep with the tradition established way back when that the paladin chassis has a hefty amount of associated flavor with it and is confered with certain abilities. Why LG? It's arbitrary ultimately, but that's game design in general. Just because a class in a class based game has flavor restrictions doesn't make it bad. There's enough archtypes and ones that have no real established flavor (like say fighters and rogues) that can give people plentiful freedom to make what they want (or a near approximation thereof).

Sure, they are all arbitrary. That doesn't mean that we don't challenge them, question them, and if necessary or desired make changes to satisfy ourselves or our players.

I don't expect Paizo to make any dramatic changes to the paladin. There are 3PP that have or will make those changes, however, and there are always home games that are going to or already have made the change, just like they might if there is discussion and unhappiness over other subjects (Fighters too weak, wizards too powerful, druids cannot use metal, etc.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Neurophage wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:


So, why should people who don't share your ideas and your disdain listen to you? There's obviously people who don't share your ideas here, I'm one of them, but there's a difference between not sharing an opinion and not respecting it. Once you make clear you don't respect someone else's point of view there's little room for discussion. Seems like you just want something and are not willing to listen to anyone else's opinion on the matter.
Ideas don't have feelings. They are not worthy of anyone's respect. Analysis? Yes. Consideration? At times. But not respect.

This might surprise you but only sentient people can have ideas and so telling someone you don't respect what he thinks is very much like telling said person you don't respect him/her.

And of course, telling someone you don't respect his ideas in the context of a discussion like this (which has nothing to do with racism btw) is also like saying you are not willing to consider that idea, no matter what, so there's no discussion because one of the people involved is not willing to discuss, he just wants his idea "to win", and screw those who don't bow down to that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Not respecting something =/= not considering it

One can consider something decide it's without value for and subsequently not respect it. I do it all the time


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People want paladins (not weak archetypes of paladins or other classes that can vaguely mimic paladins) that can be paragons of their alignments as paladins.

The only counterargument appears to be that people prefer paladin be a paragon of LG. Not sufficient to restrict player choices.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

People want paladins (not weak archetypes of paladins or other classes that can vaguely mimic paladins) that can be paragons of their alignments as paladins.

The only counterargument appears to be that people prefer paladin be a paragon of LG. Not sufficient to restrict player choices.

I find it more accurate to say that seems to be how you choose to define the opinion of those people who don't share your point of view and made arguments debating against it. Simplifying and vilifying other people's opinions amounts to claim "I am right because you are wrong" in a debate.

P.S.

A few very vocal posters repeating "remove restrictions now!" on a messageboard do not a "people" make...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cannen144 wrote:
Wultram wrote:

All opinions are not worthy of respect, right to an opinion is but not the opinion itself. Racism is an opinion for example that I would reckon vast majority of people would not find worthy of respecting.

And tradition for traditions sake doesn't rank any higher on that scale. If the tradition can't stand on the merit of it's own value it should be discarded as needless. And DnD has a whole lot of those holy cows that need to be taken to the slaughterhouse.

Okay, I'm sorry, but did you just put people wanting Paladins to stay Lawful Good on the same level as Racism? Because that's, to make an understatement, a bit of an reach, not to mention rather offensive. If were talking about, say, excluding certain races or genders from having ability scores above a certain point, then maybe it'd be a fairer comparison. But people wanting a certain class to keep what the identity that they attach to it? That's too far.

No I am saying wanting paladin to stay as it is, for the reason of tradition for traditions sake, has the exact same merit as racism, which is none. I used racism as an example because it is something that is not really defendable. Just because racism is far worse than stupid limits in a hobby, does not mean they ain't based on just as bad basis reasoning wise.

Now if one is arguing for other reasons than tradition that is different story. I was merely saying that tradition is an argument that holds no value what so ever. And as such opinion based on that fact(and only that fact) does not hold value and as such does not deserve respect, in a way that I weigh value of ideas.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Wultram wrote:
cannen144 wrote:
Wultram wrote:

All opinions are not worthy of respect, right to an opinion is but not the opinion itself. Racism is an opinion for example that I would reckon vast majority of people would not find worthy of respecting.

And tradition for traditions sake doesn't rank any higher on that scale. If the tradition can't stand on the merit of it's own value it should be discarded as needless. And DnD has a whole lot of those holy cows that need to be taken to the slaughterhouse.

Okay, I'm sorry, but did you just put people wanting Paladins to stay Lawful Good on the same level as Racism? Because that's, to make an understatement, a bit of an reach, not to mention rather offensive. If were talking about, say, excluding certain races or genders from having ability scores above a certain point, then maybe it'd be a fairer comparison. But people wanting a certain class to keep what the identity that they attach to it? That's too far.

No I am saying wanting paladin to stay as it is, for the reason of tradition for traditions sake, has the exact same merit as racism, which is none. I used racism as an example because it is something that is not really defendable. Just because racism is far worse than stupid limits in a hobby, does not mean they ain't based on just as bad basis reasoning wise.

Now if one is arguing for other reasons than tradition that is different story. I was merely saying that tradition is an argument that holds no value what so ever. And as such opinion based on that fact(and only that fact) does not hold value and as such does not deserve respect, in a way that I weigh value of ideas.

Aside from the fact in human societies traditions usually do have cultural value to people, probably had and might even still have a function inside the society that developed them what some people claimed here (me one of them) is NOT that the paladin should stay teh same because "tradition".

What was said is:

-In the context of D&D and Pathfinder the Paladin is meant to be a class devoted to the LG alignment.
-That's why it's restricted to LG and you can't change that restriction without foundamentally changing the class, effectively erasing its meaning as it is now with the effect of watering it down.
-There should be OTHER classes RESTRICTED to single alignments, just not identical to the Paladin, because just making carbon copies of the Paladin would not serve the game well and would diversify nothing.

P.S.

Quote:
No I am saying wanting paladin to stay as it is, for the reason of tradition for traditions sake, has the exact same merit as racism, which is none

In the light of this discussion this amounts to a strawman argument to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

-Did you even read your own post? Your very first point you are making is making appeal to tradition. Just because you do not use the word tradition doesn't make it not argument using it.
-And just because something is meant for something doesn't mean it can't be used for something well. For example I have used barbarian class(back in 3.5 days) to create a samurai character, just refluff rage as zen like trance and done.
-Then there is the fact that LG is not the defining moral characteristic of a paladin it is the code. Granted I would personally throw that out as well, put it in a setting book where it belongs.
-What really should be done is throwing out the alignment system, that is a 'moral' system that belongs in a children's morning cartoon. But I ain't holding my breath on that one, so in the mean time I would settle it being as little of a straitjacket as possible.

PS.

Just cause you say something is a strawman, does not make it so. Show reasoning or path of logic to it and someone might actually consider you having a point.

And with that I am off to bed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Wultram wrote:

-Did you even read your own post? Your very first point you are making is making appeal to tradition. Just because you do not use the word tradition doesn't make it not argument using it.

-And just because something is meant for something doesn't mean it can't be used for something well. For example I have used barbarian class(back in 3.5 days) to create a samurai character, just refluff rage as zen like trance and done.
-Then there is the fact that LG is not the defining moral characteristic of a paladin it is the code. Granted I would personally throw that out as well, put it in a setting book where it belongs.
-What really should be done is throwing out the alignment system, that is a 'moral' system that belongs in a children's morning cartoon. But I ain't holding my breath on that one, so in the mean time I would settle it being as little of a straitjacket as possible.

PS.

Just cause you say something is a strawman, does not make it so. Show reasoning or path of logic to it and someone might actually consider you having a point.

And with that I am off to bed.

-My posts did not appeal to tradition at all. Claim that as much as you want but it will stay a false statement you and others try to apply to mine and other people's logic in order to counter the argument that the Paladin class is the embodyment of the LG alignment and therefore changing the LG restriction means changing the class meaning and foundation, which is not there by "tradition", it's there because that's the meaning of the class. The LG alignment isn't there for mysterious reasons, it's there to express this meaning: the Paladin is a martial class championing the values of the LG alignment.

-Your claim that the defining moral characteristic of the Paladin is the code is false. The code is the expression of the values and rules a paladin needs to uphold in order to stay true to its LG values.
-You are entitled to your opinion about alignment but it's enlightening to know you admit you just want to remove the LG restriction because of personal preference about alignment.
-As for the fact you (in this very post while denying you are doing it) and a few other people are using strawman arguments in order to debate this I suppose one has to make his own opinion based on what's written in the thread.

Btw I'll quote you again:

Quote:
What really should be done is throwing out the alignment system, that is a 'moral' system that belongs in a children's morning cartoon. But I ain't holding my breath on that one, so in the mean time I would settle it being as little of a straitjacket as possible.

You accuse me of not being able of forming coherent reasoning and logic yet your whole argument by your own admission quoted above is that you don't like the alignment system, you would like it erased but since you don't think that will be possible right away you'll "settle" for "lesser changes" like removing the LG requirement from the Paldin class, regardless of how everyone else might feel about the matter. Screw them! You are right because you are right... right?

Great logic, truly.


I am about to danger myself at the risk of being burned alive and ask a most probably stupid question.

Wouldn't it be better to simply allow little 'jumps' between Chaos and Law here and there on that said LG paladin instead of breaking our brains (and our virtual faces) over the restriction of alignment?

My knowledge on Paizo books and campaign settings are very limited, so I'll talk from 3.5 experience and perspective here.

I've read that in Pathfinder it's illogic for non LG gods to have paladins. I have to disagree. As far as I can remember, in the D&D settings there are orders of paladins devoted to NG, LN, and CG gods, even a True Neutral god have one, only CN gods have none.

Alignments:

Quote:

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each

other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. A lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has even if that’s not lawful or good
behavior. People are also not consistent from day to day. A good character can lose his temper, a neutral character can be inspired to perform a noble act, and so on.

I've never liked the Law-Chaos axis, from the beggining it never had the same impact as the Good- Evil. How many times a CG hero had fought against a LN ruler?

I honestly think that the problem should be narrowed to CN "paladins", and personally I find that concept... bizarre.

Nighty night everyone, and please have mercy on me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Umm, I don't think my argument was insulting or just me saying I am correct. I stated that people want the option to have non-LG paladins. This is clearly established in this thread. It doesn't mean everybody wants to use them; but there is a market for them and people should have the opportunity to play the kind of character they desires, especially since morality is such a subjective concept.

All I am saying is that the preference that paladins remain LG should not be weighted equally with the desire to play non-LG paladins. One is about actualizing characters and the other is about entrenching a viewpoint on a class type. I always vote in favor more options and creativity over restrictions and traditional without purpose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
First of all, CG can empower a class, there's nothing in the cosmology of the game preventing this. It's just there's no rules for it yet. Conversely, the fact there are no rules in PF for a class embodying the "CG ideal" doesn't mean CG can't do that or that Paizo won't make one in the future and it has been done in the past.

Either they can't or they don't. And if they don't, then rather than being impotent, they're simply stupid. Those are the options. And while there are third party alternative options that fill this gap, and while I'm sure those options are perfectly functional and valid, they are, for all intents and purposes, fan fiction. And I'd like an official, canon, alternative.

Quote:
So, why should people who don't share your ideas and your disdain listen to you? There's obviously people who don't share your ideas here, I'm one of them, but there's a difference between not sharing an opinion and not respecting it. Once you make clear you don't respect someone else's point of view there's little room for discussion. Seems like you just want something and are not willing to listen to anyone else's opinion on the matter.

Well I could say should listen to me because I'm right, but that would be a tautology on top of just being rather egotistical. So instead I'll say that I never said they should listen to me. Never said I was doing this to change anyone's mind; while I do believe very strongly in the position I've been arguing for here, I actually rather enjoy the act of arguing for it's own sake. I'm having this discussion for the fun of it as much as anything else.

That having been said, I'd counter with the fact that I have listened to the opinions of your side on this one. And I have found them profoundly unconvincing. Especially the placations and half-hearted alternatives offered. Just play a warpriest. Just play a cavalier.

How about this for an alternative; if you want paladins to be only lawful good, then in your home game, ban any options that allow them to be anything else?

Because here's the difference between your side and my side; I'm not trying to take anything away from anyone. Me arguing for CG paladins doesn't lessen or cheapen LG or ruin anyone's home game. But in arguing that a paladin should never be anything other than LG, your side is actively working to deny others from something they want and something that would bring them enjoyment.

Quote:
Basically you want a carbon copy of the paladin working for other alignments, especially CG. This, you claim, because "CG needs it", which as highlighted above, is a position I don't understand and I think is based on false assumptions.

Honestly I'd actually be fairly satisfied with CG being that LE and CE have theirs. A paladin's powers being incompatible with a neutral alignment is a logic I can accept and makes sense to me.

Quote:
While I agree all the alignments should have a class devoted to their ideals like the Paladin is for LG I don't think the game would improve by making carbon copies of the Paldin class and handing them to every alignment. On the contrary, it would get repetitive.

As I said in my initial post in this thread, to me it comes down to a matter of practicality. The powers of a paladin are unquestionably and indisputably useful. Why any deity would not want servants with such powers - say it with me, full bab, heavy armor/martial weapons, aura, lay on hands, smite - is beyond me. As I said at the top of this post, if they can empower such servants and don't, that is simply foolish.

Quote:
Fact is the playing field between alignments isn't imballanced. An alignment isn't "stronger" or "better" than another because AT THE MOMENT there's just a couple of classes that represent that alignment written down, while others don't have one YET.

I'm not inclined to take hypothetical future additions as fact. I do want those additions, to be sure. And arguing for their additions is what I'm doing here. But the fact is that as of right now, they don't officially exist and I'm not going to be placated by promise that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Quote:
In D&D and in Pathfinder there's NOTHING preventing every single alignment from having dedicated classes. Alignments ARE NOT imballanced between each other. They are all equal in the cosmology of the game. The fact that AT THE MOMENT there's rules for just a few classes that embody alignments doesn't mean alignments are "imballanced" and "need" the playing field "balanced".

I don't accept that statement & assertion any more than you accept mine that the LG requirement for paladins is unnecessary and outdated baggage. You bolding it doesn't make it more convincing.

Quote:
The fact you claim you "probably" won't even play a CG specific class, just want this change implemented because you want "the playing field between alignments balanced" and the fact you made clear you don't respect other people's opinions on this matter doesn't paint a pretty picture, IMO.

I happen to respect the opinions of quite a few other people. Including some I disagree with. Your opinion on this particular matter just isn't one that I do respect, nor is your opinion on the picture it paints.


Athaleon wrote:

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.

They can be devoted to their God but not devoted to the way their God tells them to act. That is the nature of Chaos.

A Paladin allows themselves to be shackled to a code. They are servants and willing slaves. They give up their freedom to become the Paladin.

A chaotic character cannot do that.

A chaotic character will break a code if it becomes inconvenient. That is the entire point of being Chaotic. Chaotic characters just aren't capable of being Paladins.

The Paladin agrees to live by the code. Shackled by the code. They give up their freedom so that they might protect others. They do all of this... And they believe that it is the way it should be.

That is the Lawful aspect of the Paladin.

The very fact that you argue against the natural order that IS what fuels the Paladin means you don't think it is right. Which means, ultimately, you don't have that which is required.

That's fine as you aren't your character. However your character isn't Lawful Good so they don't have it either.

If a Chaotic character believed that it was just and in the natural order to give their freedom over to live by the Code that they do not choose then they wouldn't be Chaotic anymore.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Athaleon wrote:

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.

They can be devoted to their God but not devoted to the way their God tells them to act. That is the nature of Chaos.

A Paladin allows themselves to be shackled to a code. They are servants and willing slaves. They give up their freedom to become the Paladin.

A chaotic character cannot do that.

A chaotic character will break a code if it becomes inconvenient. That is the entire point of being Chaotic. Chaotic characters just aren't capable of being Paladins.

The Paladin agrees to live by the code. Shackled by the code. They give up their freedom so that they might protect others. They do all of this... And they believe that it is the way it should be.

That is the Lawful aspect of the Paladin.

The very fact that you argue against the natural order that IS what fuels the Paladin means you don't think it is right. Which means, ultimately, you don't have that which is required.

That's fine as you aren't your character. However your character isn't Lawful Good so they don't have it either.

If a Chaotic character believed that it was just and in the natural order to give their freedom over to live by the Code that they do not choose then they wouldn't be Chaotic anymore.

If chaotic people cannot physically devote their lives to things without an alignment shift, then wizards should be restricted to lawful alignments, since it takes dedication to master magic. And fighters should be restricted to lawful alignments too, since it takes dedication to master every form of weapon, and they can't be good, since they train explicitly to kill people and killing is bad. Rangers also have to be evil, since their main class feature is fueled by racism and racism is bad.

In fact, every adventurer has to be lawful since it takes time and devotion to learn how to adventure without dying, and chaotic people all have the attention span of a goldfish apparently.


Paladin will never be (I hope at least..) not Lawful Good. The obvious exception being a Gray Paladin.

It's the entire point of the class.

Other alignments should get a class that are devoted to that alignment. I have no issue with that.

But Paladin should always be Lawful Good.

Why change the core mechanic of the class?

People want a CG class similar to Paladin or Anti-Paladin fine. But I see no reason to let Chaotic deities have a Paladin (which is LG.)

In the mean time Warpriest using Champion of the Faith does a good non-LG holy warrior till that happens.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Athaleon wrote:

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.

They can be devoted to their God but not devoted to the way their God tells them to act. That is the nature of Chaos.

A Paladin allows themselves to be shackled to a code. They are servants and willing slaves. They give up their freedom to become the Paladin.

A chaotic character cannot do that.

A chaotic character will break a code if it becomes inconvenient. That is the entire point of being Chaotic. Chaotic characters just aren't capable of being Paladins.

The Paladin agrees to live by the code. Shackled by the code. They give up their freedom so that they might protect others. They do all of this... And they believe that it is the way it should be.

That is the Lawful aspect of the Paladin.

The very fact that you argue against the natural order that IS what fuels the Paladin means you don't think it is right. Which means, ultimately, you don't have that which is required.

That's fine as you aren't your character. However your character isn't Lawful Good so they don't have it either.

If a Chaotic character believed that it was just and in the natural order to give their freedom over to live by the Code that they do not choose then they wouldn't be Chaotic anymore.

That is certainly one way to think about a Chaotic character although it certainly paints a picture of Chaotics as flighty and unable to focus.

One would wonder how Chaotic clerics and cavaliers and societies that are chaotic are able to function, however, given those views. I imagine there are many clerics missing spells, many cavaliers unable to use their abilities and societies that fall apart after only a few years.

<<The elves look around, confused by all this.>>

One wonders why the Anti-Paladins have codes (Inner Sea Gods, various pages) if they are somehow incapable of living by one.

HWalsh, you certainly have a very strict idea of what a paladin can or should be, including the idea, as I recall, that they are known far and wide as completely truthful -- so much so that the common man would believe them over their own eyes. Your ideas on Chaotic characters seem just as strict, regulating them to a tiny slice of stereotypical behaviors rather than allowing that there can be different ways to portray the alignment.

tl;dr: There is no One True Way for paladins or Chaotics to behave or exist.

edit to add: And what about the Neutral alignments? Are they what, too self-involved or ambivalent about defending against something?


Brain_in_a_Jar wrote:

Paladin will never be (I hope at least..) not Lawful Good. The obvious exception being a Gray Paladin.

It's the entire point of the class.

Other alignments should get a class that are devoted to that alignment. I have no issue with that.

But Paladin should always be Lawful Good.

Why change the core mechanic of the class?

People want a CG class similar to Paladin or Anti-Paladin fine. But I see no reason to let Chaotic deities have a Paladin (which is LG.)

In the mean time Warpriest using Champion of the Faith does a good non-LG holy warrior till that happens.

I suppose it's a semantics issue at this point. But the name paladin has heft. I think is fair to have to sort of holy warrior as a paladin of any god so long as they are true to their code. The name matters and terms change with time and usage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Brain_in_a_Jar wrote:

Paladin will never be (I hope at least..) not Lawful Good. The obvious exception being a Gray Paladin.

It's the entire point of the class.

Other alignments should get a class that are devoted to that alignment. I have no issue with that.

But Paladin should always be Lawful Good.

Why change the core mechanic of the class?

People want a CG class similar to Paladin or Anti-Paladin fine. But I see no reason to let Chaotic deities have a Paladin (which is LG.)

In the mean time Warpriest using Champion of the Faith does a good non-LG holy warrior till that happens.

I suppose it's a semantics issue at this point. But the name paladin has heft. I think is fair to have to sort of holy warrior as a paladin of any god so long as they are true to their code. The name matters and terms change with time and usage.

Wizard and wisdom share the same linguistic root, yet wizards use intelligence to cast and not wisdom. That's kind of weird.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

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.

We dare not change the Paladin on a fundamental level? What exactly is that fundamental core that is so sacrosanct? I'm all for the fluff and history and so on remaining as suggestions for players to be encouraged to use, so long as they don't have to have their arms twisted. You want the concept of the Paladin to stay? Fine, leave it. Make it the single most emphasized suggestion of how to play the "Full BAB not-nature-y 4/9 divine spellcasting class". The only thing I'm trying to get rid of is the juvenile "You can't play the Paladin you want; Nyah nyah" disdain and One-True-Way-ism that takes a player's gaming experience and makes it a stressful nightmare. I'm not under the impression that that legacy of loathing and dismissiveness (including but not limited to the incapacity to enjoy your own Paladin character unless you know that somewhere out there is a player being denied his Paladin character on the flimsiest of bases or having to fight an uphill philosophical war before finally being accorded the same respect as any other player playing any other character by being able to play his Paladin character) was the foundation of the Paladin, but fine. If that's what your side of the conversation is defending, then that giant middle finger is indeed what I'm against.

Rogar Valertis wrote:


Athaleon wrote:

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.

Again with this same disconnect.

It CAN be the code that gives the Paladin his strength. That restriction CAN be the key aspect of who the Paladin is and why he is what he is. You are making the CHOICE to have your Paladin character be LG with a code of conduct. You are voluntarily DECIDING to have that fluff apply to that character. You're the player; it's your character; that's what you envisioned; so I am very happy it's turning out great for you and that you didn't have to fight tooth and nail to play YOUR character YOUR way.

You are not me. Your choice is not my choice. Your notion that the fluff of the Paladin is intrinsically and exclusively tied to that unique set of class features is not my notion.

I'm simply asking for the same courtesy. To similarly be able to make the same decision without feeling like I'm loathed and looked down on for the grievous sin of having different preferences. I mean, are you enjoying this thread? I'm not.

Rogar Valertis wrote:
So, why should people who don't share your ideas and your disdain listen to you? There's obviously people who don't share your ideas here, I'm one of them, but there's a difference between not sharing an opinion and not respecting it. Once you make clear you don't respect someone else's point of view there's little room for discussion. Seems like you just want something and are not willing to listen to anyone else's opinion on the matter.

Are you for real? My God in Heaven, if you want to talk about not respecting someone else's point of view, then let me direct you to the entirety of what the Paladin class's restrictions have been about since the freaking beginning!! Disdain? That is what we're fighting against! It's what we've always been fighting against. Any so-called "disdain" in his post (if there even is any) does not even microscopically compare to the years and years and decades and multiple editions of loathing and hate that has been expressed by the Paladin's restrictions. I mean, the lack of self-awareness here is astounding. Find a freaking mirror!

FormerFiend wrote:
Because here's the difference between your side and my side; I'm not trying to take anything away from anyone. Me arguing for CG paladins doesn't lessen or cheapen LG or ruin anyone's home game. But in arguing that a paladin should never be anything other than LG, your side is actively working to deny others from something they want and something that would bring them enjoyment.

Exactly! Thank you! When you want to play a Paladin as a "LG code of conduct Paladin" and your list of options includes "LG code of conduct Paladin", then you are already able to play what you want. That other people in other games at other places can choose differently does not magically force you into playing a Paladin you don't want to play.

Trust me; it works. I've never really had an interest in playing a Gnome character. Nor has seeing other players play Gnomes or hearing about other players playing Gnome characters somehow compelled me into writing up a Gnome character against my will.

The Paladin used to be Humans only. Now, someone wanting to have his Paladin characters exclusively be Human can still do so, and the fact that other players have Dwarf or Halfling or Aasimar Paladins does not diminish that player's capacity to play his exclusively Human Paladins.

The Paladin survived the end of the "Humans only" restriction. Putting it back in now would not elevate any of the players who like their exclusively Human Paladins (since they can already do that anyway), but would diminish everyone else's capacity to enjoy their characters without having to put up a fight that should not have to over a freaking game.

Is that the fundamental core of the Paladin? Enjoyment only at other players' misery? Because I haven't seen the first glimmer of anything to suggest otherwise.


Hey Tectorman, how about you try a Warpriest Champion of the Faith, for your idea of what is not a Paladin.


Brain_in_a_Jar wrote:

Hey Tectorman, how about you try a Warpriest Champion of the Faith, for your idea of what is not a Paladin.

The worst class in the ACG? Why?


Ventnor wrote:
Brain_in_a_Jar wrote:

Hey Tectorman, how about you try a Warpriest Champion of the Faith, for your idea of what is not a Paladin.

The worst class in the ACG? Why?

I don't know. I like it and have used it a few times for a "Paladin" type character that isn't LG.

I quite enjoy it and find it quite viable.


Quote:
That is certainly one way to think about a Chaotic character although it certainly paints a picture of Chaotics as flighty and unable to focus.

Flight and unable to focus? Nice try, but no.

As an alignment Chaotics do not like to be shackled behavior-wise unless they do the shackling. That is part of the alignment. It's not flight it's that they don't believe in such things.

Quote:
One would wonder how Chaotic clerics and cavaliers and societies that are chaotic are able to function, however, given those views. I imagine there are many clerics missing spells, many cavaliers unable to use their abilities and societies that fall apart after only a few years.

If most Gods were anywhere near as restrictive code-wise as the Paladin code and rules this statement might have merit. As it is you're trying to compare apples and oranges.

Quote:

<<The elves look around, confused by all this.>>

One wonders why the Anti-Paladins have codes (Inner Sea Gods, various pages) if they are somehow incapable of living by one.

Go read those codes. Also note that Antipaladin font lose their class benefits for breaking their codes.

Quote:
HWalsh, you certainly have a very strict idea of what a paladin can or should be, including the idea, as I recall, that they are known far and wide as completely truthful -- so much so that the common man would believe them over their own eyes.

Straw man.

Paladins (base ones, with the only exception being Torag's) cannot lie. This should be a known fact yes

Never did I say over their own eyes. Which is the straw man. You're attempting to inflate my statement to a ludicrous degree to discredit it.

What I have said is that barring someone witnessing it a Paladin who retains their abilities cannot lie. So in situations where there is no eye witness the Paladin's bword would, and should, be taken at face value as fact until proven otherwise by any lawful and/or good legal representative.

Quote:
Your ideas on Chaotic characters seem just as strict, regulating them to a tiny slice of stereotypical behaviors rather than allowing that there can be different ways to portray the alignment.

Straw man again.

Stop trying to insinuate that I said what I did not. I said Chaotics do not like, or think it is right, to adhere to a code that they did not create. Further that they don't believe that codes and organized laws are right or necessary.

That is what Chaotic freaking means.

Quote:

tl;dr: There is no One True Way for paladins or Chaotics to behave or exist.

edit to add: And what about the Neutral alignments? Are they what, too self-involved or ambivalent about defending against something?

TL:DR your smear didn't work.

Neutrals don't believe in codes and laws either. They believe in codes and laws they see as good, relevant, and helpful to themselves but hold no strong opinion for or against them either way. That's why they're neutral.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
The worst class in the ACG? Why?

What does the Swashbuckler have to do with this?

301 to 350 of 652 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Chaotic and Neutral Good Paladins All Messageboards