Chaotic and Neutral Good Paladins


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 652 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

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.

Smear? Please.

Again, if neutrals and chaotics do not believe in codes and laws then cavaliers would have problems, yes?

Quote:
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.

Some may believe that is giving paladins abilities or social modifies that they are not entitled to. In other words, that ain't on their sheet, it's a house rule interpretation.

As far as the rest of your responses, I have in fact read the alignments, and the various interpretations of them throughout the years. Your take on it is not one that is universally shared.

You seem to have very strong opinions that do not allow any leeway for other ideas or options. This isn't a smear or straw man. This is allowing your own words to speak for you. You don't seem to like the idea of a paladin-like class structure for other gods/alignments.

Which is fine. But it isn't the only take allowed.


knightnday wrote:


You seem to have very strong opinions that do not allow any leeway for other ideas or options. This isn't a smear or straw man. This is allowing your own words to speak for you. You don't seem to like the idea of a paladin-like class structure for other gods/alignments.

Not at all. I'm fine with variants that HAVE DIFFERENT MECHANICAL ABILITIES. I'm also fine with the current variants.

Quote:
Which is fine. But it isn't the only take allowed.

Currently, by the actual rules, it is.

Want a CG or NG Paladin... Go Gray. Don't try to change the game.

Shadow Lodge

13 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Don't try to change the game.

I'll change the game any way I damn well please.


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


You seem to have very strong opinions that do not allow any leeway for other ideas or options. This isn't a smear or straw man. This is allowing your own words to speak for you. You don't seem to like the idea of a paladin-like class structure for other gods/alignments.

Not at all. I'm fine with variants that HAVE DIFFERENT MECHANICAL ABILITIES. I'm also fine with the current variants.

Quote:
Which is fine. But it isn't the only take allowed.

Currently, by the actual rules, it is.

Want a CG or NG Paladin... Go Gray. Don't try to change the game.

I know people -- I'm one of them! -- have suggested and even indicated that we were looking for different mechanical abilities.

By the actual rules, it isn't. Paizo doesn't come to your house and enforce anything. The books are a starting point. If and when someone plays an Only Core Book No House Rules game then they are stuck with that. They have an obligation to play by whatever house rules of the game they are in, however, elsewhere up to and including Pathfinder Society, the largest house rules system for Pathfinder.

And sorry, changing the game is totally allowed. The game system is the beginning of the journey, not the end. I've been changing this game and others since around 1978, I'm not about to stop now.

To quote Ruby Rodd, "I don't want one position, I want all positions!"


TOZ wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Don't try to change the game.
I'll change the game any way I damn well please.

What you choose to house rule is up to you. That is changing YOUR game not THE game.

Even 3pp is just a house rule. Nothing more or less. The same is stuff from Dragon Magazine for older editions of D&D.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
What you choose to house rule is up to you. That is changing YOUR game not THE game.

My game is the game.

Hell, we did it.


knightnday wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
knightnday wrote:


You seem to have very strong opinions that do not allow any leeway for other ideas or options. This isn't a smear or straw man. This is allowing your own words to speak for you. You don't seem to like the idea of a paladin-like class structure for other gods/alignments.

Not at all. I'm fine with variants that HAVE DIFFERENT MECHANICAL ABILITIES. I'm also fine with the current variants.

Quote:
Which is fine. But it isn't the only take allowed.

Currently, by the actual rules, it is.

Want a CG or NG Paladin... Go Gray. Don't try to change the game.

I know people -- I'm one of them! -- have suggested and even indicated that we were looking for different mechanical abilities.

By the actual rules, it isn't. Paizo doesn't come to your house and enforce anything. The books are a starting point. If and when someone plays an Only Core Book No House Rules game then they are stuck with that. They have an obligation to play by whatever house rules of the game they are in, however, elsewhere up to and including Pathfinder Society, the largest house rules system for Pathfinder.

And sorry, changing the game is totally allowed. The game system is the beginning of the journey, not the end. I've been changing this game and others since around 1978, I'm not about to stop now.

To quote Ruby Rodd, "I don't want one position, I want all positions!"

And it's fine for you to try to change the game. Just know that I'll fight you every step of the way and I'll try just as hard to change back that which you changed.

I'm fine with some changes... The essence of a Paladin isn't one of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

And it's fine for you to try to change the game. Just know that I'll fight you every step of the way and I'll try just as hard to change back that which you changed.

I'm fine with some changes... The essence of a Paladin isn't one of them.

You misunderstand me, I think. I change my own game and if/when Paizo decides to come along, that's great. If not, well, more for me. There is no fight. I adapted paladins and paladin-like classes back around the early 80s and haven't looked back.

The essence of the paladin isn't sacrosanct, at least to me. It's a facet of the game, it has some history, but in the end it's just as mutable as anything else.


knightnday wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

And it's fine for you to try to change the game. Just know that I'll fight you every step of the way and I'll try just as hard to change back that which you changed.

I'm fine with some changes... The essence of a Paladin isn't one of them.

You misunderstand me, I think. I change my own game and if/when Paizo decides to come along, that's great. If not, well, more for me. There is no fight. I adapted paladins and paladin-like classes back around the early 80s and haven't looked back.

The essence of the paladin isn't sacrosanct, at least to me. It's a facet of the game, it has some history, but in the end it's just as mutable as anything else.

And that's fine. Changing your personal home game is fine. I have house rules of my own.

I don't want those changes applied to the official game though.

Were my house rules (evil characters banned for example) made official then many people would be upset.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

We're not having a rules discussion. We're having a discussion if CG and NG paladins should exist and have equal power to LG paladins. They should. That's my house opinion. I think it's better than your more limiting, less flexible house opinion.

But just because paladins right now happen to fit your conception doesn't make your conception right or better than other ways of considering a paladin class.

There is obvious that there are divergent opinions on it. I prefer mine. You are welcome to yours, but just stop asserting it is correct or that paladin is the wrong term. That's just your opinion with which many of us disagree.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A note on warpriests; I don't dislike warpriests. I don't think it's the best class by any means but I actually rather enjoy it. One of my favorite characters that I've played is a LG dwarven warpriest of Falayna, as I believe I've mentioned before.

I simply don't accept warpriest as a non-lawful alternative to a paladin because that's not what it is. And the reason that isn't what it is is because I can - and did - make a LG warpriest. A warpriest does have thematic similarities to a paladin, to be sure. But it isn't the equivalent.

So it's not that I have anything against the warpriest class. I acknowledge that it isn't as powerful and well designed as the paladin - I'm not delusional. But I don't hate the class.

I simply acknowledge that LG, LE, and CE get Clerics, Inquisitors, Warpriests, and Paladins - though said paladins are called tyrants and anti-paladins in respect to the latter two - while CG only has Clerics, Inquisitors, and Warpriests.

And before someone says it again, no having barbarians doesn't make up for that because 1; barbarians are not divine servants in the same way the above-mentioned classes are, 2; barbarians can be evil so that means CE would get one more thing, 3; lawful gets monks so that balances that out, and 4; there's no alignment restrictions on bloodragers(i.e. better barbarians)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What I'm gleaning from this discussion is that Chaotic Good is the worst alignment.

Which is correct.


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 a Chaotic Evil Anti-Paladin can be devoted enough to their god and to their code to receive 4/9 spells, a (de)buffing aura, cruelties, and the ability to smite good, then why can't a Chaotic Good character be devoted enough to their god and their god's code to receive 4/9 spells, a buffing aura, mercies, and the ability to smite evil?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

None of the people insisting that only Lawful characters can hold to a code have yet explained why Chaotic Evil gets to have Antipaladins. And according to the official Paizo PRD, Antipaladins do lose class abilities if they violate their Code of Conduct.

Edit: Ninja'd!

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:


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.

They absolutely can if they voluntarily choose to do so.

Quote:
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.

That depends entirely on what the code is. A CG character would have no difficulty with "commit no evil act, do not abide slavery, etc." it would likely be slightly different than the LG code, in fact, the codes may well be individualized, but there's no reason a chaotic character couldn't follow one. And you're painting with a broad brush. CG does what their conscience tells them is right, regardless of law or convention. They would not compromise that, and their code would likely be tied into it. The CG Paladin would be held to a higher standard than the average CG person (just like the LG Paladin is), it's really easy to work.

Quote:

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.

From the description of CG from the CRB:

CRB wrote:
While chaotic good characters do not accept that individuals must sacrifice their ideals and follow laws for the good of the whole, they willingly sacrifice themselves (and their individuality) to protect the whole in the name of good.

Hmm...sound familiar?

Quote:
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.

I disagree that the Paladin is fueled by the fact that they are LG. I hold that they are fueled by their dedication to a cause.

Quote:
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.

Once more, just to drive it home:

CRB wrote:
While chaotic good characters do not accept that individuals must sacrifice their ideals and follow laws for the good of the whole, they willingly sacrifice themselves (and their individuality) to protect the whole in the name of good.


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


-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.

-You claimed that it is how it is meant to be. That is appeal to authority and tradition.

Rogar Valertis wrote:


-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.

-Then what is it that differentiates Paladin from everyone else that is LG? The code has a whole lot of stuff that is not tied down to LG. LG can easily lie and in the common example of hiding fugitives and questioned on it, I would expect anyone with good alignment to lie, except paladins.

- Not just because I hate alignment, yes it is a major reason for my opinion but not the only one. Another big thing is that I do not see classes tied down to the fluff, the ones in the book is just one possibility for individual character. Sure the new fluff still needs to make sense. If you are a divine caster you still need some sort of tie to divine power. Paladin is built in a fashion to allow very little of that, so as a result I view it as a bad design choice.
- If you are gonna keep throwing that around prove it. I certainly could make the assumption that you are an idiot from your posts if I were to twist them and assume the worst of every statement. But that does not mean I am about throw unfounded insults around. I would prefer the same courtesy.

Rogar Valertis wrote:


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.

No I am not accusing of you not being able to. I was accusing you of not showing reasoning and that was in case of throwing around strawman as the simple statement of it countered any and all arguments against your position. And no I do not think it is possible ever for alignment to be gone, because of opinions from certain developers. And yes I do not care about the people of the opposing position, because if that restriction is gone, you can still make the same exact paladins you can at the moment, it just allows different ones as well. I want to get rid of restrictions that bring nothing of worth to the game only take away from it. I hold the same view of monks or barbarians alignment restrictions. If alignment is a thing(as in it is not gone) then the only restriction that I think makes sense is the within one step of deity that clerics have.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
None of the people insisting that only Lawful characters can hold to a code have yet explained why Chaotic Evil gets to have Antipaladins. And according to the official Paizo PRD, Antipaladins do lose class abilities if they violate their Code of Conduct.

1) Because an "Antipaladin" is an inherently ridiculous thing.

2) Because irony, it's a deliberate inversion of the Paladin code.

The problem codes of conduct and chaos are less that "a chaotic character cannot live by a code" but how the code a chaotic character lives by tends to be internally imposed and personal, and that chaotic alignments tend not to build institutions and tend to eschew traditions, so the "Code of our order" being something other than "do what works for you, but do the right thing" doesn't make a ton of sense.

The Antipaladin only gets a code because of an external reference to the Paladin code, and are deliberately mocking it. Taking something that lawful people believe in and subverting it is an incredibly chaotic thing to do.


That and its virtually impossible to actually fall (ascend?) by breaking the anti-pal code since you can just write off any good acts as playing the long con.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

None of the people insisting that only Lawful characters can hold to a code have yet explained why Chaotic Evil gets to have Antipaladins. And according to the official Paizo PRD, Antipaladins do lose class abilities if they violate their Code of Conduct.

Edit: Ninja'd!

Being ninja'd is not allowed. Ninjas must follow a code of honor, and hence must be lawful.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a side to this I believe traditionalists are overlooking.

The Paladin offers a very specific niche of full BAB growth backed by special defenses, limited healing, Face abilities, and then misc. tools tacked on as a bonus. No other class in the game offers the specific kit they do.

Some people want to enjoy that general kit without tying their character to a specific code of conduct that often bogs down play at the table ("does this make them Fall? Does THAT? What about those factors?"). While the Warpriest was a decent attempt at offering this kit to such players, it doesn't quite match. There's still a very real gap in the game where people want to enjoy those kind of mechanics but don't like being forced into specific narratives.

This is a legitimate interest to have, and the topic keeps coming up because no Paizo material has addressed this in a satisfactory way so far. The Gray Paladin is awful (it guts most of the things such players want and offers little in return), and the Warpriest is more a Cleric Variant than it is a Paladin Offshoot.

It's really unfortunate that some people derisively view attempts to fill this gap as "changing the game." It is, admittedly, just that; people are trying to change it. They're trying to make it better and more fun.


cannen144 wrote:
If I remember correctly, there were alternate versions of the Paladin for each of the corner alignments in the 3rd edition unearthed arcana. You could always have your players use the Chaotic Good one (I want to say it was called the Paladin of Freedom, or something like that), if you're GMing, or ask you GM about using it if you're playing.

[url="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedomSlaughterAndTyranny"]Paladins of Honor, Freedom, Slaughter, and Tyranny[/ur], aye.

Back when Paizo was publishing Dragon and Dungeon, there were at least 2 articles, maybe 3, that dealt with coming up with a new variant of Paladin for each alignment, including the ones which already had variants from the PHB and UA. So there are at least 2 LG, 2 CG, 2 LE, and 2 CE variant Paladin classes in the greater official millieu of D&D 3.5.

So unless they have had some memory loss, Pathfinder doesn't lack non-LG Paladins due to James Jacobs or Jason Bulmahn or SKR not being familiar with the idea.

HWalsh wrote:
Even 3pp is just a house rule. Nothing more or less. The same is stuff from Dragon Magazine for older editions of D&D.

Hohoho. Oh the forum arguments about the exact nature of Dragon content that I have seen.

Ah, that takes me back.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
None of the people insisting that only Lawful characters can hold to a code have yet explained why Chaotic Evil gets to have Antipaladins. And according to the official Paizo PRD, Antipaladins do lose class abilities if they violate their Code of Conduct.

1) Because an "Antipaladin" is an inherently ridiculous thing.

2) Because irony, it's a deliberate inversion of the Paladin code.

The problem codes of conduct and chaos are less that "a chaotic character cannot live by a code" but how the code a chaotic character lives by tends to be internally imposed and personal, and that chaotic alignments tend not to build institutions and tend to eschew traditions, so the "Code of our order" being something other than "do what works for you, but do the right thing" doesn't make a ton of sense.

The Antipaladin only gets a code because of an external reference to the Paladin code, and are deliberately mocking it. Taking something that lawful people believe in and subverting it is an incredibly chaotic thing to do.

And yet they are a thing that exists, and they have specific codes dictated to them by the gods they serve - which is to say, not personal or internally imposed.

Thus proving the concept that by the (artificially constructed and entirely arbitrary) metaphysical laws of this fictional universe, a chaotic character can be dedicated enough to a code set forth by their deity to receive basically the same powers as a paladin.

And before I get someone else telling me that an anti-paladin isn't a paladin because their powers aren't exactly the same, I'd count with the fact that a cleric of Iomedae and a Cleric of Lamashtu have drastically different powers - channel positive energy vs channel negative energy, entirely different set of domains, subdomains, and domain powers to select from - but are still both clerics. And I personally do not see a substantive difference between that and Paladins/Anti-Paladins/Tyrants.

Anyway. Since the concept is proven that a chaotic character can adhere to a code set forth by a chaotic god with enough devotion to receive their powers and the only counter argument to that is "it's ridiculous", there is nothing saying that chaotic good character can't do what their evil counterparts and their lawful counterparts are demonstrably capable of.

I would imagine that a paladin code set forth by Cernunnos or Volc or Milani or Desna would be different than the ones set forth by Torag, Erastil, or Shizuru. But the codes set down by those deities are all rather different from one another already. So I'm not seeing a conflict here.


Coidzor wrote:
cannen144 wrote:
If I remember correctly, there were alternate versions of the Paladin for each of the corner alignments in the 3rd edition unearthed arcana. You could always have your players use the Chaotic Good one (I want to say it was called the Paladin of Freedom, or something like that), if you're GMing, or ask you GM about using it if you're playing.

[url="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedomSlaughterAndTyranny"]Paladins of Honor, Freedom, Slaughter, and Tyranny[/ur], aye.

Back when Paizo was publishing Dragon and Dungeon, there were at least 2 articles, maybe 3, that dealt with coming up with a new variant of Paladin for each alignment, including the ones which already had variants from the PHB and UA. So there are at least 2 LG, 2 CG, 2 LE, and 2 CE variant Paladin classes in the greater official millieu of D&D 3.5.

So unless they have had some memory loss, Pathfinder doesn't lack non-LG Paladins due to James Jacobs or Jason Bulmahn or SKR not being familiar with the idea.

HWalsh wrote:
Even 3pp is just a house rule. Nothing more or less. The same is stuff from Dragon Magazine for older editions of D&D.

Hohoho. Oh the forum arguments about the exact nature of Dragon content that I have seen.

Ah, that takes me back.

If I recall correctly, one of the articles about paladin variants was by James Jacobs. I image they haven't included them (yet) for backwards compatibility. Or they may just not like the idea. The Magic 8 Ball has been fairly silent on this.


Paizo has not implemented it because they write 1 hardback per year at this pace.
Player Companions are wild tales by random outsiders anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Going further back to the days before many members of the community were born, Dragon 106, in February of 1986, before AD&D 2E or the Rules Cyclopedia, A PLETHORA OF PALADINS was written by Christopher Wood, detailing 7 variant Paladins.

Myrikhan(NG), Garath(CG), Lyan(LN), Paramander(TN), Fantra(CN), Illrigger(LE), and Arrikhan(NE).

I have to admit, Illrigger has a nice ring to it, as does Paramander, although it also sounds a bit like a Pokemon fusion between Parasect and Charmander.

knightnday wrote:
If I recall correctly, one of the articles about paladin variants was by James Jacobs. I image they haven't included them (yet) for backwards compatibility. Or they may just not like the idea. The Magic 8 Ball has been fairly silent on this.

Dragon 310, Champions of the Divine,

Written by James Jacobs, Illustrated by Jason Engle, and cartography by Mike May.

Introducing the Sentinel(NG)
Avenger(CG)
Enforcer(LN
Incarnate(TN)
Anarch(CN)

Looks like James Jacobs also wrote an article called "Blackguards" for Dragon 312 in October of 2003, wherein the Despoiler, Corrupter, and Anti-Paladin were detailed to cover LE, NE, and CE.

So, yeah, either he's not one of the reasons for being against it ideologically, or he's changed his mind at some point after August of 2003. Who knows, maybe mentioning him like this will cause him to make an appearance and tell me off for bringing up things from when the stones were young and all the animals spoke as one.

They've had ample time to create their own version if they were so inclined, so I highly doubt that it's an issue of time or publication schedules. In the years since Pathfinder became a system, there have been ample opportunities to do the job which would not exactly require colossal effort if there was any interest in doing so.

I don't think it's even possible that such a concern about backwards compatibility would have registered. I see concerns about running into issues with WOTC over republishing the concept of variant Paladins as being far more likely, and even then that would seem like a shaky argument. Although I suppose it might be less shaky due to James Jacobs having written those articles, but, IANAL.

Grand Lodge

I just looked up that issue of dragon magazine have to say they the way they presented it does intrigue me. Perhaps I can try my hand converting them and offering them here.

Admittedly, were I can, I will try to swap 3.5 abilities show with their Pathfinder equivalent where such can be found to try to make things easier. Plus, those here can check balance.

I may though need to create a homebrew thread simply so as to not derail the thread. One thing I will say, I don't doubt they'll be plenty of people who'd be willing to help with us still in hell firmly they wish to have Paladin if other alignment.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it is telling how since 4e trailblazed the path away from alignment restrictions, there has been nary a paladin argument in sight on edition-neutral and 4e/5e forums.

It's almost as if once a set of arbitrary restrictions are lifted by RAW, the fanbase realizes that a positive-sum play experience created by freedom is more fun than a zero-sum experience created by those arbitrary restrictions.

How 'bout that.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh no, don't me wrong. I still very much believe Paladins should strictly be LG, but the article mentioned above offers related classes which are also different. Where a paladin is still a paladin, LG and all, but then there is a Sentinel (NG), Avenger (CG), Enforcer (LN, Incarnate (TN), and Anarch (CN).

These all have different names and fluff, as well adjusted mechanics.

That these "Holy Warriors" offer Paladins of different alignments, essentially by creating alternate classes which all have their differences. Most particularly that of name, fluff, and mechanics. Not by simply removing the alignment restriction but by actually putting a lot more effort in creating that which is related yet NOT the same as the Paladin. Each needing to strictly be a single alignment.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Coidzor wrote:
So, yeah, either he's not one of the reasons for being against it ideologically, or he's changed his mind at some point after August of 2003. Who knows, maybe mentioning him like this will cause him to make an appearance and tell me off for bringing up things from when the stones were young and all the animals spoke as one.

I'll go find the discussion where he told me he had changed his mind and link you to it.

Edit:

Not the one I was thinking of, but a good stand-in.

James Jacobs wrote:
Actually, that was the article MY article was inspired by/based on. The two I wrote were in Dragon #310 and #312 if memory serves, and coming up with themes for each of the classes that helped justify them as existing without overlapping other classes (aka, the paladin smites evil, so none of the other 8 should have smite evil) was really tough. And by the end of the articles, which I was hired to write by the magazine's editor (it wasn't an article I approached them with a pitch to write, but one they wanted to publish and they offered it to me since I'd established myself as a good go-to guy for articles by that point I suppose), I was pretty convinced, and remain convinced to this day, that a paladin for every alignment is not a great idea. If only because it reduces and marginalizes the paladin.

Source.


I feel though, a character for all the extreme alignments (the corners and TN) with archetypes to bleed over to its neighbors, is not necessarily a bad idea. It's just that they all shouldn't be Paladins.

Let's say instead of "CG paladin" the "CG specific holy warrior" was a 3/4 BAB 9 level caster with a curated spell list that gets both divine and arcane staples and other "this is a holy warrior" class features. Would that satisfy people?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel though, a character for all the extreme alignments (the corners and TN) with archetypes to bleed over to its neighbors, is not necessarily a bad idea. It's just that they all shouldn't be Paladins.

Let's say instead of "CG paladin" the "CG specific holy warrior" was a 3/4 BAB 9 level caster with a curated spell list that gets both divine and arcane staples and other "this is a holy warrior" class features. Would that satisfy people?

Wouldn't satisfy me.

Because there's nothing inherently lawful about a paladin's abilities that I've grown tired of typing out repeatedly, and there's nothing inherently chaotic about the hypothetical abilities you've just presented. The different powers aren't truly representative of their respective alignments, they're just arbitrarily assigned to be representatives for no other purpose than to protect the sensibilities of people who think that making a CG version of a paladin is taking something away from them.

Someone earlier mentioned that the idea of an archetype/alternate class paladin for each alignment strikes them as repetitive. Well, to me, coming up with a wholely mechanically distinct class to be the "holy champion" of each alignment strikes me as gimmicky, contrived, and will ultimately end with arbitrary distinctions of "these mechanics are in line with this alignment because we say so". Which isn't even getting into the balancing nightmare that is making eight wholely new classes.

All for what? So that the traditionalists can keep the paladin as their sacred cow?

No thank you.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I think it is telling how since 4e trailblazed the path away from alignment restrictions, there has been nary a paladin argument in sight on edition-neutral and 4e/5e forums.

It's almost as if once a set of arbitrary restrictions are lifted by RAW, the fanbase realizes that a positive-sum play experience created by freedom is more fun than a zero-sum experience created by those arbitrary restrictions.

How 'bout that.

It's also telling that few RPGs (that aren't D&D or its derivatives) even use alignment. In other words, alignment isn't worth the arguments, the development effort, or the paper it's printed on. If you just want descriptors you can simply use words, without any reference to an alignment system.

HWalsh wrote:

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.

Antipaladins can, as can the servants of Chaotic gods. Again, if Chaotic Evil can empower an Antipaladin, why can't Chaotic Good empower its own Paladin analogue?

Quote:
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.

A commitment to capital-G Good implies a voluntary restriction of one's own freedom, a compulsion to aid the innocent and so on. In the Chaotic case, the character must additionally uphold the principle of individual liberty. That is a code, whether it's written or not. Is the Chaotic Good alignment actually impossible to have? Does anyone have a link to that article laying out the argument that the Law/Chaos distinction is basically meaningless in practice?

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel though, a character for all the extreme alignments (the corners and TN) with archetypes to bleed over to its neighbors, is not necessarily a bad idea. It's just that they all shouldn't be Paladins.

Let's say instead of "CG paladin" the "CG specific holy warrior" was a 3/4 BAB 9 level caster with a curated spell list that gets both divine and arcane staples and other "this is a holy warrior" class features. Would that satisfy people?

Could be interesting but would raise the exact same question in reverse.


FormerFiend wrote:

Wouldn't satisfy me.

Because there's nothing inherently lawful about a paladin's abilities that I've grown tired of typing out repeatedly, and there's nothing inherently chaotic about the hypothetical abilities you've just presented.

I just thought I would mention "Holy Warrior for an alignment" as fundamentally different classes being an option because the Shifter in Ultimate Wilderness is supposedly that for Neutrality. There's nothing especially "neutral" about shapeshifting, but there is about being in tune with nature. Likewise there isn't anything particularly lawful about the Paladin's class features, but there is about "belonging to a knightly order with rules and traditions."

At the very least the chaotic good version shouldn't have heavy armor proficiency since chaos is often about self-sufficiency, which does not include "armor you can't put on by yourself without the assistance of magic." (CN and CE have the option to just bully someone into helping you get your armor on, CG does not.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:

Wouldn't satisfy me.

Because there's nothing inherently lawful about a paladin's abilities that I've grown tired of typing out repeatedly, and there's nothing inherently chaotic about the hypothetical abilities you've just presented.

I just thought I would mention "Holy Warrior for an alignment" as fundamentally different classes being an option because the Shifter in Ultimate Wilderness is supposedly that for Neutrality. There's nothing especially "neutral" about shapeshifting, but there is about being in tune with nature. Likewise there isn't anything particularly lawful about the Paladin's class features, but there is about "belonging to a knightly order with rules and traditions."

At the very least the chaotic good version shouldn't have heavy armor proficiency since chaos is often about self-sufficiency, which does not include "armor you can't put on by yourself without the assistance of magic."

I believe Gorum and his followers would be rather surprised to hear that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Likewise there isn't anything particularly lawful about the Paladin's class features, but there is about "belonging to a knightly order with rules and traditions."

Cavaliers have Orders and Edicts and aren't restricted to Lawful.

Quote:
At the very least the chaotic good version shouldn't have heavy armor proficiency since chaos is often about self-sufficiency, which does not include "armor you can't put on by yourself without the assistance of magic."

Antipaladin.

Seriously, are you arguing that "having people who help you" is an inherently Lawful trait? Or that no Chaotic organizations can exist because organization is antithetical to chaos?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@PossibleCabbage
Well then, compromising be damned it. Seems some people just won't be happy unless the paladin is completely torn apart to be what they want, so why should some of us even try to find a middle ground.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jonathon Wilder wrote:
Well then, compromising be damned. Seems some people just won't be happy, so why should some of us even try.

The CG Paladin archetype/alternate class can be called something other than paladin. That is the sum total of compromise I'm willing to offer on this.

As I have stated, I do not find any merit whatsoever in the position that the paladin should be LG and only LG. I have no respect for that position, and I'm not going to undermine my position by pretending I do to be polite.

This is a lovely hill, and one I am perfectly prepared to die on.

Grand Lodge

FormerFiend wrote:
The CG Paladin archetype/alternate class can be called something other than paladin. That is the sum total of compromise I'm willing to offer on this.

Well what is the bloody point in just changing the name and nothing else if you refuse to allow any other differences??!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jonathon Wilder wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:
The CG Paladin archetype/alternate class can be called something other than paladin. That is the sum total of compromise I'm willing to offer on this.
Well what is the bloody point in just changing the name and nothing else if you refuse to allow any other differences??!

To spare the sensibilities of the traditionalists who insist that there's a substantive difference between paladins and anti-paladins.

Now, I was being somewhat hyperbolic there. I would expect some changes - axiomatic being taken off the divine bond list and replace with anarchic, for instance. Fiddling with the spell list a bit.

I'm fine with some minor, primarily cosmetic changes. Hell, there was someone earlier in the thread that suggested making them int or wis based instead of cha based - I'm not entirely on board with that but it's an option worth exploring.

But at the end of the day I want the core abilities of the class intact - full bab, heavy armor/martial weapon proficiency, smite, buff/debuffing aura, lay on hands, 4/9 casting.

Anything other than that is a placation. And I will not be placated.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think making another 3/4 9th caste rather misses the point.

It's the chassis of the Paladin, my position is a little less ridgid than FF different smites could work differently, different auras would of course be different, and lay on hands could do different things for each corner. As the anti Paladin one does, touch of corruption is it?

But the full BAB, 4th casting, smiting, aura toting thing is rather the point.

I also reject the idea that chaotic can't have heavy armour that's a new one on me.

I do see where FF is coming from though, he does have a lovely hill.


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

I think making another 3/4 9th caste rather misses the point.

It's the chassis of the Paladin, my position is a little less ridgid than FF different smites could work differently, different auras would of course be different, and lay on hands could do different things for each corner. As the anti Paladin one does, touch of corruption is it?

But the full BAB, 4th casting, smiting, aura toting thing is rather the point.

I also reject the idea that chaotic can't have heavy armour that's a new one on me.

I do see where FF is coming from though, he does have a lovely hill.

Don't I just?

But seriously, I am open to some movement here. I'm just don't have a specific idea of what that movement should be.

But I am adamant on the full bab, 4/9 casting, smiting, aura, touch that does something chassis.

Maybe the aura's a little different - though I think aura of courage is still mandatory because, you know, the god of courage is CG. Maybe they get a primarily offensive touch like anti-paladins to to balance with LG paladins being healy. Maybe they get different mercies though I don't know what isn't covered by mercies at this point. Some changes would need to be made to divine bond and the spell list, to be sure.

But I absolutely am not asking for a 3/4th, 9th level caster and I'm not going to entertain that as a substitute for a moment.


Jonathon Wilder wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:
The CG Paladin archetype/alternate class can be called something other than paladin. That is the sum total of compromise I'm willing to offer on this.
Well what is the bloody point in just changing the name and nothing else if you refuse to allow any other differences??!

I feel like if there's a point where people are at "this and only this is the thing I'm going to accept" we're better off just instituting those things in home games rather than just waiting for Paizo to read minds and do exactly what any one person wants.

Personally, I'd prefer it if every alignment got its own champions but they're not just carbon copies of the Paladin (heavy armor, smite, 4/9 casting, etc.) Why can't the champion of chaotic good be a lightly armored highly mobile skill monkey? Why not have some alignments have champions who are spellcasters (perhaps the LN champion is a different version of the alchemist) It's more interesting if we get 8 new classes instead of 8 versions of one class.

Grand Lodge

On these variate "Holy Warriors", when it comes to the Smite ability, I will offer this consideration:

Holy warriors of LG, NG, and CG alignment will have Smite Evil while holy warriors of LE, NE, and CE alignment will have Smite Good. This because it would reasonably still be a battle of Good vs Evil with more a difference in the method of how they fight their opposed whether this be good or that of evil.

Holy warriors of LN and CN alignment would be Smite Chaos or Smite Law, because their attention will not be on what is good or evil, what is "moral", but more that of law, tradition, order, focus on the whole vs freedom, adaptability, change, and focus on the individual. Yet they will still offer the same bonus to damage dealt and the same rules.

A TN Holy Warrior, admittedly, I have no idea for and personally would be at a loss on what they might Smite that wouldn't be overpowered such as being able to Smite all alignments. In this case I would say exclude the alignment or give them something other then Smite.


I have said that I'd be willing to make a concession that paladin equivalents would be required to not have a neutral aspect to their alignment - that is to say, they're either LG, CG, CE, or LE - a system under which currently only CG is missing.

I feel that keeps it consistent in that right now you can be a paladin of a LN or NG god, you just have to be LG. And you can be an anti-paladin of a CN or NE god, you just have to be CE. And presumably Tyrants can serve NE and LN gods as well as LE ones but I don't think they've gotten around to making any deity-specific codes for them yet.

This system does leave TN out in the cold, which I admitted the first time I proposed it, but the neutral alignments do get druids so maybe that can be seen as some kind of balance.

Though if we are going to be all inclusive, which I'm certainly in favor of, perhaps a TN paladin equivalent would have a smite feature that works only works against the non-neutral alignments, LG, LE, CE, CG. That would be, granted, one more alignment than the other four smiting options are effective against, but you have spells like Arbitrament that work on basically the same principle, so there's precedent for it.


FormerFiend wrote:
Though if we are going to be all inclusive, which I'm certainly in favor of, perhaps a TN paladin equivalent...

A TN Paladin seems redundant given that the forthcoming Shifter class is explicitly a "Martial defender/enforcer for Druid Groups" and likely has a "something neutral" requirement built in.

Wild Shape is cooler than smite, anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Jonathon Wilder wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:
The CG Paladin archetype/alternate class can be called something other than paladin. That is the sum total of compromise I'm willing to offer on this.
Well what is the bloody point in just changing the name and nothing else if you refuse to allow any other differences??!

I feel like if there's a point where people are at "this and only this is the thing I'm going to accept" we're better off just instituting those things in home games rather than just waiting for Paizo to read minds and do exactly what any one person wants.

Personally, I'd prefer it if every alignment got its own champions but they're not just carbon copies of the Paladin (heavy armor, smite, 4/9 casting, etc.) Why can't the champion of chaotic good be a lightly armored highly mobile skill monkey? Why not have some alignments have champions who are spellcasters (perhaps the LN champion is a different version of the alchemist) It's more interesting if we get 8 new classes instead of 8 versions of one class.

Well aside from, or perhaps as a better expression of the reasons I gave against that earlier(convoluted, gimmicky, arbitrary, balancing nightmare), I'll tell you;

Because I have no interest in each alignment being represented by one person's arbitrary idea of what mechanics best embody that alignment.

A lightly armored highly mobile skill monkey may make perfect sense as the CG representative to you and certainly that wouldn't be a bad fit for a follower of Cayden Cailean or Desna, but I'd say Milani, Tolc, and Valani are better represented by something more resembling the paladin than by that hypothetical. And I'd say that Zohls and Kelinahat(both LG) are better represented by lightly armored, highly mobile skill monkeys than they are by paladins.

And as for the LN champion being an alchemist, why? You could make an argument about chemical reactions and the laws of physics and chemistry being a big part of modern society and civilization, sure, but still that's a stretch, and it just comes off as a random designation. I mean, your whole thing about heavy armor being inherently non-chaotic is nonsense to me.

And both of these suggestions are basically "variations of classes we already have, but they have to be this alignment". Which, I'm not going to be too hard on you on because I imagine you came up with those off the top of your head and that's fair. But anyone who tries to come up with seven to eight wholely unique classes(depending on whether or not we're counting the anti-paladin as the chaotic evil class), is going to be phoning it in by class number four, if they're good.

And that's ignoring the fact that paladin already does fill the role for three out of the nine alignments thanks to anti-paladin and it's tyrant archetype. So you'd have seven to eight "distinct" and "unique" classes that are more than likely going to be mishmashed variants of what we already have arbitrarily confined to one of the squares on the chart, two paladins, and whatever stands in for LE pulling double duty with the Tyrant.

That is a long way to go for no other reason than to keep paladins LG, for no other reason than that's how you think paladins should be.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:
Though if we are going to be all inclusive, which I'm certainly in favor of, perhaps a TN paladin equivalent...

A TN Paladin seems redundant given that the forthcoming Shifter class is explicitly a "Martial defender/enforcer for Druid Groups" and likely has a "something neutral" requirement built in.

Wild Shape is cooler than smite, anyway.

I'm gonna be honest, I haven't been keeping up with the shifter development at all - I actually only found out about the class like, two weeks ago.

That being said my main stake in this from the start is making sure that the gods of the different alignments get something. Druids/Rangers/Hunters and, I assume, Shifters, aren't so much connected to the gods as they are nature. They may worship gods or demi-gods who are nature-affiliated, but there's a degree of separation there that doesn't exist with clerics, warpriests, inquisitors, and paladins.

You're not going to have a shifter of Nethys or Brigh or Naderi, is my point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FormerFiend wrote:
Though if we are going to be all inclusive, which I'm certainly in favor of, perhaps a TN paladin equivalent would have a smite feature that works only works against the non-neutral alignments, LG, LE, CE, CG. That would be, granted, one more alignment than the other four smiting options are effective against, but you have spells like Arbitrament that work on basically the same principle, so there's precedent for it.

Yes, I think that smite partisan would be perfect. For those paladins who hate having ne'er do wells constantly wrecking sh*!, but also hate being preached at by do-gooders. :)

Silver Crusade

FormerFiend wrote:


Maybe they get different mercies though I don't know what isn't covered by mercies at this point. Some changes would need to be made to divine bond and the spell list, to be sure.

I imagine there'd be some overlap in mercies, but I could see CG having more of a liberation bent, removing charm and compulsion and such. Or it could be an offensive thing ("retributions" instead of "mercies" or some such). Divine bond would basically just be swapping out axiomatic for anarchic, don't know if you'd need to change the mount portion at all.

Editor's note: this has been sitting open on my phone for hours. Wheeee...


Isonaroc wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:


Maybe they get different mercies though I don't know what isn't covered by mercies at this point. Some changes would need to be made to divine bond and the spell list, to be sure.

I imagine there'd be some overlap in mercies, but I could see CG having more of a liberation bent, removing charm and compulsion and such. Or it could be an offensive thing ("retributions" instead of "mercies" or some such). Divine bond would basically just be swapping out axiomatic for anarchic, don't know if you'd need to change the mount portion at all.

Editor's note: this has been sitting open on my phone for hours. Wheeee...

Maybe also switch out merciful for vicious to mirror the alignment powers of the warpriest's sacred weapon.

But yeah, I don't think there should be any drastic differences between a CG paladin and a LG paladin. Just minor tweaks.

351 to 400 of 652 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Chaotic and Neutral Good Paladins All Messageboards