| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Warpriest class is looking at this thread with exasperation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
If you can't compromise why should anyone compromise with you? as of right now pally is LG. your the one not getting what you want. but you say no compromise so why should anyone else compromise with you?
To be honest with you after a post like that I will probably just skip your posts from here out. and i'm actually ok with a CG paladin like class.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
If you can't compromise why should anyone compromise with you? as of right now pally is LG. your the one not getting what you want. but you say no compromise so why should anyone else compromise with you?
To be honest with you after a post like that I will probably just skip your posts from here out. and i'm actually ok with a CG paladin like class.
I'm capable of compromise when both sides are acting in good faith and both sides have merit.
As I have said multiple times, I find no merit in the position of the traditionalists on this matter. I see no value in their position, I have no respect for their position, and I'm not inclined to pretend otherwise; I'm going to argue for my position, make my case. And if that means some people aren't inclined to listen to me because I refuse to pretend that I think the other side has a point, so be it.
In politics compromise if almost always necessary, but is often a trap. One side acts obstinately and blames the other for being obstructionist, and puts pressure on them to agree to a lopsided compromise in which they accept five percent of what they were arguing for.
I'm arguing for a CG class with full BAB, heavy armor/martial weapon proficiency, buffing aura, a touch ability, and 4/9 casting. Being offered a cleric with a tweaked spell list or a light armored skill monkey is not a compromise. It's the traditionalist getting what they want and me getting something I didn't want or ask for.
Of course that's presenting the situation as if any of this was actual negotiation; everyone in this thread could agree with me and that wouldn't move Paizo to action; no one in this thread speaks with any real authority on the subject.
All the same, I'm hopeful that Paizo will do the right thing - and make no mistake, I do ardently and adamantly believe that making a CG paladin archetype is the right thing to do. Wizards of the Coast realized this, and if Paizo isn't including an alignment system in Starfinder, I imagine they're catching on as well. We'll see, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, what's the deal with the idea (posted quite a ways above) that only the corner alignments have the dedication suitable to make Paladin-like (Paladinoid?) characters? I would make the argument that somebody who is really hard-core Good, Lawful, Chaotic, or Evil to the exclusion of the respective un-named alignment axis is really dedicated to their alignment -- they aren't going to let the other axis get in the way.
Also, what's the deal with the idea (posted quite a ways above) that only the corner alignments have the dedication suitable to make Paladin-like (Paladinoid?) characters? I would make the argument that somebody who is really hard-core Good, Lawful, Chaotic, or Evil to the exclusion of the respective un-named alignment axis is really dedicated to their alignment -- they aren't going to let the other axis get in the way.
I would argue that only corner alignments get these powerful classes because the combination of alignments creates the conviction that can cause it. Neutrality has only the agenda of status quo, which is weakness. People sitting on the fence deserve nothing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^Not necessarily. Neutrality on one axis means you can be even more hard-core on the other. You're not sitting on the fence -- you're hard-core committed to one ideal, and you aren't going to let ideals from the other axis distract you.
^Not necessarily. Neutrality on one axis means you can be even more hard-core on the other. You're not sitting on the fence -- you're hard-core committed to one ideal, and you aren't going to let ideals from the other axis distract you.
That is true. Although, hardcore neutrals are very convicted at keeping the status quo. Maybe it is more accurate say that corner alignments are the most convicted to change the world in the direction of their corner? But Super True Neutral already has all the druidism for it. Super True Neutral really feels like something primitive, primal. Happy if the world returned to nothing again, back to the basics. Before neither the chaotics spread stuff or before the lawfuls started collecting them into patterns.
Also, what's the deal with the idea (posted quite a ways above) that only the corner alignments have the dedication suitable to make Paladin-like (Paladinoid?) characters? I would make the argument that somebody who is really hard-core Good, Lawful, Chaotic, or Evil to the exclusion of the respective un-named alignment axis is really dedicated to their alignment -- they aren't going to let the other axis get in the way.
That is certainly a way to think about it that I can understand and even agree with.
And I can also understand and agree with Envall's offered interpretation. I think either way is a valid way to go.
Main reason I've been pushing for the corner alignment arrangement is that we're close to already being there. Paladin for LG, Anti Paladin for CE, Tyrant for LE. CG is the only one of the corners that's lacking right now.
While my ideal would be for a paladin's code to be tied directly to their deity so that every deity has representatives, I'd be willing to compromise a bit on that with it being restricted to the corners because I figure one new archetype/alternate class would be easier for the traditionalist to swallow than seven of them would be.
There's also the point that switching it to the pure alignments, NG,LN,NE,CN, would require retconning what's been established. If they want to go in that direction for Pathfinder 2.0 if/when that happens, I can see that. But it obviously isn't a change that's going to be made here and now. Where as a CG option is easy to slot in as "it's been here the whole time" like anti-paladins and eventually tyrants were.
Keeping it to the corners fits with the current set up where NG and LN gods can have paladins, they just have to be LG, CN and NE gods can have anti-paladins, but they still have to be CE. Presumably NG and CN would be able to have followers who were the CG Paladinoid(I like that), which would lead to very interesting conversations in Gorum and Calistria's domains when their paladin and anti-paladin followers meet up(everyone's friendly reminder that there are currently more anti-paladins in Elysium than there are paladins).
This does leave TN holding the bag as discussed and that's unfortunate, but we can come back to that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Warpriest class is looking at this thread with exasperation.Funny, seems like most people who want to play a CG Paladin are looking at the Warpriest with exasperation.
+1. Warpriest is probably my least liked class on the game. Basically for how spectacularly it fails at being a "paladin for all alignment" class. For me, a true paladin for all must have Full BAB, be CHA based and be a Caster with 4 spell levels. Warpriest have none of it. I am pretty sure that the problem is mine and not of the class, but outside very punctual builds (high level summoner and funky weapons) the Warpriest just seems like a worse Inquisitor. The only thing I really like of the class is Fervor, and you don't have it so many times a day. To play Paladin-lite for all alignment, I would play before a Cavalier with Order of the Star and Divine Obedience and later Sentinel prestige class.
I hate all alignment restrictions, specially Druid and monk (some of my favorite characters has been NN monk and CG Druid). In fact, my very first D&D character on 2e was an elf CG bard, something that seemed so appropriated that neither me nor the DM saw until much later that was illegal back then.
But Paladin is all about their alignment. I see it like an alignment champion more than a particular god champion, so is the one restriction I see some reason to be. Still, I would really like to have an option for, at least, LG, LE, CG and CE. The concept feels incomplete right now.
If we see them as divine champions, there is one thing I dislike on the evil ones. I don't see "champions of evil gods" with powers to fight "good", but to powers to "smite anything that do not serve my deity". Obviously, the smite then should be less powerful, being more broad. That's why I love the Insinuator archetype for Antipaladin.
Fun facts, in 3.5 there was an "anti druid prestige class" (more like a fallen druid), and True Neutral druids could worship CE gods of nature. Orders of Lawful monks worshiping CG and NE gods existed.
If we are going to agree that:
- Lots of AL axis deserve their respective 'paladinesque class'.
- AL restriction is a thing of the past and sometimes annoying.
- Some people would like to 'play a paladin with different AL, role and/or different class features'.
- [I got the feeling that I am missing something else]
Isn't it what happened in modern games such as 5th Ed and Starfinder?
Pick the class, choose from a list of features what you think it would suit your character as you level up... and be happy?
I do really like the idea of Pathfinder 2.0. No archetypes, no class variants, no AL, features listed by class and level, lots of options and a fun custom your character fiesta, it's just only my point of view though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't it what happened in modern games such as 5th Ed and Starfinder?
Pick the class, choose from a list of features what you think it would suit your character as you level up... and be happy?
Yes, 4e has proven that when the shoe is on the other foot, when the onus is on LG-only advocates to make their case against RAW rather than advocates of freedom needing to, the case doesn't get made. With few exceptions, players play the paladin they want to play, and everyone's happy. And 5e is carrying on this 4e legacy.
Those few exceptions, of course, are those LG-only advocates for whom "What alignment can my paladin be?" is a zero-sum issue. The very nature of their definition of paladinhood means that if even one player at the table plays an inclusive paladin, the inclusive definition trumps their LG-only definition.
Fun facts, in 3.5 there was an "anti druid prestige class" (more like a fallen druid), and True Neutral druids could worship CE gods of nature. Orders of Lawful monks worshiping CG and NE gods existed.
That's still true IMO. If you do not have a "A cleric’s alignment must be within one step of her deity’s, along either the law/chaos axis or the good/evil axis" or similar for a character type, you can worship any god and be of any alignment, provided you can make sure it makes sense so you can RP it.
So you can, right now, barring house rules that state otherwise (like PFS uses) play a Paladin who worships Desna and is LG (you just won't qualify for that one feat.) This is why I don't understand the need for a CG Paladin, since there's nothing keeping you from playing a Paladin of Rovagug other than me asking "explain to me how that makes sense" (and I will accept your answer if it's sufficiently well considered.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said in my older post, it is all about worldbuilding.
If nobody cares about the reasons why Paladin is LG, you get nothing about of the restriction. But some people get something out of it.
5th edition's brilliance was in admitting that lot of people probably do not give a toss about the lore that much, so it eased it up. All these heavy worldbuilding themes, throw them away. With that, we can throw all those byproduct rules away. Enjoy the silence.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The zero-sum issue is what annoys me about this entire thing. As if by either doing away with the alignment restriction entirely, or simply by making a CG archetype/alternate class for the paladin, we are taking something away from the paladin class, or taking away something from the Lawful Good alignment itself, or we're taking something away from the traditionalist, personally.
The issue is that there is no loss here. The only thing being taken away is exclusivity, which that ship sailed as soon as the anti-paladin was printed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fun facts, in 3.5 there was an "anti druid prestige class" (more like a fallen druid), and True Neutral druids could worship CE gods of nature. Orders of Lawful monks worshiping CG and NE gods existed.That's still true IMO. If you do not have a "A cleric’s alignment must be within one step of her deity’s, along either the law/chaos axis or the good/evil axis" or similar for a character type, you can worship any god and be of any alignment, provided you can make sure it makes sense so you can RP it.
So you can, right now, barring house rules that state otherwise (like PFS uses) play a Paladin who worships Desna and is LG (you just won't qualify for that one feat.) This is why I don't understand the need for a CG Paladin, since there's nothing keeping you from playing a Paladin of Rovagug other than me asking "explain to me how that makes sense" (and I will accept your answer if it's sufficiently well considered.)
I don't want a paladin that worships Desna, I want a paladin of Desna. One who receives their powers from Desna and follows a code set forth by Desna in the same way that a paladin of Torag does.
I can play a paladin of Torag or a paladin of Iomedae and if I violate their specific paladin code while still behaving in a way that's LG, my paladin loses their powers. But saying I'm playing a paladin that's empowered by a deity while my character is a step further away from that deity's alignment than a cleric can be without losing their powers is absurd.
I've mentioned this before, but the general rule of thumb if that if you're more than two alignment steps away from the deity you worship, you're doing it wrong and will be found wanting in the afterlife. James Jacobs has even said that clerics who are a single alignment step off from their deity are heretical clerics.
Also the only justification I can imagine for a LG paladin worshiping Rovagug is that when they were a child, someone with an obscenely high bluff check lied to them when they were explaining what Rovagug was as a joke and they've never stopped believing due to their innocent naivete. Which, granted, actually sounds funny as hell and I kind of wanna do that now the next time my group runs a less serious game.
Paladins don't receive their power from a god. They aren't required to worship a god period, and still receive their powers. Atheist paladins lose absolutely no class features. Whatever empowers Paladins is something more primal/fundamental than whatever empowers Clerics; after all Clerics don't lose their powers as easily as Paladins do.
There is no difference between a "Wizard of Desna" and "a Wizard that worships Desna." There is likewise no difference between a Paladin who worships Desna and a Paladin of Desna.
Things about "steps of alignment between you and the deity" are not in the rules (barring things like the Cleric, Inquisitor, Warpriest, etc.). They may be in your house rules, but they're not part of the rules.
|
every deity has its area of competence that only allows certain category of followers
players and the gm should dictate lore not classes
I think that those two quotes point at the root of the actual problem hiding behind threads like this one.
Which is that the GM/the Designer creates a world or a rules system that follows certain rules (one could be for example: "Paladins must be LG".) This can collide with what a player wants to play as a character, but worse, it collides with a lot of players' tendency to play against any restriction imposed by a rule system or a setting. I met this behavior with nearly every AP I started to run. Every time you have at least one player who does their best to create a character that goes against anything suggested in the respective player's guide. And frankly, that annoys the hell out of me, because personally I find it much more interesting to play a character that fits the setting expectations as one that goes against them..
This said, I certainly can understand if players are equally annoyed if they have this great character concept and they can't bring it to life because the GM tells them that "bad luck, not allowed in my game" or (cowardly) that "can't do that, the rules don't allow it".
So my solution is simple: if a player wants to go against the restrictions of a rule system or a setting (mine or from any other source), they can do so with the understanding that their character is an exception from the norm and that they need to explain how this exception came to be. To me, that's more interesting than just to ban, let's say CG paladins or to make CG paladins a normal part of the world. Though even the latter could be a possibility if the player is willing to put some work in it. I'm not averse to have player's ideas influence and modify a setting as long as I'm not the one who has all the work with it.
Paladins don't receive their power from a god. They aren't required to worship a god period, and still receive their powers. Atheist paladins lose absolutely no class features. Whatever empowers Paladins is something more primal/fundamental than whatever empowers Clerics; after all Clerics don't lose their powers as easily as Paladins do.
Not sure that I agree with that. "paladins seek ... to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve." To me that pretty much implies that an "atheist paladin" is a thing of impossibility. I also read the following sentences ever with the assumption that they get those boons by the deity they serve exactly as Clerics do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
anti paladin and tyrant anti paladin aren't paladins they are anti paladins so we aren't even close to filling out the corners of the extremes for the paladin as we still only have LG while we have a LE and CE anti paladin
They have full bab, heavy armor/martial weapon proficiency, they smite an opposing alignment, they have a (de)buffing aura, they have 4/9 casting, they have a code of ethics, the violation of which costs them their powers.
They're paladins, they're just called something different. I don't see the difference between anti-paladins and paladins as any more substantive than the difference between a LG cleric with the law and good domains and a CE cleric with the chaos and evil campaigns. One channels positive energy, one channels negative, one can cast good spells, one can cast evil.
A paladin's aura buffs, an anti-paladin's debuffs. A paladin's touch heals, an anti-paladin's harms. One smites evil, the other smites good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said in my older post, it is all about worldbuilding.
If nobody cares about the reasons why Paladin is LG, you get nothing about of the restriction. But some people get something out of it.5th edition's brilliance was in admitting that lot of people probably do not give a toss about the lore that much, so it eased it up. All these heavy worldbuilding themes, throw them away. With that, we can throw all those byproduct rules away. Enjoy the silence.
Yes, 4e has proven that when the shoe is on the other foot, when the onus is on LG-only advocates to make their case against RAW rather than advocates of freedom needing to, the case doesn't get made. With few exceptions, players play the paladin they want to play, and everyone's happy. And 5e is carrying on this 4e legacy.
Those few exceptions, of course, are those LG-only advocates for whom "What alignment can my paladin be?" is a zero-sum issue. The very nature of their definition of paladinhood means that if even one player at the table plays an inclusive paladin, the inclusive definition trumps their LG-only definition.
IIRC, one of the fundamental tenets of Pathfinder is 3.5 compatibility. So google 3.5 paladin of freedom for a CG paladin...
That is true. Although, hardcore neutrals are very convicted at keeping the status quo. Maybe it is more accurate say that corner alignments are the most convicted to change the world in the direction of their corner? But Super True Neutral already has all the druidism for it. Super True Neutral really feels like something primitive, primal. Happy if the world returned to nothing again, back to the basics. Before neither the chaotics spread stuff or before the lawfuls started collecting them into patterns.^Not necessarily. Neutrality on one axis means you can be even more hard-core on the other. You're not sitting on the fence -- you're hard-core committed to one ideal, and you aren't going to let ideals from the other axis distract you.
What you say would be correct for True Neutrals (and we do need to get to that later, but first things first). But I'm talking about hard-core Neutral Good, Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, and Neutral Evil. These would be very much in favor of changing the world in their respective directions -- their directions on the alignment graph are just oriented at multiples of 90° instead of odd multiples of 45°. From their point of view, moving towards one of the corner alignments would detract from their goals.
Related to this, it also doesn't make sense to restrict Druids to something-Neutral or Neutral-something. Canonically, some Druids are strongly associated with corner alignment nature-themed deities (Erastil, Desna, Zon-Kuthon(?), and Lamashtu) -- they should instead get the same alignment ranges as Clerics of those deities. The same should hold true for non-corner-alignment deity-associated Paladin-like characters (Paladinoids?).
IIRC, one of the fundamental tenets of Pathfinder is 3.5 compatibility. So google 3.5 paladin of freedom for a CG paladin...
Yes, several of us have been thinking of that. Although it would need a serious update in order to use it in Pathfinder without being severely impaired.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In many ways, I'm on board with the traditionalists here. Even more than full BAB, four spell levels, Smite Evil, Detect Evil, Lay on Hands, whatever, what really makes paladins fun to play for me is the code. The requirement of absolute dedication to their oaths and ideals above all else. And it having real mechanical influence, and not just "I wrote down this stuff in my character's bio, it's very important to him unless it's convenient to forget" and then everyone shrugs it off if he falters.
For all four of my current paladin PCs, their codes are a very significant part of who they are and why they're fun to play, and each one approaches it a bit differently. (And none of the other players at the table mind any of them.)
That is what I want out of a CG equivalent class. Because yes, I do think a Chaotic character can be just as much a paragon of their ideals, and just as dedicated to sticking to them. While still being quite definitely Chaotic, because of the ideals they choose. A CG character who decides "screw the rules, I don't WANT to rescue this slave, Milani can't tell me what to do!" isn't being Chaotic Good properly, imo. Chaotic Neutral, maybe, but most likely Chaotic Stupid. Consistent dedication to the ideals of freedom and individual happiness isn't an oxymoron. Chaotic doesn't mean having to randomly go against your own decisions and philosophy because "ew codes". It doesn't mean having to not really follow the tenets of the faith you chose yourself, especially since they'll be Chaotic-friendly ones anyway. Sure, it CAN be like that, but it doesn't have to be.
And, yeah, an option to play a Cha-based full BAB divine caster and still worship Gorum seems pretty reasonable too. But it's not the biggest reason I'd want paladin-equivalents.
|
|
Sure you can have setting rules. But PF is not advertised as a setting based system despite how many times the devs have screwed that one up. In fact it is advertised as a setting neutral system. And as such those type of restrictions have no place in the standard rules.
My viwe my be biased by the fact that Golarion as a Setting is older than the Pathfinder Rules and that one of the main reasons the devs gave us, why they needed the system was that they needed it to support their world when 3.5 had gone out of print. So as far as I'm concerned, it was never setting neutral to start with. I also can't remember that it was explicitely advertised as such.
But apart from that, I still disagree because every system out there serves a certain vision its designers had when writing it. Even more important restrictions are absolutely necessary when writing a system that is not a generic GURPS-style system because those restrictions give form to the settings they are used with. It's easy enough (and encouraged by the devs) to ignore those if they come in the way of your fun), but as a general principle they very much need to be there even if they should only serve to satisfy the sensibilities of those players that are used to them by old editions. And that accomodation of players who didn't like the way 4E was going was a major point in how the new system was advertised.
Speaking of old editions: the paladin was originally designed as a subclass to emulate a very specific kind of fighters, namely the paladins of the Roland Epos and the Arthurian Knights of the table round. The restrictions are based on these archetypes, and I (and probably other fans of the status quo as well) consider those very much a boon and not a design flaw. Now I would never say that those restrictions are necessary for balance reasons (I find that line of reason hilarious given that no matter the alignment a paladin can't hold a candle to the cleric) but I'm very much a proponent of letting the paladin be a special class for LG holy knights and if you have a need for holy knights of other alignments, that you use a better fitting mechanical chassis for that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In many ways, I'm on board with the traditionalists here. Even more than full BAB, four spell levels, Smite Evil, Detect Evil, Lay on Hands, whatever, what really makes paladins fun to play for me is the code. The requirement of absolute dedication to their oaths and ideals above all else. And it having real mechanical influence, and not just "I wrote down this stuff in my character's bio, it's very important to him unless it's convenient to forget" and then everyone shrugs it off if he falters.
For all four of my current paladin PCs, their codes are a very significant part of who they are and why they're fun to play, and each one approaches it a bit differently. (And none of the other players at the table mind any of them.)
That is what I want out of a CG equivalent class. Because yes, I do think a Chaotic character can be just as much a paragon of their ideals, and just as dedicated to sticking to them. While still being quite definitely Chaotic, because of the ideals they choose. A CG character who decides "screw the rules, I don't WANT to rescue this slave, Milani can't tell me what to do!" isn't being Chaotic Good properly, imo. Chaotic Neutral, maybe, but most likely Chaotic Stupid. Consistent dedication to the ideals of freedom and individual happiness isn't an oxymoron. Chaotic doesn't mean having to randomly go against your own decisions and philosophy because "ew codes". It doesn't mean having to not really follow the tenets of the faith you chose yourself, especially since they'll be Chaotic-friendly ones anyway. Sure, it CAN be like that, but it doesn't have to be.
And, yeah, an option to play a Cha-based full BAB divine caster and still worship Gorum seems pretty reasonable too. But it's not the biggest reason I'd want paladin-equivalents.
The counter to this argument that both myself and others have used is that Anti-Paladins, Chaotic Evil individuals, also have a code that is imposed on them and that they must be dedicated to, and that if they stray and falter from it, they lose their class abilities.
And I've yet to see a convincing argument for why if a chaotic evil character can be dedicated enough to their code of ethics that they have the power to smite good, why a chaotic good character can't be dedicated enough to a code to smite evil.
I'm not asking that the CG paladin equivalent not have a code of ethics. If anything what I'm really asking for here is paladin codes for Cayden Cailean, for Milani, for Tolc, for half a dozen or more others that I've mentioned and left out.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of old editions: the paladin was originally designed as a subclass to emulate a very specific kind of fighters, namely the paladins of the Roland Epos and the Arthurian Knights of the table round. The restrictions are based on these archetypes, and I (and probably other fans of the status quo as well) consider those very much a boon and not a design flaw. Now I would never say that those restrictions are necessary for balance reasons (I find that line of reason hilarious given that no matter the alignment a paladin can't hold a candle to the cleric) but I'm very much a proponent of letting the paladin be a special class for LG holy knights and if you have a need for holy knights of other alignments, that you use a better fitting mechanical chassis for that.
Honestly part of why I have no respect for the traditionalist position on this is because I know that, and because I'm of the opinion that the archetypes that the paladin was based on, be it from Arthurian myth or the peers of Charlemagne, or the nine worthies, are largely horse feces.
If you look back at early Arthurian myth, Arthur is cast as a deeply flawed man, consumed with lust, jealousy, greed, and pride. Charlemagne was a war criminal. And among the other nine worthies are Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar.
These are not figures that remotely embody what I think of as lawful good, whatever fairy tails were written about them over the last few hundred years.
Like I said in my older post, it is all about worldbuilding.
If nobody cares about the reasons why Paladin is LG, you get nothing about of the restriction. But some people get something out of it.5th edition's brilliance was in admitting that lot of people probably do not give a toss about the lore that much, so it eased it up. All these heavy worldbuilding themes, throw them away. With that, we can throw all those byproduct rules away. Enjoy the silence.
Yes, 4e has proven that when the shoe is on the other foot, when the onus is on LG-only advocates to make their case against RAW rather than advocates of freedom needing to, the case doesn't get made. With few exceptions, players play the paladin they want to play, and everyone's happy. And 5e is carrying on this 4e legacy.
Those few exceptions, of course, are those LG-only advocates for whom "What alignment can my paladin be?" is a zero-sum issue. The very nature of their definition of paladinhood means that if even one player at the table plays an inclusive paladin, the inclusive definition trumps their LG-only definition.
...We agree? Or is there something that you imply which I am not getting.
|
|
If you look back at early Arthurian myth, Arthur is cast as a deeply flawed man, consumed with lust, jealousy, greed, and pride. Charlemagne was a war criminal. And among the other nine worthies are Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar.
Doesn't matter because the actual historical persons aren't represented by the D&D paladin. The Nine Worthies represent chivalric virtues and as far as they are based on historical persons they are naturally not trying to give an accurate complete picture of the historical person.
Yes, 4e has proven that when the shoe is on the other foot, when the onus is on LG-only advocates to make their case against RAW rather than advocates of freedom needing to, the case doesn't get made.
Dangerous territory, but I don't think that 4E proved anything to that matter. That case probably didn't get made that often because the players that would make it never played 4E anyways. I mean there is a reason that Pathfinder RPG became such an instant success and that reason certainly wasn't that all the traditionalists saw the error of their ways and started playing 4E.
though I generally agree with you. If those alignment restrictions had never been in the system from the start, players wouldn't have gotten used to it.
Honestly part of why I have no respect for the traditionalist position on this is because I know that, and because I'm of the opinion that the archetypes that the paladin was based on, be it from Arthurian myth or the peers of Charlemagne, or the nine worthies, are largely horse feces.If you look back at early Arthurian myth, Arthur is cast as a deeply flawed man, consumed with lust, jealousy, greed, and pride. Charlemagne was a war criminal. And among the other nine worthies are Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar.
These are not figures that remotely embody what I think of as lawful good, whatever fairy tails were written about them over the last few hundred years.
But the point is to emulate the fairy tales, so no, they cannot be disregarded as irrelevant and/or inaccurate.
If someone wants to imagine a fantasy character in line with other fantasy characters, I don't see the problem with that. And that's what it is. Wanting to play a paladin who "acts kinda like King Arthur" isn't any different than wanting to play a monk who "acts kinda like Obi-Wan Kenobi". They both represent archetypes of the genre, and if you choose to judge that choice by knowingly applying a different interpretation of Arthur to it, it doesn't matter how much more "accurate" or historically correct you are, it's not the point and isn't a valid basis for judging what the other player means.
Fantasy is how the real world should have been, not how it was or is. We take the parts that make for good stories. What this is varies by table and intent, but should always be the goal. Why isn't there a cantrip to ward away fleas? Because even if people had fleas in the middle ages, it's not generally particularly fun to roleplay, except perhaps in situations like setting a tone for a particularly gritty campaign. Why don't we roleplay women not being allowed in the military, and make female PCs disguise themselves as men or face disgust and disapproval at best? Because it's not generally particularly fun to roleplay and limits character options.
Maybe it's just me, but I think stuff like justified holy wars and idealized virtuous knights have a place in our fantasy just as much as relative gender equality and vermin-free beds.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have played a NG Paladin of Shelyn without any problems. Just the base class. Well actually it was the Divine Hunter archetype, but still we had no need of adjustments: he was a defender of art, beauty and love who offered everyone a chance for redemption, except for those incurable monsters such as demons or undead, which he smote without fear or hesitation.
Not lawful because he had followed the call of the deity without joining an Order, and while he believed that structure and discipline are somewhat important, the pursuit of Good is above everything else, including any laws.
Just ignoring the "L" requirement of the class worked very well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...We agree? Or is there something that you imply which I am not getting.
Twice now in the last few pages people have misattributed D&D's shift away from alignment restrictions, whether out of h4te or genuine ignorance I don't know. I corrected those people, pointing out that 4e is the trailblazer responsible for dropping alignment restrictions. Then you became the third person to make the same misattribution, literally two posts after my last correction, so instead of typing out a third one I decided to copy/paste my last correction in reply to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@William Werminster
I don't agree with all of those points, or even most of them.
Oh, neither do I my good sir. I am fond of my memories with 2nd and 3.5 (yes even if they were "terrible") paladins. I also think that the power boost on the paladin in pathfinder was too much.
But, fortunately or not, the game is still a product, and devs want to please "the majority". If we follow the course of the game trough editions we can somewhat extract the tendency of softening the limitations and restrictions. People want options, even if they will never take them.
As a matter of fact, I even find funny how many DMs activate their Defcon alarm every time one of the players wants to play a paladin, because we've never had any big issue with paladins. From my experience, "d!~~*eadness" comes with the player, not the character.
A LG paladin and a CG rogue together, best of friends. One trying to show him that he can still improve as a person. The other following him because, since childhood, he knows that his friend is too kind for his own good. What a blasphemy, eh?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, 4e has proven that when the shoe is on the other foot, when the onus is on LG-only advocates to make their case against RAW rather than advocates of freedom needing to, the case doesn't get made.Dangerous territory, but I don't think that 4E proved anything to that matter. That case probably didn't get made that often because the players that would make it never played 4E anyways. I mean there is a reason that Pathfinder RPG became such an instant success and that reason certainly wasn't that all the traditionalists saw the error of their ways and started playing 4E.
though I generally agree with you. If those alignment restrictions had never been in the system from the start, players wouldn't have gotten used to it.
Yeah, most alignment restrictions are anomalous rules which sprang out of D&D's first home campaigns. When players are introduced to the hobby via 4e or 5e, not a one of them asks "Wait, rangers can be non-good? Druids can be non-TN? Paladins can be non-LG? What's up with that?" The only restriction that was ever fundamentally intuitive is the cleric restriction to be aligned with their deity.
Anyhow, I don't think my comments about 4e and 5e are in dangerous territory. No doubt many LG-exclusive advocates never got into 4e, and so don't have much reason to complain about 4e's shift away from alignment restrictions. But since when do edition warriors need a good reason to complain, especially about 4e? 4e gets flack for all kinds of faults, most of them hugely exaggerated nitpicks, or straight-up lies. And yet among all of those supposed faults, largely eliminating alignment restrictions never comes up.
See also 5e discussions, where D&D traditionalists show up much more often. And again, hardly a peep about the absence of alignment restrictions.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have played a NG Paladin of Shelyn without any problems. Just the base class. Well actually it was the Divine Hunter archetype, but still we had no need of adjustments: he was a defender of art, beauty and love who offered everyone a chance for redemption, except for those incurable monsters such as demons or undead, which he smote without fear or hesitation.
Not lawful because he had followed the call of the deity without joining an Order, and while he believed that structure and discipline are somewhat important, the pursuit of Good is above everything else, including any laws.Just ignoring the "L" requirement of the class worked very well.
Awwww, why did you have to do that?
All right everyone, pack it in. Pathfinder is ruined forever.
Twice now in the last few pages people have misattributed D&D's shift away from alignment restrictions, whether out of h4te or genuine ignorance I don't know. I corrected those people, pointing out that 4e is the trailblazer responsible for dropping alignment restrictions. Then you became the third person to make the same misattribution, literally two posts after my last correction, so instead of typing out a third one I decided to copy/paste my last correction in reply to you.
I don't really care which did it first.
Reason to do it is more important.|
|
And yet among all of those supposed faults, largely eliminating alignment restrictions never comes up.
I do remember such discussions, but I agree that this alone wouldn't have been a big issue for most. Certainly not for me. But I do expect that such discussions would have been way more prevalent if everyone would have started to play 4E.
This said, I think that the paladin restriction is very intuitive, given the sources of inspiration they sprang from. But I also have no problem if you want to expand the paladin concept to cover other alignments as well and I already said that I allow that in my own games if wished by a player.
Still I'm traditionalist enough to like those restrictions in my system and would probably directly reinstate them in any 5E game I ever started to run (though I doubt that I'll ever do something like that).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't matter because the actual historical persons aren't represented by the D&D paladin. The Nine Worthies represent chivalric virtues and as far as they are based on historical persons they are naturally not trying to give an accurate complete picture of the historical person.
But the point is to emulate the fairy tales, so no, they cannot be disregarded as irrelevant and/or inaccurate.
If someone wants to imagine a fantasy character in line with other fantasy characters, I don't see the problem with that. And that's what it is. Wanting to play a paladin who "acts kinda like King Arthur" isn't any different than wanting to play a monk who "acts kinda like Obi-Wan Kenobi". They both represent archetypes of the genre, and if you choose to judge that choice by knowingly applying a different interpretation of Arthur to it, it doesn't matter how much more "accurate" or historically correct you are, it's not the point and isn't a valid basis for judging what the other player means.
Fantasy is how the real world should have been, not how it was or is. We take the parts that make for good stories. What this is varies by table and intent, but should always be the goal. Why isn't there a cantrip to ward away fleas? Because even if people had fleas in the middle ages, it's not generally particularly fun to roleplay, except perhaps in situations like setting a tone for a particularly gritty campaign. Why don't we roleplay women not being allowed in the military, and make female PCs disguise themselves as men or face disgust and disapproval at best? Because it's not generally particularly fun to roleplay and limits character options.
Maybe it's just me, but I think stuff like justified holy wars and idealized virtuous knights have a place in our fantasy just as much as relative gender equality and vermin-free beds.
And that's fine, there's nothing wrong with people wanting to play their characters based on a certain ideal and archetype.
I just have a problem when people start telling me that I and everyone else has to play the game a certain way based on their internalized, idealized, romanticized, white-washed and over-simplified concepts of in the best case scenario, deeply complex and flawed fictional characters and in the worst case actual despots who committed actual atrocities.
Which is why I'm of the opinion that a paladin should be defined by their code of ethics, which should be tied to their deity, rather than any one alignment, and that if you want paladins to be only one alignment, then impose that in your home game and let the rest of us play the game our way.
Like I said in my second post in this thread, I don't care what Gary Gygax had intended when he put the class to print. I know full well he was trying to evoke those archetypes and I don't care. If I had been there with him, I would have told him, "No, that's a bad idea, don't do that", but I hadn't been born yet and probably wouldn't have known Gary Gygax if I had been, anyway.
I just don't see why we should be shackled to a bad idea just because someone had said bad idea before I was born.