| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins as is, are an issue because they close up large swathes of tactics from the party to utilize. Now if everyone is up for playing saturday morning cartoon heroes that is perfectly fine. If you like some depth while maintaining verisimilitude that is not going to work.(Granted rewriting the code to be less insane would take care of lot of issues.)
.
What tactics? torture? Being murderhoboes and killing innocent NPCs as you go?
Paladins add depth and verisimilitude.
I have had far more trouble in 20+ years of gaming with CN characters literally ruining campaigns than i've ever had with paladins.
Why is CN even a core alignment!? It just encourages people who are going to be disruptive.
Absolutely, no doubt they give 100 times the issues than Paladins.
Paladins as is, are an issue because they close up large swathes of tactics from the party to utilize. Now if everyone is up for playing saturday morning cartoon heroes that is perfectly fine. If you like some depth while maintaining verisimilitude that is not going to work.(Granted rewriting the code to be less insane would take care of lot of issues.)
.What tactics? torture? Being murderhoboes and killing innocent NPCs as you go?
Paladins add depth and verisimilitude.
DMs give verisimilitude with how the world reacts to the players, there are evil NPCs and the world still has verisimilitude why can't the players be them?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I haven't had too many problems with CN in particular either. I've found that problem players are going to be problem players regardless of their character alignment. Honestly l, the only alignments I can't recall ever giving me trouble are NG and LN (because essentially no one seems to play LN, so it hasn't had the chance).
DMs give verisimilitude with how the world reacts to the players, there are evil NPCs and the world still has verisimilitude why can't the players be them?
Since the world's that I run are highly reactive to player actions, especially when they become more and more powerful, influential, and (in)famous, players quickly learn that being Evil (or worse, acting like it but only being Neutral) is the quickest way to have the entire world start to hate you (you know, except for the evil parts).
I suppose that they often learn that the swiftest way to power (being an evil bastard and having everyone try to kill you) is not always the most enjoyable in the long run. Evil adventurers are even more paranoid than other adventurers.
DMs give verisimilitude with how the world reacts to the players, there are evil NPCs and the world still has verisimilitude why can't the players be them?Since the world's that I run are highly reactive to player actions, especially when they become more and more powerful, influential, and (in)famous, players quickly learn that being Evil (or worse, acting like it but only being Neutral) is the quickest way to have the entire world start to hate you (you know, except for the evil parts).
I suppose that they often learn that the swiftest way to power (being an evil bastard and having everyone try to kill you) is not always the most enjoyable in the long run. Evil adventurers are even more paranoid than other adventurers.
It's harder to be a villain with good publicity when you aren't a NPC.
|
I can really only think of two bad experiences I've had with Paladins, and they are not the norm.
One was a Pathfinder Society scenario where we had received information that the party as a whole interpreted very differently, with some seeing an NPC as a poor victim and others possibly being responsible for inadvertently causing a major political disruption that would lead to many innocents getting hurt, financially destroyed, and possibly a war to come. The thing though with this case, it wasn't so much that it was a Paladin, but rather that the player of the Paladin dug her heals in and said something along the lines of "I'm siding with the NPC. I'm a Paladin, and this is what I would do. If you disagree, I have no choice but to oppose you."
It was an attempt to try to use the class to prove their point and force everyone else to agree with them, except it really wasn't based on any real sense or right or wrong, but rather just a way to force the player's opinion on the group, when it was really more of a matter of political Factions.
The other cases, while not unheard of, tend to be something like semi-Evil character trying to hide behind no PvP rules, but thinking that only applies to the Paladin, (or the Cleric, or the Good party member) and just wants to do whatever they want without any penalties or downsides to their actions.
I tend to find that many people simply form an idea of what a particular Alignment shout be, as a monolithic concept/principle, and do not know how to see it otherwise. Granted, for Pathfinder, this is sort of iffy, as it's not great on defining things and doesn't have a wealth of information that really focuses on it like 3E did, and tends to outright contradict itself often by trying to assume modern or liberal ideas as universal, without contecxt or meaning.
DMs give verisimilitude with how the world reacts to the players, there are evil NPCs and the world still has verisimilitude why can't the players be them?Since the world's that I run are highly reactive to player actions, especially when they become more and more powerful, influential, and (in)famous, players quickly learn that being Evil (or worse, acting like it but only being Neutral) is the quickest way to have the entire world start to hate you (you know, except for the evil parts).
I suppose that they often learn that the swiftest way to power (being an evil bastard and having everyone try to kill you) is not always the most enjoyable in the long run. Evil adventurers are even more paranoid than other adventurers.
A) the entire world is never on the same page about anything
B) other people achieve it, which you imagine (assuming their are antagonists in your world?) why can't people your players imagine do the same?c) I think doing a high level evil campaign trying maneuver yourself into a position similar to Baba Yaga or House thrune (is that the Chelaxian ruling house?) would be amazing fun.
Also playing a necromancer and being attacked by an army sounds hella fun at high levels.
DM Becket,
This is somewhat of a reply to you but You DM tag is so totally going make it easy to interpret some of this as directed at you, it isn't.
Paladin
First Player AND GM Operator Error. Yes, in character the Paladin is doing "Right" in her own lights. Out of Character, she should have then stepped aside from the action. Period. If she wished to remain relevant, she should have been taken aside by the GM and gain off-camera insight to either allow her to change her stance, or to perhaps allow her to correct the party's judgment error, depending on the scenario. *And, no, I care not one whit about the Actual scenario, because it is the best approach whether she is right or wrong, and such Inspiration to get back on the righteous path is entirely appropriate to the Paladin's Idiom.
As to playing an Unwelcome evil character in a "Good or Goodish" game, it is dickish for the player, and just a weak fail for the GM.
DM Becket,
This is somewhat of a reply to you but You DM tag is so totally going make it easy to interpret some of this as directed at you, it isn't.Paladin
First Player AND GM Operator Error. Yes, in character the Paladin is doing "Right" in her own lights. Out of Character, she should have then stepped aside from the action. Period. If she wished to remain relevant, she should have been taken aside by the GM and gain off-camera insight to either allow her to change her stance, or to perhaps allow her to correct the party's judgment error, depending on the scenario. *And, no, I care not one whit about the Actual scenario, because it is the best approach whether she is right or wrong, and such Inspiration to get back on the righteous path is entirely appropriate to the Paladin's Idiom.As to playing an Unwelcome evil character in a "Good or Goodish" game, it is dickish for the player, and just a weak fail for the GM.
In my experience most of those unwelcome "evil" characters in good or goodish games are Chaotic Neutral...the literal worst alignment
DMs give verisimilitude with how the world reacts to the players, there are evil NPCs and the world still has verisimilitude why can't the players be them?Paladins as is, are an issue because they close up large swathes of tactics from the party to utilize. Now if everyone is up for playing saturday morning cartoon heroes that is perfectly fine. If you like some depth while maintaining verisimilitude that is not going to work.(Granted rewriting the code to be less insane would take care of lot of issues.)
.What tactics? torture? Being murderhoboes and killing innocent NPCs as you go?
Paladins add depth and verisimilitude.
The players absolutely can be them. The players (or, rather, their PCs - I think I will shamelessly ban evil players from my table :P) can be Evil just as much as Good. I'd just rather not have a smattering of players trying both with no real plan on how to not kill each other in the same campaign, however. It's that simple.
So why can't the players and the GM just sit down and actually discuss what they'd like to do, and find something that works for everyone or take turns or whatever? Don't know about you, but I don't see anybody here arguing the players can't be the bad guys. Just don't insist on doing it when your friends want to play the good guys, or be evil in a way that doesn't crimp their style.
|
|
DM Becket,
This is somewhat of a reply to you but You DM tag is so totally going make it easy to interpret some of this as directed at you, it isn't.Paladin
First Player AND GM Operator Error. Yes, in character the Paladin is doing "Right" in her own lights. Out of Character, she should have then stepped aside from the action. Period. If she wished to remain relevant, she should have been taken aside by the GM and gain off-camera insight to either allow her to change her stance, or to perhaps allow her to correct the party's judgment error, depending on the scenario. *And, no, I care not one whit about the Actual scenario, because it is the best approach whether she is right or wrong, and such Inspiration to get back on the righteous path is entirely appropriate to the Paladin's Idiom.As to playing an Unwelcome evil character in a "Good or Goodish" game, it is dickish for the player, and just a weak fail for the GM.
I wasn't the DM in that game, and to be fair, it was not clear which side was true or correct. The scenario does not answer it, and the point was that its not clear.
It is sort of a one shot, with the repurcissions possibly coming up sometime in the future. It was a group choice, and neither option would cause a paladin to fall in any way. There is no right answer, per se, amd while I agree the DM probably should have stepped in a bit on that one aspect, it was also the finale, and we had already recieved in character all of the relavent info. The Paladin player, (who was not alone in wanting to side with her) simply drew a line in the sand and said this is what we are doing, or else.
That is all I am talking about here. They might have been morally right, its unclear and unanswered. But, that is really the only time I can recall having an issue wigh a Paladin, and even it is only superficially due to the class.
All other cases I can think of are really about the othercplayers or DMs making a problem and blaming it on thr Paladin, (or just as often the Cleric or Good characters), that are not okay with doing evil/dark/whatever stuff and calling it Neutral.
:P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ryan,
Agreed, but we all know CN is a dodge.
Having dealt with evil in the real world, I have no patience for all the little excuses and dodges. "No one ever sees himself as evil" is violently exploded when he is clearly confronted on his behavior. "It isn't evil if it is based on simple greed, even if it hurts others" is so pathetic it is laughable. Of course my absolute favorite is, "Their lives are so miserable, I am actually doing them a favor."
Soapbox moment. TV BS aside, Evil is never larger than life, it is always smaller than life. It diminishes what it touches. A great man, given to evil falls to petty revenges and malice, when he could be so much more. It is easy to fail to recognize evil if you are looking for supervillains. It's the pathetic little failure that you feel sorry for who will pump bullets into you because she just never gets what she wants and you have so much..... Grandma.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like paladins. I'm playing four right now; a "smite first, ask questions later" Oath of Vengeance paladin of Ragathiel in a WotR game, an undead-hunting Dhampir paladin in CC, a Gestalt Paladin/Draconic Bloodrager of Apsu in LoF, and a Stonelord of Trudd in IG (which shouldn't really count as a paladin to me, but technically it does). I like the idea of having a framework to guide how the character operates; it's one of the things that separates a paladin from the other martials. I also like the idea of a character who takes his faith seriously enough to devote himself to the ideals of his god and strive to fulfill them even when that means making hard choices, but is no squishy, cloistered theologian.
But I could definitely get behind the idea of broadening the class into more of a "Zealot" or "Holy Warrior" that could be of any alignment. I'd limit them to being the same alignment as their god (no 1-step rule), and publish a code with a deity's other information (domains, favored weapon, etc). I don't see any reason that Cayden or Milani or Pharasma or Gorum shouldn't be able to have their own cadre of devout holy warriors, just because they aren't near LG. Sure, you can just be a religious fighter or a combat-focused warpriest, but then why have paladins at all? What makes LG the one alignment (one of two with antipaladin) that gets its own special "holy warrior" class?
I also wouldn't be opposed to rolling the Ranger and Paladin into one class, and having the ranger be to druids what paladins are to clerics; nature gods like Erastil would sponsor druids & rangers rather than clerics & paladins(yes, this also means making the druid a complicated archetype of cleric).
Do not set Paladin traps, of course.
Setting paladin traps is fine; Recognizing and overcoming paladin traps are part of what makes paladins fun.
Pushing paladins into paladin traps is bad.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do not set Paladin traps, of course.Setting paladin traps is fine; Recognizing and overcoming paladin traps are part of what makes paladins fun.
Pushing paladins into paladin traps is bad.
Comes down to how much there's a way out or a reasonable chance at success. Don't put PCs into unwinnable situations of any kind, combat or alignment or otherwise. (If they manage to create one themselves and run headlong into it... that's on them.)
The door made of transmuted children? That's what I think is meant here by "paladin traps". Or an Orc Baby Dilemma when the GM wouldn't accept either option. Or so on. Can the player, with reasonable familiarity with any specific codes of conduct, with any prior warnings, etc, find the right answer and not fall? Then cool. I'm personally all about that kind of thing. So long as the right answer doesn't also necessitate unduly interfering with other PCs. Stopping the rogue from robbing a merchant? Absolutely. Putting the rogue under constant watch and ratting out his cheating at gambling? No thanks, a GM who expects that is asking for arguments.
Also, best moral obstacles don't involve tricking players into an unexpected fall. They involve making characters tempted to knowingly accept it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread makes me realize how many people still don't know how paladins work, or how to play them.
There's nothing wrong with paladins. There's nothing wrong with the paladin code (any version of it). There are only things wrong with people who, for some reason, still have a very small and rigid view of what paladins are.
I'm kinda surprised. This subject has been talked to death over many editions, with whole essays being written by very good authors.
Given the resources at everyone's disposal these days, why is this still such a problem?
A) the entire world is never on the same page about anything
B) other people achieve it, which you imagine (assuming their are antagonists in your world?) why can't people your players imagine do the same?
c) I think doing a high level evil campaign trying maneuver yourself into a position similar to Baba Yaga or House thrune (is that the Chelaxian ruling house?) would be amazing fun.Also playing a necromancer and being attacked by an army sounds hella fun at high levels.
A) No, I don't suppose they are. What I stated might be interpreted to suggest that but I never said the whole world was on the same page. Perhaps I could have said that generally the whole world disliked them. No one really likes evil people in power, even when they do things that can perceived as good. Anyone that says otherwise, well, ... I wouldn't bet they "play for team Good".
B) Other people are NPCs and achieve varying different things at the speed of PLOT, for PLOT reasons. I never said the players can't achieve these things but, like the NPCs, their success will be a rare thing.
C) I agree that such a game could be fun for certain people. I'm not that into political intrigue and the thought of running such a game where everyone's motivations have to be overly scrutinized and analyzed just feels exhausting. I wear the shroud of evil for my players when I play the role of the bad guys for their enjoyment but I've never enjoyed playing an evil character much past the initial thrill of being able to do anything I want. The level of selfishness it takes to be Evil just isn't in me.
cuz some of us want to play different kinds of paladins, ones that can lie or ones that can torture for information, or ones that would have no qualms about slaughtering all they view as heretics, ones that say screw the law i'm going to do good for the sake of doing good, ones that wont let society infringe on the territory of nature all of these are concepts that a paladin should be able to do but by raw they can not
That's great. I just see one problem with that. You are not describing a Paladin. A Paladin and their code can not be separated from each other without destroying what they represent. Go ahead and play your character, just don't expect other people to acknowledge you as a Paladin. You are not, or you have fallen. There exists other mechanics to play what you are looking for, though maybe not with full BAB and the moral satisfaction. The warpriest comes to mind, Champion of the Faith archetype. You can be Good, no real code outside of your deity, you get smite evil, though you don't get channel energy.
Don't get me wrong. A Paladin does struggle with those desires and anyone that tells you otherwise is lying to you. They simply choose the better (Good and Lawful) path at the end of the thought, regardless of how difficult it makes the decision. That is a Paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
cuz some of us want to play different kinds of paladins, ones that can lie or ones that can torture for information, or ones that would have no qualms about slaughtering all they view as heretics, ones that say screw the law i'm going to do good for the sake of doing good, ones that wont let society infringe on the territory of nature all of these are concepts that a paladin should be able to do but by raw they can notThis thread makes me realize how many people still don't know how paladins work, or how to play them.
There's nothing wrong with paladins. There's nothing wrong with the paladin code (any version of it). There are only things wrong with people who, for some reason, still have a very small and rigid view of what paladins are.
I'm kinda surprised. This subject has been talked to death over many editions, with whole essays being written by very good authors.
Given the resources at everyone's disposal these days, why is this still such a problem?
That's not a paladin. That's an Inquisitor. Or a warpriest.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
all a paladin need is a code or an oath alignment should have nothing to do with it, if a paladin has a code of i must kill all of x race or die trying they must follow that code or fall its not however a LG code to follow and that's an example of a paladin code that already exists published by paizocuz some of us want to play different kinds of paladins, ones that can lie or ones that can torture for information, or ones that would have no qualms about slaughtering all they view as heretics, ones that say screw the law i'm going to do good for the sake of doing good, ones that wont let society infringe on the territory of nature all of these are conceptsThat's great. I just see one problem with that. You are not describing a Paladin. A Paladin and their code can not be separated from each other without destroying what they represent. Go ahead and play your character, just don't expect other people to acknowledge you as a Paladin. You are not, or you have fallen. There exists other mechanics to play what you are looking for, though maybe not with full BAB and the moral satisfaction. The warpriest comes to mind, Champion of the Faith archetype. You can be Good, no real code outside of your deity, you get smite evil, though you don't get channel energy.
Don't get me wrong. A Paladin does struggle with those desires and anyone that tells you otherwise is lying to you. They simply choose the better (Good and Lawful) path at the end of the thought, regardless of how difficult it makes the decision. That is a Paladin.
Sources please ?
If you think about Torag's code, you are mistaken. As I state quite often, Torag is NOT the LG god of genocide
I think that's his deific obedience. It doesn't technically have to be done daily, but you only benefit on days you perform it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's his deific obedience. It doesn't technically have to be done daily, but you only benefit on days you perform it.
His obedience is to whack an anvil repeatedly for 10 minutes, not go out and gank people.
I think that's his deific obedience. It doesn't technically have to be done daily, but you only benefit on days you perform it.
Ninja'd.
I deleted my comment to make that change. Yeah, Ragathiel's Obedience is to kill a proven wrongdoer in Ragathiel's name. Daily, if possible.
...the heck? I swear I saw a post about Ragathiel in there. That's the one I was responding to. Not sure where it went. Anyway: Ragathiel.
Ah! There we go.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
cuz some of us want to play different kinds of paladins, ones that can lie or ones that can torture for information, or ones that would have no qualms about slaughtering all they view as heretics,
to be honest, apart from the lying part, no character at a table I run would be allowed to use torture or simply slaughtering what they consider as heretics.
ones that say screw the law i'm going to do good for the sake of doing good, ones that wont let society infringe on the territory of nature all of these are concepts that a paladin should be able to do but by raw they can not
Those would (and in fact are) be possible, though I wouldn't necessarily use the Paladin class to do them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins only have to uphold the law is the law is just. Goodness comes first. Unjust laws will get broken by a paladin faster than any Chaotic Good Robin Hood.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We still have yet for anyone to give a clean answer of why Lawful Good AND Chaotic Evil are the only alignments(*) allowed to have Holy Warrior base classes, other than Sacred Cows(**).
(*)That is, until the most recent archetypes came along; however, while the Insinuator and Tyrant Antipaladin archetypes are serviceable if not outstanding, the Grey Paladin archetype is just bad unless the situation just happens to match its abilities, and even then it still is still quite lacking.
(**)Which, even though I am basically vegan, makes me want to have some hamburgers.
We still have yet for anyone to give a clean answer of why Lawful Good AND Chaotic Evil are the only alignments(*) allowed to have Holy Warrior base classes, other than Sacred Cows(**).
(*)That is, until the most recent archetypes came along; however, while the Insinuator and Tyrant Antipaladin archetypes are serviceable if not outstanding, the Grey Paladin archetype is just bad unless the situation just happens to match its abilities, and even then it still is still quite lacking.
(**)Which, even though I am basically vegan, makes me want to have some hamburgers.
they arent, warpriest is a thing, as is chevalier
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^Warpriest has its virtues, but is not a Paladin substitute (starting with being 3/4 BAB, 6/9 spellcasting instead of full BAB, 4/9 spellcasting). And Chevalier is Paizo D&D 3.5, not Pathfinder, unless it has had a re-release that I somehow missed, so it doesn't count.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find a significant degree of Irony in discounting the 3.5 in a thread 5th ed paladins have been brought up in, as an example but ok.
Either way, the manner in which people discount war priest makes it hard to take the complaints about paladin alignment seriously as more than just a desire to power game, which is fine if thats your thing but doesn't make for a compelling argument to toss out the prior flavor of the class. There's literally no concept for paladin you can't also pull off with a warpriest, so its not as though there's some compelling roleplay reason for it. But all that aside, there's also Sentinel, Holy Vindicator, Divine Tracker Ranger archetype, and Deliverer slayer.
so why not throw out the paladin class then and no one can use it hun? if warpriest is so good at emulating anything a paladin would be able to roll play why have it existI find a significant degree of Irony in discounting the 3.5 in a thread 5th ed paladins have been brought up in, as an example but ok.
Either way, the manner in which people discount war priest makes it hard to take the complaints about paladin alignment seriously as more than just a desire to power game, which is fine if thats your thing but doesn't make for a compelling argument to toss out the prior flavor of the class. There's literally no concept for paladin you can't also pull off with a warpriest, so its not as though there's some compelling roleplay reason for it. But all that aside, there's also Sentinel, Holy Vindicator, Divine Tracker Ranger archetype, and Deliverer slayer.
So that people can play non lawful good holy warriors.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Pointing out that Chevalier is actually not a part of Pathfinder RPG is perfectly legitimate. The people who brought up 5th Edition D&D explicitly labeled it as such, so no chance of confusion with Pathfinder RPG there.
2. Arguments against wanting a Paladinoid class (doesn't have to have the Paladin name on it) of any alignment on the basis that it is power gaming are no more valid than arguments against any other class of any alignment on the grounds of power gaming. Being suitably close to patron deity's alignment (for Paladinoids having a patron deity, by analogy to Clerics and Warpriests) makes sense, but being forced to be Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil when Paladin patron deities can be Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good makes no sense, and being forced to be Chaotic Evil when Antipaladin patron deities can be Neutral Evil or Chaotic Neutral makes no sense.
3. Related to the above, you still haven't answered why only Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil get to have full BAB, 4/9 spellcasting Holy Warriors.
|
|
We still have yet for anyone to give a clean answer of why Lawful Good AND Chaotic Evil are the only alignments(*) allowed to have Holy Warrior base classes,
The only reason I could think of is that those two alignments are the extremes on the spectrum, so they're probably more deserving of a special treatment than every other alignment.
I don't handle it this way. It's just that I think that the Paladin is not necessarily the best mechanical base to build holy warrior classes for other alignments (or better: for other deities). But that's more a matter of taste than anything else.
1. Pointing out that Chevalier is actually not a part of Pathfinder RPG is perfectly legitimate. The people who brought up 5th Edition D&D explicitly labeled it as such, so no chance of confusion with Pathfinder RPG there.
2. Arguments against wanting a Paladinoid class (doesn't have to have the Paladin name on it) of any alignment on the basis that it is power gaming are no more valid than arguments against any other class of any alignment on the grounds of power gaming. Being suitably close to patron deity's alignment (for Paladinoids having a patron deity, by analogy to Clerics and Warpriests) makes sense, but being forced to be Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil when Paladin patron deities can be Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good makes no sense, and being forced to be Chaotic Evil when Antipaladin patron deities can be Neutral Evil or Chaotic Neutral makes no sense.
3. Related to the above, you still haven't answered why only Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil get to have full BAB, 4/9 spellcasting Holy Warriors.
Because other deities have warpriests, inquisitors, and archetypes of other classes to represent their holy warriors. Because not every god says "hey, i'm going to use this template of abilities to create my holy warriors"? Because paladins are legitimately more powerful and versatile out of combat than other martials and so the class comes with some restrictions?
there are at least 7 other martial classes that would laugh at that statmentBecause other deities have warpriests, inquisitors, and archetypes of other classes to represent their holy warriors. Because not every god says "hey, i'm going to use this template of abilities to create my holy warriors"? Because paladins are legitimately more powerful and versatile out of combat than other martials and so the class comes with some restrictions?1. Pointing out that Chevalier is actually not a part of Pathfinder RPG is perfectly legitimate. The people who brought up 5th Edition D&D explicitly labeled it as such, so no chance of confusion with Pathfinder RPG there.
2. Arguments against wanting a Paladinoid class (doesn't have to have the Paladin name on it) of any alignment on the basis that it is power gaming are no more valid than arguments against any other class of any alignment on the grounds of power gaming. Being suitably close to patron deity's alignment (for Paladinoids having a patron deity, by analogy to Clerics and Warpriests) makes sense, but being forced to be Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil when Paladin patron deities can be Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good makes no sense, and being forced to be Chaotic Evil when Antipaladin patron deities can be Neutral Evil or Chaotic Neutral makes no sense.
3. Related to the above, you still haven't answered why only Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil get to have full BAB, 4/9 spellcasting Holy Warriors.
They'd be wrong, they might out overkill when tuned to complete damage but their saves wont have the same potential, their survivability wont be as good, their animal companion (if they even have one) wont be as useful intelligent or survivable and they wont be able to play spot affliction removal or raise party members from the dead. They don't have a synergistic relationship with the "party face" stat. So yeah those other full BAB 4/9 spell casting classes may be able to out damage the class but they aren't anywhere near as out of combat versatile.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because other deities have warpriests, inquisitors, and archetypes of other classes to represent their holy warriors. Because not every god says "hey, i'm going to use this template of abilities to create my holy warriors"? Because paladins are legitimately more powerful and versatile out of combat than other martials and so the class comes with some restrictions?
Still doesn't make sense. If Warpriests, Inquisitors, and archetypes of other classes are sufficient for Holy Warriors of other deities/alignments, why are they not also sufficient for Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil? And why would only deities within 1 step of Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil choose to create Paladinoids? And even if Paladins were legitimately more powerful and versatile out of combat (which I dispute, by the way(*)), how does restricting them to Lawful Good AND Chaotic Evil make any sense?
(*)A Paladin/Antipaladin isn't doing so great on out of combat abilities, other than being Charisma-based (barring an archetype that changes that). The skill ranks per level are the worst in the game, and a Paladin/Antipaladin doesn't have an easy way to get more -- at least Fighter and Molthuni Arsenal Chaplain Warpriest can take Advanced Weapon Training (Versatile Training) to get more. In addition, a Paladin/Antipaladin is likely to be feat-starved if you are building anything than a two-handed "Castigator" type (and possibly even then, if you try to do anything non-cookie-cutter), because Paladin/Antipaladin gets NO bonus feats (barring an archetype or two that replaces a class feature with a bonus feat) whereas Fighter and Warpriest (even with no archetype) get a decent number of Bonus Combat Feats to let them afford a few of their non-bonus feats for other purposes. Even Cavalier, often regarded as one of the weaker martial classes after Rogue and non-archetyped Core Monk (but which can have a divine theme with Order of the Star or Order of the Godclaw), gets more skill ranks per level (without needing Advanced Weapon Training) and gets a very small but noticeable number of Bonus Combat Feats. So the argument that wanting a Paladin of any alignment is a power gaming thing makes no sense, and the argument that a Paladin has above-average out-of-combat utility makes no sense.
Since when can a paladin raise the dead?
they are decent healers with spells and lay on hands, and their mercies are useful for certain ailments, but their spell list does not go up to raise dead, nor do they have a mercy for that.
^Some feat or something that I can't remember the name of lets a Paladin spend 10 Lay on Hands to revive a fallen comrade. It isn't an out-of-the-box ability.
Edit: Ninjas have more out-of-combat utility than Paladins/Antipaladins.
They can freaking resurrect, heal ability damage and act as a spot healer man. That blows every other full BAB's out of combat utility out of the water.