I don't know that I'd agree with that. It strikes me as fitting that a paladin would be even harder on himself than his companions/superiors would be.That's why I said Paladin-ish. Gawain isn't the perfect Paladin (that would be Sir Galahad), but much of his character is Paladin-like. And, it should be noted, that after breaking his word he sought penance and received absolution from both the Green Knight and King Arthur, which is about as close as you get to an atonement spell in Arthurian legend.As I recall Arthur and the other knights actually thought he was making a fuss over nothing, which is both not atonement but also, not very Paladinlike of them.
I mean sure if your completely ignore the context
But having an affair with your hosts wife and lying about it out of cowardice is not nothing and those guys who thought it was nothing were paladins too (if your subscribe to the equivalency, which I don't), so unless you think Paladins are of the attitude that they should follow their code, but no-one else, including other Paladins should, then I don't know what you mean. And if you are of that opinion then I don't understand the point of your version of a Paladin, "I'm a beacon of law and goodness, which I encourage you to ignore".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because other deities have warpriests, inquisitors, and archetypes of other classes to represent their holy warriors.
Yet LG uses those as well as Paladins.
Because not every god says "hey, i'm going to use this template of abilities to create my holy warriors"?
Why not? If, as I keep getting told, the mechanics shouldn't matter, why can't it work the other way around? Arguing from the game's internal logic doesn't work well when Chaotic and Evil have their own Paladin analogues.
Because paladins are legitimately more powerful and versatile out of combat than other martials and so the class comes with some restrictions?
Debatable. And since you brought up 3.5, the balance argument is an excuse available only in retrospect, because Paladins were certainly not a powerful class in that edition. Furthermore, Clerics are much more powerful, and they don't need to worship a deity either.
5e screwed them up in a way you like
I could just as well say 5e improved them in a way you don't like. Pathfinder's rules may say one thing about Paladins and LG but there's also Rule Zero, as well as the possibility of an Unchained Paladin or (dare I say it?) Pathfinder 2nd edition.
|
If the tradition can't stand on it's own merits
Well, for a lot of people, it stands on it's own merits, you just won't accept it.
I could just as well say 5e improved them in a way you don't like.
You could, and with the same right Ryan Freire said the opposite. Which points at the fact that this is a matter of preference. And there's no logical argument which supports the one side over the other, because this isn't about logic.
Since war may be on the horizon on the Gawain issue. Note that the Gawain role was filled by more than one name/station....
It was still living myth and difficult to just rewrite by the Francophiles.
It didn't fit, so you had to have characters going out of character trying to maintain the flow of events, which were still known by many, if not most of the people.
Bullet Points of the original myth.
- Green Knight comes in and gives challenge.
- Most everyone recognizes the trap, and do not want to step into it.
- Gawain, either through valor or naïveté accepts the challenge.
- Gawain reneges on his promise.
- With varying degrees of coerciveness, the Green Knight (and sometimes the threatened ruler) cause Gawain to stand by his word.
- Mostly Gawain receives mercy. This varies, in one version, he became the Green Knight.
Problem when working with a cross-cultured myth that everyone knows, a lot of stuff is a lot harder to work into your reimagining,
I could just as well say 5e improved them in a way you don't like. Pathfinder's rules may say one thing about Paladins and LG but there's also Rule Zero, as well as the possibility of an Unchained Paladin or (dare I say it?) Pathfinder 2nd edition.
To be completely fair, Rule Zero means exactly squat unless you are playing in a home game and house-ruling. It remains a hypothetical, and as such, a topic that can not be really debated because it is not clearly defined, just as an 'Unchained' Paladin or Pathfinder 2nd edition is also.
I've stated before that you can not divorce the Code of Conduct from the Paladin without drastically altering what they are, what they stand for, and how the world perceives them. They would lose that shiny image that is so hard to obtain.
Pathfinder even made the code stricter because they used to have the ability to violate their code (not the evil part) as long as they did not do so in a 'gross manner', and still remain a Paladin (though allowing them to 'work' with evil characters was a ... slight ... improvement). I still hold Paladins to that older code where they do have a smidgen of wiggle room as far as lying and misleading goes.
As for the Arthurian example people have been giving of someone acting un-Paladin like ... I would suggest that you look past the man, for men are fallible, and judge the Paladin by the code they try to (and often fail) to uphold. The Paladin, and their code, is after all an ideal. Gawain wasn't a divine empowered holy warrior that had a direct link to a deity. He was just a man.
I think most people are okay with Paladins having a Code, its the alignment lock they don't like.
And Gawain did do some magic and Arthurian stuff was often used as protestant proper-gander (Read the fairy queen, its actually quite funny) so its heavily implied that they were empowered by god.
5e CHANGED them. Improved is arguable.
Exactly my point. His phrasing was what I took issue with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly my point. His phrasing was what I took issue with.
5e CHANGED them. Improved is arguable.
You can take issue with it all you like, removing alignment restrictions from the paladin class is screwing them up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
in your opinion.
My opinion too, but then, I like the traditional Paladin. It's not broken and doesn't need fixed. Players have to adapt to it's play style or should play something else. Unless you are houseruling it, then have fun. Just be sure to acknowledge that you are houseruling it. Intellectual honesty is key to a sound mind.
in your opinion.
Yup, but i mean...if all paladins have are oaths, There's really no difference between them and cavaliers.
Divine Magic, Lay on hands, Smite, Immunity to disease, Auras...
|
I don't know that I'd agree with that. It strikes me as fitting that a paladin would be even harder on himself than his companions/superiors would be.That's why I said Paladin-ish. Gawain isn't the perfect Paladin (that would be Sir Galahad), but much of his character is Paladin-like. And, it should be noted, that after breaking his word he sought penance and received absolution from both the Green Knight and King Arthur, which is about as close as you get to an atonement spell in Arthurian legend.As I recall Arthur and the other knights actually thought he was making a fuss over nothing, which is both not atonement but also, not very Paladinlike of them.I mean sure if your completely ignore the context
But having an affair with your hosts wife and lying about it out of cowardice is not nothing and those guys who thought it was nothing were paladins too (if your subscribe to the equivalency, which I don't), so unless you think Paladins are of the attitude that they should follow their code, but no-one else, including other Paladins should, then I don't know what you mean. And if you are of that opinion then I don't understand the point of your version of a Paladin, "I'm a beacon of law and goodness, which I encourage you to ignore".
He did not have an affair with his host's wife, like, at all. The only thing he lied about was failing to mention the girdle he was given.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Divine Magic, Lay on hands, Smite, Immunity to disease, Auras...
Everything seems to keep coming back to wanting the class abilities without the restrictions that come with them.
He did not have an affair with his host's wife, like, at all. The only thing he lied about was failing to mention the girdle he was given.I don't know that I'd agree with that. It strikes me as fitting that a paladin would be even harder on himself than his companions/superiors would be.That's why I said Paladin-ish. Gawain isn't the perfect Paladin (that would be Sir Galahad), but much of his character is Paladin-like. And, it should be noted, that after breaking his word he sought penance and received absolution from both the Green Knight and King Arthur, which is about as close as you get to an atonement spell in Arthurian legend.As I recall Arthur and the other knights actually thought he was making a fuss over nothing, which is both not atonement but also, not very Paladinlike of them.I mean sure if your completely ignore the context
But having an affair with your hosts wife and lying about it out of cowardice is not nothing and those guys who thought it was nothing were paladins too (if your subscribe to the equivalency, which I don't), so unless you think Paladins are of the attitude that they should follow their code, but no-one else, including other Paladins should, then I don't know what you mean. And if you are of that opinion then I don't understand the point of your version of a Paladin, "I'm a beacon of law and goodness, which I encourage you to ignore".
Early in the thread I said the Chivalric equivalent of an affair. I was on my phone so couldn't be bothered to type that out again.
Divine Magic, Lay on hands, Smite, Immunity to disease, Auras...Everything seems to keep coming back to wanting the class abilities without the restrictions that come with them.
Then you're missing the point, and if I remember correctly, refuse to believe people aren't lying to you when they give a justification you don't agree with on this subject. So I suspect arguing with you about it is pointless.
Then you're missing the point, and if I remember correctly, refuse to...
They should probably have more than blatantly wanting the class abilities without the restrictions attached to them then.
Grey paladin shows pretty well what design thinks about the alignment restriction and the level of power the class should have with that removed.
No the Grey Paladin shows what the design team think a Paladin trying not to appear as a Paladin should look like.
The Tyrant and Anti-Paladin show the level of power they think is fair. I.E comparable.
No the Grey Paladin shows what the design team think a Paladin trying not to appear as a Paladin should look like.
The Tyrant and Anti-Paladin show the level of power they think is fair. I.E comparable.
Except the Anti-paladin is just as alignment restricted, and restricted to an alignment really very few GMs allow as a pc. The Anti-paladin is for all intents and purposes as much an NPC class as the Expert and Aristocrat.
And frankly the Tyrant is a half finished archetype. A lawful required class that can empower their weapon with anarchic, no adjustment to the spell list that swaps protection from law for protection from chaos. Half done and not a particularly great example.
Edit: the Insinuator is a better example, and it gets weakened auras, No bonus to saving throws, a weakened "lay hands" that only works on them as well as mercies that only work on them, A weakened smite and a code of conduct that somehow manages to make them even more difficult to use as a pc in a campaign.
No the Grey Paladin shows what the design team think a Paladin trying not to appear as a Paladin should look like.
The Tyrant and Anti-Paladin show the level of power they think is fair. I.E comparable.
Except the Anti-paladin is just as alignment restricted, and restricted to an alignment really very few GMs allow as a pc. The Anti-paladin is for all intents and purposes as much an NPC class as the Expert and Aristocrat.
And frankly the Tyrant is a half finished archetype. A lawful required class that can empower their weapon with anarchic, no adjustment to the spell list that swaps protection from law for protection from chaos. Half done and not a particularly great example.
its Alignment restricted, but it shows they think you can change a Paladin to fit any alignment and don't need to nerf it to do so. Although arguably lay on hands it better than their thing... touch of corruption is it?
The fact that a lot of GMs won't allow it doesn't really change anything about what I'm saying, they didn't make it an NPC class, its an alternate class. Same goes for the Tyrant, its lazily done but its not intentionally nerfed, because it doesn't need to be.Most people still want a Code they just want codes for every alignment, the problem isn't that characters are alignment locked, its that the class is alignment exclusive. Most people asking for the alignment lock change don't mind having to stick to an alignment, they mind that they have to stick to lawful good.
Anyway I've said all I need to on the matter, I think the point is pretty clear. We're just re-treading old ground.
the screw the law i'm doing good for good sake is by definition a chaotic good..... also you need to re read the thread then cuz there's atleast 5 people that are saying no other paladins than LG paladins
There are no Paladins that are not Lawful Good. At least, not according to the Pathfinder Core Rules. Anything else is a variant, a house rule, Rule Zero, and it stops at your game table. That is all we are saying.
Play your 'Paladin' of Freedom however you want. Just don't expect us to acknowledge or validate it's existence.
I mean, I personally run a setting where "objective alignment" is not a thing. But even then, where you don't write alignment on your sheet because it's meaningless, I nonetheless require Paladins to live up to the values of the best version of what would otherwise be "lawful good" because that's how I conceive of the class.
So the idea that people want "Chaotic Neutral Paladins" seems to me like people who are just fishing for class mechanics, or people who wish that other alignments got their own signature class (which I would be fine with, just so long as they're not Paladins.)
And lets address the "more cha than a paladin might like" comment earlier in the thread.
Things Cha affects:
Your saving throws
Your spell save DC's
# of times you can lay hands
AC from smite evil
Bonus to hit from smite evil
Spell access and bonus spells
Access to a feat that lets you raise the freakin dead at a 5000 gp savings
There isn't a single stat that affects more of the class than charisma.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the idea that people want "Chaotic Neutral Paladins" seems to me like people who are just fishing for class mechanics, or people who wish that other alignments got their own signature class (which I would be fine with, just so long as they're not Paladins.)
This is exactly my take on the discussion too. Well phrased.
| 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.
The answer is legacy. 1st edition modeled them after the Knights of the Round Table. The highest of Christian ideals was determined by Gygax to be represented by Lawful Good. That made Lawful Good the only alignment pure enough for paladins.
Does any of this matter outside of PFS? If there was one good thing about 5e (and keep in mind, I. AM. NOT. A. FAN. of 5e.) It was a heavy revival of rule 0 to the point of beating people over the hsad with it. So the core rules say a paladin has to be LG, so what? Does anyone here really and truly NEED the rules changed when they can just change the rules at their table? Yeah, I like the idea of the LG paladin in my games to the point I have banned the tyrant, insinuator, and grey paladins. I rewrote the oath paladin oaths. That's MY table. MY game. Why are we arguing about what's better instead of heading to the home brew forums to rebuild what we don't like?
There is a middle ground. Keep the Paladin LG as they already are. Created your own spinoff classes with similar/carbon copy abilities as you are want to. Do not call them Paladins.
It is easy.
Edit: Ninja'd ha
because not all gms will make the change themselves to allow non LG paladins
That's table variation for you. If the DM/GM says no, it isn't going to happen. You can't force people to accept your idea and give it approval.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can someone name for me a single ability of the Paladin class which would be thematically inappropriate for a Chaotic Good character (which cannot be fixed by simply switching alignment tags)?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"A holy warrior for every alignment" is only tinkering with the problem that is alignment itself. I was about to ask if people thought a Chaotic Good Paladin (call it a Liberator or something if spreading the Paladin name really offends you) with all the Law penciled out and Chaos written in would be acceptable. But then I realized that there is very little about the core Paladin that's actually beholden to Law: They detect and smite Evil, not Chaos. Their code says they must "respect legitimate authority", presumably legitimate in this context means non-Evil.
You can take issue with it all you like, removing alignment restrictions from the paladin class is screwing them up.Exactly my point. His phrasing was what I took issue with.
5e CHANGED them. Improved is arguable.
Your idea of Paladins is not the One True one, certainly not enough to justify making such an arbitrary statement. And everyone seems to be ignoring that 5e Paladins must still adhere to a Code of Conduct that requires good behavior.
The alignment restriction is a balancing factor
Already addressed: The Paladin is arguably stronger than other martials but it's not stronger than (say) the Cleric, along with a lot of other classes that are under a looser alignment restriction, or none. And it's an excuse available only in retrospect, as all the same arguments apply to 3.5e Paladins, which were certainly not among the stronger classes in that edition.
I understand 3e's insistence that if the class abides by a code it ought to be lawful.
Ought to be, but a Cleric who must serve his deity still has some wiggle room, and a Cavalier who must abide by his Order's code can be any alignment. And simply putting voluntary restrictions on your own behavior doesn't make people Lawful, or else Chaotic Good would be an impossible alignment to hold.
As for the Lawful Barbarian: Why the hell not? Nothing about the Barbarian class requires them to uphold anarchy against the creeping advance of order. Nothing about Rage or any of its nature-oriented class features are antithetical to a Lawful persuasion; there are several ways, a few of which are even non-magical, to get Rage as a Lawful character (including from the Lawful Good Empyreal Lord Ragathiel).
It all just goes back to the observation that there is very little difference between Lawful and Chaotic characters in practice, unless they are cartoonishly zealous about imposing order or spreading anarchy.
We can compromise if you just give up
Classic.
|
no its a fu*king paladin quite a few of those actions were done by my 5e paladin most of those actions fell in line with my oath quite wellThat's not a paladin. That's an Inquisitor. Or a warpriest.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?
it's like saying that I want to play a ninja that gets to cast simulacrum and flame strike because I can do that in my Exalted game (naruto would be a more likely arguement but Exalted would be a more fair comparison)