Classic.
Well, that is not in the least bit helpful. Tell me, is there any part of compromise where you make allowances for areas that either side is unwilling to budge, and yet still seek to meet the middle ground where it is possible to do so?
If not, you are not talking of compromise but of forfeiting ones values in order to achieve a mockery of acceptance. To the ones with values, this kind of compromise is not one at all and any perceived agreement will be met with grudging mutters and no actual compromise. They will still think and play as they had before, at best giving you lip service but never truly seeing eye to eye with you on the matter. It becomes a hollow victory that means nothing in the long run.
However, accepting that we will not call your idea of a "holy warrior" with similar abilities to a Paladin but has a different alignment, a Paladin, and meeting us halfway with a simple and harmless change in the name of the class, that goes a long way to fostering goodwill and an atmosphere of acceptance. Both parties end up getting what they want, if not exactly how they wanted it. This is how compromise works and is a much more preferred method of settling grieviences than the old fashion way of smashing in each other's skulls until the winner is the last one standing. At least it is for civilized people.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still really don't understand what the folks who are dead set and determined that the Paladin shouldn't be changed ever are going to lose if something should change. As I've asked before, were you this mad about them dropping the race restrictions, gear restrictions, the tithing requirements? Will CG Paladins suddenly mean you can't play LG Paladins anymore?
I'm amused that I always end up in these discussions, because I don't even want to play Paladins of other alignments. I love my LG Paladins, they're my favorite class. But I'm not under any illusions that having other alignments available for other people's use would somehow lessen my characters.
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.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".
Yeah, but you also mischaracterized it. It wasn't an affair, chivalric or otherwise, he didn't lie about it (giving the host the kisses he received was a key point of the story), and the only time he showed cowardice was when he failed to disclose the girdle, which he was punished for and forevermore wore as a symbol of his penitence.
What tactics? Any tactic more complicated than breaking down a door and going head to head with the bad guy can be considered "dishonorable". Scout ahead to see where the bad guys are? Dishonorable! Disguise yourself and infiltrate the bad guy organization? Dishonest! Slit the big bad's throat in his sleep? Murderous! Mindscrew the bad guys into oblivion with save or suck arcane magic? Cowardly!
It goes beyond invalidating literally any forward thinking strategy, Paladins also make it impossible to play any class with any kind of moral gray area: Rogue, Inquisitor, Slayer, Alchemist, the list just goes on and on. No player should have that kind of power over other players, so f--k Paladins.
All of those problems are deliberately manufactured by bad DMing and players not understanding Paladins. Plenty of us have had Paladins in groups with rogues, slayers, alchemists, and inquisitors without incident.
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 savingsThere isn't a single stat that affects more of the class than charisma.
Yes up to a point, but after a certain point, investing more in Charisma becomes too inefficient (with the diminishing returns of point buy), because you won't be able to afford to have decent Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution for the common situations when you can't use Smite Evil (or it would be very inefficient for you to do so), and you'll have to dump Wisdom and (worse yet) Intelligence (making the Paladin even worse at skills). Getting enough Charisma to be able to have a capacity of 10 Lay on Hands when you get to 11th level (or 10th if you dipped something) is pushing past that point, unless you invest ANOTHER feat in Extra Lay on Hands.
* * * * * * * *
And you still didn't answer the other points that I brought up; actually, nobody on the exclusively Lawful Good side has, even though several other people have brought up most of the same points again since then.
Paladins can wear full plate, they need all of 12 dex.
They can heal themselves with a swift action, they need all of 12 con, really, dumping wisdom barely matters if you make up the save differential with your cha bonus.
16, 12, 14, 10, 8, 16. Works fine.
I've played the moderate physicals high cha paladin before. Its not that big a difference. Most things that require the bonus to hit can be targeted with smite. Your bonus spells from the high cha can make up the difference.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who personally abhors the Lawful alignment (and by the way, all this hate for CN, you can't judge CNs by a few bad examples anymore than we should be judging Paladins by a few bad examples) I want to know why people are so dead-set against allowing the other two corners (CG and LE, though even LE arguably has a semblance of it already, with no less than two Antipaladin archetypes allowing LE) having charismatic magical knights? I won't even say Holy Warriors, because Warpriest is there to fill that gap, but the charismatic knight in shining (maybe from hellfire in LE's case) armor, acting as a paragon of that corner, why is that limited to LG and CE?
Heck, to even go to the Gods side, why does Abadar get to have a Charismatic Champion of Goodness but Cayden Cailean doesn't? Dude's practically Charisma incarnate. Call them whatever you want, Paizo's bad enough about reusing terms sometimes as it is so I'd be happy to have the different terminology, but (Anti)Paladin really is a unique design that honestly it would be great to have access to at all 4 corners of the chart.
So yeah, 2cp from a guy who favors CG who would like to have access to a Charismatic Knight that doesn't have to either functionally cut off an arm or try to bring a horse into a tiny dungeon.
As someone who personally abhors the Lawful alignment (and by the way, all this hate for CN, you can't judge CNs by a few bad examples anymore than we should be judging Paladins by a few bad examples) I want to know why people are so dead-set against allowing the other two corners (CG and LE, though even LE arguably has a semblance of it already, with no less than two Antipaladin archetypes allowing LE) having charismatic magical knights? I won't even say Holy Warriors, because Warpriest is there to fill that gap, but the charismatic knight in shining (maybe from hellfire in LE's case) armor, acting as a paragon of that corner, why is that limited to LG and CE?
Heck, to even go to the Gods side, why does Abadar get to have a Charismatic Champion of Goodness but Cayden Cailean doesn't? Dude's practically Charisma incarnate. Call them whatever you want, Paizo's bad enough about reusing terms sometimes as it is so I'd be happy to have the different terminology, but (Anti)Paladin really is a unique design that honestly it would be great to have access to at all 4 corners of the chart.
So yeah, 2cp from a guy who favors CG who would like to have access to a Charismatic Knight that doesn't have to either functionally cut off an arm or try to bring a horse into a tiny dungeon.
Get your gm to ok the chevalier
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but you also mischaracterized it. It wasn't an affair, chivalric or otherwise, he didn't lie about it (giving the host the kisses he received was a key point of the story), and the only time he showed cowardice was when he failed to disclose the girdle, which he was punished for and forevermore wore as a symbol of his penitence.
By Chilvaric equivalent I mean, there is basically never an affair in the re-imaginings of the Arthurian tales, but having a kiss and a cuddle in another mans wife's bedroom 3 nights on the trot and then her giving you a token of her affection is as close as I've heard of anyone getting. Given it was quite often the case that one might only kiss once before marriage or even not do so at all in these stories.
And frankly the husband being okay with it doesn't change the fact that what Gawain was doing was deeply opposed to his own code of honour. Just because the guy who you're f+$~ing over is okay with it, doesn't mean it isn't breaking your code. An innocent might want a Paladin to kill them, doesn't mean it's suddenly okay to do so.
Not to mention he actually did lie by keeping the girdle secret and broke the ridiculously liberal rules anyway, feeling bad about it after doesn't change that fact.
If he was a Paladin then he damn sure broke his code and the other knights should have given a s@%~ about that fact if they to were Paladins. Which they didn't because they're not.
They're several centuries old fictitious characters with inconsistent characterisation whose morality and abilities vary from story to story and indeed even in versions of the same stories.
I am having a strong sense of deja vu right now.
The class isn't to blame totally, mix of players, the GM, and how one interprets the AL system also count, more than the class as presented imo.
Funny joke of the universe, how come that some "angels" can behave less "holy goodie" than a mere mortal with convictions if they are supposed to be beings of pure goodness?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Listen,
I personally dislike the way the allignment system works, it discourages nuanced roleplay. Additionally, some people use it as a dodge to cover narcissistic or worse behavior. This said, I recognize that a lot of people like it, and it does support their playstyle. Same with Paladins, I can see vastly different holy warrior Paragons for each individual god, perhaps with cultural variants. I wouldn't call them Paladins though. That word has grown to mean something, and using it for something different just devalues the word and concept and muddies communication. Paragon is the correct, appropriate blanket term.
All this said, I have no problem with people who play it different. If they go places that fail to interest me, or actually repulse me, I walk away. No big deal for anyone. I reserve the right to ask anyone to leave my table if they refuse to accept the conventions we are currently going by. I am perfectly OK with saying no to anything that will disrupt the current setting. I will happily work with the players, but I am "loyal" to the Story, certainly not to the Rules.
I rather worry about anyone who insists that they have to be "Right" on a purely preference thing, some are at least honest enough to admit that this is so that they can force others to submit to their preferences. This actually causes me to feel that these rules, that I personally disagree with, should remain as they are. They aren't much of a guide or defense against disagreeable and abusive behavior, but they are, at least, something. It is hard enough to stand up to bullies, maybe the rules as they stand make it a little easier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
***snip***
Excellent summation and delivery, Daw. I agree with you on everything, except the alignment system but that is just my own preference. It does not mean I hold your position to be false. We are allowed to like different things as long as we can all agree to follow the same rule set at the same table.
That is compromise. We are here to have fun. Let's do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I just had a funny thought... pathfinder has a poor but functional conversion doc for 3.5. We already have a few instances of variant paladins... unearthed arcana from 3.x had paladins of freedom etc. I think I'm going to convert them and rewrite the spell lists for my own game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
because not all gms will make the change themselves to allow non LG paladinsThat'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.
Problem is that there's a good chunk of people who, in absence of a strong opinion one way or another, will stick with the default - which means that currently there are a good chunk of people who will turn down alternate alignments even though they don't really care about the issue. If the alignment restriction were removed, then Lady-J's character concept would only be rejected if someone actually cared enough to say "LG only."
Seems to me that it's not a good idea to effectively ban a character concept just because someone didn't care enough to change the default option.
However, accepting that we will not call your idea of a "holy warrior" with similar abilities to a Paladin but has a different alignment, a Paladin, and meeting us halfway with a simple and harmless change in the name of the class, that goes a long way to fostering goodwill and an atmosphere of acceptance. Both parties end up getting what they want, if not exactly how they wanted it.
I'd be content with that result - having the mechanics shared for all alignments but keeping the "Paladin" title exclusive to LG. In fact, that's how it works in my current campaign. I call the class "Champion" and a specific, exclusively LG order comprises the "Paladins."
Unfortunately, some people are not happy with that. Just in this thread:
I feel like "champions of other alignments" are a great idea, but the ones that aren't LG shouldn't be defined by things like grace, lay on hands, mercy, etc. They should instead be defined by things that are more appropriate for those alignments.
Everything seems to keep coming back to wanting the class abilities without the restrictions that come with them.
Though no one seems to have actually made am argument for why the mechanics are not appropriate for different alignments.
And the closest we've gotten to an official change is the Grey Paladin, which (1) is mechanically inferior (2) cannot be CG (3) even if NG, cannot worship a CG deity.
Though no one seems to have actually made am argument for why the mechanics are not appropriate for different alignments.
Because LG is the most restrictive alignment and being able to be a paladin is representative of that fact.
|
|
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)?It's not an ability but following the Code would be thematically inappropriate for a Chaotic Good character.
*sigh*
It seems like every time a discussion of CG comes up, someone argues that CG characters can't have codes of conduct. This simply isn't true. Chaotic creatures can be just as dedicated to their principles as any lawful creature (this is one of the reasons why chaos and law, at least as described in d20 games, is really inconsistent and poorly implemented).
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him.
Nothing about this precludes the ability of a chaotic character to follow a code, it just has to be a code that is in line with the character's personal ethics (just like it is for LG Paladins, because people aren't going to become Paladins in the first place if they disagree with the ideals involved).
And even if the nature of CG would be antagonistic toward any sort of code, there's this little chestnut:
While chaotic good characters do not accept that individuals must sacrifice their ideals and follow laws for the good of the whole, they willingly sacrifice themselves (and their individuality) to protect the whole in the name of good.
By the rules it is perfectly consistent with chaotic good for someone of that alignment to sacrifice their own freedoms for others, which seems to me would lend itself perfectly toward the Paladin concept.
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him.
A Paladin acts as the Code directs him.
Starting to hate CG as much as CN
I feel like part of the problem is that there's really not a meaningful difference between NG and CG if both of them are just-
"I try to do what is good"
"Well, how do you know what good is?"
"I just know, that's all."
It sort of seems like there aren't really three good alignments, it's really just deontological vs. consequentialist ethics. I mean, even LG characters should want to tear down oppressive systems, since oppression is bad and their existence undermines the value of positive systems in people's lives.
| 2 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.
What tactics? Any tactic more complicated than breaking down a door and going head to head with the bad guy can be considered "dishonorable". Scout ahead to see where the bad guys are? Dishonorable! Disguise yourself and infiltrate the bad guy organization? Dishonest! Slit the big bad's throat in his sleep? Murderous! Mindscrew the bad guys into oblivion with save or suck arcane magic? Cowardly!
It goes beyond invalidating literally any forward thinking strategy, Paladins also make it impossible to play any class with any kind of moral gray area: Rogue, Inquisitor, Slayer, Alchemist, the list just goes on and on. No player should have that kind of power over other players, so f--k Paladins.
"Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
Nothing about not scouting ahead. Nothing about " disguises or infiltrating. Nothing about a coup de grac.
I have played and DMed paladins for 40 years and they happily adventure with every class but Anti-paladin and Assassin.
You are just making stuff up (or your DM was) that do not occur in a Paladins code.
I feel like part of the problem is that there's really not a meaningful difference between NG and CG if both of them are just-
"I try to do what is good"
"Well, how do you know what good is?"
"I just know, that's all."It sort of seems like there aren't really three good alignments, it's really just deontological vs. consequentialist ethics.
There are more than two flavors of 'good' out there.
For example:"I do good by following the rules."
"I do good by thinking through the likely results of my actions and trying to achieve the greatest good for the greatest numbers."
"I do good by instinct; whatever feels like the right thing to do, I do it."
But I've always found the law/chaos axis muddled.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Law-Chaos axis is terribly muddled, which is part of why having mechanical restrictions based on that axis bugs me.
Though no one seems to have actually made am argument for why the mechanics are not appropriate for different alignments.Because LG is the most restrictive alignment and being able to be a paladin is representative of that fact.
Even if you are correct that LG is the most restrictive alignment (and I do not agree that this is the case), what about the paladin's mechanics require them to be restricted?
- Smite Evil - makes you good at fighting evil. Not restrictive, makes sense for any good character.
- Aura of Good, Detect Evil - ditto, any good.
- Cha to Saves - Antipaladins get this, so clearly not LG-only.
- Divine Health - you could maybe argue that this is about purity and that purity is restrictive?
- Immunity to fear, charm, compulsion - really this is more about being freed from restrictions than being restricted.
- Lay on Hands/Mercy - healing is loosely thematically good, but not restrictive: see Sarenrae, NG deity of healing and mercy.
- Channel positive energy - available to any non-evil cleric with a non-evil deity.
- Divine Bond - lots of classes get weapon enhancements, though there's some argument for slightly different sets of weapon properties based on alignment (most obviously the aligned properties). The celestial mount is clearly good-aligned but not "restrictive."
- Share Smite Evil, Good aligned attacks, DR/evil, banish evil outsiders - like Smite Evil, this is just about fighting evil, not about being restricted in how you do it.
So the only mechanic that's even vaguely connected to the idea of restriction is Divine Health, and then only if you interpret physical purity as also indicating moral restriction.
Again, it's not game balance that's requiring this restriction. Paladins not only aren't the most powerful class, they're not even clearly the most powerful martials - I'm playing a Bloodrager/Monk co-frontlining with a Paladin and we're pretty balanced both in and out of combat.
Except the paladin does more to buff up your party than your bloodrager/monk by simple virtue of class abilities.
but I've always found the law/chaos axis muddled.
Law vs Chaos seems complicated because people expect it to be. It is not really.
Disclaimer: I am not quoting rules. This is a conclusion that I have reached through logical assessments and comparisons on how alignment functions gained through experience with the game.
It basically boils down to whether you have a fairly consistent rules in place that guides you actions, and you don't EVER deviate from them (That is Law) or you have a general rule set in place but are willing to change it based on what you perceive to be the best action at the time. Neutral falls somewhere in between that. Either you believe that people need a set of rules to guide their behavior, and shouldn't deviate from that to get the best results, or you think that every person should determine their own path.
Same thing with Good vs Evil. You either respect the lives of other people, or you don't. How much you don't determines how far you slide down the slope towards evil. Generally not care but don't go out of your way to hurt/harm anyone? Probably neutral. If you are willing to harm/hurt and it pleases you to do so, well ... You are at the bottom of that hill.
Remember, alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. Most people can, and do, act outside of their alignment on occasion, but as a whole it describes how they normally act. It just so happens that the Universe in Pathfinder labels you with an alignment based on how you act.
It basically boils down to whether you have a fairly consistent rule in place that guides you actions, and you don't EVER deviate from it (That is Law) or you have a general rule set in place but are willing to change it based on what you perceive to be the best action at the time.
So my crazed drunkard barbarian whose one rule in life is "If someone annoys you, punch them in the face" is lawful because he applies that rule consistently in all situations?
So my crazed drunkard barbarian whose one rule in life is "If someone annoys you, punch them in the face" is lawful because he applies that rule consistently in all situations?
No, I am am unsure how you reached that conclusion without being intellectually dishonest (and not thinking things through) or you are being sarcastic. Either way, it is not helpful.
You don't get to have a 'single rule' and get to think you are lawful. A single rule is not enough to guide your actions in a lawful manner. What happens when punching them in the face doesn't work? What do you do then? When you want to punch someone in the face, but shouldn't because it will cause problems, what are your rules from deviating from your rule? Are there exceptions or is there always an exception, in every circumstance. If there is, you are chaotic.
It basically boils down to whether you have a fairly consistent rule in place that guides you actions, and you don't EVER deviate from it (That is Law) or you have a general rule set in place but are willing to change it based on what you perceive to be the best action at the time.So my crazed drunkard barbarian whose one rule in life is "If someone annoys you, punch them in the face" is lawful because he applies that rule consistently in all situations?
Law Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
If your barbarian is in an area, or comes from a culture where there are rules against assault, and thats his "rule" he's not gonna be lawful.
Wierdo, yes all the abilities are quite useful and desirable, literally to anyone.
The point is, does just anyone have the purity of spirit to be able to possess the abilities.
Or another way, are they deserving of these gifts.
As to game balance, it is involved. Paladins have demonstrable advantages in a game where they are relevant at all. It is not any any individual ability, it is the synergistic way the work together. If they weren't demonstrably advantaged, then these threads wouldn't exist because no one would feel cheated by not being able play them as a thug.
But they aren't the only example of this kind of thing. The Vigilante is just as bad. It gets better versions of abilities, with lesser BAB penalties for the abilities, because their existance presupposes an dedicated, opposing powerful force, which a lot of people feel is just a pain, and not what they want to play, but they still want the advantages, without the disadvantages.
Now, not everyone is just wanting extra power without restriction, there are some good concepts put out, but arguing there is no advantage is not accurate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive... the Universe in Pathfinder labels you with an alignment based on how you act.
Matt Colville can say "descriptive, not prescriptive" until he's blue in the face, but if alignment has mechanical consequences (especially those as severe as losing all your class features) then it is, to at least some degree, prescriptive. If all you want is a descriptor, just describe the character. No reference to an alignment system is necessary.
Matt Colville can say "descriptive, not prescriptive" until he's blue in the face, but if alignment has mechanical consequences (especially those as severe as losing all your class features) then it is, to at least some degree, prescriptive. If all you want is a descriptor, just describe the character. No reference to an alignment system is necessary.
I am not seeing your point here. Alignment is descriptive because how the character acts earns them an alignment. Small deviation from it do not change it as it is their overall behavior that determines it. Alignment does not MAKE them take specific actions. That is what I meant by prescriptive. The universe labels you with an alignment that you make for yourself, though you don't get to debate with the universe over what your actions mean.
And, yes. Alignments have mechanical consequences. Characters should experience consequences for being of a chosen alignment, especially when the greater universe as a whole uses those alignments as physical (magical, etc) presences in the entire makeup of itself. No one would be Good if there were no consequences for not being good. except for a rare few.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except the paladin does more to buff up your party than your bloodrager/monk by simple virtue of class abilities.
But the bloodrager//monk is better at controlling the battlefield due to improved reach and combat reflexes, plus spells such as Wind Wall. She's also more mobile, deals more consistent damage, and has better skills.
As to game balance, it is involved. Paladins have demonstrable advantages in a game where they are relevant at all. It is not any any individual ability, it is the synergistic way the work together.
Paladins do have demonstrable advantages - but so do other martial classes. Unchained Monks and Beast Totem barbarians have superior mobility due to a combination of fast movement and flying kick or pounce. Slayers have excellent utility between skill points, talents, and studied target bonuses. All three of those classes perform better during long adventuring days and combats with lots of mooks.
I'm not saying that these classes are equivalent, but that the paladin is not clearly superior.
As to game balance, it is involved. Paladins have demonstrable advantages in a game where they are relevant at all. It is not any any individual ability, it is the synergistic way the work together. If they weren't demonstrably advantaged, then these threads wouldn't exist because no one would feel cheated by not being able play them as a thug.
No, people feel that their character design options are being unnecessarily limited due to the specific alignment restriction and/or specific content of the code.
Even if it is partly a question of mechanics, that doesn't mean the paladin's mechanics are better. If sorcerers were required to be CN-only for some reason, then you would have disappointed people wanting to play heroic charisma-based spontaneous arcane casters. It wouldn't mean that sorcerers are mechanically better than wizards.
The point is, does just anyone have the purity of spirit to be able to possess the abilities.
Or another way, are they deserving of these gifts.
Which is a thematic argument based largely on your interpretation of what is "deserving." Many people do not believe that LG is intended to be somehow more deserving than other Good alignments. Certainly the game at least pays lip service to the idea that there is no single "best Good."
The big problem with ignoring the code is it makes the paladin too powerful
They are supposed to be restricted to gain the abilitiesOne look at the gray paladin archetype shows you what they have in mind in terms of what extra playing with the restrictions grants you . I think it might be a useful thing for me to print before the next game to share as a comparison
What makes a paladin too powerful? They are on par with the Barbarians and Rangers who don't have those pesky restriction. Sure Barbarians can't be lawful but have no code. Compared to fighter sure you have point but you can say that about almost every other class compared to the fighter. The Paladin pales in comparison to any full casters. I'd even say the Inquisitor is more powerful.
So that's why I don't play up the code that much. Blatant violations sure but I don't sweat the minor stuff.
What makes a paladin too powerful? They are on par with the Barbarians and Rangers who don't have those pesky restriction. Sure Barbarians can't be lawful but have no code. Compared to fighter sure you have point but you can say that about almost every other class compared to the fighter. The Paladin pales in comparison to any full casters. I'd even say the Inquisitor is more powerful.
Better saves, better armor access, more effective health via swift action self heals, better animal companions, Assorted immunities, access to a gold-costless raise dead, assorted lay hands mercies to spot remove things like curses, mind control, ability damage and penalties, a vast list of party improving things that frankly none of the other martials even come close to touching.
The fact that they're "on par" damage wise with barbs and rangers PLUS they actually support the party they're with in a significant fashion. If you have to trot out full casters to go "they're not that powerful" you need to dig a little deeper in putting together your argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Better saves, better armor access, more effective health via swift action self heals, better animal companions, Assorted immunities, access to a gold-costless raise dead, assorted lay hands mercies to spot remove things like curses, mind control, ability damage and penalties, a vast list of party improving things that frankly none of the other martials even come close to touching.The fact that they're "on par" damage wise with barbs and rangers PLUS they actually support the party they're with in a significant fashion. If you have to trot out full casters to go "they're not that powerful" you need to dig a little deeper in putting together your argument.
Except taking a Barb as an example, they're not on par in damage Barbs are better unless the Paladin is smiting one of their preferred enemies which they can't do as much as Barbs can rage, their saves are actually worse if you build for superstition, Barbs have worse healing but probably 3-5 more hit points per level, Barbs get DR, Barbs are more maneuverable and although they don't get the same support powers as a Paladin they get things like pounce and Spell sunder, both of which are amazing and frankly Paladins don't come close to touching them.
Any particular reason you're ignoring any mention of the Inquisitor?
A class that does 90% of the damage of one class but 50% more party support by simply existing is a more powerful class in any rpg.
Hooray, barbarians can overkill harder, so what?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
your positive energy healing does dick all when party members have negative energy affinity or are just flat out immune to positive energy or cant be raised in the same way as others, the barbarian actually does more way more dmg than a paladin even if the paladin is smiting a well built barbarian can take out 2-3 mooks a round they can deal with traps, they can tank more outright dmg they are less MAD they cant be flanked as well as having a plethora of other abilitiesA class that does 90% of the damage of one class but 50% more party support by simply existing is a more powerful class in any rpg.
Hooray, barbarians can overkill harder, so what?
You're reaching pretty hard here, "when your whole party has negative energy affinity" give me a break.
also
Me>They have more party support, and are more useful in non combat situations while doing enough damage to pull their weight
You> YEAH BUT BARBS DO MORE DAMAGE AND ALL THIS OTHER IN COMBAT STUFF
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)?It's not an ability but following the Code would be thematically inappropriate for a Chaotic Good character.
Tell that to Chaotic Cavaliers, Antipaladins, and for that matter, Clerics to Chaotic Gods...
A class that does 90% of the damage of one class but 50% more party support by simply existing is a more powerful class in any rpg.
Hooray, barbarians can overkill harder, so what?
So now you're not only ignoring the inquisitors but also
more maneuverable
better saves
more durable hit point wise.
potential for longer adventuring days
interesting utility in abilities like Spell Sunder.
Diplomacy with a high cha > survival
Reaching harder and harder. Track is a garbage niche that's been mocked as just this side of useless pretty constantly on this and other boards, and either i'm missing out on all the disable device focused barbarians or you're describing walking into a trap to trigger it and hoping you make your save, often requiring other party resources to fix what happens to the barbarian.
Whilst I agree Lady-J is making a rather odd argument, Diplomacy and Survival thrive in entirely different fields, if you're using survival to save on rations their probably isn't anyone around to talk to.
A class that does 90% of the damage of one class but 50% more party support by simply existing is a more powerful class in any rpg.
Hooray, barbarians can overkill harder, so what?
So now you're not only ignoring the inquisitors but also
more maneuverable
better saves
more durable hit point wise.
potential for longer adventuring days
interesting utility in abilities like Spell Sunder.
Barbarians do not have better saves than paladins, thats just false. An average of 1 bonus hp per level does not out effective health a swift action lay hands, and having spell sunder doesn't even touch the utility of all the mercies a paladin has available, plus access to raise dead without gold cost.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hooray, barbarians can overkill harder, so what?
Sometimes it's overkill. Sometimes it's just enough kill.
When I'm plugging up an entire 25-foot hallway and practically auto-killing up to 5 mooks a round that are trying to get past me to my squishy party members? And the paladin gets to smack at best one of them, and isn't guaranteed to kill the one he takes a swing at even if he hits?
Tell me I'm not supporting my party to my very pointy face.
You> YEAH BUT BARBS DO MORE DAMAGE AND ALL THIS OTHER IN COMBAT STUFF
Out of combat I've got the party's highest Sense Motive (+26 at level 12) and am the only trained tracker, and our most durable scout (with 40 ft movement, acrobatics, decent stealth and perception) - which is valuable when we don't want to send the squishier investigator ahead alone. I've got a comparable Diplomacy to the paladin since he didn't have a lot of ranks to invest. And I can Craft Magic Arms & Armour during downtime.
EDIT:
and having spell sunder doesn't even touch the utility of all the mercies a paladin has available
Debatable. Hostile spells can seriously hinder a party.
plus access to raise dead without gold cost.
"Access to" = spending two feats in a relatively feat-starved class, and also meeting a non-trivial Charisma requirement. And since it burns 10 Lay on Hands it'll severely reduce your ability to self-heal or use other Mercies. Ultimate Mercy is cool but it costs.
Barbarians do not have better saves than paladins, thats just false.
No it isn't. Superstition is a eventually a +6 to all saves, which out weighs most Paladins final Charisma score, barbs will have better con and therefore better fortitude, better dex + a better base reflex save so better reflexes, the only thing Paladins win on is Will saves and using the human racial superstition goes up to 12. At which point they have comparable will saves.
An average of 1 bonus hp per level does not out effective health a swift action lay hands
No it doesn't but as you said earlier Paladins can survive on 12 con, whilst Barbs will build for raging vitality so they're going to have 2 more points from con, thats +3 on a Paladin, when they're raging they gain 4 more con, 6 with Vitality. So whilst raging barbs have between 5 and 7 more hit points per hit die than a Paladin depending on level. + DR. So yeah, more durable.
and having spell sunder doesn't even touch the utility of all the mercies a paladin has available
A) thats arguable
b) spell sunder is one example of many. Another is pounce.
plus access to raise dead without gold cost.
thats nice.
I'm not saying Paladins aren't good, I'm saying they don't need to be balanced by an alignment lock and immediate loss of class features if they deviate, because whilst they're strong for a full bab class they aren't definitely stronger than other full bab classes, such as Bloodragers and Barbarians.
Not to mention, War Priests, Inquisitors and Clerics are all arguably better in their own ways and aren't locked to one alignment.
EDIT: also more skills.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ladies, gentlemen, I fear that we have strayed from the original point of this thread. The question is not "Are paladins a good class mechanically?", it is "Are paladins a good enough class conceptually that they should be core?", to which I would say yes, they are. Divine champions of unquestionable moral standards (at least in the view of the society they are from) who are capable of some miraculous abilities but are primarily skilled warriors is a common enough theme in myth and legend that I feel it would be to the detriment of the game to remove them. As for allowing paladins to be other alignments, I feel it would dilute the theme paladins are supposed to represent. However, I do believe that it would not be amiss for other alignments to have their own champions, but to base them off the paladin chassis might not always be thematically appropriate (antipaladins work because the default assumption is an antipaladin is a fallen paladin, or if they were made in mockery of paladins). While paladins are inherently associated with being champions of order and civilization (Diplomacy, Knowledge (nobility), & Sense Motive being class skills and their proficiency in heavier armors than barbarians and their ilk implying association with a culture with ready ability to make them), I would want an exemplar of chaotic good to be quite different in terms of abilities (perhaps less social skills, skills that would be more useful in a natural setting etc...) and more in line with what someone would think of as an exemplar of their alignment (i.e. a LN exemplar class could focus mostly on defense and battlefield control, while a CN class could focus more on random effects and lucked based mechanics), but the real point is that just bolting these things onto a paladin wouldn't be as appropriate as making a new class from the ground up.
Just my two CP, though.
Barbarians save boost requires them to make saves against friendly buff spells, including heals, and if your paladin isnt at better than cha +6 by the time the barbarian gets his superstition that high you've REALLY misspent your gold.
Also, other than warpriest (Which has been argued ad nauseum as not a good enough chassis to play holy warrior cause fervor is bad and no full BAB up until y'alls arguments needed to pivot) Inquisitors and Clerics fill different party and thematic roles.