| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just like above where people can't even decide what actions are which alignment. In reality its all about perspective then you have the arguments on whose perspective etc. etc. Their is no real answer because the idea of alignment heck the idea of morality in fact is subjective.which is another reason why having them be alignment locked is dumb
I would appreciate if you didn't use my non-taking-sides post to further your own ends.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
yes it does fighting for freedom is a chaotic act after doing it enough a paladin shifts from being lawful and then fallsYou're flat out wrong, Paizo has had Paladin freedom Fighters plenty of times.
no murder is an evil act and that's what fighting in war is glorified murder thus the paladin falls.
You're just making stuff up now, Paladins fight in wars all the time. The Mendevian Crusades being a big one. Hell's Vengeance is all about freedom fighting Paladins fighting a war.
being envious of people for what they have is against what paladins stand for by rawEnvy is flaw yes but it's nothing to make a Paladin fall or something they can't have.
anti paladin has the same issue as paladin by being alignment locked so em bettering the kingdom causes them to fall and their class features are not the sameThere's nothing in the Antipaladin writeup that says they can't forward their own nation, that's something that would definitely benefit themselves, especially if they are in a position of power for their kingdom
the divine guardian locks them to a certain area thus makes the character unplayableA certain area, like their kingdom? If you were wanting to apply the Lich Template you were already getting into GM Fiat territory anyway.
it does requiring payment to do deeds also goes against what a paladin is by rawPaladin can refuse payment for services but nothing says they have to. Donating your payment or using it buy better gear so you can do more good in the world is perfectly legit.
again anti paladin is not the sameIt is for what you're wanting, since they're mirror copies of each other.
again murder is an evil act and the paladin will fall
The why you're murdering someone can make it an evil act, but a paladin killing people for murdering their family is very, very likely not. There's absolutely nothing against Paladins for killing evil stuff. Killing the f+*! out of Evil stuff is their whole thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people have an epicly narrowminded concept of a paladin, and anything that doesn't fit in the box falls. As a general rule, the people who think paladin's suck and paladin codes are dumb are exactly the reason to NEVER play a paladin if that type of person is the GM.
They don't properly grasp the concept, and will do everything in their power to ruin it, while claiming it's the paladin that's ruining everyone's murderhoboing good time.
I think the fundamental issue is their is a divergence in the play styles. some people want a binary type game similar to a video game where all DM's will pretty much run it the same. The options would be constricted to the point that options would be obviously 1 way or the other. While others want a more open interpretive game. Where the same situation will pop up but have different results from DM to DM.
|
|
Lady-J, you are outright wrong. Paladin of Freedom was an alternate class in 3,5 and I'm sure that link is a derivative of it but there is nothing preventing a Paladin from being a freedom fighter, Paizo itself has published Paladin freedom fighters. By "RAW" you can indeed have Paladin freedom fighters.
If they believe their cause is just again, Paladin can go to war and have done so.
Yes, that is a flaw that is usually discouraged, but if a GM thinks that is a fallable offense that's that GM being a dick.
Doing good for the sake of good would make them fall, but building up your country to give yourself more power is not that. Good things can come up of it, but that applies to any and all actions. What matters is why the Antipaladin is doing it.
I was just pointing out another template other than Lich because I thought you brought that up as a way to watch over your kingodm for a long time, if you were just wanting a power up there's plenty of other archetypes.
And yes there's way laid out to gain the Lich template but you still need the GM's permission.
Mercenaries are traveling warriors for hire, they can charge and do whatever the hell they want, there's no innate universal rules that a mercenary has to abide by, it's a role/title. You can play a Paladin mercenary, in fact that's pretty much every adventuring PC Paladin.
Antitpaladins gets bad/harmful things and Paladins get good/healing things. If you're playing a follower of Cthulhu you're interests align more with the former than the latter.
No it's not, killing evil people for doing known evil things is again all of what the Paladin is all about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In all honesty, the paladin was an APG class before the APG was created. It's got strict requirements, tricky to play and incorporates RP into it's mechanical balance.
Not every character is cut out to be a paladin, and not every player is cut our to play one.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lady-J
You are stretching your argument very thin here.
Rysky is quite right in what she is saying.
There is nothing in the paladin that prevents any of the concepts you proposed, and Rysky has shown why.
On the topic of freedom fighters being chaotic, that is absolute BS. It can be done in a chaotic way, or a lawful way.
It can also be done in a lawful way against the law.
I feel most of the hate for Paladins is because people presupose that the only way the game can be played is how they have experienced it being played, and the Paladin does not fit their game.
I have had paladins in games I have Gmed for and I have played paladins, and I have never had an issue.
The closest we ever came to an issue was a Paladin not wanting to break and enter into a workshop.
We got around that through RP in game convincing the Paladin that sneaking into a compound, where we were refused entry while carrying out an investigation into multiple murders, is probably not a bad thing, and is almost necessary to acquit an innocent.
Paladins are only an issue if your game makes them an issue.
Paladins are just terrible people hiding behind a veneer of chivalry.
At least according to how everyone I've seen playing them.
I hope someday I get to see one played correctly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And now deep thoughts:
Do the poorly played paladins so overshadow the memories of a well played paladin because a well played paladin is semi-invisible?
In truth, a well played paladin is simply a holy warrior with a moral code. That code applies to the paladin, not the party.
Maybe the paladins I've had the fortune to play with were of the exceptional sort.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do the poorly played paladins so overshadow the memories of a well played paladin because a well played paladin is semi-invisible?
In truth, a well played paladin is simply a holy warrior with a moral code. That code applies to the paladin, not the party.
I think you've hit on it.
A bad experience with a Paladin can leave long-lasting vile tastes in people's mouths.
A good experience with a Paladin usually just gets chalked up to "another fighter in the party with some special tricks."
freedom fighter - doesn't conflict with Paladin
If you're going all John Brown you're going to conflict with a paladins desire if not requirement to change the system from the inside rather than vigilante justice.
a mercenary - doesn't conflict with Paladin
..until someone makes you a better offer. Or makes you a good offer to do a bad thing.
one who wants vengeance on the ones that killed their family - doesn't conflict with Paladin at all, paladins can seek Vengeance
Depends on whether they buy a large axe or a red hot poker set.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
freedom fighter - doesn't conflict with PaladinIf you're going all John Brown you're going to conflict with a paladins desire if not requirement to change the system from the inside rather than vigilante justice.
If the system is evil, the paladin has no requirement to work within it.
If the system is evil, the paladin has no requirement to work within it.freedom fighter - doesn't conflict with PaladinIf you're going all John Brown you're going to conflict with a paladins desire if not requirement to change the system from the inside rather than vigilante justice.
They do. They have to respect legitimate authority. I don't think that that means non evil authority, or good authority (since plenty of non evil governments have slavery- Osirion clocks in at LN) I believe that means a government providing laws, a system, and services as opposed to someone shouting "i am kiiing of the forest...)
Or they can find some other socially acceptable method of changing it. (Like joining the andoran government and getting a war going: Lincoln anyone?) but galavanting about the country randomly loopping the heads off of slavers on your own initiative is pretty much the definition of chaotic good. A paladin isn't going to fall for one act of that, but as an MO is is going to bump their alignment over to NG or CG eventually.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we’re operating on completely different interpretations of “Mercenary”. To me that word means a roving warrior that’s paid to do jobs, so basically an Adventurer. If you’re meaning mercenary as someone who values money above all else then no, that person is not a Paladin.
As for the hot poker, torture evil. Paladin no torture if they want to stay a Paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They do. They have to respect legitimate authority.Evil authorities are not legitimate.
This wouldn't even be a thing then. Why not just say that all authorities that don't agree with me are illegitimate?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the system is evil, the paladin has no requirement to work within it.freedom fighter - doesn't conflict with PaladinIf you're going all John Brown you're going to conflict with a paladins desire if not requirement to change the system from the inside rather than vigilante justice.They do. They have to respect legitimate authority. I don't think that that means non evil authority, or good authority (since plenty of non evil governments have slavery- Osirion clocks in at LN) I believe that means a government providing laws, a system, and services as opposed to someone shouting "i am kiiing of the forest...)
Or they can find some other socially acceptable method of changing it. (Like joining the andoran government and getting a war going: Lincoln anyone?) but galavanting about the country randomly loopping the heads off of slavers on your own initiative is pretty much the definition of chaotic good. A paladin isn't going to fall for one act of that, but as an MO is is going to bump their alignment over to NG or CG eventually.
We’ve been over this before, “Legitimate Authority” literally means what the Paladin (and their deity if they have one) in their LG mindset view as legitimate, it doesn’t mean they have to follow all laws everywhere and what they can and can’t do flipflops between what border they’re stepping over (especially since they might know know when they’ve entered a new country and the laws therein). The Paladin won’t fall if they were freeing slaves by killing a slaver but the slaver had one foot over in Cheliah soil. Not how that works.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This wouldn't even be a thing then. Why not just say that all authorities that don't agree with me are illegitimate?They do. They have to respect legitimate authority.Evil authorities are not legitimate.
I think your god would look askance on you taking out a fairly elected N mayor if your detect evil doesn't ping.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is exactly what that section is saying.
You are reading way too much into it. It's not there.
What you are seeing there is effectively nothing. "I agree with the people that i agree with" is a tautology, not a code of ethics.
I know it sounds stupid (then again, so do a lot of honor systems), but if authorities can't trust you not to go randomly murdering tax payers they're going to crack down on your order hard, completely ban them from the country, raid their temples salt the earth and curse their name. That severely limits your ability to work on the big picture of nationwide emancipation or at least reasonable living conditions (Like osirion has), and big picture vs small picture is the fundamental difference between law and chaos.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think your god would look askance on you taking out a fairly elected N mayor if your detect evil doesn't ping.
And even then, if the mayor is Evil but is actually constrained by the legal system, the government is still legitimate and he should be opposed in a lawful way.
If the government is actively assisting his Evil, then it is time to organize a rebellion. If only we had a good example in Golarion...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the government is actively assisting his Evil, then it is time to organize a rebellion. If only we had a good example in Golarion...
Galt?
|
|
That is exactly what that section is saying.You are reading way too much into it. It's not there.
What you are seeing there is effectively nothing. "I agree with the people that i agree with" is a tautology, not a code of ethics.
I know it sounds stupid (then again, so do a lot of honor systems), but if authorities can't trust you not to go randomly murdering tax payers they're going to crack down on your order hard, completely ban them from the country, raid their temples salt the earth and curse their name. That severely limits your ability to work on the big picture of nationwide emancipation or at least reasonable living conditions (Like osirion has), and big picture vs small picture is the fundamental difference between law and chaos.
Evil countries already do exactly that. Paladins don’t really walk openly in Cheliax and definitely not in Nidal or Irrisen. Good religions are banned in all those places.
Paladins also don’t go randomly murdering tax payers. They murder that serial killer or cultist trying to sacrifice people who just happen to be a tax payer.
Sacrificing someone is legal in Cheliax, a Paladin stopping that isn’t going to fall.
We’ve been over this before, “Legitimate Authority” literally means what the Paladin (and their deity if they have one) in their LG mindset view as legitimate, it does mean they have to follow all laws everywhere and what they can and can’t do flipflops between what border they’re stepping over (especially since they might know know when they’ve entered a new country and the laws therein). The Paladin won’t fall if they were freeing slaves by killing a slaver but the slaver had one foot over in Cheliah soil. Not how that works.If the system is evil, the paladin has no requirement to work within it.freedom fighter - doesn't conflict with PaladinIf you're going all John Brown you're going to conflict with a paladins desire if not requirement to change the system from the inside rather than vigilante justice.They do. They have to respect legitimate authority. I don't think that that means non evil authority, or good authority (since plenty of non evil governments have slavery- Osirion clocks in at LN) I believe that means a government providing laws, a system, and services as opposed to someone shouting "i am kiiing of the forest...)
Or they can find some other socially acceptable method of changing it. (Like joining the andoran government and getting a war going: Lincoln anyone?) but galavanting about the country randomly loopping the heads off of slavers on your own initiative is pretty much the definition of chaotic good. A paladin isn't going to fall for one act of that, but as an MO is is going to bump their alignment over to NG or CG eventually.
Actually...
I kind of agree.
A Paladin likely wouldn't fall for killing a slaver* with one foot in Cheliax. That's just silly.
Likewise if said foot is in Osirion, for that matter.
He does however likely fall through a trapdoor, with a rope around his neck, after another adventuring party has brought him in to local magistrate, wanted for murder.
Edit: Although not knowing the "laws of the land" haven't really ever been an effective legal defense. Killing someone will get you in some kind of legal trouble it's merely a question of how deep.
*Now outright killing a slave-owner might be another question, although ironically it would still end up with the paladin being sent to the gallows.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the player wants to be of any other alignment than Lawful Good, either it's Gray Paladin with the disadvantages it entails, or playing DnD 5.
Part of the class' background from the strictness of the alignment, removing it would erase lots of its identity.
Indeed, the alignment aspect of it is fairly important. And that means a paladin may not always be a good fit for a game. But then, neither is an assassin, or a cleric of Zon-Kuthon, or a dwarf, or a druid...
None of the alignment aspect really justifies hate directed at the paladin, though, any more than you should hate your crosscut saw because you're assembling Ikea furniture and it's not a tool appropriate to the situation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
a mercenary - doesn't conflict with Paladin..until someone makes you a better offer. Or makes you a good offer to do a bad thing.
What? Mercenaries can't be honorable, keeping their word as their bond until they fulfill the terms of the contract? They very well can be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2 factors- 1) the fear of bad DMs forcing sadistic choices, & 2) a polarizing binary view of the alignment system which must punish all mistakes and completely subsides the context of any decision (which ironically is specifically called out in the rules)
The paladin code was quoted earlier in saying that a paladin can align with Evil or Chaotic characters, so long as there is a greater threat afoot. According to GNS theory, any narrative which includes a PC playing a paladin should facilitate this and this line of the code is more or less meant to be delegated to NPCs. At least that's how I GM.
Conversely, if we look at the Antipaladin code we then realize that the alignment system fully recognizes the intent of the player's choices and thus any sadistic choice forced upon the paladin should by definition never preclude a fall. Ever. It's in the rules, though it requires some anglicitical math to extrapolate.
I stand correct.
Everyone likes to bash on paladins, until you need someone to do paladin sh*t.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ BigNorseWolf - would you consider Treerazer or Razmir (or hell, Baba Yaga) to be legitimate authorities?
There are many rulers who are pretty much just bandits who successfully took over a country.
I don't think a paladin is obligated to recognize a bad guy who won as a legitimate authority.*
Though under the right circumstances, an evil ruler could still be legitimate - I'm sure Taldor's gone through a lot of evil kings during its long existence. Whether or not an authority is "legitimate" would absolutely be on a case by case basis.
*Now, I can totally see paladins who do recognize House Thrune as a legitimate authority, but Cheliax is a deliberately weird situation where the state religion is a LE deity whose servants ended a horrible civil war, but the most popular religion is a LG deity who's the heir to the prior state religion.
@ Rysky - uh, I'm pretty sure paladins aren't banned in Cheliax. Most Chelexian paladins are probably heavily encouraged to ply their trade elsewhere (like the Worldwound), but trying to outright ban them would mean picking a fight with the church of Iomedae at large, and that would be bad. Like, failing the Hell's Vengeance AP bad. Edit: Trying to outlaw paladins would also further strain House Thrune's already-strained relation with many of the Hellknight Orders. I can't see the Scourge or the God-Claws accepting such a decree politely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All paladin problems can be avoided by playing a Warpriest.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What? Mercenaries can't be honorable, keeping their word as their bond until they fulfill the terms of the contract? They very well can be.
Not only "can be," but if they want to ever be hired again, they definitely should be.
No one will hire a mercenary company that is known for abandoning their contracts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All paladin problems can be avoided by playing a Warpriest.
And all Druid problems can be avoided by playing a Ranger. But that’s no help to people that want to play Druids.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It really depends on the setting. In an all good black and white campaign a Paladin can really shine. However in PFS the Paladin's code is completely incompatible with many of the mission goals which require deception, murder and theft to succeed. Generally the Paladin's code is hand waived by the GM who does not have the resources to deal with questions of morality during a 4-hour session or wish to penalize the entire group just because of the fluff of one player's background.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All paladin problems can be avoided by playing a Warpriest.And all Druid problems can be avoided by playing a Ranger. But that’s no help to people that want to play Druids.
Rangers aren't just better designed druids. Warpriest is just a better designed Paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are two elements to it.
The first is an external bias. As a society, we generally don't like seeing characters who live according to high moral codes. Americans tend to prefer the scrappy underdog, the rebel, the loner who goes their own way, the cop who breaks the rules in order to get real justice.
We have a bias against characters like Superman and Luke Skywalker and towards characters like Batman and Han Solo.
Paladins live by that strong moral code, and remind most of us that in the real world? We fall very short. Most of us consider ourselves "good" people. But we'll tell a white lie, or break a minor law. And we're still good. The Paladin holds themselves above that. And that makes us question if we're as good as we think we are. Which immediately lends to people looking at the rules and seeing how they can make a Paladin fall.
The other part is one or two bad Paladin players, who let their characters be zealots and overbearing and squash the other party members. And that can be a hard taste to get out of one's mouth. Not all, or even most Paladin players do that. But enough do that we all remember "that guy."
This^^
If you are interested in real world analogies, I suggest reading some academic papers on understanding antisemitism. Basically, we have a certain moral code that defines what good is in our society. For the society of fantasy world, a paladin embodies that goodness. A paladin is an icon for morality; a living embodiment of how we think a moral person should be. Even if they don't do or say anything, their very presence makes us feel like we are being judged, and are found wanting. These feelings are of personal guilt, but since we have a representation of that which is making us feel guilty, we direct our anger to it.
My beef with the Code of Conduct is that it talks about Honor as if it is the most good way to live your life. All Honor is is a series of social rules designed to keep a few rich men in power while repressing and abusing those not lucky enough to be born into privilege and every woman in society. Oh, and if you feel that your honor has been impugned, you are social obligated to murder the crap out of the person you feel has done so or else you are a bad person.
Honor is evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rangers aren't just better designed druids. Warpriest is just a better designed Paladin.All paladin problems can be avoided by playing a Warpriest.And all Druid problems can be avoided by playing a Ranger. But that’s no help to people that want to play Druids.
You say that, but whenever I try to build one, I think "but is this better than having the same spell list but better?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I hate Paladins, because it creates a situation of letting players run amok when the rules shouldn't let them versus putting your foot down and being called a badwrongfun GM for it. No matter what happens in the above situation, somebody at the table is getting hurt for it, and that's not something I ever want to foster at my table, and Paladins with their purposefully ambiguous code is just an avenue for such behavior to occur.
Even discussing it with my players beforehand won't necessarily solve the problem; it might just end up creating the problem before the game even begins, which I suppose is kind of better, but is by no means a cureall to the real root of the problem.
Stuff like this thread cropping up at my table more than it should is the reason why I ban Paladin PCs at my table: Too much headache for something that shouldn't have it, at a place where headaches are the last thing that should be occurring, which is my gaming table. The funny part is that Antipaladins are still allowed because they aren't anywhere near as disruptive to a table as Paladins are, which is ironic considering that Antipaladins are supposed to be polar opposites of Paladins...
So before people say I'm badwrongfun for banning a class, consider the above, and perhaps you'll find it not a silly solution to just nuke the problem option from orbit. Paizo does it all the time, and people still love them for it. I trust people will have the same attitude if I use a similar approach to the problem child that is a Paladin.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My beef with the Code of Conduct is that it talks about Honor as if it is the most good way to live your life. All Honor is is a series of social rules designed to keep a few rich men in power while repressing and abusing those not lucky enough to be born into privilege and every woman in society. Oh, and if you feel that your honor has been impugned, you are social obligated to murder the crap out of the person you feel has done so or else you are a bad person.
Honor is evil.
That is a very Chaotic view :-)
Honor as described in the CRB (no lying, no using poison) has nothing to do with what you describe here
My beef with the Code of Conduct is that it talks about Honor as if it is the most good way to live your life. All Honor is is a series of social rules designed to keep a few rich men in power while repressing and abusing those not lucky enough to be born into privilege and every woman in society. Oh, and if you feel that your honor has been impugned, you are social obligated to murder the crap out of the person you feel has done so or else you are a bad person.
Honor is evil.
That is a very Chaotic view :-)
Honor as described in the CRB (no lying, no using poison) has nothing to do with what you describe here
Whenever I hear the word "honor," the concept that immediately jumps to my mind is "honor killings."
Yes, I hate Paladins, because it creates a situation of letting players run amok when the rules shouldn't let them versus putting your foot down and being called a badwrongfun GM for it. No matter what happens in the above situation, somebody at the table is getting hurt for it, and that's not something I ever want to foster at my table, and Paladins with their purposefully ambiguous code is just an avenue for such behavior to occur.
Even discussing it with my players beforehand won't necessarily solve the problem; it might just end up creating the problem before the game even begins, which I suppose is kind of better, but is by no means a cureall to the real root of the problem.
Stuff like this thread cropping up at my table more than it should is the reason why I ban Paladin PCs at my table: Too much headache for something that shouldn't have it, at a place where headaches are the last thing that should be occurring, which is my gaming table. The funny part is that Antipaladins are still allowed because they aren't anywhere near as disruptive to a table as Paladins are, which is ironic considering that Antipaladins are supposed to be polar opposites of Paladins...
So before people say I'm badwrongfun for banning a class, consider the above, and perhaps you'll find it not a silly solution to just nuke the problem option from orbit. Paizo does it all the time, and people still love them for it. I trust people will have the same attitude if I use a similar approach to the problem child that is a Paladin.
Seems like banning paladins could be just as disruptive if you have someone who really wants to play a paladin. I mean, I can see it for certain games; S&S and HV both seem like games where a paladin would be a wildly inappropriate choice, but I can’t imagine a blanket ban of a core class sitting well with a lot of people.