Why all the Paladin hate?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 961 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
full bab good will/fort, smite, lay on hands, buffing auras/imunities and a bonded weapon/item is what a paladin is, just like full bab good fort weapon and armor training and bonus feats is a fighter classes are there do give class features the flavor is what the player does with the character flavor should not be tied down to classes and while you can use the features of a class to improve opp on your flavor a class should not force any type of flavor onto the player

I disagree completely with every single part of this. But I guess, every way of playing the game is the right way as long as the people at the table are all having fun.

But IMO, flavor is 100% of what I think of as defining a class and mechanics are just an attempt to make that flavor tangible through play.

coming up with your own flavor for a character is about half the fun of making the character and if you don't have total control over that aspect it makes the character feel lesser, like how playing pregen characters can feel sometimes, if you have no investment in the way your character acts and interacts because the class itself dictates how you should play you just feel detached from the game and the world your playing in


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
coming up with your own flavor for a character is about half the fun of making the character and if you don't have total control over that aspect it makes the character feel lesser, like how playing pregen characters can feel sometimes, if you have no investment in the way your character acts and interacts because the class itself dictates how you should play you just feel detached from the game and the world your playing in

But having to work within structure enhances creativity (at least in my experience) rather than reducing it. I can play hundreds of different Paladins within the definition of "a really good person who believes in making things systematically better for everybody" and they're all going to end up extremely different characters.

Like the current Paladin I'm working on is a Waker May Paladin of Sarenrae who is somewhat of a combination of Chidi and Michael from "The Good Place" in that due to her heritage, cruelty is extremely natural to her and her understanding of ethics is purely abstract and intellectual to her, but she is nonetheless committed to doing the right thing for the right reasons, it's just wholly unnatural to her and she struggles with empathy. Since she does not sleep, she spends every night reading the great thinkers of Golarion in order to have a better understanding of the great moral questions and their answers that she believes will help her to be a good person and avoid the fate she was intended to have. What knowledge skill is most appropriate for moral philosophy anyway? It's probably either history or religion.

The last Paladin I played was a good natured "aw shucks" farmboy kind of person who saw the good in everyone and every situation, whose naive optimism and heroic feats lead to him being an truly inspirational figure. He played the "straight" man in a comedic duo with our Witch.


*eyes rolling so hard that they pop out of my head and roll away*
because some people love to shout at other people about how they are playing pathfinder wrong, even though it cuts both ways. personally I have encountered a lot more people who get irrationally furious about someone else playing a paladin (therefore keeping them from mindlessly murder hobo-ing their way through an adventure) than paladins who try to govern the rest of the party's actions but I discourage wanton murder in my games anyway so YMMV.

Also having to play within the constructs of the alignment can lead to great story, I feel! It's the classic case of restrictions allowing creativity to flourish. IDK!

edit: lightly ninjaed by possiblecabbage


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jack ferencz wrote:

*eyes rolling so hard that they pop out of my head and roll away*

because some people love to shout at other people about how they are playing pathfinder wrong, even though it cuts both ways. personally I have encountered a lot more people who get irrationally furious about someone else playing a paladin (therefore keeping them from mindlessly murder hobo-ing their way through an adventure) than paladins who try to govern the rest of the party's actions but I discourage wanton murder in my games anyway so YMMV.

Also having to play within the constructs of the alignment can lead to great story, I feel! It's the classic case of restrictions allowing creativity to flourish. IDK!

edit: lightly ninjaed by possiblecabbage

yes but you should have the choice of opting in to those kings of story hooks and constraints not have them forced oppon you by the base class template


right but by playing the class you are making a choice, yes? that choice isn't 'should i or should i not be a giant a*!~%%~ to the people I'm playing with,' or at least it shouldn't -- but there seem to be a lot of people here who HATE paladins (for whatever reasons!) and are going to intentionally force pallys into situations where they feel like they 'have to' behave in a certain way.

I feel that someone who thinks that "being good" is important and valuable and puts that distinction above all has a real place in TTRPGs, just as much as GTA murder hobos who hate being told there will be repercussions for murdering civilians (drifting into the hyperbolic, i know, but it is late and I'm a little fired up!)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jack Ferencz wrote:
I feel that someone who thinks that "being good" is important and valuable and puts that distinction above all has a real place in TTRPGs

A paladin comes with a lot more baggage than that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
TOZ wrote:
I'm going to have to go reread my copies and see if I imagined all the murder of good aligned creatures.
that's just it your technically don't have to do any of that you can just incapacitate them and further your own goals

Wait, what?

What about getting to a vale and murdering everybody on it, including more than a thousand innocent non combatant people on a town?
That isn't optional, the orders are clear: let no survivors.

And what about: kill a good aligned dragon and all his consorts (all of them non aggressive until you attack them) so I can help you by slaying a teenage girl? That is also compulsory, as the orders are clear and there is an infernal contract forcing you to obey.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kileanna wrote:

Wait, what?

What about getting to a vale and murdering everybody on it, including more than a thousand innocent non combatant people on a town?
That isn't optional, the orders are clear: let no survivors.

And what about: kill a good aligned dragon and all his consorts (all of them non aggressive until you attack them) so I can help you by slaying a teenage girl? That is also compulsory, as the orders are clear and there is an infernal contract forcing you to obey.

Remember who it is that you're trying to debate this with, Kileanna - it isn't worth the frustration...


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jack Ferencz wrote:
I feel that someone who thinks that "being good" is important and valuable and puts that distinction above all has a real place in TTRPGs
A paladin comes with a lot more baggage than that.

A LOOOOOOOOOOOOOT more baggage... If it was a simple as that, almost no one would complain.


dysartes wrote:
Kileanna wrote:

Wait, what?

What about getting to a vale and murdering everybody on it, including more than a thousand innocent non combatant people on a town?
That isn't optional, the orders are clear: let no survivors.

And what about: kill a good aligned dragon and all his consorts (all of them non aggressive until you attack them) so I can help you by slaying a teenage girl? That is also compulsory, as the orders are clear and there is an infernal contract forcing you to obey.

Remember who it is that you're trying to debate this with, Kileanna - it isn't worth the frustration...

Who is getting frustrated? I am not.

I actually find it pretty amusing that someone feels like WotW isn't really evil at all. I have got back to GMing it this month, we are on the fourth book and my players have just slayed a whole dungeon full of friendly creatures just because they were commanded to and couldn't refuse.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well in general I would say the biggest reason are:

1) It constraints the tactics the party is allowed to use. Or at the very least how. And no murder hobo is just one aspect. There are plenty of tactics that a paladin shouldn't approve of that are just sound tactical choices and not EEEEEEVIIIIIL.

2) Alingment. Stand where you will but no sane person can't say that alingment is inherently a problematic issues than can flare tempers. And paladins are so tied to alingment it by it's very nature brings it forwards.

3) Bad experiences. I am sure anyone who has played any lenght of time with varied group of people have had encountered one bad paladin. Because the paladin class brings forward it's own specific types of bad behavior people associate problem with the class.

Now as for my own reasons for hating the paladin.

1) The same as above, I can't see more selfish choice than making a character that forces other players to pick compatible character concepts. And outside of houseruling it isn'treally the players fault because the class is written with hardcoded limitations, it isn't like they could create a paladin that works with those character concepts. Sure a barbarian who does not accept surrender will close certain character concepts from rest of the players, but that isn't the class that is doing that.

2) Again same as above. I personally loathe alignment and think it is the worst thing to have happened to the hobby in it's history. Humans have debated over morality for eons and haven't come up with a perfect solution. A guy with rather antisocial GMing habits(by modern standards) certainly did not come up with the answer. It doubles down on the issue because it is shown as objective morality, but these objective rules are never established so as a result it is whatever the GM feels like. And these aren't written down anywhere. Not to mention that it reduces such a complex thing as personal ethics to the level of saturday morning cartoon. And as noted above paladin forces this thing into focus.

3) It suffers more than any other class of sacred cows that should have been slaughtered ages ago.

4) I absolutely loathe classes that can't be separated from it's fluff. I can make a Zen master swordsman out of a barbarian with ease. Paladin is just a paladin and can't really be changed from that. Noobs might need the help with character concepts, veterans don't. Limitations of this sort are nothing short of asinine. To make matters worse it is tied down to specific alignments instead of being able to handle all avenues. That is just horrible class design.


Kileanna wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
TOZ wrote:
I'm going to have to go reread my copies and see if I imagined all the murder of good aligned creatures.
that's just it your technically don't have to do any of that you can just incapacitate them and further your own goals

Wait, what?

What about getting to a vale and murdering everybody on it, including more than a thousand innocent non combatant people on a town?
That isn't optional, the orders are clear: let no survivors.

And what about: kill a good aligned dragon and all his consorts (all of them non aggressive until you attack them) so I can help you by slaying a teenage girl? That is also compulsory, as the orders are clear and there is an infernal contract forcing you to obey.

well to do this your dm is going to have to be on board with running it non standardly as the players will need to go out of their way and make it a non evil campaign cuz if they are not, its not gona happen and your likely to make people super mad for trying to do something like this, you will either need to

1. not go to the baron once you escape prison and play it really smart or do option 2 which will most definitely be significantly harder to pull off especially for lvl 1 characters or 3 which will be easyer or 4 which is outsourcing the problem
2. go to the baron and make the contract but then find a way out of the contract or find a way to cheat out of using your own blood to make the contract(probably use pigs blood or something)
3. they will have to make the module a little unconventional and switching up the beginning part a bit have them instead break some of their fellow rebels out of prison instead of the party being the ones in prison and thus bypass the contract say the party is chaotic aligned some good some neutral aligned and they just don't agree with how the current rulership is doing things and wants them replaced , the people you break out from prison will also have had a run in with the barons servant and they will inform you of this you will then have some rebel spyies to keep an eye on the baron and keep you informed of his plans and they would probably end up dealing with the baron when they reach a higher level, then its just knocking out the good aligned people and dealing with the evil aligned people(foiling the bugbear invasion would probably grant a metric but ton of exp)
or 4. have some one hired who when you knock out the people who are suposta die and leave it to them to kill everyone then they just don't kill them you did your part and left it for the clean up crew and the clean up crew just didn't clean up no break in the contract on your end

after the players jump threw a crap ton of hoops you should be able to manage to turn an evil campaign into a chaotic good/neutral campaign and have all the evil eradicated and the good leadership replaced with other good aligned leadership which better co insides with your values


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, if you don't actually play "Way of the Wicked", but a homebrew scenario based on "Way of the Wicked", you can play it as a good character, and the fact that you can come up with an non-canon homebrew scenario means that the alignment restriction on the canon scenario is wrong?


Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote:
So, if you don't actually play "Way of the Wicked", but a homebrew scenario based on "Way of the Wicked", you can play it as a good character, and the fact that you can come up with an non-canon homebrew scenario means that the alignment restriction on the canon scenario is wrong?

only one of the 4 ways requires any modifications the other 3 can be done within the confines of the normal scenario and even then it would only change the 1st and 2nd act of like 30 acts so hardly changing the entire story just makes it easier on the levels ones if they wish to play it that way, besides no ones game follows the adventure path to the t so every campaign will be "homebrewed" so its really a non issue


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you aren't running things as written, you cannot say thay something can be played like this or like that. You can always change written material to fit your needs, and that is good. But that doesn't make the standard material fit for non evil characters.

It's like saying that being a sailor and having underwater options on Skull and Shackles isn't important because you could perfectly run the AP for wild west bandits If you adapt it.

One thing is the written material and a different thing is the alterations you can make.

Way of the Wicked is for evil PCs and most they have to do is evil, unless you make a lot of homebrew and GM it as it isn't intended to do it.


Honestly it works against her own argument. Why complain about paladins just change it yourself in your home game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Your option one doesn't work. The book outright says "If they don't want to go to the baron, railroad them or make up your own story." Yeah, it's just one act, but it's clearly off the rails.
Option two is also pretty much impossible without going entirely off the rails.
Option three requires rewriting the setup.
Option four doesn't work because even if you subcontract the murders, you are still responsible for them being carried out - which includes them not being carried out. You still failed to kill them by failing to hire someone who'd actually kill them.

Any way to avoid evil actions clearly requires deviation from the expected flow of the adventure, and the alignment restriction is based on the expected flow of the adventure, not on every possible flow.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Hey, where did the OP go?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Hey, where did the OP go?

The same place I should of went.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think a few of you really need to re-read your Paladin Oaths. Flagrant misconduct right throughout this thread. Dreadful. You even brought anime into this, of all things! Anime!

If any of you were paladins before, you aren't anymore, buckos!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:

I called this btw.

But seriously You know their is people on the other side who would complain that the problem with the fighter is they didn't have fluff like the paladin. Their is people the want the exact opposite of what you do.

Paladin threads really express to me that old saying (shortened) you can't please all of the people all of the time.

You called?

I stepped out of my torpor because I felt that I was being somehow invoked xD


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Wultram wrote:


I absolutely loathe classes that can't be separated from it's fluff.

Gosh. I am entirely in agreement with you in not liking alignment (except for outsiders strongly attached to specific planes and moralities), but that seems a really fundamental disjunct with how the game works to me; the fluff is what makes any class distinct, it's what justifies mechanical distinctions. If you don't want fluff to define a class, what would you see as the point in having classes at all ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Gosh. I am entirely in agreement with you in not liking alignment (except for outsiders strongly attached to specific planes and moralities), but that seems a really fundamental disjunct with how the game works to me; the fluff is what makes any class distinct, it's what justifies mechanical distinctions. If you don't want fluff to define a class, what would you see as the point in having classes at all ?

I can't speak for Wultram specifically (nor do I share the sentiment), but I know that some people just want various mechanical scaffolds to attach their own flavour to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Gosh. I am entirely in agreement with you in not liking alignment (except for outsiders strongly attached to specific planes and moralities), but that seems a really fundamental disjunct with how the game works to me; the fluff is what makes any class distinct, it's what justifies mechanical distinctions. If you don't want fluff to define a class, what would you see as the point in having classes at all ?

Yeah, I've played plenty of good classless systems, and I figured that the entire point of having classes is that you have the existing fluff to serve as a prompt for who the character is (not a complete picture, just somewhere to start from.) I find it leads to more focused and realized characters a lot of the time (I mean, I've been in a lot of Shadowrun games where someone tries do everything and it never goes well.)

So if you're actually opposed to classes with fluff built in (oddly nobody seems to want to remove this from the Summoner, Wizard, Barbarian, Inquisitor, et cetera) why not just play something without classes?


PossibleCabbage wrote:
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Gosh. I am entirely in agreement with you in not liking alignment (except for outsiders strongly attached to specific planes and moralities), but that seems a really fundamental disjunct with how the game works to me; the fluff is what makes any class distinct, it's what justifies mechanical distinctions. If you don't want fluff to define a class, what would you see as the point in having classes at all ?

Yeah, I've played plenty of good classless systems, and I figured that the entire point of having classes is that you have the existing fluff to serve as a prompt for who the character is (not a complete picture, just somewhere to start from.) I find it leads to more focused and realized characters a lot of the time (I mean, I've been in a lot of Shadowrun games where someone tries do everything and it never goes well.)

So if you're actually opposed to classes with fluff built in (oddly nobody seems to want to remove this from the Summoner, Wizard, Barbarian, Inquisitor, et cetera) why not just play something without classes?

FYI---My shadowrun Jack of all Trades works REALLY WELL (Mystic Adept/Decker/Face). Lots of BUFF spells involved. He is a Karma build, but could have done him as an ABCDE if I was willing to pay double on a quality (+4 Karma) and wait 4-5 runs for his first deck (Or use in debt)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote:
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Gosh. I am entirely in agreement with you in not liking alignment (except for outsiders strongly attached to specific planes and moralities), but that seems a really fundamental disjunct with how the game works to me; the fluff is what makes any class distinct, it's what justifies mechanical distinctions. If you don't want fluff to define a class, what would you see as the point in having classes at all ?
I can't speak for Wultram specifically (nor do I share the sentiment), but I know that some people just want various mechanical scaffolds to attach their own flavour to.

And people can do that with GM/player agreement. And they're pretty much always done so since RPGs were first sold.

It just underscores to me the pointless waste of effort that goes into hating a class as written. If you don't like it, change it.


That quote did not really get the full context. It is about being a class that CAN'T be seperated from it's fluff. I do not mind there being some sort of standard for a class. I hate being tied down to it. That is not to say there can't be anything died down. I am fine with example divine and arcane magic division.

And yes cabbage that goes for every single class ever made. I do not treat palading any different than the others. I hate barbarians alingment restriction. I hate druids not being allowed to wear metal armor.(it is stupid and has nothing to do with game balance.) But we aren't in a thread about those so I see no need to bring the stupidity of the other classes desing into focus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ladyj wrote:
4. have some one hired who when you knock out the people who are suposta die and leave it to them to kill everyone then they just don't kill them you did your part and left it for the clean up crew and the clean up crew just didn't clean up no break in the contract on your end

Just to be clear...do you believe a LG core paladin can do this and not fall?

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I love how people act like this is a problem exclusive to paladins. Those same people who play the "holier than though" and "you must also follow my code" paladins would do the exact same s&~& as a Lawful Good fighter.

And I can honestly say that I've had far more issues with Chaotic Neutral characters trying to be wantonly evil than I ever had with Paladins. It's not a paladin thing, it's an alignment thing. The problem people just often gravitate towards paladin because they try to use the code as a smokescreen for them just being a dick.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
I love how people act like this is a problem exclusive to paladins. Those same people who play the "holier than though" and "you must also follow my code" paladins would do the exact same s++& as a Lawful Good fighter.

Other classes can bend a lot more or make "just this once" exceptions that paladins can't on a lot of issues. I don't know what percentage of the problem is the player and what percentage of the problem is inherent in the paladin but i'd eyeball it at 50 50

So yes, the problem with paladins is overblown but not entirely baseless..


Code of Conduct wrote:

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.

Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

Definition of the word Willingly wrote:

will·ing·ly

ˈwiliNGlē/Submit
adverb
readily; of one's own free will.

If you are committing an evil act because of a sadistic choice, you are not doing so willingly.

If you are not aware of some suberfugey bullsh*t your DM is pulling to trick you into doing something evil, then you are not doing so willingly.

Do you have any more stupid questions?


Paladin_Knight_marshmallow wrote:
o you have any more stupid questions?

Yeah. Why do you think the DM in that situation CARES that you can pull out a dictionary? It's entirely up to the Dm what is evil and what is willingly done. If the Dm says you fall, the dictionary definition is unlikely to matter much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
any one in any war is arguably evil that goes for both sides war is an evil thing and causes many innocents to lose their lives however many actions that lead up to many wars are also evil but evil deeds done to evil people doesn't make them good and while the world is a better place for some of those deeds taking place it was still an evil act

Originally I was just going to leave this lay, but I just...

So, in your opinion anyone that involved in a war (in any way shape or form) should be considered an evil person. How do you feel about Draftees? Conscripts? People fighting against someone seeking to kill them and their families simply for being alive? You consider them to be evil?

War in of itself is not evil. Some of the things that can happen in a war can be evil; the Nazi Holocaust, the Armenian Holocaust, etc. I suggest you take a walk around in a different part of the world where you don't have "evil" people creating a barrier against the true evil in this world and then rethink your philosophy.

*EDIT*

Also, please use punctuation and proper grammar as it is difficult to understand what you are even trying to say in most of your posts...


Wultram wrote:

That quote did not really get the full context. It is about being a class that CAN'T be seperated from it's fluff. I do not mind there being some sort of standard for a class. I hate being tied down to it.

How is a wizard not tied down to being a spellcaster, or a barbarian not tied down to being primarily a combat class ? A standard that people have no reason to adhere to isn't meaningfully a standard to my mind, and I'm still not understanding, and interested in, why you are drawing this particular line where you do.


If you are not interested, then where in your mind it thought to be a good idea then to try to engage in a discussion. Also stop with the dishonest quoting. It is bloody annoying. One time can be an honest mistake twice in a row not a chance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What I've learned from this thread is that barbarians who don't lie or steal 100% of the time should by RAW lose their ability to rage.

The character, not the player.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

What I've learned from this thread is that barbarians who don't lie or steal 100% of the time should by RAW lose their ability to rage.

The character, not the player.

Nah man. Barbarians don't have a specific-yet vague code that hangs a Sword of Damacoles instant loss of class features over their head. No sport in that for a GM to exploit. Now going about claiming the druid fell because his purchase of a magic weapon furthers the cause of civilization against nature and thus he no longer reveres nature is where its at.


Faelyn wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
any one in any war is arguably evil that goes for both sides war is an evil thing and causes many innocents to lose their lives however many actions that lead up to many wars are also evil but evil deeds done to evil people doesn't make them good and while the world is a better place for some of those deeds taking place it was still an evil act

Originally I was just going to leave this lay, but I just...

So, in your opinion anyone that involved in a war (in any way shape or form) should be considered an evil person. How do you feel about Draftees? Conscripts? People fighting against someone seeking to kill them and their families simply for being alive? You consider them to be evil?

War in of itself is not evil. Some of the things that can happen in a war can be evil; the Nazi Holocaust, the Armenian Holocaust, etc. I suggest you take a walk around in a different part of the world where you don't have "evil" people creating a barrier against the true evil in this world and then rethink your philosophy.

*EDIT*

Also, please use punctuation and proper grammar as it is difficult to understand what you are even trying to say in most of your posts...

killing people is evil no matter who is doing it however it is necessary in some cases but that's part of human nature every one is capable of great good but they are also capable of great evil

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
killing people is evil no matter who is doing it.

And there we go folks. By Lady-J's interpretation of Pathfinder morality the Paladin would fall as soon as they killed someone. I understand why you dislike the class so much now.


the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Wultram wrote:

That quote did not really get the full context. It is about being a class that CAN'T be seperated from it's fluff. I do not mind there being some sort of standard for a class. I hate being tied down to it.

How is a wizard not tied down to being a spellcaster, or a barbarian not tied down to being primarily a combat class ? A standard that people have no reason to adhere to isn't meaningfully a standard to my mind, and I'm still not understanding, and interested in, why you are drawing this particular line where you do.

being a spell caster or a martial is not fluff its mechanics, fluff would be if they forced every wizard to be scholars, or every barbarian to be rabid monsters, or all witches have to be old that would be fluff, fluff is stuff that has no impact on mechanics, however you can use mechanics to help improve the fluff that you are trying to go for(ie if you want your character to be a body builder in fluff having a high str will help improve the fluff but being a body builder does not mean a high str is mandatory)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Paladin_Knight_marshmallow wrote:
o you have any more stupid questions?
Yeah. Why do you think the DM in that situation CARES that you can pull out a dictionary? It's entirely up to the Dm what is evil and what is willingly done. If the Dm says you fall, the dictionary definition is unlikely to matter much.

Then I am unlikely to play with that DM ever again.

No gaming is better than bad gaming, as the saying goes.


Wultram wrote:

If you are not interested, then where in your mind it thought to be a good idea then to try to engage in a discussion.

Sorry, poor phrasing. I'm not getting it, I am interested, and I see my sentence is ambiguous on that front. Also sorry that quoting for what I thought was your important point came across dishonest.

I'm still interested in what about a paladin is less separable from its fluff than a barbarian or wizard, to your way of thinking.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
I love how people act like this is a problem exclusive to paladins. Those same people who play the "holier than though" and "you must also follow my code" paladins would do the exact same s++& as a Lawful Good fighter.

Other classes can bend a lot more or make "just this once" exceptions that paladins can't on a lot of issues. I don't know what percentage of the problem is the player and what percentage of the problem is inherent in the paladin but i'd eyeball it at 50 50

So yes, the problem with paladins is overblown but not entirely baseless..

I know the monk alignmen restriction bothers me a lot more than the paladin one. A lawful drunken master just seems odd to me after watching the movies.


Lady-J wrote:


]being a spell caster or a martial is not fluff its mechanics, fluff would be if they forced every wizard to be scholars, or every barbarian to be rabid monsters, or all witches have to be old that would be fluff, fluff is stuff that has no impact on mechanics, however you can use mechanics to help improve the fluff that you are trying to go for(ie if you want your character to be a body builder in fluff having a high str will help improve the fluff but being a body builder does not mean a high str is mandatory)

I still don't think I am getting you.

A wizard gets d6 hit dice and a certain number of spells per level. A barbarian gets d12 hit dice and a bunch of things like rage powers, and can't be lawful. A paladin gets d10 hit dice, a bunch of other powers, and has to adhere to a code. All of those are class-defining elements. How is a paladin code qualitatively less mechanics, and more fluff, than any of the others? How is a paladin falling when they break a code any less reasonable constraint than a wizard not getting d12 hit dice ?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
killing people is evil no matter who is doing it however it is necessary in some cases but that's part of human nature every one is capable of great good but they are also capable of great evil

While I feel you could make a serious philosophical argument about how it might be morally defensible to kill someone in self-defense, or by accident, or in order to prevent the deaths of even more people, that's sort of irrelevant since we're playing a game here.

Since "wargaming" exists in the DNA of the world's oldest fantasy game (and thus Pathfinder) one of the basic assumptions of this sort of thing is that you're going to fight people or things, and these fights are with swords and fire and other potentially lethal things, so things are gonna get dead. Moreover the objective system of morality in the game's metaphysics don't really deem you a worse person for killing an antagonist and taking their stuff, since that's kind of the basic game loop.

So while there certainly are tabletop roleplaying games where "I think killing is wrong and will not do it" is entirely workable for a character, I don't think that Pathfinder is naturally one of those. Like Torag's Paladin code says to straight up murder your enemies unless there's a compelling reason not to.


the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Lady-J wrote:


]being a spell caster or a martial is not fluff its mechanics, fluff would be if they forced every wizard to be scholars, or every barbarian to be rabid monsters, or all witches have to be old that would be fluff, fluff is stuff that has no impact on mechanics, however you can use mechanics to help improve the fluff that you are trying to go for(ie if you want your character to be a body builder in fluff having a high str will help improve the fluff but being a body builder does not mean a high str is mandatory)

I still don't think I am getting you.

A wizard gets d6 hit dice and a certain number of spells per level. A barbarian gets d12 hit dice and a bunch of things like rage powers, and can't be lawful. A paladin gets d10 hit dice, a bunch of other powers, and has to adhere to a code. All of those are class-defining elements. How is a paladin code qualitatively less mechanics, and more fluff, than any of the others? How is a paladin falling when they break a code any less reasonable constraint than a wizard not getting d12 hit dice ?

cuz wizards get 9th level spells, and paladins are just a standard martial and literally no other class gets a error 404 class features not found


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
]cuz wizards get 9th level spells, and paladins are just a standard martial and literally no other class gets a error 404 class features not found

This is objectively false


Senko wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:

To those arguing that Paladins can't be Freedom Fighters and have to treat even evil governments as legitimate authorities, there's plenty of in print evidence against that.

For the big one, there's plenty of Paladins in the Glorious Reclamation crusading against Cheliax in an attempt to overthrow it's government and they haven't fallen. Check Hell's Vengeance for some actual NPCs if you need actual mechanics and not just the fact that it's stated in general. And for another, the Player's Guide for Hell's Rebels mentions that playing a paladin will make it tougher, but is entirely possible. You know, the AP that is entirely about overthrowing a government.

So yeah, paladins clearly can be Freedom Fighters and do not have to treat an evil government as a legitimate authority.

if overthrowing a government isn't an evil act then why does way of the wicked require you to be evil?
So whoever lead the war of indepdance in America (Abraham Lincoln?)...

That would be George Washington. Washington is revered for leading a rebellion against the government while Lincoln is revered for ending a rebellion against the government.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Washington is also unknown for putting down the whiskey rebellion (because as soon as the us had to run a government they found holy cow this government thing is expensive), but no one seems to mind.

Sometimes a country wins and later after the fact realizes they were wrong, but its usually too late.

301 to 350 of 961 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why all the Paladin hate? All Messageboards