Why all the Paladin hate?

[PossibleCabbage]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Edit: and NWoD is a bad system, bad enough it got licensed out while the actual owners of the property expressed a desire to reboot the old game.

Changeling: the Lost is oh so very good though, legitimately one of the best things that company ever did (but likewise too mature to play with a whole lot of the groups you could get to commit to playing it). Like the only reason I own the NWoD core rules is that game.

EDIT: I mean, actually mature, not like TV-MA mature; as in the themes of the game are things like abuse and trauma which are things that require some sensitivity and perspective to do correctly.

[Ryan Freire]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Edit: and NWoD is a bad system, bad enough it got licensed out while the actual owners of the property expressed a desire to reboot the old game.

Changeling: the Lost is oh so very good though, legitimately one of the best things that company ever did (but likewise too mature to play with a whole lot of the groups you could get to commit to playing it). Like the only reason I own the NWoD core rules is that game.

EDIT: I mean, actually mature, not like TV-MA mature; as in the themes of the game are things like abuse and trauma which are things that require some sensitivity and perspective to do correctly.

I mean I'm with you. Wraith was my favorite OWOD game. Its amazing but requires a level of trust in your playgroup and GM that just didn't make for a feasable for profit rpg.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Wultram wrote:

Alright, seems I was mistaken. Let's just say that this board is home to some less than pleasant discussion partners. Excuse my assumptions.

No worries, glad I could straighten that out.

Quote:

In paladins case it is the magnitude of this limitation. To note on the classes you used. I hate barbarians alingment restriction as well, it makes even less sense than the paladins(due to the code that I would scrap as well but with it existing the limitation makes at least more sense.) Still I can use the barbarian class to create massive amount of different types of characters, Zen master swordsman, someone whose ancestory holds powerful beings(think sorceror without spells), elite infrantry, gladiator, shock cavalry. Basicly as long as concept that has the character cabable physical combatant it could probably be done with a barbarian.(however not all those concepts are best made with a barbarian, that is why it is good to have multiple classes). Wizard, well they cast spells, use spellbooks(and prepared casting) and use arcane magic. That is the extenct of your limitations, I don't think I need to explain how that allows lot of different character concepts.

Now paladin on the other hand is tied so firmly in the standard fluff that it is very difficult to use the class as anything else. And in my book that is just horrible game design. Especially in the personality department, first you are limited to a single alingment.(archtypes not counted) So if we assume that character concepts are divided evenly across alingments you just scrapped 89% of possible characters. Then you have the code that limits the characters ethics even further. So the character has to be someone who agrees with the code and thinks that it is better than anything they could have come up for themselves. This is before we even look into the class abilities and how that limits the possible concepts. If we take those assumptions as true, how big will that percentage of character concepts be, even if we only count the concepts that have merit? 5%? I don't think so 1%? Maybe but I think it is lot less than that. But if we took the alingment restriction away and had the code more mutable to fit specific characters what would that percentage be then?

Ah, OK, I see where you are coming from now.

I think most of why I disagree is that I don't see some classes being open to more character concepts than others as a judgement of how good those classes are; something well-defined and specific that you can work interestingly within is a different kind of role-playing challenge, but not a better or a worse one.

In some ways, I think paladins make GMing a story arc in which characters are challenged and learn and grow easier; they are kind of almost training wheels for a GM in that regard. (Though maybe I am just too fed up with Chaotic PCs who would just use being Chaotic as an excuse for never having any consistent personality or beliefs.)

[Lucy_Valentine]

Ryan Freire wrote:

{List of alignment effects}

Its far more likely that alignment is so ingrained you simply didn't notice when it came up.

Erm... no. It's that the alignments of monsters came up, as a bunch of damage-related effects, which are properties monsters often have even when they're not aligned in any way. But the alignment of my PCs has basically only even potentially come up once (one of them met an anti-paladin, who attacked someone else).

Basically, so far in my experience my own PCs alignment has had close to no effect. Which is kind of surprising, but playing CtL and getting a mod to spotting things for high/low clarity was actually bigger than the effects I've had in PF.

Which is what I said the first time. I did draw a distinction between my character and the monsters.

Ryan Freire wrote:

Edit: and NWoD is a bad system, bad enough it got licensed out while the actual owners of the property expressed a desire to reboot the old game.

Do you really want to start an nWoD edition war inside a paladin/alignment thread?

[Lady-J]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

A paladin is an iconic character. Other alignments simply don't fit the paragon of virtue, nor are they as hard to maintain for an adventurer. The paladins ideals are strong because they are so difficult to maintain. A chaotic or neutral good paladin would lose that completely.

5E would like you have a word with you, paladins there can be LG,NG,CG,LN,NN,CN,LE,NE or CE and still maintain what they stand for as they fight for whatever ideal they believe in

[PossibleCabbage]

Lady-J wrote:

5E would like you have a word with you, paladins there can be LG,NG,CG,LN,NN,CN,LE,NE or CE and still maintain what they stand for as they fight for whatever ideal they believe in

You can call it whatever you want, but I don't see 8/9 of those as "paladins".

[Ryan Freire]

Lady-J wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

A paladin is an iconic character. Other alignments simply don't fit the paragon of virtue, nor are they as hard to maintain for an adventurer. The paladins ideals are strong because they are so difficult to maintain. A chaotic or neutral good paladin would lose that completely.

5E would like you have a word with you, paladins there can be LG,NG,CG,LN,NN,CN,LE,NE or CE and still maintain what they stand for as they fight for whatever ideal they believe in

So what, this is a pathfinder board.

[Ryan Freire]

Lucy_Valentine wrote:

Do you really want to start an nWoD edition war inside a paladin/alignment thread?

Other than when I pointed out that I probably couldn't talk about NWOD without edition warring? I assumed you wanted a ninnernets slap fight since you brought it up after i said that.

[graystone]

Ryan Freire wrote:

So what, this is a pathfinder board.

That only matters if pathfinder had a unique and sole claim to paladins. As they don't, it's hard to claim only a single possible way to look at paladins is "iconic". Note, BigNorseWolf didn't make a claim about pathfinder paladins but paladins in general. Other editions of d&d, 3, 4 and 5, have managed to have paladins be paragons of an alignment/ideal that weren't LG. Even pathfinder has managed to allow the sad and impressing gray paladins in, meaning you don't even have to go outside the current game to find paladins that aren't good or lawful.

As such, I fail to see anything to bring about 'the sky is falling if paladins aren't LG' comments. Personally what I find odd and out of place is the thought that a paladin MUST be LG with the track record of 3rd, 4th, 5th d&d and pathfinder allowing them to be other alignments.

[Ryan Freire]

graystone wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

So what, this is a pathfinder board.

That only matters if pathfinder had a unique and sole claim to paladins. As they don't, it's hard to claim only a single possible way to look at paladins is "iconic". Note, BigNorseWolf didn't make a claim about pathfinder paladins but paladins in general. Other editions of d&d, 3, 4 and 5, have managed to have paladins be paragons of an alignment/ideal that weren't LG. Even pathfinder has managed to allow the sad and impressing gray paladins in, meaning you don't even have to go outside the current game to find paladins that aren't good or lawful.

As such, I fail to see anything to bring about 'the sky is falling if paladins aren't LG' comments. Personally what I find odd and out of place is the thought that a paladin MUST be LG with the track record of 3rd, 4th, 5th d&d and pathfinder allowing them to be other alignments.

This is literally the Pathfinder RPG general discussion board. There's a 5th edition board for discussion of 5th ed's (frankly crap) versions of paladin.

Beyond that the weight of history is behind paladin as LG, 5th eds versions are a flash in the pan fad compared to the 30+ years of it being defined a certain way.

[Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller]

graystone wrote:

Even pathfinder has managed to allow the sad and impressing gray paladins in, meaning you don't even have to go outside the current game to find paladins that aren't good or lawful.

Given that three of the changed class abilities are nothing but "What a paladin has, but weaker", two of which outright saying that they're weaker because you're not a "proper" paladin ("A gray paladin’s loosened code weakens her connection to the power that grants her paladin abilities." for several lost immunities and reduced class abilities and "At 3rd level, a gray paladin is far less a stranger to poisons than a normal paladin." to justify the reduced version of Divine Health) the Grey Paladin actually reinforces the idea that LG+Code is "proper" paladin, the more neutral you get the more lackluster your abilities become, until you do a flip on the other side of the alignment chart.

And I can even see the point that 3.5s "Paladin of Freedom" and "Paladin of Tyranny" aren't "proper" paladins, though I don't personally care either way.

[graystone]

Ryan Freire wrote:

This is literally the Pathfinder RPG general discussion board. There's a 5th edition board for discussion of 5th ed's (frankly crap) versions of paladin.

Beyond that the weight of history is behind paladin as LG, 5th eds versions are a flash in the pan fad compared to the 30+ years of it being defined a certain way.

And was built on the bones of 3rd... Your point? I hate 5e as much as the next guy, but that's really not the point. We could talk about 3rd, 4th, 5th or pathfinder. There isn't ONE SINGLE iconic version of paladin that pathfinder can claim. Saying otherwise is disingenuous.

Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote:

Given that three of the changed class abilities are nothing but "What a paladin has, but weaker", two of which outright saying that they're weaker because you're not a "proper" paladin ("A gray paladin’s loosened code weakens her connection to the power that grants her paladin abilities." for several lost immunities and reduced class abilities and "At 3rd level, a gray paladin is far less a stranger to poisons than a normal paladin." to justify the reduced version of Divine Health) the Grey Paladin actually reinforces the idea that LG+Code is "proper" paladin, the more neutral you get the more lackluster your abilities become, until you do a flip on the other side of the alignment chart.

And I can even see the point that 3.5s "Paladin of Freedom" and "Paladin of Tyranny" aren't "proper" paladins, though I don't personally care either way.

This just strengthens my point: that there are a variety in what is seen as a paladin and it isn't a single monolithic ideal cardboard cutout of a concept. The fact that all these versions of d&d and pathfinder have versions that don't cling to LG prove that it isn't the single unchanging ideal of gygax's.

As far as "Paladin Variants: Freedom, Slaughter, And Tyranny": they had everything a 'normal' paladin did. They were a paragon of an alignment and had a specific code of conduct tailored to its specific alignment.

As far as "Grey Paladin actually reinforces the idea that LG+Code is "proper" paladin", then what does antipaladin prove? You can only be the right kind of a paragon of good or evil if you have the right alignment axis fixed JUST the right way...? Seems wrong to me that the game is pretty much telling me the only 'correct' good is LG and no other can be a paragon of good...

[Dracala]

Honestly I don't see any reason why a Paladin should Have to be locked to Lawful, Good Yes, they are paragons of Virtue that's what Good is about.... Lawful though.... There's Lawful Evil for a reason. Heck other than having A Code (which changes per the God you worship), the Paladin isn't Even About Law, just Good. Aura of Good, Detect Evil, Smite Evil, Channel Positive Energy, Aura of Faith makes your weapons Good-Aligned and Aura of Righteousness gives you DR/Evil. There's even the fact that their Divine bonded Mount becomes Celestial and that you can take Agathion-Bond (Agathions being Neutral Good Outsiders) instead.

This also goes vice versa on my views of the Antipaladin, why can't you have a Lawful Evil Antipaladin? They seem like just the kind of people who would train up an army of them to fight Paladin orders.

Then you could have the Gray Paladin representing the neutral road, and because they are morally neutral their powers are not "as strong".

Also, I find it funny that Enhanced Health mentions Poison and gives a Resistance to it, when Divine Health, does not give Immunity or even resistance to poison, just Immunity to Disease.
Divine Health (Ex)
At 3rd level, a paladin is immune to all diseases, including supernatural and magical diseases, including mummy rot.

P.S. I just realized also that Gray Paladins can only be LG, LN, or NG so I don't see how Gray Paladin can lead to a CE Antipaladin.

[Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller]

graystone wrote:

This just strengthens my point: that there are a variety in what is seen as a paladin and it isn't a single monolithic ideal cardboard cutout of a concept. The fact that all these versions of d&d and pathfinder have versions that don't cling to LG prove that it isn't the single unchanging ideal of gygax's.

Pathfinder has a paladin, a lesser paladin, and various anti-paladin. The first two pretty much go against what you say, since the Grey Paladin seems to just be there to show that diluting the "proper" paladin weakens them.

If anything, it's the selection of Anti-Paladin of various alignments that helps your argument, because they get archetypes that don't use the alignment change as a reason to make them weaker.

graystone wrote:

As far as "Grey Paladin actually reinforces the idea that LG+Code is "proper" paladin", then what does antipaladin prove? You can only be the right kind of a paragon of good or evil if you have the right alignment axis fixed JUST the right way...? Seems wrong to me that the game is pretty much telling me the only 'correct' good is LG and no other can be a paragon of good...

Paladin proves that LG is the right G the same way that monks prove that lawful [anything] is the right [anything]. Or, since monks at least keep most abilities - the same way that barbarians prove that lawful [anything] is the wrong [anything].

A paladin is a very specific expression of lawful good. It's not even the only correct expression of lawful good, much less of good in general.
The funny thing is, I doubt anyone of those insistent on keeping paladins LG would complain about conceptually similar CG or LE classes, giving those alignments the same level of "legitimacy", as long as they are suitably different from the paladin (and each other). On the other hand, this would definitely bother those that dislike alignment restrictions, since it would create even more classes bound by alignment.

This is literally a case where you can't please everyone, because people want diametrically opposed things.

[Vidmaster7]

"This is literally a case where you can't please everyone, because people want diametrically opposed things."

Exactly!

[Slim Jim]

"I would like to have a paladin, provided it weren't lawful-good." = "I would like to have a cat, provided it barked!"

[graystone]

Slim Jim wrote:

"I would like to have a paladin, provided it weren't lawful-good." = "I would like to have a cat, provided it barked!"

"I would like to have a paladin, provided it didn't have an in game alignment debate baked in."

Personally, I can't see playing ANY paladin in pathfinder do to the link to alignment and falling. If it was just linked to a code, that I can follow. It has spelled out rules that I know before hand. What's seem as good or evil varies from person to person.

My point about the alignment is that some seem to cling to the LG as the ONLY possible way to show/be a paladin even when the weight of gaming history and the current game proves the notion wrong.

Some people just lose their minds at the thought that a sacred cow might get touched it seems...

[RDM42]

graystone wrote:

Slim Jim wrote:

"I would like to have a paladin, provided it weren't lawful-good." = "I would like to have a cat, provided it barked!"

"I would like to have a paladin, provided it didn't have an in game alignment debate baked in."

Personally, I can't see playing ANY paladin in pathfinder do to the link to alignment and falling. If it was just linked to a code, that I can follow. It has spelled out rules that I know before hand. What's seem as good or evil varies from person to person.

My point about the alignment is that some seem to cling to the LG as the ONLY possible way to show/be a paladin even when the weight of gaming history and the current game proves the notion wrong.

Some people just lose their minds at the thought that a sacred cow might get touched it seems...

And some people seem to lose their mind at the idea of anything remaining 'sacred'.

If you want to play the game of trying to paint those you disagree with as petty and unreasonable ...

[Matthew Downie]

Slim Jim wrote:

"I would like to have a paladin, provided it weren't lawful-good." = "I would like to have a cat, provided it barked!"

Player: "I would like to have a paladin, but I want to be chaotic good."

Me as GM: "OK, I'll let you play a character with all the powers of a paladin, only chaotic good. That makes more sense for our 'overthrow the incompetent king and establish a republic' campaign anyway."
Sage Sorcerer player: "But paladins are lawful good by definition!"
Me: "By one definition, yes. Sorcerers use charisma as a casting stat 'by definition', but we let you play your archetype. If we call this guy a Paragon or Avenger or something, would you be happy?"
Druid player: "Can I have a barking cat as an animal companion?"
Me: "As long as you can come up with a plausible backstory, yes."

[Gorbacz]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Slim Jim wrote:

"I would like to have a paladin, provided it weren't lawful-good." = "I would like to have a cat, provided it barked!"

Player: "I would like to have a paladin, but I want to be chaotic good."

Me as GM: "OK, I'll let you play a character with all the powers of a paladin, only chaotic good. That makes more sense for our 'overthrow the incompetent king and establish a republic' campaign anyway."
Sage Sorcerer player: "But paladins are lawful good by definition!"
Me: "By one definition, yes. Sorcerers use charisma as a casting stat 'by definition', but we let you play your archetype. If we call this guy a Paragon or Avenger or something, would you be happy?"
Druid player: "Can I have a barking cat as an animal companion?"
Me: "As long as you can come up with a plausible backstory, yes."

Can I play a CE Paladin of Ragathiel who torches villages and chainsaws children when they ping as evil? I mean, I have the backstory and all. Pretty please?

[Senko]

graystone wrote:

Slim Jim wrote:

"I would like to have a paladin, provided it weren't lawful-good." = "I would like to have a cat, provided it barked!"

"I would like to have a paladin, provided it didn't have an in game alignment debate baked in."

Personally, I can't see playing ANY paladin in pathfinder do to the link to alignment and falling. If it was just linked to a code, that I can follow. It has spelled out rules that I know before hand. What's seem as good or evil varies from person to person.

My point about the alignment is that some seem to cling to the LG as the ONLY possible way to show/be a paladin even when the weight of gaming history and the current game proves the notion wrong.

Some people just lose their minds at the thought that a sacred cow might get touched it seems...

The debate comes because players are not coming prepackaged with a direct link to their god to give some guidance on which lawful/good action is applicable.

[HWalsh]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Slim Jim wrote:

"I would like to have a paladin, provided it weren't lawful-good." = "I would like to have a cat, provided it barked!"

Player: "I would like to have a paladin, but I want to be chaotic good."

Me as GM: "OK, I'll let you play a character with all the powers of a paladin, only chaotic good. That makes more sense for our 'overthrow the incompetent king and establish a republic' campaign anyway."
Sage Sorcerer player: "But paladins are lawful good by definition!"
Me: "By one definition, yes. Sorcerers use charisma as a casting stat 'by definition', but we let you play your archetype. If we call this guy a Paragon or Avenger or something, would you be happy?"
Druid player: "Can I have a barking cat as an animal companion?"
Me: "As long as you can come up with a plausible backstory, yes."

Why are you bothering to play Pathfinder then?

Why not play Big Eyes Small Mouth or Mutants and Masterminds? Games where you can make whatever you want. You want a CN Paladin? You can do that in BESM or M&M. You can't do that in Pathfinder.

If you want absolute player agency without restrictions by the rules, the lore, or the setting, play a game that is built for that.

[Bill Dunn]

HWalsh wrote:

Why are you bothering to play Pathfinder then?

Why not play Big Eyes Small Mouth or Mutants and Masterminds? Games where you can make whatever you want. You want a CN Paladin? You can do that in BESM or M&M. You can't do that in Pathfinder.

If you want absolute player agency without restrictions by the rules, the lore, or the setting, play a game that is built for that.

Probably because Pathfinder includes other elements they prefer to other games. So maybe we should put a lid on telling people to shove off because they want to do something as minor as modify the paladin.

That said, Paizo is entirely within their rights to keep the definition of the paladin class as narrow as they want as as closely aligned with the majority if D&D's history for their publications and leave it up to the individual game to modify it as they see fit and we are well within our rights to declare our support for that conception if we prefer it. If people don't like it, they can change the paladin for their own games or not use it.

[TOZ]

HWalsh wrote:

Why are you bothering to play Pathfinder then?

Because it's what he knows?

Because learning a new system takes time?
Because his friends want to play Pathfinder?
Because it's easier to tweak a known system than learn a new one?

[master_marshmallow]

Slim Jim wrote:

"I would like to have a paladin, provided it weren't lawful-good." = "I would like to have a cat, provided it barked!"

I gotchu.

[Dracala]

Slim Jim wrote:

"I would like to have a paladin, provided it weren't lawful-good." = "I would like to have a cat, provided it barked!"

Here you go! Yes cats can bark, they just don't tend to do so, they can also chitter, squeak, and say No.

P.S. seems I was beaten to the link x3

[HWalsh]

TOZ wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Why are you bothering to play Pathfinder then?

Because it's what he knows?

We live and learn all the time. if something isn't what you want, there are things that you can do. In this case, we have players who are harming the fun of other players, generally causing a lot of strife, trying to convince a company to change something that a not-insignificant portion of the player base have an attachment to, because they are literally trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

Quote:

Because learning a new system takes time?

Seriously. It would take a day, at the most. It has taken the poster more time and effort to keep this discussion going than to learn another game which, in the case of M&M is similar enough that with a brief rundown they could work in with all of the elements of Pathfinder.

Quote:

Because his friends want to play Pathfinder?

But they don't. The core of the situation is they aren't happy with Pathfinder and want to change Pathfinder because they want a much greater amount of player control over all aspects and be free from the lore and the setting.

They want a system with no alignments that have any mechanical effects of any significance. They want a system where they can gain any class features they want without meeting the requirements of the class that they want to be. They want a system without any character creation restrictions what-so-ever as part of the core rules. None of that is Pathfinder.

Thus, instead of trying to bend Pathfinder, and going down the slippery slope which, once he changes the Paladin any other player can request similar changes and are justified in doing so, they can look into alternative options that avoid the same pitfalls.

I have maintained, and I still maintain, that part of the BALANCE of the Paladin class is that they get tremendous powers, but are limited by the rules in how those powers can be used. The alignment restriction is a framework that helps to mechanically balance the advantages of the Paladin.

I have run games where I took off the code and alignment restrictions and let power gamers play Paladins. Smite Evil from stealth on unaware foes with poisoned weapons? Yeah... That isn't balanced.

I mean, a player under a system where the rules are mutable like this is within their rights to say to the GM:

"Yeah, at level 2, I want a custom archetype for my Bard that removes "Well-versed" and replaces it with "Divine Grace" or an Oracle can go, "Yeah I want a custom archetype that gives up my Oracle's 2nd level Mystery spell, to give me Divine Grace." And the GM has already set a precedent where changing class features and restrictions "with an explanation" is fair and part of the rules. If he says no to them, they have a right to cry foul over the Neutral Good Paladin. Why? There is already a Neutral Good Paladin in the system, it just doesn't have the special toy that the person is wanting.

Quote:

Because it's easier to tweak a known system than learn a new one?

Not really.

[TOZ]

And of course, because he wants to. All your 'play other systems' suggestions fail in the face of the fact that it's not what the players/GM want. (Regardless of your opinion.)

[graystone]

RDM42 wrote:

And some people seem to lose their mind at the idea of anything remaining 'sacred'.

True, I don't find ANY game element sacred. I find that JUST about any other class can be reworded to take it in a direction different than it's 'fluff' suggests.

RDM42 wrote:

If you want to play the game of trying to paint those you disagree with as petty and unreasonable ...

I wasn't the one that 'threw rocks' first. At this point it's self defense. :P

Just talking about the possibilities of differing alignments for paladins seems to really send some into a frenzy. Instead of having a debate on the pro's and con's of a paladin's alignment/code, they go RIGHT to 'it's wrong to even talk about the 'sacred cow' and you're a horrible person for even thinking about it...'

Gorbacz wrote:

Can I play a CE Paladin of Ragathiel who torches villages and chainsaws children when they ping as evil? I mean, I have the backstory and all. Pretty please?

The funny thing is, you almost can. Antipaladin is a thing and it's considered an advanced archetype of paladin [dev's perspective on alternate classes]. They don't have to worship a god, so they can think they are [crazy] or say they do [lie] worship Ragathiel. So the only thing they can't do is detect evil, and nothing stops them from thinking [crazy] or lying that they can. So even though you tried to make a ludicrous situation, you in fact made one that's pretty playable instead. ;)

[Ryan Freire]

TOZ wrote:

And of course, because he wants to. All your 'play other systems' suggestions fail in the face of the fact that it's not what the players/GM want. (Regardless of your opinion.)

Well, wish in one hand crap in the other and see which fills up first.

That kind of paladin change is likely to be controversial enough to turn the edition that does it to a NWoD or 4th ed.

[Dracala]

By the way I just realized that the Antipaladin has A Code..... Which honestly, being the one and only thing that Definitively makes the Paladin Lawful... should be making the Antipaladin Lawful Evil... Yet the Antipaladin is Chaotic Evil. Hell! the very Antipaladin code itself screams of Lawful Evil to me..... Especially this part: "as well as impose tyranny" I don't know about you, but Tyrants have as far as I know always been Lawful Evil, imposing their rules over those they rule over. Chaotic Evils are the kind of people who don't rule they destroy(the exception is the Drow, but really they're Lawful Evil in all but alignment.....)

[Ryan Freire]

Dracala wrote:

By the way I just realized that the Antipaladin has A Code..... Which honestly, being the one and only thing that Definitively makes the Paladin Lawful... should be making the Antipaladin Lawful Evil... Yet the Antipaladin is Chaotic Evil. Hell! the very Antipaladin code itself screams of Lawful Evil to me..... Especially this part: "as well as impose tyranny" I don't know about you, but Tyrants have as far as I know always been Lawful Evil, imposing their rules over those they rule over. Chaotic Evils are the kind of people who don't rule they destroy.

Uh, actually paladins are required to respect lawful authority. Which is what makes them lawful, not the code itself.

[TOZ]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Well, wish in one hand crap in the other and see which fills up first.

Playing Skull and Shackles with a CG Paladin just fine, thanks.

[Dracala]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Uh, actually paladins are required to respect lawful authority. Which is what makes them lawful, not the code itself.

Code of Conduct

"Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority"

Which is Literally just a part of their code... Yet as has been stated multiple times in this thread Cheliax's Gov't is a Legitimate Authority in Cheliax(a good portion of their population like their government), yet there is an entire Adventure Path about Paladins going into Cheliax to "Fight the Good Fight".

[Jokey the Unfunny Comedian]

TOZ wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Well, wish in one hand crap in the other and see which fills up first.

Playing Skull and Shackles with a CG Paladin just fine, thanks.

The Playing the Game Wrong Police has just been dispatched to your home.

[The Law]

I am ready for them. I AM THE LAW!

[sifu_marshmallowSearchFu Master]

Dracala wrote:

Slim Jim wrote:

"I would like to have a paladin, provided it weren't lawful-good." = "I would like to have a cat, provided it barked!"

Here you go! Yes cats can bark, they just don't tend to do so, they can also chitter, squeak, and say No.

P.S. seems I was beaten to the link x3

There is much to learn still, grasshopper.

[HWalsh]

graystone wrote:

TOZ wrote:

And of course, because he wants to. All your 'play other systems' suggestions fail in the face of the fact that it's not what the players/GM want. (Regardless of your opinion.)

Yep.

necromental wrote:

Oh, HWalsh is here, he's gonna make this right now.

Now he can play a paladin here in the thread to protect the traditions of old and protect the sacred cows for the future!!! He has the inside track on the one true way to play the game after all. :P

HWalsh: Someone can be completely happy with pathfinder OTHER than the paladin. You're acting as if any alteration to the game is an offence against god and nature. Adding an option for differing alignments doesn't alter games that WANT to keep the old LG: for them nothing changes. You seem irritated that people NOT at your table might not be playing the game right and are having 'badwrongfun'. I don't understand that.

If pathfinder changed paladins tomorrow and allowed different alignments, would that alter how you play the game?

Yes. Yes it would.

It would actually hurt my enjoyment of the system and I would stop playing it. There is a reason I don't play 4th Edition or 5th Edition and a large part of it is that my favorite class, since I was 8 years old in 1988 and first played AD&D 2nd Edition, doesn't exist in a form that I can recognize or enjoy.

[BigNorseWolf]

Lady-J wrote:

5E would like you have a word with you,

I rest my case

[graystone]

HWalsh wrote:

Yes. Yes it would.

It would actually hurt my enjoyment of the system and I would stop playing it. There is a reason I don't play 4th Edition or 5th Edition and a large part of it is that my favorite class, since I was 8 years old in 1988 and first played AD&D 2nd Edition, doesn't exist in a form that I can recognize or enjoy.

Good to know you'd stop playing the game because others enjoy it in a different way than you do... The horror of not being able to force your ideals on others IS a burden...

And for the record, I started with the old blackmore rules pamphlets... So if we're going for a 'who started first' grognard-off, I win. I've managed to grow and expand as a player since then though. :P

[PossibleCabbage]

Dracala wrote:

Which is Literally just a part of their code... Yet as has been stated multiple times in this thread Cheliax's Gov't is a Legitimate Authority in Cheliax(a good portion of their population like their government), yet there is an entire Adventure Path about Paladins going into Cheliax to "Fight the Good Fight".

I feel like there's a metacommentary to be made in a story about how a Paladin falling requires the Paladin, on some possibly subconscious level, to realize that what they're doing is unbecoming of a Paladin. If a Paladin truly believes with conviction that what they're doing is true and right and good they're not going to fall. It's less about "the ire of a god" I suspect and more about self-regulating.

The "your god is pissed at you, so you lose your class features" interaction mostly exists to regulate the case where you have a player who just wants the class features and isn't as interested in holding themselves to a code. My experience is that really good Paladin players require almost no GM intervention, they're playing the class because they want to be the person who has to be careful about what they say and do.

[Kaladin_Stormblessed]

graystone wrote:

Personally, I can't see playing ANY paladin in pathfinder do to the link to alignment and falling. If it was just linked to a code, that I can follow. It has spelled out rules that I know before hand. What's seem as good or evil varies from person to person.

Yes, it varies. But it does not vary that much. Most people agree on what is good and what is evil, especially within cultures.

If you need to know exactly how little proof is enough to kill somebody, or so on, the answer is generally "enough that a paladin should avoid it unless they're prepared to fall". And normally this kind of thing doesn't come up, in many games not at all.

Because here's the thing. "Is this evil" should not be coming up for stuff like "is earning money evil" or "is scamming orphanages evil" or "is conjuring devils and having them cast Infernal Healing to save babies evil" or any similar bizarre ideas. Most disagreements people will have on what is evil is going to be either specific controversial subjects, or the difference between "evil" and "not quite evil but pretty bad". If you're playing a paladin, you should not be frequently running into the latter as a concern. If you're playing with a mature group of friends, you should not frequently be running into the former as a concern.

Just stop trying to come up with justifications for why the paladin should fall for not saving enough people, or why it's fine for them to barter in soul gems for the greater good. Basic morality is not nearly as complicated as some of these arguments make it.

[HWalsh]

graystone wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Yes. Yes it would.

It would actually hurt my enjoyment of the system and I would stop playing it. There is a reason I don't play 4th Edition or 5th Edition and a large part of it is that my favorite class, since I was 8 years old in 1988 and first played AD&D 2nd Edition, doesn't exist in a form that I can recognize or enjoy.

Good to know you'd stop playing the game because others enjoy it in a different way than you do... The horror of not being able to force your ideals on others IS a burden...

And for the record, I started with the old blackmore rules pamphlets... So if we're going for a 'who started first' grognard-off, I win. I've managed to grow and expand as a player since then though. :P

We both define growth and maturity in our own ways. I feel people tossing those things is a step backward, a regression, rather than a progression. To each his or her own.

It isn't about "stopping playing a game because other enjoy it in a different way" it is about "stopping playing a game because the game changed a fundamental aspect about it that made it appealing to me."

Coupled with:

"I have literally dozens of different RPGs that have the things I like in them. If one game changes to be something I don't like, and I don't enjoy, instead of creating a movement for the devs to change it, I just go to a different game. I have M&M, BESM, AD&D 2nd, D&D 3.X, Pathfinder, Brave New World, nWoD, oWoD, Ars Magica, GURPS, FATE, MERP, Savage Worlds, FASERIP Marvel, MSHRP, Exalted, PFRPG, Rifts... I mean I can keep going on...

If Pathfinder changes something that I feel should be sacred about this genre... That I find enjoyment in... That makes me not have enjoyment anymore... Then I am completely within my rights and it isn't being a jerk at all, to not support the game line anymore and to stop playing it.

Because to me, it isn't just "Someone's character" that gets altered if Paizo ever makes this change. It removes the Paladin Order as a thing in the setting. Suddenly they aren't "The Paladin Order" they are just "Paladin can mean so many things and most of them aren't even good" which takes the social RP element that is inherent in the Paladin away.

This *does* effect how I play a Paladin and it *changes* what my character's place means in the world. So, basically, by demanding that you play non-LG Paladins, and if you could convince Paizo to jump that shark, you are actually changing how I play my character. So, darn right I am passionate about it.

[graystone]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like there's a metacommentary to be made in a story about how a Paladin falling requires the Paladin, on some possibly subconscious level, to realize that what they're doing is unbecoming of a Paladin. If a Paladin truly believes with conviction that what they're doing is true and right and good they're not going to fall. It's less about "the ire of a god" I suspect and more about self-regulating.

It'd be a lot more playable if this was the case. Unfortunately it's DM regulating, not self-regulating, so no matter how much the paladin [or his player] thinks he's doing the right thing, ha can fall.

Kaladin_Stormblessed wrote:

Yes, it varies. But it does not vary that much. Most people agree on what is good and what is evil, especially within cultures.

We're going to have to agree to disagree... I've seen physical altercations becasue 2 people disagreed what was what alignment.

Kaladin_Stormblessed wrote:

Just stop trying to come up with justifications for why the paladin should fall for not saving enough people, or why it's fine for them to barter in soul gems for the greater good. Basic morality is not nearly as complicated as some of these arguments make it.

You're preaching to the wrong choir here. It's not ME looking for a justification, but the DM's. All too often, it's seen as a duty to 'test' paladins, because that is part of why they get their powers.

Kaladin_Stormblessed wrote:

Basic morality is not nearly as complicated as some of these arguments make it.

Couldn't disagree more.

[Gisher]

graystone wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Yes. Yes it would.

It would actually hurt my enjoyment of the system and I would stop playing it. There is a reason I don't play 4th Edition or 5th Edition and a large part of it is that my favorite class, since I was 8 years old in 1988 and first played AD&D 2nd Edition, doesn't exist in a form that I can recognize or enjoy.

Good to know you'd stop playing the game because others enjoy it in a different way than you do... The horror of not being able to force your ideals on others IS a burden...

And for the record, I started with the old blackmore rules pamphlets... So if we're going for a 'who started first' grognard-off, I win. I've managed to grow and expand as a player since then though. :P

Wow, graystone, you even out-grognard me. I started with the original D&D box set back in '77. My friends and I conquered the Caverns of Quasqueton and turned them into our home base. Good times.