| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then it should be codified in the rules to make it easier to adjudicate, perhaps as the LG version's 'Reputation of BEST GOOD' or somesuch.
|
I have the opposite lack of faith. In my experience, players default to opting out of role-playing altogether and you have to work hard to force it out of them (even when they openly enjoy it whenever you manage to do so). People will default toward the least restrictive code they can as a result. It's sort of like picking the least inconveniencing oracle curse.PuppyT: I've seen GMs that have tried to enforce the 'You must take prisoners on the field of battle and treat them in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and anything less is grounds for failure/falling'.
"But... we're five hundred miles away from anywhere..."
"Too bad, you're a paladin, suck it up."
I've heard of GMs that have tried to make a paladin fall because they were using sneak attacks, superior tactics (ambush against vastly greater numbers), and if they don't make a full and complete accounting of the loot they find and turn it over in toto to the King's accountant... you guessed it, they fall.
As a result, my faith in the ability of GMs and/or players to handle something as awesome as the responsibility of Lawful Good plus agency-depriving Code of Conduct is... exceptionally lacking.
You catch a far more flies with honey than with vinegar. The carrot beats the stick nine times out of ten in my opinion.
Promote roleplaying and create an environment where players can immerse themselves into characters of their own creation [rather than playing classes on a page] and you will be amazed what they can accomplish as roleplayers.
It takes a very special player to disregard optimization and make crunch decisions about their character based on flavor. Much like how I've never seen someone take the deafness curse, and only seen one person take clouded vision (and get chastised for it, incidentally) I don't expect anyone would take the paladin code we have if they could be chaotic neutral instead.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It takes a very special player to disregard optimization and make crunch decisions about their character based on flavor.
Not... really?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not... really?
People really think powergmers re trying to use the paladin to power game lol. Isn't it still tier 4?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then it should be codified in the rules to make it easier to adjudicate, perhaps as the LG version's 'Reputation of BEST GOOD' or somesuch.
Keep LG as alignment yet when it comes to a Paladin falling make a list of what can or cannot make them fall. Which MUST be adhered to by players and DMs. Too many and I do mean to many DMs screw over players who play Paladins imo. Any DM at my table that tried Wei Ji "you have to take prisoners or fall from because Geneva Conventions" in a fantasy campaign would be asked to leave and never return. WTH! Follow the Geneva Conventions or you fall give me break.
Same way I would not make a Paladin fall if he fails to stop slavery if he has a chance to defeat the opposition without committing suicide. Most players refuse to throw their characters lives away Paladin code or not. It's strange to see a very vocal minority expect players to play suicidal Paladins. You must defeat and and all enemies charging blindly ahead in combat. Were not allowed to ambush nor a Paladins allies. No tactics like setting traps. Paladins are played either as Lawful Stupid or the usual Dirty Harry/Judge Dredd by players. If some players could they would be playing them like Charles Bronson in the Death Wish series of movies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look, balance stuff is another whole issue. And an avid supporter of LG-only Paladins, I do not have or need for the Paladin to be objectively superior, inferior, or be unbalanced when compared to the other classes. Stop talking about balance stuff, because we fundamentally do Not know what is going to be changed in that regard.
Now...
I've been thinking this for a while. Looking at some old-school pdfs, some other fantasy sources, I see that the LG (or LG-ish, in a setting with no alignment) still is the norm. The keyword here is Norm. There are known exceptions in D&D since at least 1990. The other keyword here is Exception.
So, one proposal is:
If you have the classical rule, you have an special class. If you do not have the classical rule, you do not have the Paladin anymore. However, if you have the classical rule, And have known ways to make exceptions, then both the rule and the exception are special.
How we could make exceptions possible without changing the rule? We all know the easiest way.
The other proposal: keep the LG Paladin, but think about alignment champions in a whole different way. No "one for each alignment" kind of stuff, but seriously think about the nature of alignment and why people have their alignment in the first place. Yes, alignments are cosmic forces in D&D/Pathifinder, but they do Not lose their fundamentally philosophical aspect: people are evil for different reasons than people who are good. Same thing for law and chaos. And neutrality. I do not consider all alignments as being just carbon copies of each other.
So, the whole thing could be thought about in a more comprehensive way than just filling up a grid or going the "For the Evulz!" rote that most "evil-Paladins" go, which is one I find exceptionally crude.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, the whole thing could be thought about in a more comprehensive way than just filling up a grid or going the "For the Evulz!" rote that most "evil-Paladins" go, which is one I find exceptionally crude.
I'm somewhat relieved to know there's at least some common ground to be found here.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm somewhat relieved to know there's at least some common ground to be found here.
So, the whole thing could be thought about in a more comprehensive way than just filling up a grid or going the "For the Evulz!" rote that most "evil-Paladins" go, which is one I find exceptionally crude.
Ofc.
What I've said elsewhere is that I oppose Paladins being other alignments first and foremost because their abilities are conducive to being defensive, altruistic and team players. Hellknights make good paragons of law more broadly, and are a good example of how to not have other alignments' paragons just be copy-pasted. Look how the antipaladin suffers from needing to have a magic touch and auras. They don't really fit him and his abilities aren't very cohesive as a result. (What does a melee fighter need with a damaging supernatural melee attack? Isn't that what his sword is for?)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen more 'Chaotic' characters be good 'team players' than 'Lawful' ones, tbh.
Paradoxically, I've seen some 'Evil' characters be better 'team players' than some 'Good' ones (the whole making the hard choices things for the team knows no moral boundaries, and Evil folks are willing to make them).
With Auntie Paladine, I suspect that the original design precept was 'Okay, let's FLIP EVERYTHING to Bizzarro mode!'.
As noted, that... is a kind of painful thing to watch and one of the many reasons I am glad they don't show up very often. It's like hearing fingernails on a chalkboard.
Looking forward, there should be some devout religious class (that is not Cleric or the Warpriest) that does something *similar* to what the Paladin does .
Enough that it's 'hey, I've got my devout holy warrior(of any alignment)' but not 'I've got my *screwed at any moment by a bad GM* holy warrior that has no agency and if I step out of line I'm playing worse than an NPC Class'.
Being able to parse this in a reasonable fashion and look to alternatives and build the solution versus devolving into a 'Duck Season/Rabbit Season' style argument should be the path forward, imo.
|
|
I've seen more 'Chaotic' characters be good 'team players' than 'Lawful' ones, tbh.Paradoxically, I've seen some 'Evil' characters be better 'team players' than some 'Good' ones (the whole making the hard choices things for the team knows no moral boundaries, and Evil folks are willing to make them).
With Auntie Paladine, I suspect that the original design precept was 'Okay, let's FLIP EVERYTHING to Bizzarro mode!'.
As noted, that... is a kind of painful thing to watch and one of the many reasons I am glad they don't show up very often. It's like hearing fingernails on a chalkboard.
Looking forward, there should be some devout religious class (that is not Cleric or the Warpriest) that does something *similar* to what the Paladin does .
Enough that it's 'hey, I've got my devout holy warrior(of any alignment)' but not 'I've got my *screwed at any moment by a bad GM* holy warrior that has no agency and if I step out of line I'm playing worse than an NPC Class'.
Being able to parse this in a reasonable fashion and look to alternatives and build the solution versus devolving into a 'Duck Season/Rabbit Season' style argument should be the path forward, imo.
I've played paladins more than I've played any other class, and I've never felt like I lacked agency, or worried that I would be screwed over by a bad GM. (Admittedly, I don't think I'm yet to have a bad GM, or at least not that flavor of bad.)
I've always made those moral choices because I was immersed in the character and wanted to. I've always had the sense I wouldn't have gotten in trouble if I hadn't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oathbound Champion chassis.
LG version that defends justice and good is called a "Paladin."
Other Oathbound Champions that are not Paladins exist, but are not called Paladins.
Easy fix.
Cuz here's the rub: A character who is bound by an oath, but gets extra benefits because of that oath, is a very popular style of play. But not everyone wants to take the same oath. This is why 5E's Paladin is so popular; because you get to keep the original, and you get to have other oaths if you're not a fan of the original.
Any complaints against something like this, I just don't see how they're anything other than sour grapes. And no one likes sour grapes.
It has been a huge argument; James Jacobs feels they should always be lawful for lore reasons, while players feel Paladins mechanics shouldn't be exclusive to LG characters...
Please, only speak for yourself - not everyone feels as you do.
Good Gaming:-)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would and i did myself in others tables, quite sure you did too, so i imagine you simply took what i said to an extreme.
Maybe, maybe not. For example, in my games, you can't just go to any location where people don't know you, and there, just by technically proving that you're a paladin, make yourself the most trustworthy person around that gets believed anything just by saying so. Reason being that most persons don't know what a Paladin can do, they don't know about the oaths they pledge and they especially don't know that a Paladin will fall if they break them (which the exception of people who did see that happen, which are very few if at all).
Now if you're being at a location, where you're either personally known or your order is known and trusted, that might make a difference of course.
But there's certainly no "the (whole) world reacts to you in a certain way because you are a Paladin" thing going on in my worlds.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I said in the other paladin thread currently ongoing, the moment there is a multitude of oaths, I expect the "Oath of the Compulsively Pick-Pocketing Murder Hobo" to become overwhelmingly popular.
Then the issue is not «can't have different orders», but «we need Paizo to carefully write those codes».
Besises that:
Let's say playing playing «Avenger paladin» becomes overwhelmingly popular. That hundreds and hundreds of players, old and new, choose to play it and have fun with it. .
Great success fir Paizo, then. The point of the game is having a lot of people have fun. Isn't it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For all the arguments about opening out the codes for paladins, «But if they do that, it will be very popular» sounds like tge wprst ever.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has been a huge argument; James Jacobs feels they should always be lawful for lore reasons, while players feel Paladins mechanics shouldn't be exclusive to LG characters...Please, only speak for yourself - not everyone feels as you do.
Good Gaming:-)
Please read the whole thread so you don't repeat others posts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's also an issue.
the fact that there is ONE single code, and that not everybody reads it the same, makes people to say things like in this thread: "Paladins can't set up ambushes". Something that I've read more than once, said by people both in the "only LG" and "any alignment" side.
Thing is: some paladins won't set up ambushes. Maybe a Paladin of Iomedae wouldn't. Some others, however, will. It depends on the ethos of the paladin (And I'm talking now about standard LG paladins). Saerenrae tells his paladins "I fight fair if fight is fair. If fight is not fair, I attack fast and have no mercy". How someone can read that, and conclude "A Paladin of Saerenrae cannot ambush a superior foe" is beyond me.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
About chaotic people having strict codes, and if that is possible or not.
Let's say someone has a code that says:
"you cannot refuse a fight. Ever."
"Never retreat. Death is better than retreat."
"In combat, always fight the greatest threat. The greatest threat is always the stronger fighter."
"if challenged, respond."
"Be boastful. IF that brings you to a combat you will lose, so be it".
"Defend those who are weaker than you, facing the challenges they cannot face"
Add a couple more if you want. It's just a sketch.
Do you know who could have a code like this, and strictly adhere to it? A paladin of Gorum. Who is chaotic.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would and i did myself in others tables, quite sure you did too, so i imagine you simply took what i said to an extreme.Maybe, maybe not. For example, in my games, you can't just go to any location where people don't know you, and there, just by technically proving that you're a paladin, make yourself the most trustworthy person around that gets believed anything just by saying so. Reason being that most persons don't know what a Paladin can do, they don't know about the oaths they pledge and they especially don't know that a Paladin will fall if they break them (which the exception of people who did see that happen, which are very few if at all).
Now if you're being at a location, where you're either personally known or your order is known and trusted, that might make a difference of course.
But there's certainly no "the (whole) world reacts to you in a certain way because you are a Paladin" thing going on in my worlds.
That matches Golarion, as well.
Pathfinder Origins: Rat Killers shows us what I would call a rather telling example of the reputation of Paladins in Golarion. It has the iconic Cleric Kyra in a village in Qadira. A local is offerring her wine in a tavern, she declines, and when it’s pointed out that a nearby “holy warrior” is enjoying the wine, this is Kyra’s response:
“How a paladin of Iomedae chooses to debase herself is none of my concern.”
Okay, let’s break that down. Seelah only presents as a figure in armor with Iomedae motifs, and is only introduced as a “holy warrior”, yet Kyra infers “paladin” out of all that. Nothing in the story suggests that Kyra is under the impression that Seelah is a “lesser” paladin than one who carries the so-called true spark (i.e., not a fallen paladin or a gray paladin). Kyra is a Cleric capable of casting spells, so she must have a positive Wisdom modifier, which represents having above average common sense. Yes, this is a origin story from her younger days when she wasn’t as experienced, but if anything, that makes her an even better example of the reputation of Paladins in Golarion. So what is her impression of a full-fledged Paladin?
“Meh.” All of the “not impressed”.
Not “I thought such behavior was debasing oneself, but clearly she retains her divine grace, so I must be in error”. Not “I thought you said ‘holy warrior’, but that clearly can’t be a true Paladin so she must just be wearing all that iconography for fashion.” None of her expectations are being challenged yet. She is presented with what is ostensibly a Paladin that is nevertheless behaving disreputably. And this fits into Kyra’s worldview. “A Paladin behaving thusly? Not surprising at all.”
Then a ratfolk comes to the village and begs for help from what he thinks are vampires. Evil, undead things that Paladins tend to be good at fighting. So who does Kyra turn to for help? Not the Paladin. She goes to the guard and to local adventurers, but does not ask the Paladin for help. Again, she’s not under the impression that Seelah isn’t a true Paladin, just that the reputation of the Paladin does not amount to much.
...
There are two ways to view Paladins.
1) Paladin the class is inextricably tied to Paladin the behavior, which is inextricably tied to Paladin the in-universe title. If that’s how it works in Golarion lore, then none of Kyra’s statements and actions make any sense in context.
2) Paladin the class may or may not coincide with Paladin the behavior, which also may or may not coincide with Paladin the in-universe title. Does Kyra’s experience jive with this?
She is aware of Seelah having some kind of claim to being a Paladin, but is not flabbergasted when Seelah behaves, to her mind, poorly. She is aware of Seelah being a Paladin but is screaming at the townsfolk from the top of a hay cart before she turns to the Paladin (again, good at fighting vampires) for help.
Fits like a glove. If Paizo wants to make sure the Paladin class fits into the lore of Golarion, nixing the code and alignment restrictions would not hurt and would only help.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I would and i did myself in others tables, quite sure you did too, so i imagine you simply took what i said to an extreme.Maybe, maybe not. For example, in my games, you can't just go to any location where people don't know you, and there, just by technically proving that you're a paladin, make yourself the most trustworthy person around that gets believed anything just by saying so. Reason being that most persons don't know what a Paladin can do, they don't know about the oaths they pledge and they especially don't know that a Paladin will fall if they break them (which the exception of people who did see that happen, which are very few if at all).
Now if you're being at a location, where you're either personally known or your order is known and trusted, that might make a difference of course.
But there's certainly no "the (whole) world reacts to you in a certain way because you are a Paladin" thing going on in my worlds.
That matches Golarion, as well.
Pathfinder Origins: Rat Killers shows us what I would call a rather telling example of the reputation of Paladins in Golarion. It has the iconic Cleric Kyra in a village in Qadira. A local is offerring her wine in a tavern, she declines, and when it’s pointed out that a nearby “holy warrior” is enjoying the wine, this is Kyra’s response:
“How a paladin of Iomedae chooses to debase herself is none of my concern.”
Okay, let’s break that down. Seelah only presents as a figure in armor with Iomedae motifs, and is only introduced as a “holy warrior”, yet Kyra infers “paladin” out of all that. Nothing in the story suggests that Kyra is under the impression that Seelah is a “lesser” paladin than one who carries the so-called true spark (i.e., not a fallen paladin or a gray paladin). Kyra is a Cleric capable of casting spells, so she must have a positive Wisdom modifier, which represents having above average common sense. Yes, this is a origin story from
You’re the one always going on about any deviation from the code is a fall, no matter how slight. You see the cut-off point as “slobberingly drunk”, Kyra sees it as “any consumption of alcohol”. And yes, it is her opinion, but it’s still the viewpoint of a Golarion denizen that “Paladin plus poor behavior” is not a worldview-shattering paradigm. The fact that Seelah enjoys a drink and doesn’t fall does not cause Kyra to reevaluate her opinion of enjoying drinks because the reputation of the Paladin just does not amount to what you think it would.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It takes a very special player to disregard optimization and make crunch decisions about their character based on flavor. Much like how I've never seen someone take the deafness curse, and only seen one person take clouded vision (and get chastised for it, incidentally) I don't expect anyone would take the paladin code we have if they could be chaotic neutral instead.
That depends on the code for the chaotic neutral paladin.
If it's a code that says:
"carpe diem! You have to spend half your WBL in beer"
then probably people will think about it.
I don't know about others, but I, myself, am not advocating for paladins without codes, or with codes that have no meaningful significance in game. I'm advocating for Paladins with codes, but with a breadth of options.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For all the arguments about opening out the codes for paladins, «But if they do that, it will be very popular» sounds like tge wprst ever.
I actually love the idea of giving Paladins/Heralds "Oaths" similar to how the Cavalier recieved Orders.
The Cavalier always was 33% making teamwork feats actually viable, 33% making mounted combat actually viable, and 33% Paladin with smite everything.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
About chaotic people having strict codes, and if that is possible or not.
Let's say someone has a code that says:
"you cannot refuse a fight. Ever."
"Never retreat. Death is better than retreat."
"In combat, always fight the greatest threat. The greatest threat is always the stronger fighter."
"if challenged, respond."
"Be boastful. IF that brings you to a combat you will lose, so be it".
"Defend those who are weaker than you, facing the challenges they cannot face"
Add a couple more if you want. It's just a sketch.Do you know who could have a code like this, and strictly adhere to it? A paladin of Gorum. Who is chaotic.
Not really.
From Pathfinder:
Chaos Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.If you strictly adhere to a code then you are not flexible. You are rigid. Which is the exact opposite of flexible.
If you make this code yourself, then maybe, but then you aren't a Paladin. This is a code made by someone other than you that you are submitting to. A Chaotic person, by their nature, wouldn't like the idea of submitting to a code that they had no hand at all in crafting and who have no ability to personally interpret.
So you are telling me that a Gorumite having a code that follows step by step the core beleifs of Gorum is no longer Chaotic, and therefore gorumite clerics can't cast spells?
This is Exhibit A for "kill the alignments". People reading the small paragraph about it as if it were an absolute.
Do you realize there are more than 9 types of personality in real life, don't you?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you are telling me that a Gorumite having a code that follows step by step the core beleifs of Gorum is no longer Chaotic, and therefore gorumite clerics can't cast spells?
To follow that logic even further, Clerics would lose their spells as well as chaotic PCs aren't lawful enough to follow Gorums edicts
Well, there is a big difference between code properly said and philosophy/ethos...
Something most systems often overlook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the fact that there is ONE single code
That is an outright lie. Quite a few deities have personalized Paladin Codes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Paladin should basically be a cleric that's less spellcasty and more fighty. If an individual GM wants to limit the Paladin to one alignment, then he can do that. If an individual player thinks the Paladin has to be LG, then he can choose to only play that kind of Paladin.
It's far easier to include things and let individual GMs remove elements they don't like.
That said, IMNSHO, alignment and power-loss mechanics need to go the way of the dodo.