In 5e, you can be a LN or NG or CG paladin of the Oath of Devotion if you want.
And yes, everyone has a different suite of abilities (like different extra spells, etc), but under a same class. It's exactly what I'm asking for. Not all of them have aura of courage, (some will have aura of devotion, or aura of resolution, or aura of redemption, or aura of hope, or whatever) but the basics are the same. It's the same class, with some differences, just like a cleric of Abadar is slightly different than a cleric of Desna (different domains, etc)
Cavalier (and their orders) could be a good base. But cavalier is not supernatural. Does not have auras, spells, inmunities, etc.
|
In 5e, you can be a LN or NG or CG paladin of the Oath of Devotion if you want.
And yes, everyone has a different suite of abilities (like different extra spells, etc), but under a same class. It's exactly what I'm asking for. Not all of them have aura of courage, (some will have aura of devotion, or aura of resolution, or aura of redemption, or aura of hope, or whatever) but the basics are the same. It's the same class, with some differences, just like a cleric of Abadar is slightly different than a cleric of Desna (different domains, etc)
Cavalier (and their orders) could be a good base. But cavalier is not supernatural. Does not have auras, spells, inmunities, etc.
How could a Chaotic Good character follow a code which requires them to never break their word or lie? How could a Neutral Good character even do that if it forced them to accept an evil they could otherwise stop? They are bound to "the loftiest ideals of justice, virtue, and order."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On reflection, I think I feel exactly the same about a non-LG Paladin as I do about "A Wizard who can't do magic" or "A Druid who thinks nature is bad and should be replaced by technology." It's just a contradiction of the very meaning of the class. It's like a postal worker who, instead of delivering the letters takes them to their lair and devours them... you can't call that person a letter carrier since they fail to fulfill the purpose of that title.
So sure you can have a person who knows about magic but they just can't do it personally (like Dagna in Dragon Age, say) or a shapechanging class that doesn't give a toss about nature (maybe this is better as an Alchemist archetype), but you shouldn't call them "Wizard" or "Druid" any more than you should call a CN Gorumite "Paladin".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How could a Chaotic Good character follow a code which requires them to never break their word or lie? How could a Neutral Good character even do that if it forced them to accept an evil they could otherwise stop? They are bound to "the loftiest ideals of justice, virtue, and order."
Because nothing in the Chaotic Good alignment forces you to lie. What makes you think Desna is a liar? Have you seen Civil War (specially the comic? I'd argue that Steve Rogers, the Captain America, is chaotic good). He chose to oppose Ironman's plan, because he feels you can't give up freedom like that, even if there is a good reason for it. I'd say Iron man is the one being Lawful Good there.
Do you think it's impossible to roleplay Captain America and never lie? Why?
|
|
How could a Chaotic Good character follow a code which requires them to never break their word or lie? How could a Neutral Good character even do that if it forced them to accept an evil they could otherwise stop? They are bound to "the loftiest ideals of justice, virtue, and order."Because nothing in the Chaotic Good alignment forces you to lie. What makes you think Desna is a liar? Have you seen Civil War (specially the comic? I'd argue that Steve Rogers, the Captain America, is chaotic good). He chose to oppose Ironman's plan, because he feels you can't give up freedom like that, even if there is a good reason for it. I'd say Iron man is the one being Lawful Good there.
Do you think it's impossible to roleplay Captain America and never lie? Why?
A chaotic good character might not end up lying in the course of some sequence of events, but if they care deeply about not lying in all circumstances, and rigorously follow an oath against lying even when this inhibits their ability to protect the innocent, they cease to be chaotic and become lawful.
|
Other alignments should have their own paragons, whose abilities suit being a paragon of that alignment. Being a paragon of an alignment should not have to mean having auras and magic touches and being a tank even if it doesn't suit that alignment as well. Alignment paragons should be as different from each other as the alignments themselves.
Well that's something I could agree with.
If there's a paladin for every alignment, I can effectively behave however I want and still be a paladin.
Well I think that it's mostly a misunderstanding. Because if we build those 9 paragons of alignment as you suggest and just call them "Paladin (of alignment)", you're still bound to their respective codices, restrictions or whatever you have. And I don't know that anyone here in this (or the other) threads advocates for freeing the Paladin from all restrictions. It's more like that they (we) want the same, only for other alignments as well.
Which is, by the way, the reason why I haven't voted in this thread. Because, and no offense to the OP, it poses the wrong question and additionally makes the wrong choice of answers. I could chose any answer because none of this actually matters
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking through them. http://engl393-dnd5th.wikia.com/wiki/Paladin This wiki (format show thing isn't working so i can't make it a link) has a selection of them.
Devotion is effectively the paladin code pathfinder has now. It requires both compassion (Good) and not lying or breaking your word even when it would help you save innocent people (Lawful).
You are creating things the book does not say. There is zero requirements to be Lawful or Good. I could follow that code and be CG, heck I could be pure out LE and follow that code to a T.
Showing once more, I could be a classic paladin and not LG
Ancients is compatible with any good alignment, and easy for any good character to follow as a result. I'm willing to bet it's overwhelmingly the most popular on account of this. It amounts to "be a good example to others."
This one is pretty much non-evil, but it need not be good
Vengeance reminds me of a Hellknight code. I admit it is as strenuous. I wonder if it would be more suited to a suite of abilities like the Hellknight's, but if all they did was add something like this to 2e I'd not be mad.Conquest proves my point better than I could have without seeing it. It has three tenants. The first is a pretty simple and easily maintained...
Vengeance could be LG, in fact I played LG paladin of Hoar in 3e, that more or less was just like this. But it need not be LG.
The point is, they are all paladins( you missed the Oath breaker one though). Each and every one of those is a paladin, and not a damned one need be LG
Indeed, did you read the others?
And that is the point here.
You have paladin A, which matches PF1 kinda, you have paladin B, which is completely diferent and hell some of those codes are clearly meant for either neutral towards evil or just plain evil. Both as far as 5th edition cares are paladins.
And you are telling me it is the same as PF1? Yeah... right.
I will continue to disagree, they arent the same, their lore isnt the same, ingame playing one isnt the same.
Feel free to disagree ofc, but a 5th edition example means very little with what they call a paladin over there.
Yep, red em all, made a few as well. Type need not be LG by the way. I am telling you that allowing ll l's does not make you ply a non-LG paladin and even without being LG you can still ply the classic style.
What D&D does with paladins matters very much as that is what you are using s your case to keep them LG, because in D&D they were created s LG
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*re-enters thread briefly*
At the sake of bringing in play-experience:
In PF(outside of PFS), I have seen 1 paladin.
They were incredibly disruptive to the play that the GM was trying to run because they were hamstrung by the letter-of-the-law, not because the GM was being a hard-ass about it, but because the player felt they had to be Modern Police Squad^2+Boy Scout+Superman(when not being a ****)+Captain America.
It did not go well, and one of the common past-times of the party was to spend half a session figuring out 'how to distract the paladin with a side-mission' so we could 'do the real mission because they're going to screw it up'.
In 5e, I have seen 1 paladin.
They were incredibly moral (without being preachy about it), down to earth, a solid sort of redemption sort of person who just *made* those who were wavering in evil reconsider their steps, and those who were Pure Ebil want to attack them.
They did not waver from the cause of Good, yet they also understood that people need the *right* to make their own choices, or the choices *are not their own* and therefore *not just/fair/honorable*.
I'd much prefer to play with the latter in PF than the former.
Alignment of the PF Paladin? LG, because required, bog standard rules
Alignment of the 5e Paladin? NG, Oath of the Ancients.
I'm not insisting that those who play LG burn their books, I'm suggesting that perhaps, just maybe, the GOOD is more important than the Judge Dreddian 'IAMTEHLAWZ'.
I'm just glad the only paladin I've ever played is in PFS, so I don't have to deal with the headache of a GM that goes "Well, because you're a paladin I get to **** with you".
|
|
Other alignments should have their own paragons, whose abilities suit being a paragon of that alignment. Being a paragon of an alignment should not have to mean having auras and magic touches and being a tank even if it doesn't suit that alignment as well. Alignment paragons should be as different from each other as the alignments themselves.Well that's something I could agree with.
If there's a paladin for every alignment, I can effectively behave however I want and still be a paladin.Well I think that it's mostly a misunderstanding. Because if we build those 9 paragons of alignment as you suggest and just call them "Paladin (of alignment)", you're still bound to their respective codices, restrictions or whatever you have. And I don't know that anyone here in this (or the other) threads advocates for freeing the Paladin from all restrictions. It's more like that they (we) want the same, only for other alignments as well.
Which is, by the way, the reason why I haven't voted in this thread. Because, and no offense to the OP, it poses the wrong question and additionally makes the wrong choice of answers. I could chose any answer because none of this actually matters
I wouldn't really care if they chose to call the other alignments' paragons paladins. A rose by any other name, after all. I do wonder if it would be better to come up with more flavorful and fitting names, though.
What I'm worried about is that iconic paladin things like mercies, the auras, and bonded weapons will be handed out like candy to anyone who agrees to follow one of a million codes, some of which are so lenient that you could only break them if you set out to. (And naturally, those easier codes will account for the overwhelmingly majority of actual players.)
Doing the right thing is hard sometimes. A paladin has to be self-sacrificing then they don't want to. They have to be honest when it makes their job harder. They have to choose the abilities and ethos they have over the easy path.
Anyone who would be inclined to take 5e's Oath of Conquest is probably someone who would never be tempted to break it. Chaotic Evil characters do whatever they want by definition, to the point that a conscience is the only meaningful source of temptation an antipaladin can face. That's the difference. Not all codes are created equal, and paladin powers are only as special as the easiest code you can follow to get them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A CG paladin or CG anyclass, is likely to go his or her own path, and even still keep to a code of ethics however loose and disorganized it may or may not be.
LG paladin would insist on the front door.
A CG paladin would use the back door or the sewers
That is, once again, an example of people trying to shoehorn "paladin" into "a clone of Sir Galahad", for no special reason.
Let's forget for a moment other aligments, and other ethos, such as the Oaths in 5e. Let's go strictly by LG paladins in Pathfinder.
This is what Torag says to his paladins:
"I am at all times truthful, honorable, and forthright, but my allegiance is to my people. I will do what is necessary to serve them, including misleading others if need be"
What in that sentence makes you believe that a Dwarven Paladin of Torag cannot use the back door to enter the orc fortress to defeat evil?
Just because Gygax's version of a paladin had a limit of magic item. had to pay a tithe and could not use ranged weapons, doesn't mean that I cannot build an archer paladin of Abadar.
|
|
Looking through them. http://engl393-dnd5th.wikia.com/wiki/Paladin This wiki (format show thing isn't working so i can't make it a link) has a selection of them.
Devotion is effectively the paladin code pathfinder has now. It requires both compassion (Good) and not lying or breaking your word even when it would help you save innocent people (Lawful).
You are creating things the book does not say. There is zero requirements to be Lawful or Good. I could follow that code and be CG, heck I could be pure out LE and follow that code to a T.
Showing once more, I could be a classic paladin and not LG
Ancients is compatible with any good alignment, and easy for any good character to follow as a result. I'm willing to bet it's overwhelmingly the most popular on account of this. It amounts to "be a good example to others."This one is pretty much non-evil, but it need not be good
Vengeance reminds me of a Hellknight code. I admit it is as strenuous. I wonder if it would be more suited to a suite of abilities like the Hellknight's, but if all they did was add something like this to 2e I'd not be mad.Conquest proves my point better than I could have without seeing it. It has three tenants. The first is a pretty simple and easily maintained...
Vengeance could be LG, in fact I played LG paladin of Hoar in 3e, that more or less was just like this. But it need not be LG.
The point is, they are all paladins( you missed the Oath breaker one though). Each and every one of those is a paladin, and not a damned one need be LG
1: I lay out exactly how a character following those codes will inevitably end up being Lawful Good. I explain in more depth above. You amusingly choose to ignore this and pretend I have not explained what I have explained plainly. Perhaps attempt to counter my reasoning instead.
2: If I were GMing, and I found that a neutral character consistently, "through their acts of mercy, kindness, and forgiveness, kindled the light of hope in the world, beating back despair," I would change their alignment, and I would be baffled by another GM's decision not to do so unless it was simply because they didn't want to bother.
3: Hellknights can be Lawful Good.
4: The Oath Breaker literally does not have a code other than that they have to be evil (unless it exists in the book but is omitted from that wiki).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because Gygax's version of a paladin had a limit of magic item. had to pay a tithe and could not use ranged weapons, doesn't mean that I cannot build an archer paladin of Abadar.
Or Erastil, for that matter... or Irori...
|
|
because following a self imposed code is not a lawful act.How could a Chaotic Good character follow a code which requires them to never break their word or lie? How could a Neutral Good character even do that if it forced them to accept an evil they could otherwise stop? They are bound to "the loftiest ideals of justice, virtue, and order."In 5e, you can be a LN or NG or CG paladin of the Oath of Devotion if you want.
And yes, everyone has a different suite of abilities (like different extra spells, etc), but under a same class. It's exactly what I'm asking for. Not all of them have aura of courage, (some will have aura of devotion, or aura of resolution, or aura of redemption, or aura of hope, or whatever) but the basics are the same. It's the same class, with some differences, just like a cleric of Abadar is slightly different than a cleric of Desna (different domains, etc)
Cavalier (and their orders) could be a good base. But cavalier is not supernatural. Does not have auras, spells, inmunities, etc.
If doing so is strenuous, difficult, inconveniencing, or in conflict with what the character would otherwise want, it is, in fact, a lawful act.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And naturally, those easier codes will account for the overwhelmingly majority of actual players.
To be honest, I don't think that it's necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes, if I play a Paladin, I just wanna be the Knight in Shining armor, but I don't want to get constantly tested about my code. There's nothing inherently wrong if the rules allow me to do so, as long as they also allow for others to do it their way.
On the other hand, I also have played characters of other classes that wer probably more paladiny than any paladin because the held true to basically a paladin codex without getting anything out of it (in terms of power, that is). Meaning that the chassis is not really important, if you want to play such a character.
In the end, I think that a class that is only servicable for a tiny minority of the player base, because it is way too restrictive for the overwhelmingly majority of actual players, should not be in any core rule book. I happen to think that the Paladin as written is not such a class as even with the LG restriction I've seen a lot of really cool Paladins over time that would probably make HWalsh cry with terror and disgust. But I also happen to think that the other alignments should also have their own Paragons, and I don't fear at all that someone would abuse the freedom that might come with it, because quite frankly, anyone who is out to play a powerful character won't chose the Paladin anyways.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1: I lay out exactly how a character following those codes will inevitably end up being Lawful Good. I explain in more depth above. You amusingly choose to ignore this and pretend I have not explained what I have explained plainly. Perhaps attempt to counter my reasoning instead.
No. This is how you would force a player to act based off your very limited and restrictive views. Nothing in that oath forces you to be lawful or good.
2: If I were GMing, and I found that a neutral character consistently, "through their acts of mercy, kindness, and forgiveness, kindled the light of hope in the world, beating back despair," I would change their alignment, and I would be baffled by another GM's decision not to do so unless it was simply because they didn't want to bother.
See, this is you forcing your own personal opinion on others and the very reason LG only paladins re an issue as you mess with your players and take over their character.
Nothing in that list is limited to Good or lawful people. Sounds CG to me
3: Hellknights can be Lawful Good.
And LN and LE
4: The Oath Breaker literally does not have a code other than that they have to be evil (unless it exists in the book but is omitted from that wiki).
What in the name "Oath Breaker" is confusing you here?
|
|
And naturally, those easier codes will account for the overwhelmingly majority of actual players.To be honest, I don't think that it's necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes, if I play a Paladin, I just wanna be the Knight in Shining armor, but I don't want to get constantly tested about my code. There's nothing inherently wrong if the rules allow me to do so, as long as they also allow for others to do it their way.
On the other hand, I also have played characters of other classes that wer probably more paladiny than any paladin because the held true to basically a paladin codex without getting anything out of it (in terms of power, that is). Meaning that the chassis is not really important, if you want to play such a character.
In the end, I think that a class that is only servicable for a tiny minority of the player base, because it is way too restrictive for the overwhelmingly majority of actual players, should not be in any core rule book. I happen to think that the Paladin as written is not such a class as even with the LG restriction I've seen a lot of really cool Paladins over time that would probably make HWalsh cry with terror and disgust. But I also happen to think that the other alignments should also have their own Paragons, and I don't fear at all that someone would abuse the freedom that might come with it, because quite frankly, anyone who is out to play a powerful character won't chose the Paladin anyways.
I do fear they would. This might be a difference between the people you play with and the people I play with, but I thoroughly expect the "Oath of the Murder Hobo who Risks the Mission to Pick-Pocket NPCs" to be the most overwhelmingly common the moment there are a large number of codes to choose from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't vote because my answer depends on the alignment rules.
If they fix their interaction with paladins then I'm all for LG staying. If not then I'm all for the paladin staying as class but the alignment options should open up to any good, just to avoid the issues with LG.
PS: The code would also be a factor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Chaotic character can have a code, but to stick with a code absolutely is lawful
No, it is not. This is your own personal take on it, this is not how it works. A chaotic person 100% can have and fully follow a code.
And here you are once more saying only LG people can have code and stick to it and not lie.
I don't know about the insult, but he didn't say this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And here you are once more saying only LG people can have code and stick to it and not lie.I don't know about the insult, but he didn't say this.
Look above, he has said a few times only a LG person would stick to code of not lying. Just above he said following code is lawful act. I quoted him, look up.
|
|
Look above, he has said a few times only a LG person would stick to code of not lying. Just above he said following code is lawful act. I quoted him, look up.And here you are once more saying only LG people can have code and stick to it and not lie.I don't know about the insult, but he didn't say this.
What is it about my caveat you can't understand? Following a code over what you, in your heart of hearts, think is right to do is what's lawful. A chaotic character's actions may be guided by a code, but they will not be limited by them if competing priorities overshadow them severely enough. If nothing can dissuade them from their code, they're lawful.
This was the insult: "Honestly, he is the type of GM that makes playing paladin doomed to fail."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is it about my caveat you can't understand? Following a code over what you, in your heart of hearts, think is right to do is what's lawful. A chaotic character's actions may be guided by a code, but they will not be limited by them if competing priorities overshadow them severely enough. If nothing can dissuade them from their code, they're lawful.
No, it is not. This is your own view, how you choose to see and enforce it. Chaotic people can have codes they will never violate. People have codes, it tends to be the base of our personalities. You re forcing L to override all. In your mind only X alignment can act a set way. Very restrictive and cookie cutter.
This was the insult: "Honestly, he is the type of GM that makes playing paladin doomed to fail."
You are not changing my mind. Every post show you have vastly restrictive view on alignments and codes and are the very type of GM who will cause Paladin issues, because most will not agree with your view,
|
|
What is it about my caveat you can't understand? Following a code over what you, in your heart of hearts, think is right to do is what's lawful. A chaotic character's actions may be guided by a code, but they will not be limited by them if competing priorities overshadow them severely enough. If nothing can dissuade them from their code, they're lawful.
No, it is not. This is your own view, how you choose to see and enforce it. Chaotic people can have codes they will never violate. People have codes, it tends to be the base of our personalities. You re forcing L to override all. In your mind only X alignment can act a set way. Very restrictive and cookie cutter.
You are not changing my mind. Every post show you have vastly restrictive view on alignments and codes and are the very type of GM who will cause Paladin issues, because most will not agree with your view,
This was the insult: "Honestly, he is the type of GM that makes playing paladin doomed to fail."
I have only once taken away a divine spellcaster's powers, and this was a pregen for whom the change wouldn't stick. I'm talking abstractly about how I think people should play their characters, but I would not enforce all of this as strictly as I am presenting it here.
Edit: Actually, I misremembered. I only threatened to do so. I didn't even go through with taking her powers away.
You seem to have a different understanding of what a code is than I do. I do not mean "set of guidelines that determine behavior." I mean "set of clear-cut strictures that limit behavior even when this flies in the face of the person's better judgement."
Anyone can follow a code, but not everyone would follow it to the letter no matter what.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone can follow a code, but not everyone would follow it to the letter no matter what.
And that, would be LN. Hello Dredd, nice to see you are a paladin
|
|
And that, would be LN. Hello Dredd, nice to see you are a paladin
Anyone can follow a code, but not everyone would follow it to the letter no matter what.
Beware of affirming the consequent. Not every lawful character, and therefore not every paladin, follows their code to the ridiculous letter. However, a chaotic character should care little enough about their code that it can't be meaningfully limiting. They will flaunt the code the moment it seems better for them to do so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Beware of affirming the consequent. Not every lawful character, and therefore not every paladin, follows their code to the ridiculous letter. However, a chaotic character should care little enough about their code that it can't be meaningfully limiting. They will flaunt the code the moment it seems better for them to do so.
Nope. You do not magically become LG because you follow code and do not break it. Once more, your uber restrictive view is showing
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would beg to differ.
Folks who have GMs that will screw them over will take the least restrictive one, to try and mitigate the screwing over.
Folks who have GMs that won't screw them over will take the MOST restrictive one, to tell the epic story of their travels.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, it is not. This is your own personal take on it, this is not how it works. A chaotic person 100% can have and fully follow a code.
A Chaotic character can have a code, but to stick with a code absolutely is lawful
I also agree with this. You don't have to be lawful to stick to a code. In fantasy setting barbarians are seen as being chaotic, but they also have deep-rooted traditions about things such as what make a true warrior and passage into manhood. Many also have codes they won't break depending on the author.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also agree with this. You don't have to be lawful to stick to a code. In fantasy setting barbarians are seen as being chaotic, but they also have deep-rooted traditions about things such as what make a true warrior and passage into manhood. Many also have codes they won't break depending on the author.
Yeah, I have seen someone ply CG but refused to lie and hd strict moral code of things they simply would never do. But eh stealing from those that had to much and taking most "laws" s more guidelines, also was the same guy.
Some folks re simply far too strict with AL, which is one reason I would happily see it die.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Freedom isn't free.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This argument right here is exactly why alignment needs to have a significantly reduced effect on the game, and why no classes should have alignment restrictions.
People can't even agree on what alignment means, much less what a given class must do to adhere to it.
Just get rid of the whole mess; it'll drastically improve the game.