I was writing this for one of the Playtest Paladin arguements, and kind of realized it deserved it's own discussion in a less charged environment. So with that, I present the following.
The Lawful Neutral Paladin.
I see a lot of arguement for "Good-only" as an alternative, but let me talk about this paladin. This was an Oathbound Paladin, with an Oath Against Savagery, so she lacked divine grace, instead gaining new uses for her Smite (which to me, is more the quintessential Paladin ability. Smiting your deities enemies). She followed Iomedae, so her three sources of code were as follows.
Code of Conduct:A paladinmust be of lawful good alignment andloses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Oath Against Savagery:Always heed the call of a community in danger from savages. Be the first in line to defend a settlement and the last to retreat.Iomedae:The paladins of Iomedae are just and strong, crusaders who live for the joy of righteous battle. Their mission is to right wrongs and eliminate evil at its root. They serve as examples to others, and their code demands they protect the weak and innocent by eliminating sources of oppression, rather than merely the symptoms. They may back down or withdraw from a fight if they are overmatched, but if their lives will buy time for others to escape, they must give them.*I will learn the weight of my sword. Without my heart to guide it, it is worthless—my strength is not in my sword, but in my heart. If I lose my sword, I have lost a tool. If I betray my heart, I have died.
*I will have faith in the Inheritor. I will channel her strength through my body. I will shine in her legion, and I will not tarnish her glory through base actions.
*I am the first into battle, and the last to leave it.
*I will not be taken prisoner by my free will. I will not surrender those under my command.
*I will never abandon a companion, though I will honor sacrifice freely given.
*I will guard the honor of my fellows, both in thought and deed, and I will have faith in them.
*When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives.
*I will never refuse a challenge from an equal. I will give honor to worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest.
*I will suffer death before dishonor.
*I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my behavior. I will strive to emulate Iomedae’s perfection.Only one sentence fragment was removed. She was not a "good" person. She was a noble, and had noble tastes. She shared tables with lords, held herself to that kind of standard and would not be caught dead in unsuitable accomodations. She actively hated those she viewed as uncultured savages, those who stood to oppose order, even those who did it for "good reasons". However, regardless of this flaw, she held herself to her code.
Though she disliked the thief in her party's midst, killing her was not acceptable. Said thief was also the figurehead for their group, the one who guided their quest and held all their safeties in regard. She was a tactician, and had a strong personality, things my paladin could not argue. The thief was her authority, and though she did not like it, her code held her to respect that authority.
She was the party's sword, her duty was to safeguard her companions, even if she did not care for them. They had a barbarian in their midst as well, a prior soldier who abandoned the ranks to help them. He could go toe to toe with her, and was her equal. Were he ever to challenge her, she would take glee in being able to put him in his place, however she could not initiate such a thing. She honoured him as an enemy, and as a companion.
What she viewed from her code, was upholding order, moreso than upholding good. She though still recognized she needed to quash evil where it rose, as with it stirred chaos. She was not good, but her code said she could not condone evil.
The greatest moral quandaries for her were difficulty being able to accept that the noble class did not always have the best interests of the people at heart, and needing to work with people she felt undesirable. If nobility threatened innocence or order, she was compelled to stop it. She steeled herself to the task by justifying to herself they were abusing such a position. She eventually came to fall in love with that thief. They proved though their occupation and outlook were undesirable, their desire to put the needs of the party over themselves (even down to solving personal disputes as a mediator) was worthy of admiration. They upheld order within their "family", even if their overall outlook was not desirable.
She was not a bad paladin. She was fun, she had moral dilemmas that came with her position, and conflicts between her disposition and the code she swore to live by. She violates the code in no way, accept one. She's not a "good" person. She's not pretending to be a "good" person. She has flaws and weaknesses that to me strengthened her not only as a character, but as a proper paladin. And I would love to see more people be able to play and have that same kind of experience.
So there are likely two sides, and one of two things will happen. This will become an echo chamber that this character is a Paladin, or there will be arguement that this character is not "good", and therefor should fall and not be a Paladin. I think it warrants some discussion though over what is more important to be a paladin.
Being of a particular alignment, or upholding a virtuous code?
"I think it warrants some discussion though over what is more important to be a paladin.
Being of a particular alignment, or upholding a virtuous code?"
It's both. It's a combo package. If you can only achieve one or the other, then you're not a paladin. You might want to be a paladin though.... And that will certainly make for an interesting character to play. But you shouldn't be rewarded with a classes abilities for not meeting the criteria of the class.
That said? Talk to your individual DM.
But the rules of the game should not be changed overall to support this.
There are no "less-charged" paladin discussion if the bit up for discussion is watering-down or entirely eliminating the alignment requirement.
(I am in the "No." <emphatic period> camp.)
What is a Paladin?
A miserable little pile of righteousness!
I honestly hope they go for the Paladin as a paragon of their specific deity, rather than as a paragon of a specific notion of virtue and order.
What is a Paladin?
A miserable little pile of righteousness!
Senators, I presume you are acquainted with the collection of half-truths and hyperbole known as the Paladin.
In my opinion a Paladin who is not committed both to "always doing the right thing" and "always following the rules" is a contradiction in terms. So non-LG paladins are, to me, like Wizards who don't cast spells or Druids who are unconcerned with nature.
I strongly hope they keep the Paladin LG-only for PF2 and decouple them entirely from deities (they can get their powers from a mysterious source, like Oracles).
In my opinion a Paladin who is not committed both to "always doing the right thing" and "always following the rules" is a contradiction in terms. So non-LG paladins are, to me, like Wizards who don't cast spells or Druids who are unconcerned with nature.
The above though, does fit both your criteria. She did always do the right thing, she just didn't always agree with or like the right thing. She was held to the standard of any other Paladin, and by all accounts, I could have just as easily written Good on her character sheet, and played her exactly the same. She never did anything to warrant alignment shift. Heck, Iomedae is a Lawful Good goddess, she'd have been a little more faithful to be LG herself.
I chose not to though. She was more interesting not being "good". Being someone who had flaws rather than a paragon of faith who didn't need to think twice about her code and duties. She believed in what Iomedae stood for, and frequently asked for guidance throughout the campaign. Good just did not come naturally for her. She would have taken pleasure in removing "undesirables" from society, it was even her oath, but she recognized to do so would be wrong. Wanting made her not good, she always kept her actions in check though, as her code demanded, "I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my behavior. I will strive to emulate Iomedae’s perfection.".
I strongly hope they keep the Paladin LG-only for PF2 and decouple them entirely from deities (they can get their powers from a mysterious source, like Oracles).
Agree to disagree. I like Paladin's Deity driven, and enjoy the different deific oaths. Though I would perhaps like to see an archtype that was deity independent for variety. Or perhaps pantheon-specific. In the way I mean you are a Fire Paladin, you powers center around powers granted from deities with the Fire subdomain like Sarenrae, but you owe loyalty to none of them.
Hm. Myself, I'm not fond of the alignment system. That said, if I had an idea for a LN paladin in a game with alignment, I'd just find a way to argue that my paladin was LG.
That said, I don't think that being a good person is essential to being a paladin at all. Perhaps the gods that give you your power can "see into your heart," but I know that I wouldn't like to be judged by my private thoughts, my personal eccentricities mostly kept in the sanctity of my mind. I would hope that the powers of Law and Good judge me instead on what I do, on whether I keep my oaths and live up to the ideal of a paladin.
That said, I don't think that the paladin in the OP was much of a paladin, regardless of alignment. Because the OP paladin was kind of a jackass. In my opinion, and everyone has their own opinions on what a paladin is or isn't, and I'm not accusing anyone of wrongbad fun- in my opinion, paladins shouldn't be jackasses.
Paladins are fuelled by their Righteous Goodness, but alot of their flavour is tied up with a deity (Atonement, Holy Champion, Divine Bond, etc...), even though mechanically they get nothing but a code and atonement from their deity.
Thus, we count Paladins among the roster of LG Deities' tools. The same applies to AntiPaladins in the CE Deities' toolbox.
Why wouldn't CG, NG, NN, LN, CN, NE deities want an equivalent tool?
If Paladins are fuelled by deities, as all their flavour points too, it wouldn't make sense that other deities would handicap themselves by not having these potent tools against their enemies.
If Paladins are instead fuelled by their supreme goodness, how do we not see parallels for supreme Chaos, Supreme Evil, Supreme Neutrality?
Thus, LG (and CE, and LE via archetype) exclusively having access to this potent tool is silly.
Thus, we count Paladins among the roster of LG Deities' tools. The same applies to AntiPaladins in the CE Deities' toolbox.
Why wouldn't CG, NG, NN, LN, CN, NE deities want an equivalent tool?
If the military can deploy anti-personnel mines against their enemies, why can't the Podunck Co. Sheriff's department have them, too? Wouldn't they want an equivalent tool?
Neutral deities (and characters) don't view a paladin as a "useful tool." They see them as stuck-up, self-righteous clowns who lord their religiosity over everyone they meet. Or worse, cops."Please, Gorum, grant me the ability to touch others and make them not so tired."
...
"Please, Gorum, make my sword glow with holy goodness."
...
"Gorum, why aren't you answering my prayers!?"
Neutral deities are neutral, they don't like picking winners and smiting losers. Chaotic deities don't like people following their code of specific behavior because they think codes of specific behavior are stupid and shortsighted. These gods have plenty of holy champions (Inquisitors, Warpriests, Clerics), they don't need sword lawyers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
She was a Paladin. She was also lawful good, and your writing of neutral on her character was a mistake.
I think your misunderstanding is that you seem to believe that if you alignment is 'good' it automatically means no 'flaws' and no 'need to think twice about her code and duties.' That isn't necessarily, or even likely true.
If you "could have just as easily written Good on her character sheet, and played her exactly the same" then she was a lawful good character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
She was a Paladin. She was also lawful good, and your writing of neutral on her character was a mistake.
I think your misunderstanding is that you seem to believe that if you alignment is 'good' it automatically means no 'flaws' and no 'need to think twice about her code and duties.' That isn't necessarily, or even likely true.
If you "could have just as easily written Good on her character sheet, and played her exactly the same" then she was a lawful good character.
Exactly my thoughts. The character described is LG, since an evil thought doesn't make an evil person. PF alignment is based around actions, not thoughts/intentions. A man can save an innocent for a totally selfish reason, but in PF terms it's a good act. Its how you can have NG people who are dicks, and CE people who are genuinely enjoyable to be around. By following the code, you automatically act in a lawful good manner. Thus, are lawful good.