| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Non-Lawful Good paladins have been part of D&D since they first appeared in Dragon as Paladins of Alignment (I believe I got the article name right). 3.5e had them (Unearthed Arcana I believe), 4th ed had them, 5th ed has them and Pathfinder has them (Grey Paladins?). It won't shock me if they finally make it part of the core book for Pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flaming Merciful chainsaws!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why not?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would play one in a heartbeat. With a vorpal dogslicer. For notdogs. And then eat the notdogs, and their baby notdogs. So...vegan to boot. Except sometimes she might eat a real dog. And thus Fall. Because a Falling Paladin is moast interesting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, why not. Especially since they're going to be the designated heavy armor class this time, which means they're pretty much guaranteed to not just be LG, so tank builds aren't restricted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Non-Lawful Good paladins have been part of D&D since they first appeared in Dragon as Paladins of Alignment (I believe I got the article name right). 3.5e had them (Unearthed Arcana I believe), 4th ed had them, 5th ed has them and Pathfinder has them (Grey Paladins?). It won't shock me if they finally make it part of the core book for Pathfinder.
Grey Paladins are actually limited to anything within one step of Lawful Good - P1e didn't have official support for Chaotic Good Paladins, but frankly I feel that changing that in P2e would be a good thing (maybe as an archetype), because considering all of the Lawful Evil shenanigans plaguing the Inner Sea it'd be nice to just call yourself a Liberator and leave it mostly at that.
I could see Chaotic Good Paladins popping up in Kintargo as an explicit countermeasure against Cheliax worshiping and utilizing devils and trying to maintain independence until the rest of the nation cools their jets.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Boo hiss.
I will ban these immediately and never look back.
Edit: Not Goblin Paladins, mind you. Goblins are as eligible for paladinhood as anyone else. Just "non-LG paladins" will not be allowed at my table.
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
My personal preference is that Paladins (well, and Antipaladins if you want to distinguish the Evil ones) have the inverse of Druid Alignment restrictions and can only be Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Evil, or Chaotic Evil.
That fits the flavor that they are drawing power from the extreme nature of their beliefs, allows most concepts, and still means that if you shift alignment you probably lose your powers for a while (which is probably how it should be).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with Chaotic or Evil alignments are that they're defined solely by negative propositions: lack of order and lack of virtue respectively. This means there's no real way to produce alignment-based codes of conduct for them.
They don't have to be defined that way though. My favorite descriptions of alignment actually came from the Dark Sun setting, in the context of what people might do when in the desert with not enough water:
Life threatening circumstances always put a character’s alignment to the test. How he acts, how he treats the other characters in a party, and how he controls his own actions can change drastically with desperation. These rules are presented chiefly to govern situations where water is in very short supply, but they can be adapted to a variety of other situations: the commodity in short supply could just as easily be food in times of famine, the antidote to a poison, the cure for a widespread disease, air in a collapsed tunnel, etc.
A party of characters that has a potentially deadly shortage of water will have to take several things into consideration. Individually, characters should react based on their alignment. As a group, they will have to examine which of their number are strong and capable and which are weak and in need of assistance.
Plans may be made to give more water to certain individuals so they can survive to cast spells or fight foes. How characters react to such plans again rests with their alignments.
Lawful Good: A character of this alignment will insist that everyone get an even share of what water there is, even those in the party who seem beyond hope. He will readily conceive of and accept plans that call for unequal distribution of water for the good of the group, but will never let the weak or dying go without water.
Lawful Neutral: Such characters will insist that everyone get an even share of available water, but won’t care one way or the other about characters that may be beyond hope. He will also accept that call for unequal distribution of water for the good of the group.
Lawful Evil: A character of this alignment will insist that available water be evenly distributed among the ablebodied of the group, but won’t offer any to those who seem too far gone. He will accept plans that call for unequal distribution of water for the good of the group, especially if that means more water for him.
Neutral Good: A neutral good character will insist that everyone in the group get an even share of remaining water, even the severely dehydrated. He will consider plans calling for unequal water distribution, but will have to be convinced that the plan will ultimately benefit the party and not hurt him personally.
True Neutral: A character of this alignment will want a fair share for himself, but won’t necessarily come to the aid of the very weak. He will consider plans that call for unequal water distribution, but only if he and the party will benefit in the short term.
Neutral Evil: A character of this alignment will insist on his fair share, and will be against giving water to the very weak. He will consider plans for unequal water distribution, but only if he personally will benefit soon.
Chaotic Good: A chaotic good character will insist that everyone get an even share of the available water, even the very weak. He will not consider plans calling for unequal water distribution unless he and those he likes personally get more water as part of the plan.
Chaotic Neutral: Such a character will insist on his fair share, and won’t concern himself with the plight of the very weak. He won’t consider plans calling for unequal water distribution unless he personally gets more water as part of the plan.
Chaotic Evil: A chaotic evil character will freely lie, cheat, or even kill to get all the water he can. He will constantly suggest plans calling for unequal water distribution that grant him additional water immediately.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with Chaotic or Evil alignments are that they're defined solely by negative propositions: lack of order and lack of virtue respectively. This means there's no real way to produce alignment-based codes of conduct for them.
This is actually not true. Chaos has (or at the very least can have) a very specific ethos valuing freedom over things like security and community. It's not inherently 'negative' at all.
Evil is a bit more defined by its lack, but even there an ethos can absolutely be created, albeit not a very nice ethos.
|
Sure, why not. Especially since they're going to be the designated heavy armor class this time, which means they're pretty much guaranteed to not just be LG, so tank builds aren't restricted.
Jason just said a focus on armor was for another class, he never said that class was a Core class :3
(unless he later made another post that did say it was the Paladin)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
From whence this pernicious belief that LG and CG are more "extreme" than NG?
Shouldn't pure NG be more "extreme Good" than its counterparts that are diluted by Law and Chaos?
The biggest reason that the rules for alignment need to be loosened is all of the ridiculous, incoherent insane troll logic they're based on.
|
|
Sure, why not. Especially since they're going to be the designated heavy armor class this time, which means they're pretty much guaranteed to not just be LG, so tank builds aren't restricted.Jason just said a focus on armor was for another class, he never said that class was a Core class :3
(unless he later made another post that did say it was the Paladin)
I mean, what else is there to be the armor class out of the core classes?
Arcane casters? Hell no.
Rogues? Pfh
Bards? Doubt it.
Alchemists? Nah
Clerics and Druids? CoDzilla is still probably too fresh on the mind for that.
Barbarians? Unlikely considering "defensive" is not your typical barbarian concept.
Rangers? Again, "brick" is not usually what springs to mind with themYou're basically left with paladins as the only class that makes a modicum of sense for an armor/brick focus. That and I doubt Jason was referring to another class down the pipeline because...well I bet they have their hands full getting the CRB done, not outlining new classes down the pipes.
The latter was what I was inferring by my post (specifically the Cavalier). Also it was an attempt at a joke.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also... this thread is beautiful. It's like a Rorschach test for what individual readers consider wrong with the core game.
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
From whence this pernicious belief that LG and CG are more "extreme" than NG?
Shouldn't pure NG be more "extreme Good" than its counterparts that are diluted by Law and Chaos?
*raises up wolf puppet*
"LG is not the best Good awhooooo!"
*throws puppet back into chest*
No, it is not, but Paladins represent the best Good of LG, so I wouldn't mind them being opened up any Good alignment, and thus representing some of the best that Good can put forth.
|
|
Sure, why not. Especially since they're going to be the designated heavy armor class this time, which means they're pretty much guaranteed to not just be LG, so tank builds aren't restricted.Jason just said a focus on armor was for another class, he never said that class was a Core class :3
(unless he later made another post that did say it was the Paladin)
Not in a post, but in one of the interviews/presentations (I think k Friday's Twitch video?), Jason or someone else at Paizo talked about Paladins being super strong on defense.
Also... I am not keen on Paladin being solely the "tank" class.
I think Inquisitor and Avenger, regardless of the alignment issue, should be valid expressions of the Paladin class.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From whence this pernicious belief that LG and CG are more "extreme" than NG?
Shouldn't pure NG be more "extreme Good" than its counterparts that are diluted by Law and Chaos?
The biggest reason that the rules for alignment need to be loosened is all of the ridiculous, incoherent insane troll logic they're based on.
It depends on what you mean by extreme. LG and CG are less...flexible than NG. They involve, especially when taken to extremes, being very focused on both Good and something else. Either freedom or order, depending.
NG is flexible, able to prioritize community and order over the individual and freedom or vice versa based on the current situation...LG and CG have more difficulties in such a conflict.
|
|
Also... I am not keen on Paladin being solely the "tank" class.
I think Inquisitor and Avenger, regardless of the alignment issue, should be valid expressions of the Paladin class.
That is something I'm curious about. Given how important archetypes and player choice are to Pathfinder design (incl. PF2 by all accounts), I'm hoping/expecting the classes are all pretty flexible rather than trying to lock in one specific kind of build or style of play. But it's definitely something to keep an eye on
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Freedom itself is a synonym for 'lack of'. Think sugar-free or commercial-free.
Uh...that's pretty deeply incorrect as far as usage goes. Freedom is a positive and specific state of being as generally used and defined, having it stated as a 'lack of' is just not how it's usually used when talking about an ethos.
Or would you prefer I used liberty? Or autonomy? Or independence? All also work.
To clarify, when I say Chaos is inherently negative, I didn't want to suggest that it's necessarily bad only that it can only define itself in terms of what it's not (Law).
No, I got what you meant. I just disagree as much as it is possible to disagree with another human being.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please do not use the R-Word.
I'm sorry. It's a disgusting habit that I'd thought I'd already broken.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Neutral Good: A neutral good character will insist that everyone in the group get an even share of remaining water, even the severely dehydrated. He will consider plans calling for unequal water distribution, but will have to be convinced that the plan will ultimately benefit the party and not hurt him personally.
This is entirely at odds with what I consider to be NG, which is "the greatest good for the greatest number, regardless of the means required to get there." I would think the NG character would be the most likely to prioritize that people beyond saving should be cut off, and that people who are more dehydrated but savable should get extra. Nothing about NG to me implies "equal for everyone". Additionally, NG characters are likely to be some of the most selfless characters, so I have no idea where the "not hurt him personally" part came in.
(Usually I'd worry about derailing the thread, but considering the thread I'll give myself a pass.)
I think the argument for "corner alignment Paladins" is largely "Paladins are all the alignments Druids aren't" which has some nice symmetry to it, even though I loathe the idea of CG, LE, and CE Paladins- it's like "dry water" or "cold fire" from where I sit.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the argument for "corner alignment Paladins" is largely "Paladins are all the alignments Druids aren't" which has some nice symmetry to it, even though I loathe the idea of CG, LE, and CE Paladins- it's like "dry water" or "cold fire" from where I sit.
There's an element of that to it for me, yeah. Though for me it's more like:
'Druids must be partially Neutral since they care about balance. Paladins must not be Neutral because balance is sorta antithetical to the intensity of what Paladins believe in.'
Barbarians? Unlikely considering "defensive" is not your typical barbarian concept.
I wouldn't mind a greater emphasis on heavy armor Barbarians than shirtless Conan-type imagery.
I think the argument for "corner alignment Paladins" is largely "Paladins are all the alignments Druids aren't" which has some nice symmetry to it, even though I loathe the idea of CG, LE, and CE Paladins- it's like "dry water" or "cold fire" from where I sit.
I've been a perennial partisan in Paladin threads and this is the first time I've seen that argument. In any case, I find aesthetics are usually fixable with a name change.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Boo hiss.
I will ban these immediately and never look back.
That's what I've done with LG paladins! Now CG goblin paladins? I could see letting them in. ;)
Edit: Not Goblin Paladins, mind you. Goblins are as eligible for paladinhood as anyone else. Just "non-LG paladins" will not be allowed at my table.
"Boo hiss.
I will ban these immediately and never look back."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes to every part of the thread title.
Everything that hastens the death of the current stale conceptions of Alignment, Paladins and, heck, even Goblins would be a breath of fresh air.
And if the new systems doesn't work or seem less enticing?
Well, I've always been told, here on the boards, that you can just change whatever flavour you don't like in your home-games or suggest a home-brew solution...
^^
:P
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aroden was a goblin paladin!
Aroden was a bullfrog, he was good friend of mine.
Heh if they implement any paladin that isnt LG, i will promptly remove it from my games that is for sure.
Paladins are LG, that is and will continue to be a constant to me in any pathfinder game i GM for.
Still, i remain hoping they wont make this change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He had some mighty fine wine...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heh if they implement any paladin that isnt LG, i will promptly remove it from my games that is for sure.
Paladins are LG, that is and will continue to be a constant to me in any pathfinder game i GM for.
k
Sure, why not. Especially since they're going to be the designated heavy armor class this time, which means they're pretty much guaranteed to not just be LG, so tank builds aren't restricted.Jason just said a focus on armor was for another class, he never said that class was a Core class :3
(unless he later made another post that did say it was the Paladin)
I mean, what else is there to be the armor class out of the core classes?
Arcane casters? Hell no.
Rogues? Pfh
Bards? Doubt it.
Alchemists? Nah
Clerics and Druids? CoDzilla is still probably too fresh on the mind for that.
Barbarians? Unlikely considering "defensive" is not your typical barbarian concept.
Rangers? Again, "brick" is not usually what springs to mind with themYou're basically left with paladins as the only class that makes a modicum of sense for an armor/brick focus. That and I doubt Jason was referring to another class down the pipeline because...well I bet they have their hands full getting the CRB done, not outlining new classes down the pipes.
It helps that Paladins already have a reputation as nigh-invulnerable tanks, doubling down on a defensive identity for them isn't too much of a stretch. What other class gets the kind of resiliency gained from divine grace and lay on hands?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was never bothered by alignment- or similar restrictions, I just liked the ideas I got from trying to justify weid mixes. But then, my characters' flavors tend to "grow" hand in hand with their mechanics. I can see how someone who has an idea first which they want to realize would be bothered by it.
In the end, I'd just be curious if or how they'd explain the sudden shift. Were these chaotic-good paladins of Caiden (or Lawful Evil non-Antipaladin-Archetype Paladins of Asmodeus) always there and just never noticed, or did they suddenly show up?
[/alibi-contribution to justify this post which I only made for the rant below]
My favorite descriptions of alignment actually came from the Dark Sun setting, in the context of what people might do when in the desert with not enough water:
Dark Sun quote on Alignment:Life threatening circumstances always put a character’s alignment to the test. How he acts, how he treats the other characters in a party, and how he controls his own actions can change drastically with desperation. These rules are presented chiefly to govern situations where water is in very short supply, but they can be adapted to a variety of other situations: the commodity in short supply could just as easily be food in times of famine, the antidote to a poison, the cure for a widespread disease, air in a collapsed tunnel, etc.
A party of characters that has a potentially deadly shortage of water will have to take several things into consideration. Individually, characters should react based on their alignment. As a group, they will have to examine which of their number are strong and capable and which are weak and in need of assistance.
Plans may be made to give more water to certain individuals so they can survive to cast spells or fight foes. How characters react to such plans again rests with their alignments.
Lawful Good: A character of this alignment will insist that everyone get an even share of what water there is, even those in the party who seem beyond hope. He will readily conceive of and accept plans that call for unequal distribution of water for the good of the group, but will never let the weak or dying go without water.
Lawful Neutral: Such characters will insist that everyone get an even share of available water, but won’t care one way or the other about characters that may be beyond hope. He will also accept that call for unequal distribution of water for the good of the group.
Lawful Evil: A character of this alignment will insist that available water be evenly distributed among the ablebodied of the group, but won’t offer any to those who seem too far gone. He will accept plans that call for unequal distribution of water for the good of the group, especially if that means more water for him.
Neutral Good: A neutral good character will insist that everyone in the group get an even share of remaining water, even the severely dehydrated. He will consider plans calling for unequal water distribution, but will have to be convinced that the plan will ultimately benefit the party and not hurt him personally.
True Neutral: A character of this alignment will want a fair share for himself, but won’t necessarily come to the aid of the very weak. He will consider plans that call for unequal water distribution, but only if he and the party will benefit in the short term.
Neutral Evil: A character of this alignment will insist on his fair share, and will be against giving water to the very weak. He will consider plans for unequal water distribution, but only if he personally will benefit soon.
Chaotic Good: A chaotic good character will insist that everyone get an even share of the available water, even the very weak. He will not consider plans calling for unequal water distribution unless he and those he likes personally get more water as part of the plan.
Chaotic Neutral: Such a character will insist on his fair share, and won’t concern himself with the plight of the very weak. He won’t consider plans calling for unequal water distribution unless he personally gets more water as part of the plan.
Chaotic Evil: A chaotic evil character will freely lie, cheat, or even kill to get all the water he can. He will constantly suggest plans calling for unequal water distribution that grant him additional water immediately.
I'm sure no one saw this coming because alignment is usually so clear-cut and simple ([/sarcasm]), but I disagree with that description, on many small points, but the biggest is because my chaotic-good character would act as dark sun describes lawful good behavior.
(Other common things I notice is that it seems to shoehorn "chaotic" into "selfish" and "neutral" into "shortsighted"...)It wouldn't be so bad if it didn't insist that characters of those alignments will act as described there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the end, I'd just be curious if or how they'd explain the sudden shift. Were these chaotic-good paladins of Caiden (or Lawful Evil non-Antipaladin-Archetype Paladins of Asmodeus) always there and just never noticed, or did they suddenly show up?
Clearly they were hidden away on goblin island retraining goblins to be good so they could enter society. :P
Seriously, are common/core goblins a bigger shift than CG paladins? ;)
In the end, I'd just be curious if or how they'd explain the sudden shift. Were these chaotic-good paladins of Caiden (or Lawful Evil non-Antipaladin-Archetype Paladins of Asmodeus) always there and just never noticed, or did they suddenly show up?
If we include prestige classes and archetypes (Anti-Paladin, Grey Paladins, Hell Knights,...), I think we have most alignments covered at this point, so it's hard for me to imagine that the alignments restrictions won't at least loosen up to some degree.
To me, Paladins always felt at home on the lawful-axis, because their code of conduct is their prominent feature from a narrative angle. But I could also see people arguing for Smite Evil as their most iconic feature, which would put them more on the good-axis, so I guess it comes down to what people prioritise the most about certain classes.