| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that's not what I'm saying at all. It has nothing to do with "the perfect and difficult LG" or being superior. As I mentioned, that's not how I've EVER seen it played. Seems to me you want a sack of stats without paying the roleplaying price. A holy knight (or maybe a better term...But my problem with that is that you want the mechanics but not the flavor. That's cherrypicking. If I said "I want to play a monk who's lazy and never practiced, I just sit on the couch and have cool monk abilities"... that doesn't make sense. Seems like people want the benefits of being a holy knight without actually being a holy knight. Paladins get their abilities BECAUSE they are LG.I think "go and play a Warpriest" is scalling quickly as my most hated sentence on this forums. If Warpriest had 4 spell levels and the necessary full BAB, maybe. As is, Warpriest has nothing mecanically on common with paladin.
As an exemple, recently I made a character whose 3 central points where...
- Highly religious, and with good standing on her religion, even chosen by her deity.
- Centered on being the very best with her weapon.
- The deity was CN.
Finally, I had to take antipaladin and made the character CE. I vastly had prefered some CN holy warrior. But no, CN has not that right. And please...no more "play warpriest", please.I do not want a "knight on shinning armor, a guide to all" of any alignment. I just want a full-BAB class (or equivalent warrior style, now with no BAB) with some divine powers from the deity. Is that too much to ask?
Edit: Normally I say that I find that the only alignment restriction with some kind of sense is the Paladin. But anytime I see more and more "only the perfect and difficult LG has the right to have divine warriors. The rest, inferior alignment are unworthy". That, or tradition for its own sake.
That kind of arguments, to me at least, only put me on "no alignment restrictions" more and more.
Oh, I'm not saying that the paladin player sees itself as superior. I am saying that the forum users that defend that position see LG as superior to all others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simple as that. I'll find another game. There were games before Pathfinder, there will be games after Pathfinder. You're the one asking to change something to suit you, I'm only asking things to be kept as they are.
But really why?
Especially in your home game with friends.If mechanics of PF2 suits you, and some changes of Golarion lore not... why not play mechanics and tweak setting to your likening.
Why do you need Jacobs, Mona and Stevens agreement to how play Pathfinder properly.
Not really - Mine isn't a psychological issue, it is simply an issue of the following:
You said it would make you physiologically sick.
I can name at least 20 players who would disagree with you, whom love when I show up, and who's characters are only still around due to my Paladin. So... I'm sure they would miss me terribly.
I'm sure they will refuse to play non-LG paladins when playing with you if they like you so much.
And with 20 players it seems you should be able to complete PFS table without caring about some lore-neutral barbarians wanting to play paladins of Pharamsa, huh?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno about the "Power of the Paladin is balanced by their strict conduct" is that good of an argument, i mean you basically can lose Your Powers by the drop of a GMs hat for something that is subjective opinion. Though Paladins are powerful they are still outclassed by a lot of other classes with far less extensive means of keeping their Powers or have no conduct to adhere to.
Agreed again. It's not like Paladins are mechanically superior to all other classes, and so they need the balancing measure that is their code of conduct.
The code is there because it makes sense, it's part of the Paladin class just like ill temper is part of the Barbarian.
So, different alignment/deity = different (but equally harsh) code.
Well, they were originally designed to be overpowered, but the code kept them from getting out of control and was more strict (Couldn't save up money or gear). Just read the Complete Paladin's Handbook and it has 30 pages of the entire code in full detail, including optional stuff depending on your type of paladin (yes, there's more than 1 type!)
Speaking of the Full BAB warrior with powers from their deity. Have you considered the Prestige Class that does this? It's called like... Sentinel (Inner Sea Gods) or something, though it doesn't get normal spellcasting it does get different powers for EACH DEITY (No 2 are the same, even with same alignment).
|
Why? Not all Chaotic forces in the world are infiltrators trying to bring down Lawful regimes from the inside.My evidence for this is that people who want to make chaotic good paladins a thing often talk about it as though it were an act of inclusion, like there's some class of lawful good challenged people finally being allowed to indulge in one of the game's classes from which they had previously been unfairly excluded, like this were the equivalent of building a wheelchair ramp.I've played LG, I've played Paladins. It's fun in its own way, but CG is more my style. I don't see why I can't be a CG Holy Crusader of say Milani. Granted Warpriest fills that role, but how long did it take for us to get a class that does? Besides the Warpriest is basically a redesigned Paladin that doesn't have to be LG. So why not make Warpriest default and call the Paladin what it should be: a subclass of Warpriest.You should, but that class should be flavored around subterfuge, protection, and subversion of more powerful forces. The lawful good Paladin we have is flavored around supporting one's allies, taking blows for them, and healing.
The essence of chaotic good is just more like a rogue than a tank. A chaotic good Rogue/Paladin hybrid would be a wonderful thing that I would love to see in the game.
Not all of them are, but disproportionally many of them are going to be, and even those who just act like Knights errant or something are still frequently going to subvert lawful orders around them. The tools most useful for doing that or not necessarily the tools most useful for seeking out and smiting less entrenched forms of evil.
Having them be Rogues is just one idea. What is kind of important to me is that their abilities reflect the alignment they have.
I feel a lot about how a Chaotic character would happily break in somewhere, lie, or forge documents, or cheat in a competition assuming that the ends can justify the means.
So if we had a Chaotic Paladin, they should not be doing any of that- but in what meaningful sense is that person (who follows all the rules and norms, even when it's inconvenient) be chaotic?
Like if you wanted to play "stick it to the man- viva la revolution" Paladins, you can probably still do it at LG if you want to investigate the line between legitimate and illegitimate authority.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that's not what I'm saying at all. It has nothing to do with "the perfect and difficult LG" or being superior. As I mentioned, that's not how I've EVER seen it played. Seems to me you want a sack of stats without paying the roleplaying price. A holy knight (or maybe a better term...But my problem with that is that you want the mechanics but not the flavor. That's cherrypicking. If I said "I want to play a monk who's lazy and never practiced, I just sit on the couch and have cool monk abilities"... that doesn't make sense. Seems like people want the benefits of being a holy knight without actually being a holy knight. Paladins get their abilities BECAUSE they are LG.I think "go and play a Warpriest" is scalling quickly as my most hated sentence on this forums. If Warpriest had 4 spell levels and the necessary full BAB, maybe. As is, Warpriest has nothing mecanically on common with paladin.
As an exemple, recently I made a character whose 3 central points where...
- Highly religious, and with good standing on her religion, even chosen by her deity.
- Centered on being the very best with her weapon.
- The deity was CN.
Finally, I had to take antipaladin and made the character CE. I vastly had prefered some CN holy warrior. But no, CN has not that right. And please...no more "play warpriest", please.I do not want a "knight on shinning armor, a guide to all" of any alignment. I just want a full-BAB class (or equivalent warrior style, now with no BAB) with some divine powers from the deity. Is that too much to ask?
Edit: Normally I say that I find that the only alignment restriction with some kind of sense is the Paladin. But anytime I see more and more "only the perfect and difficult LG has the right to have divine warriors. The rest, inferior alignment are unworthy". That, or tradition for its own sake.
That kind of arguments, to me at least, only put me on "no alignment restrictions" more and more.
There is no contradiction between 'an unyielding exemplar of my beliefs' and 'Chaotic Good', nor does the Paladin have any abilities which are thematically inconsistent with Chaos.
Well as per dev comments, PF2 is heading toward the direction of PF being about Golarion rather than semi-generic fantasy chassis so that's a thing.
I understand it more like - there will be examples in core books based on Golarion, than - we're gonna strictly bound two together. Which was done before - 3 edition rulebooks while setting neutral often have adnotations and examples from world of Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms, and I'm not even sure if later Bestiaries didn't reach Eberron data.
I highly doubt the mechanics are going to end up as tightly bound to the setting like the 40k RPs, or Shadowrun, or Legend of the Five Rings but Paizo is pretty obviously making a push for the game to be identified with its core setting with all the baggage that entails.
Considering they are still bound to basic D&D rules and concepts... I do not see it... possible really.
You're right that Golarion is basically a dyed in the wool theme-park setting that makes virtually no sense when looked at with any form scrutiny but it's still a setting and (in Paizo's eyes) is worth enough to people to market it more strongly in their new edition.
Sure but then there's question if this theme-=park sensibility will really allow for bound mechanics.
Having them be Rogues is just one idea. What is kind of important to me is that their abilities reflect the alignment they have.
TBH I'd do it like this.
For any alignment or deity or at least four alignments (I'd gladly dump AL cosmic powers with their vague dilluted philosophies and make it just God-champions, but it probably won't happen) from a corners... you've got three types of Champion: Crusader, Defender and Avenger.First is bound to actively spread cause - and his specific abilities are more like warlord like, second is tanking knight type bound to defend something valuable, third is assasin-like hunter of enemies and traitors.
clearly basic paladin will be LG defender
now there are magic abilities which are based on alignment - like mercies for LG, some tyranny mind-control for LE, all kind of plagues and hurting for CE, and some freedom based powers for CG
I think whether you're more tank champion or rogue champion should be indifferent from alignment - although probably obviously LG would have much more defenders, while CG much more avengers than other types.
But then you can have avenging champion of Erastil, as Holly Hunter type... or Defender of Desna bound by oath to protect travelers on some dangerous tracts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone else see chaotic characters with a strict code as an oxymoron? Let's have a game with some logical consistency.I mentioned this earlier, but as was pointed out to me, Chaotic Cavaliers with strict codes is a thing. Any argument from a consistency standpoint left a long time ago.
The Antipaladin has been officially released, and does have a code of conduct though it's more oriented towards evil than chaos.
Depending on the deity, chaos could be seen as freedom, wanderlust or anarchy. I'm sure that a more creative developer than me could write interesting codes of conduct for each case.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone else see chaotic characters with a strict code as an oxymoron? Let's have a game with some logical consistency.
No... w don't. We have quite lot of devotion and discipline on Chaotic Side.
Go and tell Gorum as his priest - that you could totally bailed of and run from a field of battle because no code of condu... oh SMITE,.
I don't see anything in the Paladin's code prohibiting him from lying to accomplish his goals (while in the act of opposong known evil anyway. Outside that context you might run into honor/alignment issues) or cheating in a competition (again, for The Cause)
"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."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hrm. I reckon of your three player types, I'm definitely shackled sternly into Narrative. I'm a HUGE fan of the lore of Golarion, all my characters are from pre-existing places, I research anything that may matter to my character extensively before creating them, and I give my players the resources to do the same.
However, I disagree entirely with why 2e is bad for Narrative players. If anything, it's giving us /new/ lore to play with, new ways to expand the world that was getting a little stale. I think it's fantastic that Goblins are a player race (I know, shame on me), because it means that the Golarion of 2e has, pardon the buzz word, evolved from the Golarion of 1e. While once, Goblins were evil little buggers, they've now had their race expanded on: yes, there's the baby eating freakazoids from 1e still roaming, but we know now that there are also some decently good hearted ones. It's not a /retcon/, but an expansion. It stays true to the lore of 1e in some places, but gives us more lore to play with in others. In total, it allows us something big: it allows us flexibility with our storytelling, not just our mechanics. And honestly, I think that's an improvement of the Golarion of old. Same can be said for neutral Paladins- I've always thought that should you be within one step of your deity, like a Cleric, you should be able to be a Paladin- and fingers crossed, this is something they'll do for 2e, and again, it'll allow us to do things with our stories we couldn't do before.
In total, I reckon you've made this big rift between Narrative and Agency, but the truth is- Narrative players, myself included, can do with some Agency sometimes too.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"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."
You know, I reckon that a Liberator's code would be very similar.
She would even swear to respect legitmate authority... starting from the very moment that she encountered any.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds more like intimidation and fear to me than devotion and discipline to a code of conduct
It is a code of conduct. One that Gorum put forth to his followers that might makes right and weakness is to be derided and ignored.
All clerics by definition follow a code of conduct. It's just that the code itself is left up to the gm so writers don't have to write a new one for literally every god.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Think the lawful thing comes from Paladins supporting all legitimate governments and working with authorities for the good of society. Old timey Paladins were more closely tied to feudal "Knights" that worked closely with their lords and would own lands and stuff. It's not just about the code.
CE Antipaladin, however, understands only power and fear. His minions are practically slaves and their relationship with their patron has a different dynamic. They will question authority and try and destroy it so they can have the power instead.
Codes of conduct have nothing to do with any alignment intrinsically, only by their content.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I certainly do not envy the good people on Paizo who must write the Paladin. Whatever they do, many people will be very disappointed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Think the lawful thing comes from Paladins supporting all legitimate governments and working with authorities for the good of society. Old timey Paladins were more closely tied to feudal "Knights" that worked closely with their lords and would own lands and stuff. It's not just about the code.The issue is a NG paladin could do that as well, they just might at point commit chaotic acts (like setting the bbeg house on fire after getting everyone out of it). Note that the paladin code of conduct only calls for the paladin to be a bastion of good.
2E book had a good example for this:
A Palaidn pledged his service to a Lord (LG). The lord then later decides to wage war on the Paladin's home village. Then the paladin would be obligated to participate in this attack and treat even old friends as enemies. Granted, he's not obligated to kill anyone in this case, but if his lord is LG, he can't betray them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope the pally goes any good and the blackguard antipally goes any evil. I could swallow that as a guy in the pally is LG camp. To me the pally never should have been a full blown class and certainly didnt belong in core. That cat aint going back in the bag though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the difference between "a code of conduct" and "lawful" is that a person can follow a code of conduct purely because they promised they would and they are unwilling to break said promise because of their belief in themselves. A la "nothing else is important and nobody else is trustworthy, but I said I would so I will."
Whereas the Paladin as lawful good exemplar is someone who keeps their word and follows a code *because* they believe things like social order, norms, mutually beneficial community structures, rules that apply equally to the powerful and the powerless, legitimate authority which is responsive to and protects the defenseless, etc.
Personally I would view "the rules apply to everyone equally" as lawful and "the rules apply to some people more than others" as chaotic. Since laws, norms, and rules are (at least should be) what protects people without power from being exploited by the powerful- this is specifically the danger of a chaotic state.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just give paladins the cleric's code of conduct. The 1E paladin's mechanics aren't any better than a cleric's, and balancing mechanics with role playing is folly anyway.
In addition, the 1E paladin's mechanics are good, not lawful, and the anti-paladin's mechanics are evil, not chaotic. At the very least, the two classes should be opened up into any good/evil, if new abilities aren't going to be made for the law and chaos side.
There is no reason for there to be 9 base classes exemplifying a specific alignment, especially if they are all divine warriors. We don't have a different base class for illusionist, necromancer, evoker, abjurist, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I would view "the rules apply to everyone equally" as lawful and "the rules apply to some people more than others" as chaotic. Since laws, norms, and rules are (at least should be) what protects people without power from being exploited by the powerful- this is specifically the danger of a chaotic state.
By that logic the most tyrannical state of affairs is the most Chaotic one.
Alignment, ladies and gentlemen!
That sounds more like intimidation and fear to me than devotion and discipline to a code of conduct
Those elements are not mutually exclusive.
Gorum or his equivalent Tempus in FR code of conduct is barbarian warrior's honor.It's clearly a code. Chaotic - because it's based on self-worth, not on overal structure.
You know, I reckon that a Liberator's code would be very similar.
She would even swear to respect legitmate authority... starting from the very moment that she encountered any.
Hard to do when your core class ability is Smite Authority.
CE Antipaladin, however, understands only power and fear. His minions are practically slaves and their relationship with their patron has a different dynamic. They will question authority and try and destroy it so they can have the power instead.
But then we have lot of CE demon worshippers and antipaladins who are truly devoted to their demonic patrons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have heard of anti-paladins. My understanding is that they start out as paladins, fall, do not seek redemption and turn to evil.
"Antipaladins become the antithesis of their former selves." PFSRD
At their core they are still being defined by their lawful good roots. Despite their (possibly deep) unstable and evil veneer. That's why characters like Darth Vader still have the potential for redemption.
I do not remember any antipaladin villains in various stories that would be fallen paladins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Myself I favor all 9 or 8 of 9 (I can see a reasonable argument to exclude True Neutral
Depends on deity - I can clearly see Pharasma could have undead hunter champions.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on deity - I can clearly see Pharasma could have undead hunter champions.Myself I favor all 9 or 8 of 9 (I can see a reasonable argument to exclude True Neutral
Nature champions of Gozreh (protecting the wilds and wilderness creatures and people who make their living by the wilds) and arcane champions of Nethys (promoting and defending arcane magic and arcanists) seem as viable.
Really, there's no in-game reason for pretty much any god that has clerics, inquisitors, etc. to not also have 'holy warriors.'
It's just a sacred cow that only the LG gods get a core class of holy warriors.
And, much like in 3.X, where the Blackguard was a Prestige Class was a rare honor that one had to earn, and Paladin was a base class that any schmoe could take (suggesting that evil had standards, and good did not), in Golarion, the Hellknight is a Prestige Class, only available to those who prove their worth to champion the cause, while Paladins are no more 'prestigious' or special than Rogues or Fighters (or Commoners or Experts).
It's a weird sort of flavor/mechanics mismatch, IMO, like Dwarves, a generally good PC race, having racial traits like Greed and Hatred, while more generally evil races, like Gnolls and Hobgoblins, do *not* have racial traits named after the seven deadly sins. :)