Can a Paladin follow its deity's code without being LG?


Prerelease Discussion

201 to 250 of 280 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Why can't you just play your NG character as CG? I find that there's almost no practical difference between these alignments. Both are just "do good, and follow the rules when it suits you."

I don't really find enough contrast on the law/chaos axis to really justify delineating three distinct good alignments period, since it's really just a continuum between "Follows rules, values institutions" to "does not follow rules, devalues institutions." I assert that any NG character could be played as CG or LG depending on which extreme of that spectrum they are closest to.

cause I'd have someone tell me I was playing the alignment wrong.

think I had hwalsh do that to me when I said my LG paladin have a NG outlook.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I honestly really like the 4e alignment system where you basically had "principled good" and "generic good" (also "principled neutrality" and "DGAF neutrality" as well as "evil you could maybe reason with" and "evil you absolutely cannot reason with.").

Paladins should honestly only belong to principled versions of alignments.

You can be principled without being reasonable, and vice versa.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Why can't you just play your NG character as CG? I find that there's almost no practical difference between these alignments. Both are just "do good, and follow the rules when it suits you."

Ah, that's a shame, as that is what neither is really about. There is lots of good information about the difference between alignments out there, but it seems alignment is more of a love or hate sort of thing.


Chest Rockwell wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Why can't you just play your NG character as CG? I find that there's almost no practical difference between these alignments. Both are just "do good, and follow the rules when it suits you."
Ah, that's a shame, as that is what neither is really about. There is lots of good information about the difference between alignments out there, but it seems alignment is more of a love or hate sort of thing.

this is true


The Raven Black wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:
unfortunately Ryan , that is just you and is the problem. its the problem with everything... it is just someone( whether its you, me, or someone else)

No the problem is that there are people who are bent out of shape that alignment exists at all, so they continually create disingenuous threads attacking anything that uses it rather than simply playing games that don't use it, or being ok with the idea that it can be modified out, to the point that they'd rather have absolutely generic base classes representing divine champions rather than classes that fit the deity.

But that's just it. YOU can make that call for YOU in YOUR gaming group. And there should be no obstacles infringing on your ability to make that call how you see fit for the gaming group that IS your purview. And simple courtesy says we get that same call for what's in our purview AND the same lack of obstacles. And that is exactly and only what the exclusivity adds: it doesn't bolster how you play your Paladin (since you can already play your Paladin the way you see fit), it limits everyone else.
People who care about the exclusivity have said repeatedly why and it has never been just so that other people cannot have what they want

Intended or not, it's what comes across. Yeah, it's all about world-building or legacy or some such. It still comes with "Hey, Timmy, you're going to have to take a master class at negotiating to play the character you want to play because someone several states over would be bothered by that sort of character being freely available". I don't care that your goal isn't stymieing another player; I care that said stymieing is occurring, period. Especially when said stymieing would not be occurring in the reverse were Paladins any alignment (or do you want to tell me about how the "dismantling" of the "humans only" restriction has completely prevented you from playing a human Paladin?). And I just don't have it in me to consider any world-building or legacy in combination with that sort of stymieing as having any kind of net positive.

Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Tectorman wrote:


After all, except for the RA and the SP, you keep EVERYTHING the P2E Paladin class has when you "fall", and therefore, ALL of those other class features ARE the class features of the not-LG Paladin. We already, right now, this very minute, have in print (or will have in print once it's printed) 95% of the not-LG Paladin. And it DOES use that much of the same chassis as the LG Paladin.
I'm not sure you understand how much the 2e Paladin loses when he falls... Spell points effect all your Lay on Hands abilities. So no healing of any kind. (including Mercies) Spell points effect Litanies as well or anything else that's "Magicky". Righteous Ally has a feat tree attached to it that you can choose but that could potentially be 3 good feats to lose. Not forgetting the sweet bonus to your Mount, Shield, or Weapon. That's 4 out of 12 class abilities (that we know of) and around 14 feats. So yeah, falling effects more than 5% of the Paladin.

That's why I phrased the bolded how I did.

Tectorman wrote:
Champion of Caiden IS Paladin minus "Righteous Ally" and "Spell Points" plus "something replacing Righteous Ally" and "something replacing Spell Points (or keeping the Spell Points and tweaking what they can be spent on)".

You say that like it's some major undertaking. It'd be like if Clerics back in P1E were non-evil only and had the ability to channel positive energy and spontaneously cast Cure spells, with the developers scratching their heads wondering where they'd even start with making an evil Cleric, when such a hypothetical situation (and indeed, how P1E actually has it) is resolved by nothing more than changing the channel positive to channel negative and spontaneously casting Inflict spells instead of Cure spells.

Except it's even easier here, given how modular and exchangeable all the various classes' class features are supposed to be. If Pathfinder has ever been geared towards making class features easily swappable, it's more so here.

Voss wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Hmm I think we need two different threads for this. one for people with Extreme uncompromising views and one for people more casually open to compromise and change.

I say this because I read people trying to work out something reasonable and the interests me then I see some people Hard balling it and I just want to ignore the thread and let them argue at different walls.

I actually feel fairly neutral about the whole time. As long as the OG paladin remains an option to play I'm fine.

You aren't going to get that here with any thread about paladins. Many with the uncompromising views feel any openness to compromise and change is in itself an extreme view.

Tell me about it. I'm here with the extremely reasonable view that, as a game, as a Saturday afternoon diversion meant to be enjoyed and anticipated, a player should be able to default to "no worries/has nothing hanging over his head", no matter what class happens to catch his interest. That in the Venn Diagram of "Players that enjoy the Barbarian class" and "Players that don't want something hanging over their head", there will be and must be overlap. God bless them, that's why the developers put in the Fury totem. I wish they'd made "totems that don't put things hanging over the player's head" as the default rather than the exception, but at least they recognize "not wanting something hanging over their head" as a valid concern amongst players of Barbarian characters. Except that it's not just players of Barbarian characters, it's also Alchemists and Fighters and Rogues and Rangers and Wizards and Monks. And every other class in the CRB. And every other class yet to be printed for P2E. And yes, that does include the Paladin.

And on the other hand, we have people bothered by just the idea that someone out there is playing his Paladin character his way, without something hanging over his head, and he might not have to move freaking Heaven and Earth to do so. Oh, shocker, crime, and scandal!


oh Life is a frikkin scandal.... isnt it a shocker...

sorry I couldnt resist saying that.

move on.

ok Im not that sorry


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:

Tell me about it. I'm here with the extremely reasonable view that, as a game, as a Saturday afternoon diversion meant to be enjoyed and anticipated, a player should be able to default to "no worries/has nothing hanging over his head", no matter what class happens to catch his interest. That in the Venn Diagram of "Players that enjoy the Barbarian class" and "Players that don't want something hanging over their head", there will be and must be overlap. God bless them, that's why the developers put in the Fury totem. I wish they'd made "totems that don't put things hanging over the player's head" as the default rather than the exception, but at least they recognize "not wanting something hanging over their head" as a valid concern amongst players of Barbarian characters. Except that it's not just players of Barbarian characters, it's also Alchemists and Fighters and Rogues and Rangers and Wizards and Monks. And every other class in the CRB. And every other class yet to be printed for P2E. And yes, that does include the Paladin.

And on the other hand, we have people bothered by just the idea that someone out there is playing his Paladin character his way, without something hanging over his head, and he might not have to move freaking Heaven and Earth to do so. Oh, shocker, crime, and scandal!

Some view it as a role-playing tool and flavour, not "something hanging over them". Some people like restrictions on their character's behaviour, can be more immersive, the extreme opposite being the CN, carte blanche to excuse any behaviour character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The extreme and irrelevant opposite, bordering an a very silly strawman. Some just like coming up with their own restrictions that are relevant to the character in question, not just given a set of set of dictates that must be adhered to. Whether or not its appropriate or relevant to the campaign or group.

Others don't feel like armor mastery and battling their ideological enemies is somehow inexplicably the sole purview of one particular alignment, or any alignment at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
The extreme and irrelevant opposite, bordering an a very silly straw-man.

Defensiveness is not an excuse to incorrectly and inappropriately throw out the straw-man garbage.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Malachandra wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
And as it stands now (in PF1), the any alignment "divine champion" character is very doable.

I think this is the big problem a lot of people are having. Yes it can be done already in PF1, with many of those options being a Paladin so your flavour is already diluted, but that shouldn't have any bearing in PF2E. How long do other players wait to get to play what they want in PF2E? 1 year, 2 years, maybe never because it hasn't been promised? How long do you think they should wait for something to come out that for all intents and purposes just removes LG from the Paladin page. This is why it hurts them.

Some good points here. I don't see alternate classes or archetypes as diluting the paladin's flavor. That's why I'm so big on the "4 corners" compromise. It opens the class up while still keeping the flavor. That said, I am also open to other compromises. I could make the Paladin a prestige class, or even wait a book for it. In either case, that would open up design space for a Warpriest class in Core.

That said, I don't think taking flavor away from a class fixes the problem of people having to wait. It just makes the problem worse, because now people like me will never get the class they want.

Malk_Content wrote:
And the flavour can still be 100% there. The LG Paladin can have the exact same restrictions and code as it does now while still letting others play with it.
Not gonna lie, seeing this come up over and over is a little frustrating. There seems to be this idea that making all classes universal and modular can only improve them. But it doesn't. Taking away flavor hurts the class for some players. Again, it doesn't matter if I can play the one, universal race and pretend it's a dwarf, there would no longer be a dwarf race. It's not the same thing. And even if we can't understand why I feel that way, can we at least stop trying to explain to me how making a class more bland doesn't take away my...

how do the genocidal serial rapists of Charlemagne have anything to do with LG?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Tectorman wrote:

Tell me about it. I'm here with the extremely reasonable view that, as a game, as a Saturday afternoon diversion meant to be enjoyed and anticipated, a player should be able to default to "no worries/has nothing hanging over his head", no matter what class happens to catch his interest. That in the Venn Diagram of "Players that enjoy the Barbarian class" and "Players that don't want something hanging over their head", there will be and must be overlap. God bless them, that's why the developers put in the Fury totem. I wish they'd made "totems that don't put things hanging over the player's head" as the default rather than the exception, but at least they recognize "not wanting something hanging over their head" as a valid concern amongst players of Barbarian characters. Except that it's not just players of Barbarian characters, it's also Alchemists and Fighters and Rogues and Rangers and Wizards and Monks. And every other class in the CRB. And every other class yet to be printed for P2E. And yes, that does include the Paladin.

And on the other hand, we have people bothered by just the idea that someone out there is playing his Paladin character his way, without something hanging over his head, and he might not have to move freaking Heaven and Earth to do so. Oh, shocker, crime, and scandal!

Some view it as a role-playing tool and flavour, not "something hanging over them". Some people like restrictions on their character's behaviour, can be more immersive, the extreme opposite being the CN, carte blanche to excuse any behaviour character.

and for their character that is fine, telling us 'all other deities are so weak and pathetic they cannot have champions' because 'legacy' isn't just your character, it's obliterating the very idea of war gods empowering their followers, of the god of boozy swashbucklers granting his power to people who please him..they are somehow not strong enough to do so (or to stupid to see how crushingly powerful an advantage paladins are, to the extent that a temple without them would get their faces kicked off by one with, in any confrontation) but no, our divine champions are invalid because LG is best and smartest alignment.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I honestly think that it is a deep misunderstanding of the LG-only Paladin crowd to believe that they think LG is the best or truest Good

I think it misses their point completely and thus is not useful, but rather damaging, in trying to find common understanding and palatable compromises


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:

I honestly think that it is a deep misunderstanding of the LG-only Paladin crowd to believe that they think LG is the best or truest Good

I think it misses their point completely and thus is not useful, but rather damaging, in trying to find common understanding and palatable compromises

then the defence of LG only should stop being LG is the only alignment capable/worthy of having paladins, because whether you realize it or not, that argument sounds exactly like LG best and smartest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
And as it stands now (in PF1), the any alignment "divine champion" character is very doable.

I think this is the big problem a lot of people are having. Yes it can be done already in PF1, with many of those options being a Paladin so your flavour is already diluted, but that shouldn't have any bearing in PF2E. How long do other players wait to get to play what they want in PF2E? 1 year, 2 years, maybe never because it hasn't been promised? How long do you think they should wait for something to come out that for all intents and purposes just removes LG from the Paladin page. This is why it hurts them.

Some good points here. I don't see alternate classes or archetypes as diluting the paladin's flavor. That's why I'm so big on the "4 corners" compromise. It opens the class up while still keeping the flavor. That said, I am also open to other compromises. I could make the Paladin a prestige class, or even wait a book for it. In either case, that would open up design space for a Warpriest class in Core.

That said, I don't think taking flavor away from a class fixes the problem of people having to wait. It just makes the problem worse, because now people like me will never get the class they want.

Malk_Content wrote:
And the flavour can still be 100% there. The LG Paladin can have the exact same restrictions and code as it does now while still letting others play with it.
Not gonna lie, seeing this come up over and over is a little frustrating. There seems to be this idea that making all classes universal and modular can only improve them. But it doesn't. Taking away flavor hurts the class for some players. Again, it doesn't matter if I can play the one, universal race and pretend it's a dwarf, there would no longer be a dwarf race. It's not the same thing. And even if we can't understand why I feel that way, can we at least stop trying to explain to me how making a class
how do the genocidal serial rapists of Charlemagne have anything to do with LG?

What are you even talking about? Where did I mention Charlemagne? This post is a Red Herring, and has nothing to do with anything I said.

Rob Godfrey wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I honestly think that it is a deep misunderstanding of the LG-only Paladin crowd to believe that they think LG is the best or truest Good

I think it misses their point completely and thus is not useful, but rather damaging, in trying to find common understanding and palatable compromises

then the defence of LG only should stop being LG is the only alignment capable/worthy of having paladins, because whether you realize it or not, that argument sounds exactly like LG best and smartest.

This is your own personal issues with alignment and the class talking, and is not based on what anyone in the LG-only crowd has said. It kind of feels like when you read our posts, you hear only what you expect to hear and not actually what we are saying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:
unfortunately Ryan , that is just you and is the problem. its the problem with everything... it is just someone( whether its you, me, or someone else)

No the problem is that there are people who are bent out of shape that alignment exists at all, so they continually create disingenuous threads attacking anything that uses it rather than simply playing games that don't use it, or being ok with the idea that it can be modified out, to the point that they'd rather have absolutely generic base classes representing divine champions rather than classes that fit the deity.

But that's just it. YOU can make that call for YOU in YOUR gaming group. And there should be no obstacles infringing on your ability to make that call how you see fit for the gaming group that IS your purview. And simple courtesy says we get that same call for what's in our purview AND the same lack of obstacles. And that is exactly and only what the exclusivity adds: it doesn't bolster how you play your Paladin (since you can already play your Paladin the way you see fit), it limits everyone else.
People who care about the exclusivity have said repeatedly why and it has never been just so that other people cannot have what they want
Intended or not, it's what comes across. Yeah, it's all about world-building or legacy or some such. It still comes with "Hey, Timmy, you're going to have to take a master class at negotiating to play the character you want to play because someone several states over would be bothered by that sort of character being freely available". I don't care that your goal isn't stymieing another player; I care that said stymieing is occurring, period. Especially when said stymieing would not be occurring in the reverse were Paladins any alignment (or do you want to tell me about how the "dismantling" of the "humans only" restriction has completely prevented you from playing a human Paladin?). And I just don't have it in me to consider any world-building or legacy in combination with that sort of stymieing as having any kind of net positive.

The bolded tells me you're not really listening. Taking away the restriction does in fact stymie my ability to make my character. I know you don't understand that, but it's pretty disingenuous to continually tell me that my motivations are in fact that I get sadistic glee out of taking away other people's options. You seem to be on the far end of the "in-rules flavor" spectrum, but at some point you should probably accept that not everyone agrees with you, and that other people are allowed to be at the other end of the spectrum. Letting people play any character they want is an important part of the game. But it isn't the only consideration.

But hey, if you really care about adding options and opening up new character types, care to comment on the plethora of compromises the LG-only crowd has offered up?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:
But hey, if you really care about adding options and opening up new character types, care to comment on the plethora of compromises the LG-only crowd has offered up?

You mean the ones that boil down to "Shut up and hope you get thrown a bone at some point in the next 10 years"? Or maybe the "Settle with a weakened piece of trash". Or of course there's the ever classic case of just "Shut up and play another class", such a great compromise.

Because, quite frankly, a vast majority of the "compromises" I've seen from the LG side have been "we get our option in core, and maybe other options come out down the line, that might, maybe, be worth playing."

EDIT: And yes, some people aren't that way. But that's the majority I've seen.

Dark Archive

I think Charlemagne got mentioned because Paladin as term means(well it comes from similar latin word) "Servant, government official" as it was term Charlemagne's foremost warriors were referred as


Shinigami02 wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
But hey, if you really care about adding options and opening up new character types, care to comment on the plethora of compromises the LG-only crowd has offered up?

You mean the ones that boil down to "Shut up and hope you get thrown a bone at some point in the next 10 years"? Or maybe the "Settle with a weakened piece of trash". Or of course there's the ever classic case of just "Shut up and play another class", such a great compromise.

Because, quite frankly, a vast majority of the "compromises" I've seen from the LG side have been "we get our option in core, and maybe other options come out down the line, that might, maybe, be worth playing."

EDIT: And yes, some people aren't that way. But that's the majority I've seen.

Well, you could just look up thread for a good compromise. Or you could go here (and next few posts). I mean, how much clearer can I get that I would like to see equally powerful but flavor-fully different sub-classes right from Core? Short of me saying "I guess I'll just ignore what I want and defer entirely to you, sacrificing my character so I can never play it again" what more do you want?

That said, I'm not seeing your "vast majority". What I am seeing is that the only ones who are offering up compromises right now are the LG-only crowd. With the exception of Malk_Content, the only ones who are even accepting the validity of the other sides' opinions right now are the LG-only crowd.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Malachandra wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
And as it stands now (in PF1), the any alignment "divine champion" character is very doable.

I think this is the big problem a lot of people are having. Yes it can be done already in PF1, with many of those options being a Paladin so your flavour is already diluted, but that shouldn't have any bearing in PF2E. How long do other players wait to get to play what they want in PF2E? 1 year, 2 years, maybe never because it hasn't been promised? How long do you think they should wait for something to come out that for all intents and purposes just removes LG from the Paladin page. This is why it hurts them.

Some good points here. I don't see alternate classes or archetypes as diluting the paladin's flavor. That's why I'm so big on the "4 corners" compromise. It opens the class up while still keeping the flavor. That said, I am also open to other compromises. I could make the Paladin a prestige class, or even wait a book for it. In either case, that would open up design space for a Warpriest class in Core.

That said, I don't think taking flavor away from a class fixes the problem of people having to wait. It just makes the problem worse, because now people like me will never get the class they want.

Malk_Content wrote:
And the flavour can still be 100% there. The LG Paladin can have the exact same restrictions and code as it does now while still letting others play with it.
Not gonna lie, seeing this come up over and over is a little frustrating. There seems to be this idea that making all classes universal and modular can only improve them. But it doesn't. Taking away flavor hurts the class for some players. Again, it doesn't matter if I can play the one, universal race and pretend it's a dwarf, there would no longer be a dwarf race. It's not the same thing. And even if we can't understand why I feel that way, can we at least stop trying to
...

You mentioned the Paladins of European Myth, who were the Companions of Charlemagne, who he rewarded with sex slaves taken from massacred cities....which was viewed as the perfect embodiment of law and good at the time I grant. As to the origin of the word, it was probably Palatine, for the Scholae Palatinus of Constantine, an elite guard and enforcement squad for the Emperor, with Charlemagne using the title for his goon squad, and translations and repeated copying by scribes turning it to Paladin.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
And as it stands now (in PF1), the any alignment "divine champion" character is very doable.

I think this is the big problem a lot of people are having. Yes it can be done already in PF1, with many of those options being a Paladin so your flavour is already diluted, but that shouldn't have any bearing in PF2E. How long do other players wait to get to play what they want in PF2E? 1 year, 2 years, maybe never because it hasn't been promised? How long do you think they should wait for something to come out that for all intents and purposes just removes LG from the Paladin page. This is why it hurts them.

Some good points here. I don't see alternate classes or archetypes as diluting the paladin's flavor. That's why I'm so big on the "4 corners" compromise. It opens the class up while still keeping the flavor. That said, I am also open to other compromises. I could make the Paladin a prestige class, or even wait a book for it. In either case, that would open up design space for a Warpriest class in Core.

That said, I don't think taking flavor away from a class fixes the problem of people having to wait. It just makes the problem worse, because now people like me will never get the class they want.

Malk_Content wrote:
And the flavour can still be 100% there. The LG Paladin can have the exact same restrictions and code as it does now while still letting others play with it.
Not gonna lie, seeing this come up over and over is a little frustrating. There seems to be this idea that making all classes universal and modular can only improve them. But it doesn't. Taking away flavor hurts the class for some players. Again, it doesn't matter if I can play the one, universal race and pretend it's a dwarf, there would no longer be a dwarf race. It's not the same thing. And even if we can't understand why I feel that way, can
...

The only times I ever mention the origin of the Paladin idea I explicitly call out the Round Table so...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Malachandra wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
And as it stands now (in PF1), the any alignment "divine champion" character is very doable.

I think this is the big problem a lot of people are having. Yes it can be done already in PF1, with many of those options being a Paladin so your flavour is already diluted, but that shouldn't have any bearing in PF2E. How long do other players wait to get to play what they want in PF2E? 1 year, 2 years, maybe never because it hasn't been promised? How long do you think they should wait for something to come out that for all intents and purposes just removes LG from the Paladin page. This is why it hurts them.

Some good points here. I don't see alternate classes or archetypes as diluting the paladin's flavor. That's why I'm so big on the "4 corners" compromise. It opens the class up while still keeping the flavor. That said, I am also open to other compromises. I could make the Paladin a prestige class, or even wait a book for it. In either case, that would open up design space for a Warpriest class in Core.

That said, I don't think taking flavor away from a class fixes the problem of people having to wait. It just makes the problem worse, because now people like me will never get the class they want.

Malk_Content wrote:
And the flavour can still be 100% there. The LG Paladin can have the exact same restrictions and code as it does now while still letting others play with it.
Not gonna lie, seeing this come up over and over is a little frustrating. There seems to be this idea that making all classes universal and modular can only improve them. But it doesn't. Taking away flavor hurts the class for some players. Again, it doesn't matter if I can play the one, universal race and pretend it's a dwarf, there would no longer be a dwarf race. It's not the same thing. And even if we can't
...

so the elite guard and executioners of a Roman General (or maybe Welsh warlord) :P yea, nice chaps as well.

Also, as I said all I see is 'not being lawful good stops them being the champions of good' arguments, which implies LG is the only alignment worthy, and indeed is the best good. (When in fact LG is as tyrannical as LE, it just has better PR for it's psychotic savagery and aims of eradicating all 'evil' races and people from the world. )


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
And as it stands now (in PF1), the any alignment "divine champion" character is very doable.

I think this is the big problem a lot of people are having. Yes it can be done already in PF1, with many of those options being a Paladin so your flavour is already diluted, but that shouldn't have any bearing in PF2E. How long do other players wait to get to play what they want in PF2E? 1 year, 2 years, maybe never because it hasn't been promised? How long do you think they should wait for something to come out that for all intents and purposes just removes LG from the Paladin page. This is why it hurts them.

Some good points here. I don't see alternate classes or archetypes as diluting the paladin's flavor. That's why I'm so big on the "4 corners" compromise. It opens the class up while still keeping the flavor. That said, I am also open to other compromises. I could make the Paladin a prestige class, or even wait a book for it. In either case, that would open up design space for a Warpriest class in Core.

That said, I don't think taking flavor away from a class fixes the problem of people having to wait. It just makes the problem worse, because now people like me will never get the class they want.

Malk_Content wrote:
And the flavour can still be 100% there. The LG Paladin can have the exact same restrictions and code as it does now while still letting others play with it.
Not gonna lie, seeing this come up over and over is a little frustrating. There seems to be this idea that making all classes universal and modular can only improve them. But it doesn't. Taking away flavor hurts the class for some players. Again, it doesn't matter if I can play the one, universal race and pretend it's a dwarf, there would no longer be a dwarf race. It's not the same
...

So unless you're drawing from the random guy named Arthur in the Middle Ages, what work of fiction are you referencing? Cause turns out, ignoring the actual mythology of the Round Table by drawing from dubious real life history the legends come from isn't going to convince me of anything :P

That said, I feel the need to repeat myself:

Malachandra wrote:
This is your own personal issues with alignment and the class talking, and is not based on what anyone in the LG-only crowd has said. It kind of feels like when you read our posts, you hear only what you expect to hear and not actually what we are saying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But would removing the alignment restriction even do anything for your issue? If you hate the real world "paladins" so much, making them any good doesn't actually do anything to fix that...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like it should maybe be a(n unofficial) rule when discussing this topic that neither side can criticize the other's stance, but rather can only offer alternative solutions and comment on those. That way we actually get somewhere.

With that in mind, it's been floating around that the "4 Corners" is potentially the most likely option (from the devs' side of it) besides just an LG Paladin. So, instead of attacking each other's opinions, why don't we talk about how we'd like to see that work?

I'd prefer all-good to the 4 Corners, so it's already a compromise for me. But that's okay. For me, I'd like the name Paladin to remain LG, but the Hands Laying, Aura Bearing, Smiting, Armor Master Chassis - with balanced variations, of course - would be spread out amongst the alignments.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'd be perfectly happy with Paladins being any Good and Antipaladins being any Evil.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Rysky wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Why can't you just play your [alignment] character as [different alignment]?

No.

No.

Noooooooooo.

In honesty, I do this all the time. I'll come up for a concept and a backstory for a character, then before statting them out I'll run them through 3 or 4 different alignments as in "what is this person like if they were LN or CG" seeing how their personalities change and figuring out which one I like best. This is all in parallel to how I have characters go through a variety of permutations of race, ancestry, gender identity, sexual orientation, class, etc. before I put pen to paper.

I do this mostly to avoid NG since it's the easiest "generic hero" autopilot there is. Only alignments less worthy of "special things for this alignment" are the alignments primarily for antagonists and I would balk at any NE special thing either.

Warning! wide detour! only tangentially relevant to the thread…

ie mods, if you don't like it remove it!

I find this interesting.
As its really not that far from what I often end up doing.
I usually follow the same considerations, when planning out a character. Going thorough the various permutations of various aspects of a characters personality, be it race, class, sexuality or what ever other personality quirks I can think up.
The big difference is that I really don't think about Alignment that way. What usually goes through my head instead is:
*Now for Alignment...sigh! Can't we just skip it!*
Asks GM if we can skip Alignment, gets told that too many mechanical systems are bound up on it so 'No'.
*Sighs again*
Asks around: "What are you guys planning for Alignment" - Gets a lot of half answers, unless some is actually playing something with an Alignment requirement…
*Scratches forehead*
Looks over my own character again, mulling over any of its Alignment requirements…
(I would probably attempt to get a 'Pick any alignment waiver within reasonable limits' for just about any class - reasonable limits here would be if the GM said "No Evils", then if would mean No Evils, the rest is fair game though.
Also lets face it such a waiver is never a guarantee, even with people you often game with...Some are simply more RAW then others)
*Grumble*
Pour over the character a third time, refining backstory, go over how he/she would act in different scenarios, note down a few notes for possible character development…
*Look exasperated at the spot to put in 'Alignment'*
Think 'F++* it' and fill in one of the five 'Neutrals' that seem to fit the best, as it will:
1: It satisfies filling out the Alignment requirement.
2: Most likely raise the fewest questions from the GM about my characters actions, as at least in my experience, the Neutrals get to act along any axis more often without fear of stating a 'That seem to run counter to your Alignment debate'.
3: It facilitates an easy change of Alignment if its needed to satisfy mechanical system requirements (whether voluntary or involuntary).
4: It lets me get on gaming without having to wrack my brain anymore about Alignment.

And really, in the end, your character can claim any Alignment he wants…
Because it isn't his choice to be of a particular Alignment its the Power's/Multiverse's/universe's/whatever',as it foists a particular 'Alignment-charge' upon everyone* according to a byzantine, and seemingly arbitrary, set of rules.
You see, Alignment don't come from the 'inside', it isn't what you are!
Its what some external 'thing' classifies you as!
Thus one could ask the question, whether it actually make sense to have the players decide their Alignment, or you take that thought to is logical conclusion and have the GM assign the players an Alignment?

*The only thing I can think of that explicitly call out as 'Non-aligned' are interestingly enough souls...

Dark Archive

Eh, that IS off topic, but I feel like commenting on that anyway. Anyhoo, yeah neutral is simplest way to go if your GM is type who says "What, you are chaotic neutral but you follow the rules" type of nonsense.

I mean alignments aren't really that complicated. Good is someone who helps even strangers in trouble regardless of whether it helps them or harms them, Evil is someone who prefers to hurt people or do bad things, Law and Chaos are just about whether you prefer Order or Freedom and Neutral is regular person who won't go out of their way to help strangers but won't harm people just because they can.

Soo yeah, tying that back to topic, someone mentioned earlier in the thread that NG and CG is basically the same thing, but I kind of disagree about that. I can see why that seems to be the case, but I think there is difference in nuance. Like, its not just "Both NG and CG would help you if you are in trouble from law", I think difference is that CG would help you if they think law is restricting your freedom(assuming whatever you did wasn't evil) while I think NG would help someone in trouble from Law only if they really needed help(like "How I'm going to feed my kids if I'm in jail? Its minor offence!" type thing)

That said, I think LG would also help someone in trouble from Law :P It would probably be through legal methods first and only illegal if LG believes Law to be wrongful. Only LN character would accept "We can't do anything because Law says so even if its wrong"


To be fair, I've offered compromises in the past. I'd like to see paladin open up to all alignments, but I'd settle for any good or corners (any good > corners) as their alignment restrictions.

If we did paladins as any good, that'd leave antipaladins with any evil, and hellknights as any lawful, and something for any chaos. It also means a reason for hellknight to be a base class in pf2 instead of a prestige archetype (which would be awesome).

The real issue I have is how people interpret alignments and the suitable actions for each one, but that's not something suitable for this thread.

Quote:
Taking away the restriction does in fact stymie my ability to make my character.

Could you elaborate on why?

preferably without using terms or things of the nature of "exclusivity" or "tradition" in your explanation.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

For me, and I think many others, it's important that the name Paladin be associated with Lawful-Goodness.

So, I'll try this again. I am aware it's not perfect, but with such fundamentally opposed sides, nothing could be. Here goes, with adjustment for the fact that 4 Corners seems to me the most likely alternative to only LG.

Class in the CRB: Champion
(Basic class intro) Champions are Holy - or Unholy - Warriors who not only dedicate themselves to a deity, but also a Code of extreme Principles. Their resolve and drive comes from both of these, and it is not a path for the faint of heart. These Codes are so essential to their being, that oftentimes Champions are known first and foremost by the Code they follow.
The Paladin devotes himself to upholding goodness, first and foremost, and then the importance of laws, traditions, and honor.
In a similar way, the Vindicator is devoted to all that is good, but then departs greatly from the Paladin, in that she always safeguards the freedom of the individual and cannot abide tyranny, no matter how minor.
A Tyrant, like a Paladin, is a defender of law and order, but is a servant to evil instead.
Finally, the Antipaladin is, appropriately, the antithesis of the Paladin. Selfish. Cruel. Always going out of her way to hurt others and spread evil and chaos.

Each a champion. Each in his or her own way.

As for what features they share and which are unique, well, someone more qualified than me can figure that out. :D

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Shinigami02 wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
But hey, if you really care about adding options and opening up new character types, care to comment on the plethora of compromises the LG-only crowd has offered up?

You mean the ones that boil down to "Shut up and hope you get thrown a bone at some point in the next 10 years"? Or maybe the "Settle with a weakened piece of trash". Or of course there's the ever classic case of just "Shut up and play another class", such a great compromise.

Because, quite frankly, a vast majority of the "compromises" I've seen from the LG side have been "we get our option in core, and maybe other options come out down the line, that might, maybe, be worth playing."

EDIT: And yes, some people aren't that way. But that's the majority I've seen.

I think the "maybe" parts were not in the original proposals ;-)

IIRC the focus of the LG-only camp was about keeping the Paladin package (name, LG, PF1-style code, abilities) in a unit in the CRB and have other venues for non-LG equivalents, for example through variant Classes or Class archetypes or entirely new Classes in the CRB , or if taking too many pages, in another book that should come not too long later and that should benefit from the same consideration from Paizo's talented devs

Wayfinders

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mbertorch wrote:

For me, and I think many others, it's important that the name Paladin be associated with Lawful-Goodness.

So, I'll try this again. I am aware it's not perfect, but with such fundamentally opposed sides, nothing could be. Here goes, with adjustment for the fact that 4 Corners seems to me the most likely alternative to only LG.

Class in the CRB: Champion
(Basic class intro) Champions are Holy - or Unholy - Warriors who not only dedicate themselves to a deity, but also a Code of extreme Principles. Their resolve and drive comes from both of these, and it is not a path for the faint of heart. These Codes are so essential to their being, that oftentimes Champions are known first and foremost by the Code they follow.
The Paladin devotes himself to upholding goodness, first and foremost, and then the importance of laws, traditions, and honor.
In a similar way, the Vindicator is devoted to all that is good, but then departs greatly from the Paladin, in that she always safeguards the freedom of the individual and cannot abide tyranny, no matter how minor.
A Tyrant, like a Paladin, is a defender of law and order, but is a servant to evil instead.
Finally, the Antipaladin is, appropriately, the antithesis of the Paladin. Selfish. Cruel. Always going out of her way to hurt others and spread evil and chaos.

Each a champion. Each in his or her own way.

As for what features they share and which are unique, well, someone more qualified than me can figure that out. :D

Liberator makes a better name than Vindicator for a chaotic good paladin. It carries more a positive meaning than your proposition.

I also think that the CE paladin needs a better name. We can find a specific name for the CE evil variant that doesn't only exist as a direct opposition to the LG variant. CE evil paladin can be more than that.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
willuwontu wrote:


Quote:
Taking away the restriction does in fact stymie my ability to make my character.

Could you elaborate on why?

preferably without using terms or things of the nature of "exclusivity" or "tradition" in your explanation.

I am not sure that people who wish for LG-only Paladin and enjoy their character striving to follow rules imposed from outside can avoid referencing tradition (a deeply Lawful notion)

Sometimes I feel like I did cast Detect Law and Detect Chaos on this thread :-D


Grey Star wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
For me, and I think many others, it's important that the name Paladin be associated with Lawful-Goodness. ...

Liberator makes a better name than Vindicator for a chaotic good paladin. It carries more a positive meaning than your proposition.

I also think that the CE paladin needs a better name. We can find a specific name for the CE evil variant that doesn't only exist as a direct opposition to the LG variant. CE evil paladin can be more than that.

Okay. The names aren't so important to me, although I do think some people may like Antipaladin because of precedence, and I think Liberator is a bit narrow, but okay. No big deal.

More importantly, how's the concept?


The Raven Black wrote:
willuwontu wrote:


Quote:
Taking away the restriction does in fact stymie my ability to make my character.

Could you elaborate on why?

preferably without using terms or things of the nature of "exclusivity" or "tradition" in your explanation.

I am not sure that people who wish for LG-only Paladin and enjoy their character striving to follow rules imposed from outside can avoid referencing tradition (a deeply Lawful notion)

Sometimes I feel like I did cast Detect Law and Detect Chaos on this thread :-D

They could reference the aspects of their character that removing alignment restrictions makes them unable to play.

Ex: opening up paladin to all alignments prevents me from being the LG righteous defender of justice, because ____.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Malachandra wrote:
But would removing the alignment restriction even do anything for your issue? If you hate the real world "paladins" so much, making them any good doesn't actually do anything to fix that...

Making them able to be what they always should have been, brutal, fanatical enforcers that work for any god would fix it, also how is 'paladins should be LG only' not equal 'lg is best alignment, all others are to weak/stupid to make one of the most powerful classes in the game? (and lets be honest in the story, the ONLY blessed and anointed warriors who don't feel like, and play like, clerics who have been to the gym a bit, take a paladins spell casting away, and you have a divinely empowered fanatical killer, enforcing their deity/philosophy's will with fire and sword, do the same to a war-priest and you have a bad fighter, they do not play the same, do not fit that mold, and do not fulfill that concept.)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rob Godfrey wrote:


Also, as I said all I see is 'not being lawful good stops them being the champions of good' arguments, which implies LG is the only alignment worthy, and indeed is the best good. (When in fact LG is as tyrannical as LE, it just has better PR for it's psychotic savagery and aims of eradicating all 'evil' races and people from the world. )

Are we now claiming that LG is actually Evil ?

I see how this could hurt the LG-only Paladin crowd, as well as many others beside


The Raven Black wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:


Also, as I said all I see is 'not being lawful good stops them being the champions of good' arguments, which implies LG is the only alignment worthy, and indeed is the best good. (When in fact LG is as tyrannical as LE, it just has better PR for it's psychotic savagery and aims of eradicating all 'evil' races and people from the world. )
Are we now claiming that LG is actually Evil ?

I guess both could be considered oppressive, depending on your perspective, but on different moral axises.


Mbertorch wrote:

For me, and I think many others, it's important that the name Paladin be associated with Lawful-Goodness.

So, I'll try this again. I am aware it's not perfect, but with such fundamentally opposed sides, nothing could be. Here goes, with adjustment for the fact that 4 Corners seems to me the most likely alternative to only LG.

Class in the CRB: Champion
(Basic class intro) Champions are Holy - or Unholy - Warriors who not only dedicate themselves to a deity, but also a Code of extreme Principles. Their resolve and drive comes from both of these, and it is not a path for the faint of heart. These Codes are so essential to their being, that oftentimes Champions are known first and foremost by the Code they follow.
The Paladin devotes himself to upholding goodness, first and foremost, and then the importance of laws, traditions, and honor.
In a similar way, the Vindicator is devoted to all that is good, but then departs greatly from the Paladin, in that she always safeguards the freedom of the individual and cannot abide tyranny, no matter how minor.
A Tyrant, like a Paladin, is a defender of law and order, but is a servant to evil instead.
Finally, the Antipaladin is, appropriately, the antithesis of the Paladin. Selfish. Cruel. Always going out of her way to hurt others and spread evil and chaos.

Each a champion. Each in his or her own way.

As for what features they share and which are unique, well, someone more qualified than me can figure that out. :D

The Class intro is great. Two thumbs up for it. Keeping the flavour of the Code and their deities.

Paladin looks great as well.
The more I read the Vindicator (I think a name change would be in order as well, though something other than Liberator. That's got too of an anti-slavery vibe.) the more I like it. But I think someone from the CG side would be a better editor...
Tyrant and Anti-Paladin look great as well. Good job!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mbertorch wrote:

I feel like it should maybe be a(n unofficial) rule when discussing this topic that neither side can criticize the other's stance, but rather can only offer alternative solutions and comment on those. That way we actually get somewhere.

With that in mind, it's been floating around that the "4 Corners" is potentially the most likely option (from the devs' side of it) besides just an LG Paladin. So, instead of attacking each other's opinions, why don't we talk about how we'd like to see that work?

I'd prefer all-good to the 4 Corners, so it's already a compromise for me. But that's okay. For me, I'd like the name Paladin to remain LG, but the Hands Laying, Aura Bearing, Smiting, Armor Master Chassis - with balanced variations, of course - would be spread out amongst the alignments.

4 corners still doesn't work. Any faith, any deity should be capable of empowering champions, and you can find philosophies that fit all the alignments, so could have a code. For instance NE gives us the 4 Horseman, nihilism, despair, cruelty, the end of all things, that would have champions, (Basically PoE Bleak Walkers tbh).

Actually that works, look at the Pillars of Eternity Paladin Orders, they are coherent philosophies (Well coherent enough to roleplay, which is as much as we need) that fill the compass very well, with Bleak Walkers on the NE side, Gold Pact as LN super mercenaries (hello Abadar, maybe Gorum) Darcozzi Paladini taking CG, Kind Wayfarers as NG, and Shield Bearers as classic LG, that leaves us points to fill, but the method of doing it, with a core class and the Orders being better at specific aspects, so a slightly better lay on hands, or smite, or what ever.,


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:


Also, as I said all I see is 'not being lawful good stops them being the champions of good' arguments, which implies LG is the only alignment worthy, and indeed is the best good. (When in fact LG is as tyrannical as LE, it just has better PR for it's psychotic savagery and aims of eradicating all 'evil' races and people from the world. )

Are we now claiming that LG is actually Evil ?

I see how this could hurt the LG-only Paladin crowd, as well as many others beside

I'm saying it's Tyrannical, which is not the same thing. Benevolent Dictatorship is a thing, and the Detect Evil- Pala Smite game play that even shows up in the Lore gives that impression as well, it is totalitarian, it is brutal but it has the mandate of heaven and an omniscient morality license, so as the game-universe works, not evil, as an alignment and structure for a nation to live in? Horrifying.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:

I feel like it should maybe be a(n unofficial) rule when discussing this topic that neither side can criticize the other's stance, but rather can only offer alternative solutions and comment on those. That way we actually get somewhere.

With that in mind, it's been floating around that the "4 Corners" is potentially the most likely option (from the devs' side of it) besides just an LG Paladin. So, instead of attacking each other's opinions, why don't we talk about how we'd like to see that work?

I'd prefer all-good to the 4 Corners, so it's already a compromise for me. But that's okay. For me, I'd like the name Paladin to remain LG, but the Hands Laying, Aura Bearing, Smiting, Armor Master Chassis - with balanced variations, of course - would be spread out amongst the alignments.

4 corners still doesn't work. Any faith, any deity should be capable of empowering champions, and you can find philosophies that fit all the alignments, so could have a code. For instance NE gives us the 4 Horseman, nihilism, despair, cruelty, the end of all things, that would have champions, (Basically PoE Bleak Walkers tbh).

Actually that works, look at the Pillars of Eternity Paladin Orders, they are coherent philosophies (Well coherent enough to roleplay, which is as much as we need) that fill the compass very well, with Bleak Walkers on the NE side, Gold Pact as LN super mercenaries (hello Abadar, maybe Gorum) Darcozzi Paladini taking CG, Kind Wayfarers as NG, and Shield Bearers as classic LG, that leaves us points to fill, but the method of doing it, with a core class and the Orders being better at specific aspects, so a slightly better lay on hands, or smite, or what ever.,

Okay, interesting stuff. For sure. In the meantime, let me ask you, would you accept if it was the 4 Corners in Core, with the others to follow? And how about the name Paladin itself being exclusive to LG? Are these things you can stomach?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:


Also, as I said all I see is 'not being lawful good stops them being the champions of good' arguments, which implies LG is the only alignment worthy, and indeed is the best good. (When in fact LG is as tyrannical as LE, it just has better PR for it's psychotic savagery and aims of eradicating all 'evil' races and people from the world. )

Are we now claiming that LG is actually Evil ?

I see how this could hurt the LG-only Paladin crowd, as well as many others beside

I'm saying it's Tyrannical, which is not the same thing. Benevolent Dictatorship is a thing, and the Detect Evil- Pala Smite game play that even shows up in the Lore gives that impression as well, it is totalitarian, it is brutal but it has the mandate of heaven and an omniscient morality license, so as the game-universe works, not evil, as an alignment and structure for a nation to live in? Horrifying.

Tyrant was a neutral term in Ancient Rome.

Paladin was a neutral term in Charlemagnian ages.

Liberator is what we were supposed to be greeted as in Iraq.

And so on and so forth.

Sadly, Alignment and Politics, particularly racial politics, are deeply intertwined. There's little one can do about it.


CG should be Avenger

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

How can LG be horrifying when it is Good, ie protect the innocents ?

I am missing something I think

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

CG : Hopebearer

Or something about empowerment

Is Goodfellow a word ? (not a native speaker)


The Raven Black wrote:

How can LG be horrifying when it is Good, ie protect the innocents ?

I am missing something I think

It's more of the lawful aspect that's tyrannical while protecting the innocents. Look at the angel that got thrown out for doing their job and writing the book of the damned.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mbertorch wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:

I feel like it should maybe be a(n unofficial) rule when discussing this topic that neither side can criticize the other's stance, but rather can only offer alternative solutions and comment on those. That way we actually get somewhere.

With that in mind, it's been floating around that the "4 Corners" is potentially the most likely option (from the devs' side of it) besides just an LG Paladin. So, instead of attacking each other's opinions, why don't we talk about how we'd like to see that work?

I'd prefer all-good to the 4 Corners, so it's already a compromise for me. But that's okay. For me, I'd like the name Paladin to remain LG, but the Hands Laying, Aura Bearing, Smiting, Armor Master Chassis - with balanced variations, of course - would be spread out amongst the alignments.

4 corners still doesn't work. Any faith, any deity should be capable of empowering champions, and you can find philosophies that fit all the alignments, so could have a code. For instance NE gives us the 4 Horseman, nihilism, despair, cruelty, the end of all things, that would have champions, (Basically PoE Bleak Walkers tbh).

Actually that works, look at the Pillars of Eternity Paladin Orders, they are coherent philosophies (Well coherent enough to roleplay, which is as much as we need) that fill the compass very well, with Bleak Walkers on the NE side, Gold Pact as LN super mercenaries (hello Abadar, maybe Gorum) Darcozzi Paladini taking CG, Kind Wayfarers as NG, and Shield Bearers as classic LG, that leaves us points to fill, but the method of doing it, with a core class and the Orders being better at specific aspects, so a slightly better lay on hands, or smite, or what ever.,

Okay, interesting stuff. For sure. In the meantime, let me ask you, would you accept if it was the 4 Corners in Core, with the others to follow? And how about the name Paladin itself being exclusive to LG? Are these things you can stomach?

NAme for sure, it is the concept of Divine Champion who is blessed and empowered (rather than a spell caster or hybrid with some tricks) that needs filling, the Crusader or Zealot, or Sohei, that vision of the defenders of the faith/warriors of the temple needs filling, as the only vision of that we have so far is called Paladin, that is the name that is used, but I am not married to it. The 4 corners is a place to start, but really making them less about alignment as a mechanic and more about the philosophy or faith that empowers them (you still end up as a single alignment in each grouping, but they get to it by creating the concept then finding the fit, rather than saying 'they are LG' and then bending things to fit that, it, in my view, would make things more coherent, with the focus on the faith or idea, the 'this is the good bit, ohh we forgot lawful' issues are reduced, and as a bonus you don't end up with Anathema conflicting Code [as we may find])


Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:

For me, and I think many others, it's important that the name Paladin be associated with Lawful-Goodness.

So, I'll try this again. I am aware it's not perfect, but with such fundamentally opposed sides, nothing could be. Here goes, with adjustment for the fact that 4 Corners seems to me the most likely alternative to only LG.

Class in the CRB: Champion
(Basic class intro) Champions are Holy - or Unholy - Warriors who not only dedicate themselves to a deity, but also a Code of extreme Principles. Their resolve and drive comes from both of these, and it is not a path for the faint of heart. These Codes are so essential to their being, that oftentimes Champions are known first and foremost by the Code they follow.
The Paladin devotes himself to upholding goodness, first and foremost, and then the importance of laws, traditions, and honor.
In a similar way, the Vindicator is devoted to all that is good, but then departs greatly from the Paladin, in that she always safeguards the freedom of the individual and cannot abide tyranny, no matter how minor.
A Tyrant, like a Paladin, is a defender of law and order, but is a servant to evil instead.
Finally, the Antipaladin is, appropriately, the antithesis of the Paladin. Selfish. Cruel. Always going out of her way to hurt others and spread evil and chaos.

Each a champion. Each in his or her own way.

As for what features they share and which are unique, well, someone more qualified than me can figure that out. :D

The Class intro is great. Two thumbs up for it. Keeping the flavour of the Code and their deities.

Paladin looks great as well.
The more I read the Vindicator (I think a name change would be in order as well, though something other than Liberator. That's got too of an anti-slavery vibe.) the more I like it. But I think someone from the CG side would be a better editor...
Tyrant and Anti-Paladin look great as well. Good job!

Thanks! I really appreciate that.

And willuwontu suggested Avenger instead of Vindicator for CG. Which sounds good to me.


willuwontu wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
willuwontu wrote:


Quote:
Taking away the restriction does in fact stymie my ability to make my character.

Could you elaborate on why?

preferably without using terms or things of the nature of "exclusivity" or "tradition" in your explanation.

I am not sure that people who wish for LG-only Paladin and enjoy their character striving to follow rules imposed from outside can avoid referencing tradition (a deeply Lawful notion)

Sometimes I feel like I did cast Detect Law and Detect Chaos on this thread :-D

They could reference the aspects of their character that removing alignment restrictions makes them unable to play.

Ex: opening up paladin to all alignments prevents me from being the LG righteous defender of justice, because ____.

I'd like to answer this. But first I want to say thank you for taking the time to listen to the other side, it is most appreciated.

I'm going to answer this in two parts, but first I'd like to comment on the question. I'm not prevented from "being the LG righteous defender of justice" per se, it's that you'd gut the class of meaning to me. Let me quickly explain...
GOOD: A Paladin who is not Good, is not a Paladin. The Paladin is the Ideal of Good. That's how I see them. I look at the 5e Paladin and grimace at what they've done to the class. Sure, I can play an LG Paladin but they've gutted/lost the core flavour of the class. It's like taking a beautiful, expensive piece of art then dragging it through the dirt. You can still see some of the beauty behind the dirt, but its ruined. That's why I will be ok with an Any Good Paladin at the MINIMUM. I will fight tooth and nail to keep the class "clean".
LAWFUL: Paladins are Restrictive. That's how they are, and that's how I like them. It's HARD to be the Ideal of Good, and that is how it's supposed to be. Opening them up to Neutral or Chaotic loosens the reigns of the restrictions. Honestly, I find that cheapens the class. I'm learning to live with the idea that others don't like the restrictions. And I want to work with them to give them a equal yet less restrictive alternative. I'd prefer they be another class, but I am willing to compromise.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:

How can LG be horrifying when it is Good, ie protect the innocents ?

I am missing something I think

Because it uses magical surveillance to determine who is innocent, and some races are naturally evil, so not innocent.... also look at the Glorious Reclamation etc, for some nasty, nasty things done by paladins in the name of good.

201 to 250 of 280 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Can a Paladin follow its deity's code without being LG? All Messageboards