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


Prerelease Discussion

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

Iron_Matt17 wrote:
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...

I don't agree with you about the Lawful part as a restrictive thing. It can be easier to be lawful than chaotic. A chaotic good paladin will have to fight a whole system for the greater good and most of the time will have to refuse to use the advantage and the coziness said system provides. I have seen several paladins using the lawful part of the alignment to don't make themselves in danger, because the law was permiting the bad thing they didn't wanted to fight.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Mbertorch wrote:
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...

I like Marauder or ravager for chaotic evil. The others sound fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
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...

wait who said being the embodiment of pure unsullied and unpolluted good (NG) would be EASY? Or that doing what is right, no matter the personal cost, no matter what the law said was easy? Or indeed enforcing the law, totally and utterly, without mercy, yet without cruelty would be easy? (LN), or that liberating the oppressed, be that by pact, by nobility, by whatever tyranny would be easy (CN), or working to convince people to forsake all hope and admit the pointless hopelessness of existence was simple (NE), od being the iron merciless fist of absolute order and tyranny is easy? LE. Being the Embodiment of a faith or philosophy should be hard, it is the idea that only LG should grant that duty and power that grates.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
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.

The bolded part is factually untrue in Golarion as presented. I can't comment on the Glorious Reclamation thing.


I think the problem is Good/Evil being used to describe things, rather than determining their goals.


Iron_Matt17 wrote:

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.

I feel ya on the name thing, I'd want the other versions to have their own general names based on alignment with neutral ones being able to poach from either extreme it's surrounded by (ex. LG paladin, CG avenger, NG could be called paladin or avenger). I think that would help with a lot of the issues you have with using it as a chassis, would it not?

Yeah if Paladin stays the name for all the allowed alignments, I agree that it should be restricted to any good.

For the restrictiveness of law-chaos axis, I have to disagree with you. Both sides can be equally difficult and restrictive on the player. For bad examples of them, on lawful you have robot paladins who live up to lawful stupid who generally screws over the party by always announcing their presence and if you outnumber the enemies he will insist on you backing off to even the numbers and have a fair fight. Then on the chaos side you have the lol random chaotic good I have to free everyone and fight the tyranny of the nobles by robbing them and being a general disruptive nuisance (which is why C gets banned more often than L at tables).

Edit: I forgot to add that I disagree on the art comparison, I feel that it's more like a room done with Gothic architecture getting reimagined in baroque and rococo styles.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
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...

I'm not sure any of that actually answers the question. Why are NG, LN and other people filthy and dirty? Why can't they be beautiful pieces of art? What is the core flavor that is being lost?

Why is LG the 'ideal' of good, and not any other kind of good? Why in the world would it be more difficult to be lawful good rather than anything else? They're represented by equally powerful gods and theoretically roughly even segments of the population (except possibly neutrality, which would encompass something like 99.9% of rational people).

There doesn't really seem to be any sign of compromise in this, just more of any other way is worse and inherently lesser because... I'm not sure? How you like them, I guess.


Hey everyone, thanks for your comments. I like the different perspectives. I wasn't expecting everyone to agree with me, I was just answering the question honestly.

Grey Star, Rob Godfrey, & willuwontu

I don't play Lawful Stupid. Never have, probably never will. So I guess the "easiness" factor of Lawful Stupid doesn't even register in my mind for me. Backing down from a fight because it's unfair? Using the Lawful aspect of LG to not fight an injustice? Both are cowardly to me and inherently evil. So I see those as Lawful cop outs, and not what I was talking about when I spoke of Paladins being restrictive. Then there's Chaotic Stupid... I haven't seen this in play, I hope I never do. Having to fight every single institution because its the institution, is really, really dumb. Yikes, do people play like that? Ugh. I find that Chaotic Good players have the choice to follow the rules, or bend them for the greater Good. (of course!) That's what I'm talking about when I say that NG and CG are less restrictive. LG don't have the choice. (unless the rulers are illegitimate) Also, notice I didn't say that it's EASY to be Neutral or Chaotic. I said LESS restrictive. You can disagree with me and that's fine. I'm happy to be proven wrong. This is my point of view.

Voss

Just two things to clarify... The art example is not to say that the other alignments are "dirty". This is how I feel about what 5e did to the Paladin by opening it to other than "Good". (so my example excludes NG and CG) I was trying to give a word picture of how I felt, and I guess I chose a bad one. I'm sorry about that. Also notice that I split Lawful from Good. I wanted to speak about them separately. So when I spoke about Paladins being the "Ideal of Good" I was excluding the Lawful part there. I don't believe that LG is the best Good.


The Raven Black wrote:

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

I am missing something I think

well iirc, in one of the dnd 3.x books there was a section on it on how to make a goody-two-shoe the bbeg.

and along that line ans I dont own the book ( it didnt speak to me, and I couldnt find a copy to seee if it would cha nge my mind).
but you could run afoul of the LG authority and he/she makes the lives of the pcs miserable( false accusations, slanders, shaming that you didnt do something you were required to do, you got in the way of some of his men at arms, etc, the list can go on).

in this line a LG and a LN can be as much of a tyrant and at least the bad guy in a scenario planned to mess with the players at the table.
done right it can be memorable( hey it works for the atonement quests for fallen paladin comments).

the bad guy in any adventure path, one shot modules etc, doesn't have to be evil all the time.

Blinded by conviction, faith.....

on a side note: I think the Winged Hussars would be a better archtype for paladins than charlamange and his so called paladins.


Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Hey everyone, thanks for your comments. I like the different perspectives. I wasn't expecting everyone to agree with me, I was just answering the question honestly.

Grey Star, Rob Godfrey, & willuwontu

I don't play Lawful Stupid. Never have, probably never will. So I guess the "easiness" factor of Lawful Stupid doesn't even register in my mind for me. Backing down from a fight because it's unfair? Using the Lawful aspect of LG to not fight an injustice? Both are cowardly to me and inherently evil. So I see those as Lawful cop outs, and not what I was talking about when I spoke of Paladins being restrictive. Then there's Chaotic Stupid... I haven't seen this in play, I hope I never do. Having to fight every single institution because its the institution, is really, really dumb. Yikes, do people play like that? Ugh. I find that Chaotic Good players have the choice to follow the rules, or bend them for the greater Good. (of course!) That's what I'm talking about when I say that NG and CG are less restrictive. LG don't have the choice. (unless the rulers are illegitimate) Also, notice I didn't say that it's EASY to be Neutral or Chaotic. I said LESS restrictive. You can disagree with me and that's fine. I'm happy to be proven wrong. This is my point of view.

Voss

Just two things to clarify... The art example is not to say that the other alignments are "dirty". This is how I feel about what 5e did to the Paladin by opening it to other than "Good". (so my example excludes NG and CG) I was trying to give a word picture of how I felt, and I guess I chose a bad one. I'm sorry about that. Also notice that I split Lawful from Good. I wanted to speak about them separately. So when I spoke about Paladins being the "Ideal of Good" I was excluding the Lawful part there. I don't believe that LG is the best Good.

My comment about other alignments being harder to do is based on the fact that I can do LG, I don't enjoy it all that much, but can do LG Paladin, I could not do a champion of the Four Horsemen, I can see what the Code might look like, but that dedicated nihilism and focused world ending ennui? No, I couldn't they would 'fall', same with CE actually in that the focused rage and hate would escape me, so saying they are less restricted is a failure of imagination (everyone has them, I don't get why people enjoy the smite-a-din playstyle of Paladin you see, but then maybe that ens of fantasy escapes me entirely anyway I look at the Jedi and see a code designed to mass produce child soldiers with serious disassociation disorders for instance, I look at the Chivalric Romances and my knowledge of what knights actually got up to intrudes..) Paladin or *insert title here* is someone with a faith or belief so unshakable they warp the planes, and deities notice, not for them rote prayers and theological debates, they believe so utterly that the world bends to that belief that their wrath smites their enemies, cutting through magical defences put in place by the hells or heavens. That is the level pf conviction we are talking about, and it is by its own nature restrictive, even though the Paladin doesn't notice those chains, because the chains are the iron core of who and what they are, the code is an abstraction for the player, the character doesn't even need to know they have a code, and for none lawful alignments probably doesn't, the player and GM need to know ut for RP and game mechanic reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
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.

No it doesn't. *Maybe* Neutrality does by virtue of there not being a 'tension' between the two halves of the alignment. But even that isn't really a certainty. As has been observed countless times, it is 100% canonical to Pathfinder that *anyone* can have a personal, restrictive code of conduct, completely regardless of alignment, and Anathemas in PF2 are doubling down on that. It's just going to be *different* restrictions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One reason I don't like the CG Paladin to be like the LG one is because "there are a large number of rules, you must follow them without exception, there is very little wiggle room available, these rules exist in a hierarchy, and these rules govern most of your life" frankly doesn't seem very chaotic to me.

I'm all for champions of alignment existing, I would just like these champions to actually mechanically embody the concept of that alignment. By all means have a master of armor CG class, but make its powers be unpredictable and variable in a way that the LG Paladins are not (with higher peaks and lower valleys). Let me roll on tables to see what my stuff does, let me feel like I am channeling something I cannot control and I'm just hanging on for the ride. I don't just want to play the same kind of character with "CG" written there and a different set of rules.

It would be a shame for LG, and all the other alignments, to have all of the other alignments exemplars play exactly like the LG one.


Im still for paladins to be any good...

which means Im any evil antipaladins ( reavers, blackguards,Deathblades, Tyrants or whatever they may end up being called,)

however, as for ln,tn and cn. no paladins for you, as you are a whole different beastie for a complete train of thought right now...

that also said, any good paladin should have same class feats to chose from as well as any base powers.
Archtypes and feats can be made to add more stuff for each alignment.

namely you could have a anarchic feat that modifies smite good so that it does half "insert stat here" min 1 to damage against lawful stuff when smiting evil. so you would smite evil as feature and small damage bonus
if target is lawful. only chaotic aligned can take this feat, and should the paladin become lawful good this feat would no longer work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Because LG is the most behaviorally restrictive alignment in the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also means you have guidelines you can cling to, an established hierarchy you can appeal to, your choices are much more pre-selected and you don't need to justify them as hard. You know what's right, and what's wrong, what injustices you're allowed to let stand and when you're allowed to fight.

An argument can be made that a Paladin, or Lawful Good character in general, has it easier because they don't need to think for themselves as much. They have things they have to adhere to, but they also have excuses for what they can let pass in the name of the Greater Good.

Like flim-flam'n Qadira and its slave trade operating right under the Church of Sarenrae's nose! Warble warble, forever shall I bemoan that.

And I'm not trying to insult Lawful Good, its my favorite alignment. Its my default. Having to think within restrictions stimulates my imagination, and I really like having depths to supposedly strict and dull characters. A Samurai who spends seemingly all day every day training his body in grueling fashion and standing in service of his Lord, surprised everyone when his idea for a first date was to magically empower his paramour with flight, and fly through the Northern Lights. Because he's a worshipper of Shizuru, so he bases his romantic ideals on a love story between Gods.

Playing a Chaotic character though? That's hard for me, because I feel like there's less to base my actions on. I feel directionless, its hard to figure out a real path I want to be on. Best 'Chaotic' character I've had so far is True Neutral, because I can't commit fully to the Chaos and free thinking, I have to organize my resources and keep a clear gameplan, even if I let it change constantly, there has to be one.

So, much as I get insulted by people saying Lawful Good is somehow Evil (Its not. Its Good aligned, right there in the name pal.), I also get confused/insulted by the notion that Lawful Good is the 'Hard' alignment. Lawful Good is the alignment that already has the answers, and often faces uncomfortable notions in following those answers through. Chaotic Good is looking for the answers, because they're certain there's a better one out there.

A character who has to find that faith and that devotion inside themself, keep that flame burning without the support of their hierarchy or a long established tradition of belief, that's inspiring to me. Its something I've touched on with a few characters, but I've never really dived into something like "I don't have the answers, that's something I have to find. I know there's a Light, but how to bring it to the world is the challenge." Something I think I'll try to cook up. If Paizo allows for the Chaotic Paladins, I think I might finally try to step up to the plate on that idea, and take the plunge into Chaos to find them answers.

And then totally have a rocking party between the Lawful characters and the new Chaotic guy. Lawful plays bass, Chaos needs them vocals. I should name the Chaos Paladin Lou Gramm, be easy to get the inspired then.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Because LG is the most behaviorally restrictive alignment in the game.

Depends on the behaviour.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just here to throw in why I don't like the 4-corner compromise. It leaves law/chaos with the short end of the stick. There aren't good fits for champions of order or chaos. There is no suitable knight of chaos or law. There aren't warriors of "pure" good or evil either, but this bugs me less because paladins are already pretty close to being good incarnate even with lawful tacked on, and the same can go for antipaladin. As someone who would much prefer to play along the LN/CN/N spectrum, this is a disappointment.

I know, there are druids that "fill in" the neutral alignment, but a lot of druidism is rooted in what can loosely be called 'nature' and doesn't really represent any of the alignments they can be IMO. Just one smaller aspect therein. It is not about Law or Chaos itself, just about how they relate to the facsimile of 'nature' they are drawn to.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
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.
The bolded part is factually untrue in Golarion as presented. I can't comment on the Glorious Reclamation thing.

I thought Drow were literally elves that were too Evil. Wasn't the BBEG in Second Darkness was an Elf that suddenly became a Drow because of an alignment shift?


Paradozen wrote:

Just here to throw in why I don't like the 4-corner compromise. It leaves law/chaos with the short end of the stick. There aren't good fits for champions of order or chaos. There is no suitable knight of chaos or law. There aren't warriors of "pure" good or evil either, but this bugs me less because paladins are already pretty close to being good incarnate even with lawful tacked on, and the same can go for antipaladin. As someone who would much prefer to play along the LN/CN/N spectrum, this is a disappointment.

I know, there are druids that "fill in" the neutral alignment, but a lot of druidism is rooted in what can loosely be called 'nature' and doesn't really represent any of the alignments they can be IMO. Just one smaller aspect therein. It is not about Law or Chaos itself, just about how they relate to the facsimile of 'nature' they are drawn to.

I've always felt that the Paladin's power comes from their dedication to their cause. To that end they should be locked into a lawful alignment. I'd happily accept three sub-class for each of the Lawfuls: Paladin, Justicar, Tyrant/Conqueror.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

so if I dedicate myself to Chaos, it makes me lawful?????


I'm actually very interested in where they are going to take Chaotic Codes in 2e. I used to be under the impression that Chaotics couldn't have have a Code. But once looking at the game as a whole, I found that they do indeed exist in Golarion. The problem is that the only Paizo official Paladin-like Code for Chaotics is the Anti-Paladin's. And that one I don't find very restrictive at all. (do whatever you like, but make sure it's for selfish and evil purposes) And then there's the D&D 3.5 and 3rd party "Paladin of Freedom"... The only things that are restrictive about the class (other than being Good) are respecting individual liberty, and being seen as anarchic. The 3rd party Paladin of Freedom goes so far as to say that they don't follow a strict code... (looking at the Antipaladin and the Paladin of Freedom is one of the reasons why I find Neutral and Chaotic less restrictive)
So will they follow this path in 2e? Or perhaps change it up to be as restrictive as the Paladin's Code and yet Chaotic. That has yet to be seen...

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Felinus wrote:
I thought Drow were literally elves that were too Evil. Wasn't the BBEG in Second Darkness was an Elf that suddenly became a Drow because of an alignment shift?

Elves who are unusually Evil and spend a lot of time in the Darklands can turn into Drow. However, Drow children are not inherently evil and there's no similar process known that turns Drow into Elves if they're Good aligned.

So Evil is how the Drow started, but Drow who are born that way are no more Evil than anyone else born into an Evil culture. Indeed, there are canonical non-Evil Drow (mostly Neutral rather than Good).


Iron_Matt17 wrote:

I'm actually very interested in where they are going to take Chaotic Codes in 2e. I used to be under the impression that Chaotics couldn't have have a Code. But once looking at the game as a whole, I found that they do indeed exist in Golarion. The problem is that the only Paizo official Paladin-like Code for Chaotics is the Anti-Paladin's. And that one I don't find very restrictive at all. (do whatever you like, but make sure it's for selfish and evil purposes) And then there's the D&D 3.5 and 3rd party "Paladin of Freedom"... The only things that are restrictive about the class (other than being Good) are respecting individual liberty, and being seen as anarchic. The 3rd party Paladin of Freedom goes so far as to say that they don't follow a strict code... (looking at the Antipaladin and the Paladin of Freedom is one of the reasons why I find Neutral and Chaotic less restrictive)

So will they follow this path in 2e? Or perhaps change it up to be as restrictive as the Paladin's Code and yet Chaotic. That has yet to be seen...

I doubt they make chaotic codes. They have YEARS of updating classes before new ones can come around.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
I doubt they make chaotic codes. They have YEARS of updating classes before new ones can come around.

They've explicitly noted that no book will be without new things, because everything being a complete rehash would be boring for both the authors and the writers.

So this is untrue.


By the end of the Playtest, they'll have 3 other classes mostly set up. Making a Code for each shouldn't be too difficult...


Iron_Matt17 wrote:
By the end of the Playtest, they'll have 3 other classes mostly set up. Making a Code for each shouldn't be too difficult...

I kinda *really* don't want non-LG Paladins without the ability to playtest them. So it would be much better if they were left for a separate book.


At this point, current climate, and all that, best to probably not have a class called Paladin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

One reason I don't like the CG Paladin to be like the LG one is because "there are a large number of rules, you must follow them without exception, there is very little wiggle room available, these rules exist in a hierarchy, and these rules govern most of your life" frankly doesn't seem very chaotic to me.

I'm all for champions of alignment existing, I would just like these champions to actually mechanically embody the concept of that alignment. By all means have a master of armor CG class, but make its powers be unpredictable and variable in a way that the LG Paladins are not (with higher peaks and lower valleys). Let me roll on tables to see what my stuff does, let me feel like I am channeling something I cannot control and I'm just hanging on for the ride. I don't just want to play the same kind of character with "CG" written there and a different set of rules.

It would be a shame for LG, and all the other alignments, to have all of the other alignments exemplars play exactly like the LG one.

Not saying that idea for a, what, Chaos Knight? isn't a good one (the trickster nature of the UA Oath of Treachery for the 5E Paladin is my second favorite part of it), but why is that randomness so necessary in the mechanics? Clerics of Cayden, Desna, Calistria, Gorum, Lamashtu, and Rovagug don't come with unpredictable tables. Such a character multiclassing with a Fighter wouldn't introduce those tables. Why would a class that takes that multiclass combination and makes it more cleaned up and coherent?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
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.

I understand you think you're being stymied. I'll even agree that opening up the Paladin to any alignment does take something away. What I don't agree on is that the thing being taken away was ever yours to begin with (yes, my dice analogy). Your idea of your Paladin concept is "champion of lawful goodness". We're good so far. Your idea of your Paladin concept is "champion of lawful goodness where no one can use that same class how they see fit, at least, not without having to move Heaven and Earth first". This is essentially the same as making a Dwarf in a gaming group with the intention of your Dwarf PC being the only Dwarf PC, and then getting bent out of shape when someone else wants to play a Dwarf, too. Your character sheet is yours. Their character sheet is theirs. You have no primacy regarding Dwarf characters being PCs, other than to say yours is one. In like fashion, they don't get to foist an "Elf in a party with no Dwarves". Somewhere you got it into your head that the integrity of your Paladin characters was in any way, let alone in a significant way, dependent on how other people that you will never meet or game with played theirs.

You bolded that section, but let's talk about what I asked immediately after that you didn't bold. A question with variations that I've asked and I know has been asked by others:

How does the "dismantling" of the "humans only" restriction prevent you from playing a human Paladin?

How does Bards being able to be lawful prevent you from playing a nonlawful Bard?

How does Samurai being able to be nonlawful prevent you from playing a lawful Samurai?

How does Fighters being able to use weapons besides axes prevent you from playing an axe-only Fighter?

How does Gnomes being an available race require you to play a Gnome?

In each of these other cases, we can examine them based on their own merits, and find them lacking. I can decide for myself not to play a Gnome. I have less than zero say saying no one else should be able to. You can decide to play an Elf. Do you get to just declare that you're going to play an Elf in a no-Dwarves party? Your character's "Elf-ness" is not contingent on everyone else being prevented from playing a Dwarf. My character not being a Gnome is not contingent on no one else being able to play a Gnome, and if I thought it was, I'd be wrong. No, I am not just allowed to be at the other end of the spectrum; pushing "no Gnomes" is just plain not something I get to do for anyone else but myself. Why can we identify this for what it is everywhere else, but sub in "the Paladin and what alignments he can be" and it gets a free pass?

I'm not calling it a sadistic glee on your part. I'm equating your concept of the Paladin depending on how closely others hew to it with the guy who gave you my dice in my dice analogy. I do believe you think the Paladin is just naturally supposed to be that way, just like you did nothing to take my dice in the aforementioned analogy. Nevertheless, those hypothetical dice were never yours, any more than your concept of the Paladin should depend on whether or not I had to take a master class in negotiation just to play a Paladin without something hanging over my head. I know you did nothing to sinisterly graft that aspect onto your image of the Paladin; it's still my hypothetical dice.

Malachandra wrote:
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.

We're not accepting those compromises because those aren't acceptable compromises. "Hey, we're going to keep these fall conditions (because that's apparently the crux of the Paladin) hanging over your head, but we decreased them by one. Can't you settle for that?" You stated your minimum in that thread, so I'll do the same.

The Vindictive Bastard. It was the best Paladin P1E ever had because it had no alignment requirements of any kind (not even "don't be LG") or code of conduct of any kind (not even "don't turn right around and go back to upholding the stock code") and because its class features were laterally different enough from the basic Paladin's that one could halfway pretend they weren't insultingly lesser token appeasements. I.e., the player didn't have something hanging over his head.

Some Paladin, or archetype of Paladin, or specific selection of class features in place of RA and the SP that's still just as worthwhile, that is not contingent in any way on having something hanging over the player's head. Essentially, the Barbarian's Fury totem, but for the Paladin. Some acknowledgement that in the Venn Diagram of "players that want to play a Paladin" and "players that don't want something hanging over their head", there is overlap. Where in your alleged "many good compromises" is one that resembles what I just described?

Or to borrow your own phrasing:

"Not gonna lie. Seeing this come up again and again is a little frustrating. There seems to be this idea that only opening the Paladin class by a few alignments is all the compromising necessary. That keeping something hanging over the player's head while slightly increasing the Paladin to only the four corners isn't maintaining the same headache as before (*hint: it's not about what alignments I can play a Paladin as while having a fall hanging over my head, it's the 'there must be a fall hanging over my head'*). And even if we can't understand why I feel that way, can we at least stop trying to explain to me how the crux of the Paladin must be "has to have a fall, can't let the player not worry about falling, the player must be a stressed-out nervous wreck 'cuz game and fun'"? Can we just accept that I have this opinion that any emphasis on falling or restrictions is overemphasis and results in the Paladin missing its own point, and that that opinion is valid?

Now, I understand that the Paladin has a pretty specific legacy. But it's a legacy with a high cost that players that don't buy into said legacy shouldn't just automatically be expected to pay. And I'm certainly not saying there's no room for the LG-only Paladin as a concept. Having that in the game and NOT be at the cost of other players enjoying that class (again, not saying that cost was ever sadistically pursued, just that it's there) is great, and leaves room for both playstyles. But it needs to not be a forced marriage of class and concept."

Lantern Lodge Customer Service & Community Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for another rousing Paladin discussion. I’m closing this over the holiday and will consider reopening it next week.

251 to 280 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
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion