Pathfinder 1E Paladin Alignments - More than just LG?

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

Everyone should play the game how they want to play. So when you posted a "should x be done", well when is there a 'should' involved in any roleplaying game. If the question regards some organized play and specific set rules, that's one thing. But to suggest any particular part of a home game that a question of "should" or "should not", implies some kind of 'one way-ism" - there isn't one true way to play D&D/PF. Implying such suggests 'somebody is doing it wrong'. I just don't really think there's a right or wrong way about it. The only thing that's right is what is right for your game table.

Yep, I agree 100% with how you phrased it. The most important thing at any game table for me is that everyone is having fun. I also think that most tables (with the exceptions of organized play) home-brew and tweak rules they don't like, remove some rules, or add other rules to suit their own tastes. I've never personally played in a home setting that didn't have at least 1 house-rule. We also have to remember Rule 0 and how the GM has a lot of leeway to do things.

This is what I'm doing for my group in regards to the Paladin alignment(s) and the strict LG/CE requirements per RAW of PF.

 

[Matthias]

The reason I bring this up is to discuss a house-rule my table and I talked about when dealing with Paladins. We spoke of allowing Paladins to be of any "good" alignment not just Lawful Good, when following a good or neutral deity with good-leaning tendencies.
....
Let's face it: Paladins are mortal, they have their own idiosyncrasies, they aren't perfect, and they have flaws just like any other class or person. I've always felt that they were much too restrictive by most people's standards and that a lot of people (quite a few on some forums) believe that some small acts done (when presented with basically catch-22's) constitute the falling of said paladin if he "doesn't play his alignment" perfectly.

So my question to the rest of you is how would this effect the rest of the game if I had a Paladin of Cayden Cailean who was CG at the table?

I agree with your assessment that "paladinhood" as a niche should and can be more inclusive without destroying the integrity of the game or the class concept.

Not long ago, I come up with four paladin derivative classes which expands on the stock paladin and the pathfinder antipaladin alt-class. Please feel free to try them out.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pls7?Homebrew-paladin-derivatives

Here is the LG Paragon (which replaces the standard PC class), the CG Crusader, the LE Blackguard, and the CE Renegade (which replaces the alternate class from Advanced Player's Guide).

While the Paragon and Crusader are identical in some areas such as HD, BAB, and save progressions, there are certain differences (mainly law/chaos based) in their class skills, features, and spells.

Furthermore, the term "paladin" is more abstract, encompassing both the Paragon and Crusader classes, but remains synonymous with "holy warrior". Whatever does anything for or is useful to a paladin works for both the Paragon and Crusder except for law/chaos alignment differences. While lawful good items such as Holy Avengers are only for Paragons, these rules assume it's equally possible to find or create chaotic good variants for Crusaders.

The same principles apply to the "antipaladins", Blackguards and Renegades.

So a holy warrior of Cayden Cailean would probably be a Crusader rather than a Paragon. An unholy warrior of Asmodeus would be a Blackguard. Deities who are NG or NE probably have followers of both paladin or antipaladin classes, respectively.

Someone suggested there ought to be a true-neutral derivative. Deities such as Nethys and Pharasma would probably have some kind of "militant defender of balance/apathy". it's difficult to picture what such a class would look like, but I think it would differentiate itself quite strongly from the other four derivatives, since they are all based on alignment extremes.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

Some very cool stuff in there [MENTION=3625]Matthias[/MENTION] I like what you did with your different subclasses of paladins though for purposes of my game I will just keep the current Paladin and Anti-Paladin powers/abilities for each axis whether it is good or evil so they won't be smiting chaos or something like that. I could see a true LN paladin smiting chaos (so their nemesis would be people of CE,CN, & CG). I don't particularly want to take the time to have to rewrite the stuff like you did, even though it might make more sense to do so.

 

[Aaron L]

The problem is that Paladins are not a generic Holy Warrior class designed for every god to have them. They are a very specific ideal of the knight in shining armor. As someone pointed out upthread, the generic Holy Warrior class is the Cleric, and it is already designed that way.

Paladins are devoted to Law and Good even above and beyond individual gods. If there happens to be a god that embodies the ideals of chivalry, honor, and Lawful Good for a Paladin to follow, then all the better, but Paladins are still not generic holy warriors. Turning Paladins into generic holy warriors who can pick any alignment and follow any god cheapens the meaning of the word Paladin.

There's a reason why Paladins get a specific set of abilities that don't change no matter what god they may follow, while Clerics have get differing abilities that are tied to the specific god they worship.

 

[SirAntoine]

The problem is that Paladins are not a generic Holy Warrior class designed for every god to have them. They are a very specific ideal of the knight in shining armor. As someone pointed out upthread, the generic Holy Warrior class is the Cleric, and it is already designed that way.

Paladins are devoted to Law and Good even above and beyond individual gods. If there happens to be a god that embodies the ideals of chivalry, honor, and Lawful Good for a Paladin to follow, then all the better, but Paladins are still not generic holy warriors. Turning Paladins into generic holy warriors who can pick any alignment and follow any god cheapens the meaning of the word Paladin.

There's a reason why Paladins get a specific set of abilities that don't change no matter what god they may follow, while Clerics have get differing abilities that are tied to the specific god they worship.

Well said.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

The problem is that Paladins are not a generic Holy Warrior class designed for every god to have them. They are a very specific ideal of the knight in shining armor. As someone pointed out upthread, the generic Holy Warrior class is the Cleric, and it is already designed that way.

The problem with mistaking your own perception of a class for fact is that different people have different perceptions. To many of us, 'paladin' really is a one-word term for 'holy warrior.' Are you going to tell me I'm wrong because I don't cleave to the paladin tradition you do?

Or because I don't see the cleric as a holy warrior? In fact when I was first introduced to D&D, I thought the cleric made no sense because "Hey, priests are supposed to be wholesome community-minded folk...you know, Good guys. (And they should probably be lawful too!) What's with all of these evil priests praying to crazy gods and sacrificing people? Ridiculous!" But I got over myself.

And then eventually a guy who played D&D with Gygax himself told me "We made some up we thought was fun." And that's the only reason paladins have to be LG; because one guy thought the restriction was fun. He was one heck of a great guy, mind you, and he knew that not everyone shared his idea of fun.

Gygax and Arneson would perfectly happy with some DMs throwing the LG-only paladin out the window. If it makes you feel better, think of it as the 'holy warrior house rule.'

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I personally don't call Clerics holy warriors they are a casting class that relies much more upon their spells than the strength of their arms and armor. They are severely limited unless taking feats to correct the problem with what they can wield and what they can wear. A warrior on the other hand excels in combat with weapons and armor, so to me a HOLY WARRIOR is a Paladin, they are proficient in most of the weapons and armor out there and go out with a purpose to smite evil (or good in the case of APs). Can a Cleric be a "holy warrior?" Sure, but it takes an archetype and a lot of feat investment in order to pull it off well, otherwise they are better set up for casting their divine spells, sitting in the back during the battle, healing, buffing their allies, and debuffing their enemies. A Paladin or true holy warrior in my opinion gets right into the thick of things and battles as a warrior should, they can't sit back and cast spells (unless specifically built to do so like the hospitaler archetype), they need to be in the middle of the fight. A true warrior.

It really narrows down to tradition when we talk about paladins and being LG. We hardly ever ask "why?" and when we do the answer is "because it's always been done that way..." I find that line of thinking tremendously narrow-minded and it closes off a large segment of people who don't think within strict confines ala LG-only Paladin. This has been the bane of paladin alignment discussions for a long as they have been around, there is a small segment who truly believe that there is only one way to ever play a paladin and if they don't play exactly that way then that paladin has fallen.

My belief is that as long as removal of the alignment restriction from LG to "any good" for Paladins results in the Paladin following a like-minded deity and adhering to their tenets/codes, it's well-balanced and makes sense to me. The same can be said for the Anti-Paladin and the removal of the CE restriction to become "any evil."

When it comes down to Law in the LG paladin, it really comes down to: "A good person who devoutly follows a good deity and strictly follows the laws of man." Where does the power of a paladin come from? Answer: Their Deity. The deity doesn't set forth the laws of man, they set forth tenets/codes for their paladins to follow and a lot of deities are NOT lawful, so why restrict the paladin to something that their own deity doesn't see as being a big deal? As long as the paladin follows the deity's codes/tenets that deity is pleased with their holy warrior/paladin/follower.

 

[SirAntoine]

I personally don't call Clerics holy warriors they are a casting class that relies much more upon their spells than the strength of their arms and armor. They are severely limited unless taking feats to correct the problem with what they can wield and what they can wear. A warrior on the other hand excels in combat with weapons and armor, so to me a HOLY WARRIOR is a Paladin, they are proficient in most of the weapons and armor out there and go out with a purpose to smite evil (or good in the case of APs). Can a Cleric be a "holy warrior?" Sure, but it takes an archetype and a lot of feat investment in order to pull it off well, otherwise they are better set up for casting their divine spells, sitting in the back during the battle, healing, buffing their allies, and debuffing their enemies. A Paladin or true holy warrior in my opinion gets right into the thick of things and battles as a warrior should, they can't sit back and cast spells (unless specifically built to do so like the hospitaler archetype), they need to be in the middle of the fight. A true warrior.

It really narrows down to tradition when we talk about paladins and being LG. We hardly ever ask "why?" and when we do the answer is "because it's always been done that way..." I find that line of thinking tremendously narrow-minded and it closes off a large segment of people who don't think within strict confines ala LG-only Paladin. This has been the bane of paladin alignment discussions for a long as they have been around, there is a small segment who truly believe that there is only one way to ever play a paladin and if they don't play exactly that way then that paladin has fallen.

My belief is that as long as removal of the alignment restriction from LG to "any good" for Paladins results in the Paladin following a like-minded deity and adhering to their tenets/codes, it's well-balanced and makes sense to me. The same can be said for the Anti-Paladin and the removal of the CE restriction to become "any evil."

When it comes down to Law in the LG paladin, it really comes down to: "A good person who devoutly follows a good deity and strictly follows the laws of man." Where does the power of a paladin come from? Answer: Their Deity. The deity doesn't set forth the laws of man, they set forth tenets/codes for their paladins to follow and a lot of deities are NOT lawful, so why restrict the paladin to something that their own deity doesn't see as being a big deal? As long as the paladin follows the deity's codes/tenets that deity is pleased with their holy warrior/paladin/follower.

With all due respect to your position, paladins exist in D&D because they are meant to be the LG, traditional types they were. The game's creators felt there was a niche for them, particularly, and they didn't suggest anti-paladins or paladins of other alignments. Neither did they create many other classes with precise alignment requirements. Only druids were so focused, to be only true neutral.

There are more reasons than just because it's tradition. It was wanted for specific reasons, and I just find it more easy to "ask for the paladin to be LG only" than to say why I think it should be. You have a right to your opinion, which I respect. I still would "vote", essentially, for the game to have only LG paladins, and I don't see any comments as anything more than "votes" as such. "Good gaming".

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

With all due respect to your position, paladins exist in D&D because they are meant to be the LG, traditional types they were. The game's creators felt there was a niche for them, particularly, and they didn't suggest anti-paladins or paladins of other alignments. Neither did they create many other classes with precise alignment requirements. Only druids were so focused, to be only true neutral.

The game's creator's didn't suggest a whole lot of things that D&D has come to include -- from fundamental rules, to new classes and races, to most of the campaign settings, to non-true neutral druids. If "Because Gary and Dave didn't suggest it" were reason to avoid something new, we'd all still be playing OD&D in the Blackmoor and Greyhawk settings.

There are more reasons than just because it's tradition. It was wanted for specific reasons, and I just find it more easy to "ask for the paladin to be LG only" than to say why I think it should be. You have a right to your opinion, which I respect. I still would "vote", essentially, for the game to have only LG paladins, and I don't see any comments as anything more than "votes" as such. "Good gaming".

I'd be very interested to hear arguments for the LG-only paladin that don't boil down to 'Because tradition.'

 

[SirAntoine]

Comment deleted.