Pathfinder 1E Paladin Alignments - More than just LG?

[paradox42]

As far as these arguments are concerned, as you can see, I think the argument "because tradition" has more than enough to settle the matter. Nonetheless, it deserves attention to go into arguments besides tradition.

Tradition is never a reason. Tradition is an excuse. There is no logic in an appeal to tradition, only a statement that the tradition is the speaker's emotional comfort zone and the speaker therefore prefers not to leave it. That is not rational, nor is it an argument- only an appeal to emotion. It is invalid to those whose emotional comfort zones do not include whatever the tradition is about.

But if tradition is what appeals to the reader, then consider this: Rule Zero is also a tradition in place from the earliest days of the game, and Rule Zero says the GM can break the rules when it suits him or her. Therefore, appeals to tradition on keeping rules like the LG Paladin are invalid on the face of it, because a different tradition says the GM is allowed to do Whatever. If the GM wants non-LG Paladins, the GM gets non-LG Paladins. QED.

(I don't have much to contribute to the thread besides the notation about my own world in the post way above, but "arguments" based on tradition have always gotten my goat in a huge way and I generally despise the people who make such arguments in real life.)

 

[SirAntoine]

Tradition is never a reason. Tradition is an excuse. There is no logic in an appeal to tradition, only a statement that the tradition is the speaker's emotional comfort zone and the speaker therefore prefers not to leave it. That is not rational, nor is it an argument- only an appeal to emotion. It is invalid to those whose emotional comfort zones do not include whatever the tradition is about.

But if tradition is what appeals to the reader, then consider this: Rule Zero is also a tradition in place from the earliest days of the game, and Rule Zero says the GM can break the rules when it suits him or her. Therefore, appeals to tradition on keeping rules like the LG Paladin are invalid on the face of it, because a different tradition says the GM is allowed to do Whatever. If the GM wants non-LG Paladins, the GM gets non-LG Paladins. QED.

(I don't have much to contribute to the thread besides the notation about my own world in the post way above, but "arguments" based on tradition have always gotten my goat in a huge way and I generally despise the people who make such arguments in real life.)

I am afraid I am upset by this comment. I don't know how to reply without being angry myself. I doubt "hateful" arguments have any place in these forums, and I won't do anything to stir them on.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

(I don't have much to contribute to the thread besides the notation about my own world in the post way above, but "arguments" based on tradition have always gotten my goat in a huge way and I generally despise the people who make such arguments in real life.)

Statements like this should probably be avoided if we want to avoid getting this thread locked, but I generally agree with the rest of your sentiment. I'd say that I despise arguments based on appeals to tradition because as you say, tradition is just a kind of comfort zone.

Which is fine. Everyone has comfort zones. But one person's comfort zone is meaningless to another's, unless the two are actually gaming together.

 

[Libramarian]

Equating an appeal to tradition with "it should be done like this because this is how it was done before" is a pretty huge strawman. That's not what anybody means by it. More like "this thing is more fun when we're all on the same page (or at least reading the same book) and maintaining a tradition is the best way to do that"--which is often true and a good point.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Equating an appeal to tradition with "it should be done like this because this is how it was done before" is a pretty huge strawman. That's not what anybody means by it. More like "this thing is more fun when we're all on the same page (or at least reading the same book) and maintaining a tradition is the best way to do that"--which is often true and a good point.

Even if, in general, maintaining a tradition is the best way to ensure that everyone is on the same page -- I don't necessarily agree, but don't think it's worth debating here -- in the case of the paladin, keeping everyone on the same page is exceedingly simple. "Hey guys, paladins can be any Good alignment IMC." Done.

Surely, that's not too much trouble for a group who wants more paladin options.

 

[cjr88]

Paladins are champions of their deity. I think a paladins needs to follow the teachings of their deities closer then any other divine caster. So, that may not always be LG, because their deities' teachings may not necessarily put them down the path for LG. But also, because of the way a paladin is trained they are extremely disciplined, arguably the most disciplined class. So, I'm not quite sure I like the idea of a drinking paladin, that's a little undisciplined for me to go along with that. Of couse I don't really like that their is a drunken monk subclass so that may just be me.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

Paladins are champions of their deity. I think a paladins needs to follow the teachings of their deities closer then any other divine caster. So, that may not always be LG, because their deities' teachings may not necessarily put them down the path for LG. But also, because of the way a paladin is trained they are extremely disciplined, arguably the most disciplined class. So, I'm not quite sure I like the idea of a drinking paladin, that's a little undisciplined for me to go along with that. Of course I don't really like that there is a drunken monk subclass so that may just be me.

1) Yes, paladins are champions of their deities.
2) Paladins should follow all of their deity's dogma/tenets/codes closer than anyone else other than maybe clerics who get so many more spells and their own powers from said deities.
3) Truly, not all Deities are LG, there are a lot of them out there that are NG, CG, etc, which is why I started the thread in the first place to find out if anyone thought that having "any good" or "any evil" paladins/anti-paladins become feasible without breaking the game in any way or over powering the class(es).
4) Very true, Paladins are disciplined, but as you said arguably the "most disciplined" as there are the monks out there that could be called the most disciplined class and again as you stated there are even drunken master monks so a paladin who enjoys his drink and follows the god Cayden Cailean would be following his god's beliefs in drinking, having fun, and being free. He wouldn't be an uptight straight-laced paladin by any means, but he'd be for the people and always trying to do the greater good.

To me options are what the game is about and always playing the same type of paladin to me is boring, I've played quite a few of them since AD&D. They just feel too restricted in a lot of ways and I always felt that even though I had a different paladin with a different name and worshiping a different god, he was just the same paladin I played the last time just re-skinned or reborn, but always played pretty much the same exact way because of my own preconceived notions about how I should play the class.

But by adding in more options, it really kicks the door off its hinges for them to play out and be role-played differently, this appeals to me greatly. I guess I have a different view on paladins than a lot of people who are stuck in the mindset that because the RAW says they have to be LG they shouldn't be allowed to be anything else, but I do like to follow RULE 0 in my games and switch things up to make my own home-brews more interesting for myself and my players.

 

[GameOgre]

The Powers and abilities of a Paladin make sense to me for LG Paladins. The entire thing was built towards the idea that Paladins were Good and Lawful and followed their God both on the battlefield and off.

Could you make a holy warrior for chaotic's? Sure! But it wouldn't be a Paladin. Create a new class with chaotic type divine powers and abilities and have at it.

I really don't understand this entire debate. It's the exact debate that the Wizard/Sorcerer's had. Shouldn't you be able to build a magic character with raw innate power who doesn't really need Int but uses raw Cha to power his spells? Well sure,why not? It just isn't the Wizard. Thus the Sorcerer class is born!

If you want Holy Warriors of Chaotic Power why give them the powers that it makes sense for Law to have? Give the there own stuff!

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I agree GameOgre. The key here is archetype, with suitable features matching the archetype. Trying to push the CG avenger into the square Paladin slot doesn't do either any favours. But then again what exactly does the CG avenger archetype look like? If anything is it treading on the Ranger's toes?

That all said I reckon the fallen paladin -> blaggard/redemption angles should be formalized as part of the Paladin class narrative. Not falling as in 4E or becoming utter suck in 1-3E are both evolutionary dead ends imo. Still, wait and see.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

The Powers and abilities of a Paladin make sense to me for LG Paladins. The entire thing was built towards the idea that Paladins were Good and Lawful and followed their God both on the battlefield and off.

Smite evil is certainly only appropriate for Good paladins, but which paladin abilities do you think demand a Lawful outlook?

Could you make a holy warrior for chaotic's? Sure! But it wouldn't be a Paladin. Create a new class with chaotic type divine powers and abilities and have at it.

Or, for a simpler solution which satisfies tradition: Rename it the Holy Warrior class, and call LG holy warriors paladins.

Much less time and energy required than homebrewing two new classes, and less money required than getting a copy of Unearthed Arcana!