Pathfinder 1E Paladin Alignments - More than just LG?

[Tequila Sunrise]

There's a guy on the other forum...

Some gamers are preoccupied with traditions which boil down to -- and I'm quoting a guy who played with Gygax himself -- "We made some up we thought was cool." Gygax himself said that rules are merely guidelines, so even he wouldn't object to you making some new up you think is cool.

So yeah, relaxing the paladin's restrictions will in no way break the class or ruin your campaign. (And I've been doing it since the early 2000's.) If clerics can be any alignment and follow any god, there's certainly nothing radical about paladins being any Good and following any Good-ish god.

 

[SirAntoine]

Some gamers are preoccupied with traditions which boil down to -- and I'm quoting a guy who played with Gygax himself -- "We made some up we thought was cool." Gygax himself said that rules are merely guidelines, so even he wouldn't object to you making some new up you think is cool.

So yeah, relaxing the paladin's restrictions will in no way break the class or ruin your campaign. (And I've been doing it since the early 2000's.) If clerics can be any alignment and follow any god, there's certainly nothing radical about paladins being any Good and following any Good-ish god.

The fact that you need to challenge the idea at all shows that the class has more value left alone, as only LG. It doesn't matter that "you're free to change anything you want", of course you always are, the question is already is that change a good one "do you think".

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

The fact that you need to challenge the idea at all shows that the class has more value left alone, as only LG. It doesn't matter that "you're free to change anything you want", of course you always are, the question is already is that change a good one "do you think".

I thought my answer to that question was pretty clear, but if you want it in one-word form: YES! Further, I think it's a good idea to restrict paladins only as much as clerics are restricted. Which in 3.x means any alignment, and any or no god. The UA variants are all well and good, but you don't need a splatbook to break with tradition. I just said "Paladins can be any alignment, which will change your smite ability and spell list if you're not Good."

I don't see how me challenging a tradition reaffirms the subjective value of that tradition, but I have a long night ahead of me, so by all means educate me.

 

[gamerprinter]

The fact that you need to challenge the idea at all shows that the class has more value left alone, as only LG. It doesn't matter that "you're free to change anything you want", of course you always are, the question is already is that change a good one "do you think".

Who says that a given 'tradition' was the best idea in the first place, it might have actually been a design mistake. Just because something is accepted based on pre-existing notions doesn't mean that had more thought been given the concept, a more versatile design might not have been created instead.

I loved Gygax's work in bringing us this roleplaying game experience that it is, yet even I consider some of his concepts were too limiting or not completely thought through, though the majority was fantastic. When designing the paladin class the first time in 1e, Gary did not have the nearly 50 years experience of the existence of the game. If he'd known that there would be endless arguments in the handling of paladins, their alignment and edicts, and the chance to 'fall' - he might have gone a different way.

Consider that the anti-paladin was in the game in 1e, meaning there was a perception that the paladin class concept could serve another alignment instead of just LG. This should have been a clue that paladins for any specific alignment could have included in the game.

It wasn't, so here we are today...

 

[paradox42]

I'd have to say that paladins should only be LG, and I'd say that even in the face of the three variants in 1st edition's Unearthed Arcana (which were written by Gygax himself). I'd be fine with knight-like, "believers in other ideals", to embody other alignments and even deities and their tenets, but the paladin is distinct and "can only arise from the unique blend of discipline and self-sacrifice" that is LG.

Point of disorder; the variant Paladins actually never appeared in the 1E book titled Unearthed Arcana at all. They appeared in the 3.5E book with the same title (which was a very different work). E. Gary Gygax had nothing whatsoever to do with Paladins of any alignment except Lawful Good; he didn't even do an Antipaladin. That came in an early issue of Dragon Magazine, as did variant Paladins for all nine alignments (including two versions of the True Neutral version- one that could be a PC and the other that really couldn't because they were too busy destroying anything powerful in the name of Balance).

The 1E Unearthed Arcana introduced the seventh stat (Comeliness), and had the first version of the Cavalier class (which immediately changed/moved the Paladin to be a subclass of itself, rather than of the Fighter). It also introduced the Thief-Acrobat and the Hierophant Druid, as well as many very cool spells such as the original Chromatic Orb (a personal favorite of mine).

I have two copies of the 1E book and one copy of the 3.5 one, so I can offer specific page references for these things if you like. The Dragon article with the variant Paladins for the seven alignments other than LG and CE is "A Plethora of Paladins" in issue 106 (February 1986; pages 45-56- cover painting is a female Paladin-looking human standing in front of a brown horse, holding an evident metallic-dragon Wyrmling perched on her left hand and an unsheathed saber/longsword in her right).

 

[gamerprinter]

@paradox42 - I editted my post to include the anti-paladin of AD&D 1e, which was designed before UA. Too late, apparently, to get my meaning into your post. I really meant to include the anti-paladin in my initial post, but somehow it got posted before I was finished. (My keyboard is funny that way - it happens a lot.)

I never bought many Dragon magazines, usually only Halloween issues due to my love of undead things, so I never would have known about the Dragon magazine variants - as a point of order. I bought every hardback, though.

 

[paradox42]

@paradox42 - I editted my post to include the anti-paladin of AD&D 1e, which was designed before UA. Too late, apparently, to get my meaning into your post. I really meant to include the anti-paladin in my initial post, but somehow it got posted before I was finished. (My keyboard is funny that way - it happens a lot.)

No big issue. I just felt like being pedantic and correcting a few things.

 

[SirAntoine]

I thought my answer to that question was pretty clear, but if you want it in one-word form: YES! Further, I think it's a good idea to restrict paladins only as much as clerics are restricted. Which in 3.x means any alignment, and any or no god. The UA variants are all well and good, but you don't need a splatbook to break with tradition. I just said "Paladins can be any alignment, which will change your smite ability and spell list if you're not Good."

I don't see how me challenging a tradition reaffirms the subjective value of that tradition, but I have a long night ahead of me, so by all means educate me.

I'm sorry. I'm very new to this forum and I don't want to start any conflicts (and many have posted about my comment).

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

[MENTION=6731904]SirAntoine[/MENTION] - Well the reason I posted in the first place was to get feedback from all sides and angles. My main question was in regards to the game balance if I did allow the differing alignments of the paladins in my home-brew game. Don't feel bad for starting any kind of debates as that is the essence of being a forum poster. I just didn't want this to be all about the alignments and what they are "supposed to do." So feel free to discuss the merits of why you think paladins should or should not be allowed to be all good and evil alignments. I find it interesting to read everyone's opinions.

I personally don't think I'll allow any neutral aligned paladins (N, CN, LN) with the possible exception of a LN Paladin who followed a deity of balance/neutrality/law. The rest I can see a Paladin following their deity specific tenets/codes and be able to smite evil/good depending on their alignment. I wouldn't change anything in the PF spell lists/powers from what the current paladin and anti-paladin have which would make the conversion only about the allowance of 4 alignments (CG/NG/LE/NE).

 

[gamerprinter]

I'm sorry. I'm very new to this forum and I don't want to start any conflicts (and many have posted about my comment).

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.