Obviously I have missed something...

[Obscuraphile]

So why is everybody specifying Pathfinder 1.0 now?

[KillianHawkeye]

Because of Pathfinder 2.0?

[Particle_Man]

There is a new edition of Pathfinder coming out.

So I don’t know what company will be the torchbearer for 3.x rules now. I mean OGL is forever and the SRD is online but I don’t know what is the largest company extant that still wants to publish new material for it rather than for second edition Pathfinder or fifth edition D&D.

[Obscuraphile]

Because of Pathfinder 2.0?

I had gotten that far. I googled and found some playtest content but thought rather than go read half a dozen articles I would just ask for someone already in the loop to share the highlights. You've been very helpful in this regard.


There is a new edition of Pathfinder coming out.

So I don’t know what company will be the torchbearer for 3.x rules now. I mean OGL is forever and the SRD is online but I don’t know what is the largest company extant that still wants to publish new material for it rather than for second edition Pathfinder or fifth edition D&D.

How much of a change are we talking about? The difference between 2nd edition D&D and 3rd? 3.5 and Pathfinder?

[Eldonauran]

So why is everybody specifying Pathfinder 1.0 now?
I assume it's because of the next generation of Pathfinder (2). However, until it is actually released, I feel no need to specify anything. It's not like I will be switching to it anytime soon.


How much of a change are we talking about? The difference between 2nd edition D&D and 3rd? 3.5 and Pathfinder?Its pretty much like Pathfinder's version of D&D 5e.

[zergling.exe]

I'm curious, is this the subforum where PF2 will actually belong? It seems foreign enough from 3rd edition to not really belong here, but similar enough that it could fit.

[Obscuraphile]

Its pretty much like Pathfinder's version of D&D 5e.

Ugh. :smallyuk:


I'm curious, is this the subforum where PF2 will actually belong? It seems foreign enough from 3rd edition to not really belong here, but similar enough that it could fit.

Will the powers that be finally break PF/SF/PF2 into their own separate subsection? I predict not, but it might be nice.

[Particle_Man]

It might be that pf2 will get its own forum, as 5th edition does.

[Eldonauran]

Ugh. :smallyuk:.
Eh, it's not all that bad. Based on what I've seen, it's got a few good points. I just won't be switching until there is enough support for it to justify the switch, or I won't depending on how it evolves. It's already on thin grounds with me due to their Paladin decision being included in Core (any good alignment).

[Sutehp]

Eh, it's not all that bad. Based on what I've seen, it's got a few good points. I just won't be switching until there is enough support for it to justify the switch, or I won't depending on how it evolves. It's already on thin grounds with me due to their Paladin decision being included in Core (any good alignment).

...Any good alignment for paladins in Pathfinder 2.0? Yeeeeah, somehow I just can't see a Chaotic Good Paladin running around; the two things (1. Chaotic Good and 2. Paladin) just don't seem to mesh. :smallconfused:

[Powerdork]

the two things (1. Chaotic Good and 2. Paladin) just don't seem to mesh. :smallconfused:

A paladin is an invincible* defender of justice. Does justice mean different things to different people? Absolutely. Where's the problem?

[Heliomance]

...Any good alignment for paladins in Pathfinder 2.0? Yeeeeah, somehow I just can't see a Chaotic Good Paladin running around; the two things (1. Chaotic Good and 2. Paladin) just don't seem to mesh. :smallconfused:

Paladins of Freedom are a thing in 3.5...

[OgresAreCute]

I'd rather them remove alignment's game effects altogether like they did in 5e (and I believe also 4e?) D&D. The alignment of your Paladin will be implicit depending on the code they follow anyway, and since no one really seems to agree on how to handle alignments its best not to base an entire core class off of it.

[Malphegor]

I'd rather them remove alignment's game effects altogether like they did in 5e (and I believe also 4e?) D&D. The alignment of your Paladin will be implicit depending on the code they follow anyway, and since no one really seems to agree on how to handle alignments its best not to base an entire core class off of it.

That's probably the best way to do Paladins I suppose. You have a default Paladin, who takes on properties according to the oath they follow, but the oath is something applied after most other aspects of the paladin is made. I think 3.5 'wanted' to do that, if that makes sense, since it seemed like every other book has a variant of Paladin for X alignment or X god, when it'd be easier if there was a generic armoured divine knight class who gets some cool stuff by locking themselves into one alignment and sticking to that forever.

[OgresAreCute]

That's probably the best way to do Paladins I suppose. You have a default Paladin, who takes on properties according to the oath they follow, but the oath is something applied after most other aspects of the paladin is made. I think 3.5 'wanted' to do that, if that makes sense, since it seemed like every other book has a variant of Paladin for X alignment or X god, when it'd be easier if there was a generic armoured divine knight class who gets some cool stuff by locking themselves into one alignment and sticking to that forever.

Yeah that's pretty much how it works in 5e. Each subclass has its own oath/code/tenets and its own features. I don't like 5e anymore because it doesn't have enough content or mechanics to interest me, but the paladin is done a lot better than it was in 3.5. Only weird thing is that you don't get your code until you get your subclass at level 3, so if you start at level 1 you have 2 levels with no oath or code.

[Captain Morgan]

...Any good alignment for paladins in Pathfinder 2.0? Yeeeeah, somehow I just can't see a Chaotic Good Paladin running around; the two things (1. Chaotic Good and 2. Paladin) just don't seem to mesh. :smallconfused:


Actually, Paladins will be LG only in core. They're just going to be a subclass now of a the new "Champion" class. You can be a champion of different alignments, but the code, name, and abilities will vary.

[Eldonauran]

...Any good alignment for paladins in Pathfinder 2.0? Yeeeeah, somehow I just can't see a Chaotic Good Paladin running around; the two things (1. Chaotic Good and 2. Paladin) just don't seem to mesh. :smallconfused:Oh, its not that I don't mind having options available for having a 'Paladin' of any good alignment available, its just that by putting it into print as a 'core' option, and not a 'variant', it becomes less subject to GM control without excessive backlash from insistent players. In a sense, it becomes harder to say "No" when something is listed as Core unless you are willing to 'battle' it out over the issue.

I've got a pretty stable group but we don't always see eye to eye on how the alignment system works and why having a Paladin of a non-lawful alignment would create problems that would need clarified. Paladins are, and have always been, a LG concept with little wiggle room in the roles and choices they are expected to make, in my games. It is why they are so universally trusted by the (non-evil) people and universally feared by evil folk. They do the right things, the right way, and you can be sure that their decisions are consistent and not arbitrary. People wanting to play a Paladin as anything else injects a level of chaos (yes, pun intended) into the role that they fill and changes how the world sees them.

[Particle_Man]

...Any good alignment for paladins in Pathfinder 2.0? Yeeeeah, somehow I just can't see a Chaotic Good Paladin running around; the two things (1. Chaotic Good and 2. Paladin) just don't seem to mesh. :smallconfused:

Well if they can have a CE anti-paladin in 1.0 they can certainly have a CG paladin in 2.0.

[AvatarVecna]

I had gotten that far. I googled and found some playtest content but thought rather than go read half a dozen articles I would just ask for someone already in the loop to share the highlights. You've been very helpful in this regard.

Just so we're clear, you googled around to find out why people are talking about PF 1.0, found out they're making a new edition of PF, came here to ask the first question you now knew the answer to (instead of your new question of "what's the differences between PF 1.0 and PF 2.0?"), and then got snarky at somebody for answering the question you asked instead of answering the question you didn't ask?

Maybe if you don't want stupid answers, you shouldn't ask stupid questions.

[Sutehp]

Well if they can have a CE anti-paladin in 1.0 they can certainly have a CG paladin in 2.0.

Yeah, this is true enough, I suppose. Granted, I'm new to Pathfinder and the d20 system and I've been out of the loop on D&D for 30 years, so obviously I'm not up with all the latest developments (and I've been studiously avoiding Pathfinder 2.0 as I have enough on my plate just trying to learn the ins and outs of 1.0). For my own part, I always imagined the paladin to be Lawful Good because of the whole Shining Knight in Armor mythos. But Particle is right: if Chaotic Evil paladins are a thing, then there's no reason extrapolations like Chaotic Good paladins can't exist either. Anything that adds to the menu of playable character options can't be all bad, especially if it's new or unconventional.

In other words, yeah, when I said I had a hard time seeing non LG paladins as a thing, I was just talking out of my ass. It's been known to happen from time to time. :smallredface:

[Captain Morgan]

Oh, its not that I don't mind having options available for having a 'Paladin' of any good alignment available, its just that by putting it into print as a 'core' option, and not a 'variant', it becomes less subject to GM control without excessive backlash from insistent players. In a sense, it becomes harder to say "No" when something is listed as Core unless you are willing to 'battle' it out over the issue.

I've got a pretty stable group but we don't always see eye to eye on how the alignment system works and why having a Paladin of a non-lawful alignment would create problems that would need clarified. Paladins are, and have always been, a LG concept with little wiggle room in the roles and choices they are expected to make, in my games. It is why they are so universally trusted by the (non-evil) people and universally feared by evil folk. They do the right things, the right way, and you can be sure that their decisions are consistent and not arbitrary. People wanting to play a Paladin as anything else injects a level of chaos (yes, pun intended) into the role that they fill and changes how the world sees them.


Yeah, this is true enough, I suppose. Granted, I'm new to Pathfinder and the d20 system and I've been out of the loop on D&D for 30 years, so obviously I'm not up with all the latest developments (and I've been studiously avoiding Pathfinder 2.0 as I have enough on my plate just trying to learn the ins and outs of 1.0). For my own part, I always imagined the paladin to be Lawful Good because of the whole Shining Knight in Armor mythos. But Particle is right: if Chaotic Evil paladins are a thing, then there's no reason extrapolations like Chaotic Good paladins can't exist either. Anything that adds to the menu of playable character options can't be all bad, especially if it's new or unconventional.

In other words, yeah, when I said I had a hard time seeing non LG paladins as a thing, I was just talking out of my ass. It's been known to happen from time to time. :smallredface:

Again, Paladins will be LG only. The playtest didn't change the name of the class chassis because it wasn't practical but the actual core rulebook will have Champions. Paladins are the LG champions.

[Kurald Galain]

For my own part, I always imagined the paladin to be Lawful Good because of the whole Shining Knight in Armor mythos.
You are quite correct, and a LOT of players share this imagination, and so does Paizo. It's just that there's also a lot of players who want a character that derives strength from a code of honor (i.e. the archetypical paladin) but without the actual code of honor (or alternatively, with "code" that allows you to do whatever you please). Basically, they want the archetypical power-at-a-price deal without having to pay the price.


But Particle is right: if Chaotic Evil paladins are a thing,
But Particle is wrong: chaotic evil paladins are NOT a thing. Sure, they have been printed at some point, but they're not a commonly played or allowed class, and that's because of how ridiculous they are.

Champions of chaotic good (other alignments) have existed for a long time; they're called "clerics".

[Eldonauran]

Again, Paladins will be LG only. The playtest didn't change the name of the class chassis because it wasn't practical but the actual core rulebook will have Champions. Paladins are the LG champions.Until I see the book in actual print, I reserve the right to hold on to my skepticism. But that sounds like a decent alternative, mechanically. Though, people should be prepared for the game world reacting to non-paladin Champions with a bit more skepticism. Whether people like to admit it or not, being able to trust in the consistency and fairness of a set of rules, or honor, is a big part of why Paladins are so trusted. You can believe otherwise, of course, but it holds true in the games I run.

[digiman619]

Champions of chaotic good (other alignments) have existed for a long time; they're called "clerics".
With respect, this is part of the problem with Paladins in general. The character concept of "exemplar of <alignment>" is fine. It's when the fluff of one is "literal paragon of virtue" that there becomes a problem. Lawful Good is not any more moral than NG or CG, but without a class to serve as exemplars for them (something that I applauded 5E for doing, fwiw), it's easy to see LG as the most [Good] alignment, which is a constant thorn in my side as I like playing Robin Hood-esque CG characters and getting overlooked.

[Kish]

If they've made paladins any Good alignment, that's the only thing I've heard about Pathfinder 2ed that I'm wholeheartedly in favor of. Limiting paladins to Lawful Good has always been a legacy of D&D's history of treating Lawful Good as Good Full, Neutral Good as Good Lite, and Chaotic Good as Sort-Of Maybe Good; it belongs in the dustbins of history, but keeping paladins as champions of Good, the best of the best, not going the 4ed/5ed D&D route and simply turning paladins into "martial clerics."

[Kurald Galain]

With respect, this is part of the problem with Paladins in general. The character concept of "exemplar of <alignment>" is fine. It's when the fluff of one is "literal paragon of virtue" that there becomes a problem. Lawful Good is not any more moral than NG or CG, but without a class to serve as exemplars for them (something that I applauded 5E for doing, fwiw), it's easy to see LG as the most [Good] alignment, which is a constant thorn in my side as I like playing Robin Hood-esque CG characters and getting overlooked.

That's not quite it.

Stories need conflict. Power at a price is an interesting conflict, so it turns up in many of stories. Taking restrictions to obtain power is very much a lawful thing: Galahad gets superpowers whereas Robin Hood does not. But it is not a good thing: the archetypical counterpart of the paladin is Faust. Selling your soul to the devil is also a form of power-at-a-price.

So it has nothing to do with "lawful good is the best good", but that tradeoffs and conflicts make for interesting stories, and for that matter interesting mechanics. Getting the same power without any restriction just doesn't do that.

[Remuko]

That's not quite it.

Stories need conflict. Power at a price is an interesting conflict, so it turns up in many of stories. Taking restrictions to obtain power is very much a lawful thing: Galahad gets superpowers whereas Robin Hood does not. But it is not a good thing: the archetypical counterpart of the paladin is Faust. Selling your soul to the devil is also a form of power-at-a-price.

So it has nothing to do with "lawful good is the best good", but that tradeoffs and conflicts make for interesting stories, and for that matter interesting mechanics. Getting the same power without any restriction just doesn't do that.

Why cant variant "paladins" having different tradeoffs and conflicts work then? Why is only Lawful Good able to be/do that?

[Psyren]

Why cant variant "paladins" having different tradeoffs and conflicts work then? Why is only Lawful Good able to be/do that?

They can, but I kind of agree with Kurald - Lawful Good isn't "better," but it is harder. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) It's less flexible - Chaos can follow the rules when it suits them, because they don't care about how things get done as long as they get done. Procedure matters to Law, which means fewer options.

[Captain Morgan]

Until I see the book in actual print, I reserve the right to hold on to my skepticism. .

Considering it has been confirmed by multiple designers, (https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgd2?Shining-Lights-and-Dark-Stars) including Mark Seifter and Jason Bulhman himself, this seems like a weird thing to be skeptical of. The relevant quote:


The numbers are in, and you've made it clear that we should change the name of this class so that it can handle champions of deities of all alignments, and have said that you want the lawful good version to keep the name "paladin." We haven't changed the class name just yet, but I want to make it very clear to everyone who wants the "paladin" name to remain on lawful good that this is only temporary for the purpose of making the update manageable—we're not going to make you all go through your playtest books and change the name of the class every time it comes up; we'll handle that for you in the final book! The basic deal is that we've left the lawful good option—the defender—and also added the redeemer and the liberator, who swap out the last two edicts from each of their codes for some particularly neutral good and chaotic good edicts (instead of the lawful good edicts to obey authority and act honorably). .




Though, people should be prepared for the game world reacting to non-paladin Champions with a bit more skepticism. Whether people like to admit it or not, being able to trust in the consistency and fairness of a set of rules, or honor, is a big part of why Paladins are so trusted. You can believe otherwise, of course, but it holds true in the games I run


Well, considering the Paladin is literally the only one with a tenant that says they can't lie, this mostly tracks. Although the Redeemer and Liberator both have tenants of their own that make them pretty trustworthy in their own ways. The Liberator is going to have the most respect for your personal autonomy and the Redeemer is the one you can count on to be merciful.

For reference, here are the current codes. Note that as I've mentioned several times they are still using Paladin as the class name in the playtest but won't be for the final version.

The following is the fundamental code all paladins of good
alignment follow.
• You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder,
torture, or the casting an evil spell, and you must never
perform acts anathema to your deity.
• You must not use actions that you know will harm an
innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent immediate
harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent
it. This tenet doesn’t force you to take action against possible
harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and potential to
attempt to protect an innocent.


The Defender (Lawful Good)
Your cause drives you to be honorable, forthright, and
committed to pushing back the forces of lawlessness and
cruelty. You gain the Retributive Strike paladin’s reaction and
the lay on hands champion power.
Your paladin’s code consists of the tenets of good, followed
by these tenets.
• You must act with honor, never cheating, lying, or taking
advantage of others.
• You must respect the lawful authority of the legitimate ruler
or leadership in whichever land you may be, following their
laws unless they violate a higher tenet.

The Redeemer (Neutral Good)
Your cause drives you to be compassionate, kind, and full of
hope and forgiveness. You gain the Glimpse of Redemption
paladin’s reaction and the lay on hands champion power.
Your paladin’s code consists of the tenets of good, followed
by these tenets.
• You must first try to redeem or rehabilitate those who commit
evil acts, rather than immediately killing them or meting out
undeserved punishment. However, if they choose to continue
on a wicked path, you might need to take more extreme
measures, especially if innocents would come to harm.
• You must show compassion for others, regardless of their
authority or station.

The Liberator (Chaotic Good)
Your cause drives you to be independent, free-spirited, and
committed to allowing others freedom to choose their own
paths so long as those paths don’t harm innocents. You gain
the Liberating Step paladin’s reaction and the lay on hands
champion power.
Your paladin’s code consists of the tenets of good, followed
by these tenets.
• You must respect the choices others make for their own
lives and can’t force someone to act in a particular way or
threaten them if they don’t act that way.
• You must demand and fight for the freedom of others to
make their own decisions. You must never engage in or
countenance slavery or tyranny.

[Eldonauran]

Considering it has been confirmed by multiple designers, (https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgd2?Shining-Lights-and-Dark-Stars) including Mark Seifter and Jason Bulhman himself, this seems like a weird thing to be skeptical of. The relevant quote: As I said, I will wait to see it IN PRINT and in my hands before I let go of my skepticism. This isn't going to change regardless of how many assurances I am given by the publishers or designers. My skepticism on a new edition is high for various reasons, which will go mostly unnamed as they are merely personal preference or irrelevant to others making their own choices.

[Particle_Man]

I wonder what the Pathfinder 2.0 view on poison is now. It doesn't seem to be prohibited in the Champion Codes, unless poison falls under "evil actions" like "casting an evil spell" does.

Anyhow, the Liberator Code looks interesting. Instant plot hooks! The NG Champion I predict will be the least popular of the three. But maybe I am a murderhobo at heart. :smallbiggrin:

[Captain Morgan]

I wonder what the Pathfinder 2.0 view on poison is now. It doesn't seem to be prohibited in the Champion Codes, unless poison falls under "evil actions" like "casting an evil spell" does.

Anyhow, the Liberator Code looks interesting. Instant plot hooks! The NG Champion I predict will be the least popular of the three. But maybe I am a murderhobo at heart. :smallbiggrin:

Weapon poisons are actually OK, and were stated as such before the playtest was released. There's no real moral or honorable difference between a weapon that poisons someone and a weapon that sets them on fire.

For a LG Paladin, poisoning someone's drink before you challenge them to a fight might be considered dishonorable though.

Other stuff is probably case by case.

[Particle_Man]

For a LG Paladin, poisoning someone's drink before you challenge them to a fight might be considered dishonorable though.

So the Man in Black from The Princess Bride is not a Paladin? Say it isn't so! :smallbiggrin:

[grarrrg]

So the Man in Black from The Princess Bride is not a Paladin? Say it isn't so! :smallbiggrin:

Nah, Paladin is still valid.
Man in Black didn't challenge him to a fight after the poison.
And he poisoned BOTH their drinks.
I mean, just poisoning the opponent's drink would be wrong. But both? Totally fair.

[Jack_Simth]

Nah, Paladin is still valid.
Man in Black didn't challenge him to a fight after the poison.
And he poisoned BOTH their drinks.
I mean, just poisoning the opponent's drink would be wrong. But both? Totally fair.

Given the nature of the challenge? Not really. Or maybe "from a certain point of view" - it was supposed to be a battle of wits, but in the end it was simply misdirection and preparation. Or, perhaps, a battle of wits in that you lose simply by accepting the premise and letting your opponent make the rules.

[grarrrg]

Given the nature of the challenge? Not really. Or maybe "from a certain point of view" - it was supposed to be a battle of wits, but in the end it was simply misdirection and preparation. Or, perhaps, a battle of wits in that you lose simply by accepting the premise and letting your opponent make the rules.

*looks at title of thread again*
I think you missed a joke or two.

[Psyren]

Nah, Paladin is still valid.
Man in Black didn't challenge him to a fight after the poison.
And he poisoned BOTH their drinks.
I mean, just poisoning the opponent's drink would be wrong. But both? Totally fair.

What's funny is that a paladin could actually pull this off - spiking both drinks with a fatal disease due to their immunity :smallbiggrin:

[OgresAreCute]

What's funny is that a paladin could actually pull this off - spiking both drinks with a fatal disease due to their immunity :smallbiggrin:

"I spiked the punch."
"With what?!"
"...Polio."

[Kurald Galain]

Why cant variant "paladins" having different tradeoffs and conflicts work then? Why is only Lawful Good able to be/do that?
I specifically said that Lawful Evil can also do that.

As for chaotic, every chaotic "code of honor" I've seen so far boils down to a code of "do whatever I want". Being able to do whatever you want is clearly not a tradeoff or conflict. I can't think of any common examples of this in fiction, either.

[Remuko]

I specifically said that Lawful Evil can also do that.

As for chaotic, every chaotic "code of honor" I've seen so far boils down to a code of "do whatever I want". Being able to do whatever you want is clearly not a tradeoff or conflict. I can't think of any common examples of this in fiction, either.

Fine then, 3 Paladins: Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, and Lawful Evil. I could understand that. I only dont support the idea of "LG ONLY!".

[Morty]

The only comment I have towards NG and CG paladins is "well, duh". This is such an absolute bare minimum that the only strange thing is why they waited for a few iterations of the playtest before introducing them. The traditional Lawful Good paladin loses absolutely nothing by allowing the other two good alignments to have paladins. Unless someone's satisfaction from playing one is somehow diminished by their existence, I suppose...

[Boci]

The only comment I have towards NG and CG paladins is "well, duh". This is such an absolute bare minimum that the only strange thing is why they waited for a few iterations of the playtest before introducing them. The traditional Lawful Good paladin loses absolutely nothing by allowing the other two good alignments to have paladins. Unless someone's satisfaction from playing one is somehow diminished by their existence, I suppose...

Some people like the challenge a paladin faced, needing to not only be good, but also follow rules and a code whilst doing so. Its a classic choice in many genres, from knights in fantasy to cops in modern crime stories: the character has sworn to uphold the law, but they feel in this case the law is wrong. But surely they can;t just ignore it whenever they dislike it?

A chaotic good paladin goes away with that big choice. Sure, they can still have a code, but by definition it will be less restrictive than a lawful good ones. I personally prefer paladins to be based on ideals, so I don't mind opening them up to all alighments, but I can see why some people prefer lawful good only.

[InvisibleBison]

The Liberator (Chaotic Good)
Your cause drives you to be independent, free-spirited, and
committed to allowing others freedom to choose their own
paths so long as those paths don’t harm innocents. You gain
the Liberating Step paladin’s reaction and the lay on hands
champion power.
Your paladin’s code consists of the tenets of good, followed
by these tenets.
• You must respect the choices others make for their own
lives and can’t force someone to act in a particular way or
threaten them if they don’t act that way.
• You must demand and fight for the freedom of others to
make their own decisions. You must never engage in or
countenance slavery or tyranny.

These two tenets seem to be incompatible with each other. How can you fight for the freedom of others to make their own decisions without forcing the slavers and tyrants to act in a particular way?

[Kurald Galain]

These two tenets seem to be incompatible with each other. How can you fight for the freedom of others to make their own decisions without forcing the slavers and tyrants to act in a particular way?
That would be because the first second tenant is actually lawful rather than chaotic :smallamused:

But yeah, being the champion of a cause doesn't mesh particularly well with having to respect the choice of everyone who actively works against your cause. That's like Futurama's Neutral Planet, with its motto "Live Free Or Don't!"

[Morty]

Some people like the challenge a paladin faced, needing to not only be good, but also follow rules and a code whilst doing so. Its a classic choice in many genres, from knights in fantasy to cops in modern crime stories: the character has sworn to uphold the law, but they feel in this case the law is wrong. But surely they can;t just ignore it whenever they dislike it?

A chaotic good paladin goes away with that big choice. Sure, they can still have a code, but by definition it will be less restrictive than a lawful good ones. I personally prefer paladins to be based on ideals, so I don't mind opening them up to all alighments, but I can see why some people prefer lawful good only.

I'm not a particular fan of locking away player options just because someone somewhere might feel like their preferred way of doing things is less special otherwise.

[Powerdork]

I'm not a particular fan of locking away player options just because someone somewhere might feel like their preferred way of doing things is less special otherwise.

Agreed. It's far easier on the playerbase to have a wide selection of content, some of which can be excluded (as any home game demands), than to have a narrow design base and expect anyone to make up their own new content if they want something interesting and unexplored (as 5e's approach goes).

[Particle_Man]

These two tenets seem to be incompatible with each other. How can you fight for the freedom of others to make their own decisions without forcing the slavers and tyrants to act in a particular way?

I think the "so long as they don't harm innocents" clause earlier is a way out of that trap for the CG champion. If slavery and tyranny is definitionally "harming innocents" according to this CG champion, then they can oppose the slavers and tyrants and force them to stop being slavers and tyrants.

I suppose the CG equivalent of a moral conflict is something like "what if the slaver is keeping their slaves well fed and well-treated, and if the slaver is forced to give up the slaves, the slaves die of starvation?". Sort of a parallel to the LG conflict of "what if the laws I am sworn to uphold lead to bad results?". There are solutions to these conflicts (cue the paladin and alignment threads) but at least there is that conflict.

The NG conflict? Hmmm . . . "If the crimes are really horrible (and I won't go into details here, but yes, *that* horrible, whatever you were thinking of right there), is mercy still appropriate, or can one go straight to ending their life?" Again, the NG code has a solution, but it can lead to inner drama, etc. Also, where does the afterlife figure into all this?

Hopefully the powers between the champions are different enough that they respect the themes.

[Boci]

I'm not a particular fan of locking away player options just because someone somewhere might feel like their preferred way of doing things is less special otherwise.

That's certainly a better approach in general, but for games which lend themselves to a more objective approach to morality, non-lawful good paladins do make the class less special. If you can't see that and want to continue to imply thats all in their head, well, that's on you.

[Kish]

Sure. As long as that "objective approach" includes "Lawful Good > Chaotic Good."

My opinion of that is unprintable, so.

[Boci]

Sure. As long as that "objective approach" includes "Lawful Good > Chaotic Good."

Well yeah. Some people like to escape from the real worlds complex morality of greys and shifting opinions, and enter a world where a shining knight in armour is right and the ultimate, unquestionable authority, where Robin Hood had noble goals but was nevertheless a little cowardly, hiding as he did in the wood. Outside of D&D, lawful is good, chaotic less so, so it not that big a stretch to imagine such attitudes colouring someones take on the game.

I like shades of grey in my fantasy, and I'd grow bored of the above system pretty soon, but I'm down for a single game in such a setting.

[Kish]

Outside of D&D, lawful is good, chaotic less so, so it not that big a stretch to imagine such attitudes colouring someones take on the game.
It has more to do with decades of D&D editions openly putting Lawful above Chaotic.

3.0 finally got rid of that in every respect but the LG-only paladin; sending that last vestige the way of racial level limitations, while keeping the paladin as a holy champion of good who never commits an evil act, is long overdue.

[KillianHawkeye]

Outside of D&D, lawful is good, chaotic less so

I was agreeing with your posts before you said this. I hope you don't really think this is true IRL.

[Boci]

I was agreeing with your posts before you said this. I hope you don't really think this is true IRL.

The connotations are true IRL. Lawful is a positive adjective. Lawful duty, lawful behavior, a lawful indevidual, all are good. Chaotic on the otherhand can be positive in that chaotic indeviduals can be considered more artistic, but if someone says "This is chaotic" about an event, its probably not a compliment, rather a critisism of the organization and planning.

[digiman619]

The connotations are true IRL. Lawful is a positive adjective. Lawful duty, lawful behavior, a lawful indevidual, all are good.
Yes, because apartheid was such a great thing. Laws can and have been unjust throughout huge swaths of human history, and most people abide by the laws not because they are a firm believer of them, but because it's convenient to them to do so, as going to prison/paying huge fines are not conductive to a normal life. That implies neutrality as far as Law/Chaos is concerned.

[Morty]

Agreed. It's far easier on the playerbase to have a wide selection of content, some of which can be excluded (as any home game demands), than to have a narrow design base and expect anyone to make up their own new content if they want something interesting and unexplored (as 5e's approach goes).

Weirdly enough, 5E's approach to paladins is the best incarnation of the class I've seen. But opening them up to other good alignments is good enough. Just as long as we don't write a whole class around one very narrow interpretation of one alignment.


If you can't see that and want to continue to imply thats all in their head, well, that's on you.

I think I'm going to continue doing just that, yes.

[Boci]

Yes, because apartheid was such a great thing. Laws can and have been unjust throughout huge swaths of human history, and most people abide by the laws not because they are a firm believer of them, but because it's convenient to them to do so, as going to prison/paying huge fines are not conductive to a normal life. That implies neutrality as far as Law/Chaos is concerned.

I said lawful, not law. Ofcourse laws can be wrong, but none of what you said disproves that lawful is a positive adjective whilst chaotic is more mixed. People who where against Apartheid were unlikely to have made the argument "This is lawful" because that's not an argument you make against something.

[OgresAreCute]

Might wanna cool it with the real world sociopolitics before the mods find you.

[upho]

Seems I just couldn't let this thread rest, now that I happened to discover it. There is/was simply way too much of people talking past each other, and way too limited a scope in this discussion. Just as in most discussions on this topic, I feel many people confuse stuff. Such as the collection of game mechanics known as the "Paladin class" in D&D/PF with what the term "paladin" means outside the game, what the paladin's code means with what it could and should mean, and how the alignment system is or should be applied in the game with what it does say/dictate and what it doesn't.


You are quite correct, and a LOT of players share this imagination, and so does Paizo. It's just that there's also a lot of players who want a character that derives strength from a code of honor (i.e. the archetypical paladin) but without the actual code of honor (or alternatively, with "code" that allows you to do whatever you please). Basically, they want the archetypical power-at-a-price deal without having to pay the price.While I'm absolutely certain there are players who do think like this, I'm equally certain among those who don't want a LG-only paladin class chassis, there are at least as many players who don't think like this. I'm one of them.

And just as an example, of all the paladins I've played in various editions, the one which had the most difficult ideals/code of conduct/oath to live up to in practice was "unaligned". And I mean difficult both in terms of "how to survive and thrive as an adventurer without breaking my oath" and in terms of "tackling in-game situations when my oath has conflicting demands".


But Particle is wrong: chaotic evil paladins are NOT a thing. Sure, they have been printed at some point, but they're not a commonly played or allowed class, and that's because of how ridiculous they are.Actually, I'd say you're both wrong: chaotic evil pallies aren't a thing, and they also haven't been printed for 3e/PF (at least not in a 1PP release). FYI, the PF Antipaladin is explicitly not a Paladin, even though its chassis is similar enough to rightfully call it an "alternate class" of the paladin.


Champions of chaotic good (other alignments) have existed for a long time; they're called "clerics".Eh...? :smallconfused: Considering I've never heard you complain about LG pallies and LG clerics coexisting in the game, it seems to me even you yourself actually recognize this particular argument as complete BS.

Or are you actually saying there's some kind of unique aspect of the LG alignment which makes LG pallies and clerics an exception? If so, I'd really appreciate if you could point out this unique aspect to me.

Note that this does not in any way question the idea that only a LG champion should be called a "Paladin". It questions the apparent belief that such a LG champion's class chassis and general "champion of alignment/deity/ideal"-theme cannot be just as suitable for a champion of another alignment with a different name.


They can, but I kind of agree with Kurald - Lawful Good isn't "better," but it is harder. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html)I actually find that OotS episode to be an equally good (pun intended) argument against LG being harder, considering the bottom line is "Roy is trying to be LG and the multiverse therefore recognizes him as LG". Which in effect arguably makes LG easier in practice.


It's less flexible - Chaos can follow the rules when it suits them, because they don't care about how things get done as long as they get done. Procedure matters to Law, which means fewer options.Regardless of whether this would have to be true when translated into paladin codes of conduct, if this actually is a problem, then why not simply expand the Golarion theme where the codes of conduct depend just as much on particulars of the paladin's deity as it does on alignment?

Adhering to CG in a certain way can easily be made just as challenging as adhering to LG. As can adhering to any alignment and many other ideals, actually.


Stories need conflict. Power at a price is an interesting conflict, so it turns up in many of stories. Taking restrictions to obtain power is very much a lawful thing: Galahad gets superpowers whereas Robin Hood does not. But it is not a good thing: the archetypical counterpart of the paladin is Faust. Selling your soul to the devil is also a form of power-at-a-price.

So it has nothing to do with "lawful good is the best good", but that tradeoffs and conflicts make for interesting stories, and for that matter interesting mechanics. Getting the same power without any restriction just doesn't do that.I absolutely agree with you here. But could you maybe explain why the "power-at-a-price"-theme isn't possible to apply to "paladin-equivalents" serving deities of other alignments.


I suppose the CG equivalent of a moral conflict is something like "what if the slaver is keeping their slaves well fed and well-treated, and if the slaver is forced to give up the slaves, the slaves die of starvation?". Sort of a parallel to the LG conflict of "what if the laws I am sworn to uphold lead to bad results?". There are solutions to these conflicts (cue the paladin and alignment threads) but at least there is that conflict.This is a pretty good example of how CG can be just as demanding as LG.


With respect, this is part of the problem with Paladins in general. The character concept of "exemplar of <alignment>" is fine. It's when the fluff of one is "literal paragon of virtue" that there becomes a problem. Lawful Good is not any more moral than NG or CG, but without a class to serve as exemplars for them (something that I applauded 5E for doing, fwiw), it's easy to see LG as the most [Good] alignment, which is a constant thorn in my side as I like playing Robin Hood-esque CG characters and getting overlooked.And on top of that, I also believe a lot of people would in RL regard many behaviors that explicitly only have a C+ value in the alignment system to also have an E+ value. Such as theft. And then they confuse their own view of RL behaviors with what the alignment system actually says about in-game behaviors.


Weirdly enough, 5E's approach to paladins is the best incarnation of the class I've seen. But opening them up to other good alignments is good enough. Just as long as we don't write a whole class around one very narrow interpretation of one alignment.Agreed. Though I can certainly see why some people would find it very awkward to call a non-LG class/sub-class "Paladin".

[Kurald Galain]

I absolutely agree with you here. But could you maybe explain why the "power-at-a-price"-theme isn't possible to apply to "paladin-equivalents" serving deities of other alignments.
It's a lawful thing.

Because practically speaking, most chaotic "equivalents" to a paladin either have a moral code of "do whatever I like" (which means it's not power-at-a-price), or can simply ignore their moral codes since they're chaotic.


"what if the slaver is keeping their slaves well fed and well-treated, and if the slaver is forced to give up the slaves, the slaves die of starvation?"
That strikes me as an example of a character ignoring his moral code; it is very contrived so suggest that people would just starve if set free. This is clearly not a moral dilemma.

[Psyren]

I actually find that OotS episode to be an equally good (pun intended) argument against LG being harder, considering the bottom line is "Roy is trying to be LG and the multiverse therefore recognizes him as LG". Which in effect arguably makes LG easier in practice.

I don't see it that way at all. He was literally one act away from failing his evaluation (on both axes no less), and the act that let him barely pass almost got him killed. If that's not hard, what is?



Regardless of whether this would have to be true when translated into paladin codes of conduct, if this actually is a problem, then why not simply expand the Golarion theme where the codes of conduct depend just as much on particulars of the paladin's deity as it does on alignment?

Adhering to CG in a certain way can easily be made just as challenging as adhering to LG. As can adhering to any alignment and many other ideals, actually.

But Golarion doesn't have any CG paladins, so that isn't exactly helping your case.

Moreover, the whole point of Chaos is that there IS no "certain way." They achieve their goals by whatever way is most expedient. If a code is getting in the way of a CG character doing good, they ditch the code or amend it. If Han Solo needs to blast Greedo so he can go save the galaxy faster he'll do it.



This is a pretty good example of how CG can be just as demanding as LG.

It's not though, that conundrum is on one axis. LG doesn't support slavery either, and all three good alignments would not want to rip up the carpet if it meant hurting the innocents caught in the crossfire.

[Florian]

These two tenets seem to be incompatible with each other. How can you fight for the freedom of others to make their own decisions without forcing the slavers and tyrants to act in a particular way?

Do you know Poppers Paradox? "For a truly open society, no tolerance towards the intolerant".


Fine then, 3 Paladins: Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, and Lawful Evil. I could understand that. I only dont support the idea of "LG ONLY!".

Basically, the best interpretation would be, that devotion to an alignment will form a champion whose powers are directly based on that alignment, each having a truly unique expression. In case of LG, that would be the Paladin. Personally, I loath the old concept of variant paladin and how they handled the Anti-Paladin in PF. Looking at the Azatariel Swashbuckler is a good example how another kind of champion this time CG, could look like.

[Morty]

Agreed. Though I can certainly see why some people would find it very awkward to call a non-LG class/sub-class "Paladin".

I can see it too. I just don't think their feelings of discomfort and awkwardness should bar others from playing what they want. No one forces anyone to play a CG or NG paladin, or a non-Devotion 5E paladin.

[Powerdork]

But Golarion doesn't have any CG paladins

This is immaterial. If Pathfinder 2nd edition writes in service of Golarion, and not the sort of homebrew campaign setting you see people put out in tabletop podcasts, then it does a disservice to everyone but Golarion fans.

[Kurald Galain]

This is immaterial.
The point you're missing is that Paizo's best and most popular material is, and has always been, not rules but settings and adventures. They write P2 to support their settings and adventures, not some random guy's homebrew.

[upho]

It's a lawful thing.

Because practically speaking, most chaotic "equivalents" to a paladin either have a moral code of "do whatever I like" (which means it's not power-at-a-price), or can simply ignore their moral codes since they're chaotic.If this were true, there wouldn't for example be any meaningful differences between CG deities. Just because you're a champion of a CG deity, it doesn't follow that you also have to simultaneously be 100% good AND 100% chaotic in all your actions, beliefs and perspectives. In fact, that would not only be a paradox in and of itself, but it also wouldn't actually adhere to your CG deity's ideal.

For example, you can absolutely be C and have a personal code or take a sworn oath to follow a certain ideal just as seriously as a LG individual. You won't be 100% C in that particular regard, but neither is the LG person 100% L if for example fighting against a lawfully gained and lawfully operated rule. Which is also absolutely fine, since alignments are abstract descriptions of these individuals' actions and ideals from the G-E/L-C axes perspective, and should never be seen as prescriptive causes for their actions.

There's absolutely no reason to demand more C from a CG champion than L from an LG one, and there's really no reason to even demand their L/C amounts must be about equal. You definitely don't need total unpredictable CHAOS© at all times and in all ways to make a perfectly believable CG champion of a CG deity.

And most importantly, even should we suppose you are correct, it does not in any way hinder the existence or "price-at-a-cost"-theme of non-LG "paladins". Nor does it unavoidably result in "do whatever I like"-champions just because CG happens to be the most fitting alignment description of those champions and their ideals. To me, the solution is so darn obvious I'm kinda surprised it's not mentioned a lot more often, so just in case anyone has missed this:

Don't base a code of conduct on an alignment position.

Done. Now you can have your cake and eat it too, and the alignment system works as intended: descriptive instead of prescriptive.

And there's another great reason for doing this, namely that there are a lot of ideals and related deities not primarily defined by their position on G-E/L-C axes. And several of those have already been proven to work great as the ideals of "price-at-a-cost"-themed champions. Some of them arguably a lot better than the LG alignment ideals.


That strikes me as an example of a character ignoring his moral code; it is very contrived so suggest that people would just starve if set free. This is clearly not a moral dilemma.Are you seriously saying you can't see how this kind of "good intentions, road to Hell"-dilemma both happens in RL all the time, and would also be a lot tougher for a Pally following the PF2 CG code than for one following the LG one?


I don't see it that way at all. He was literally one act away from failing his evaluation (on both axes no less), and the act that let him barely pass almost got him killed. If that's not hard, what is?I don't see what makes you think he was close to failing on the G-E axis, but yes, he was close to failing the L bit.

The thing I think you're missing is that nothing says you couldn't have a situation just as tough but with a CG Roy trying to get into whatever is the equivalent of PF's Elysium or D&D's Ysgard. Especially since the whole reason it was tough for Roy to remain LG was because of the specific situation he was put in. Which I definitely agree is particularly difficult for LG, as also showcased by his father.

But regardless, this is irrelevant since see the whole idea that champions of an ideal/cause/deity primarily must or should be defined by their alignment is simply counter-productive, needlessly limiting or shutting out great related character/design concepts. Not to mention this idea is very much an example of allowing the alignment system to become prescriptive instead of descriptive, as is also touched upon in the following very important paragraph in PF's alignment system description:

"Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent."

Many people forget this. Including the PF designers themselves sometimes.


But Golarion doesn't have any CG paladins, so that isn't exactly helping your case.That's what I meant by "expanding the Golarion theme". Meaning it easily could have CG paladin equivalents, and those equivalents could have code primarily dictated by their deities' ideals, not the fact that they happen to be best described as CG.


Moreover, the whole point of Chaos is that there IS no "certain way." They achieve their goals by whatever way is most expedient. If a code is getting in the way of a CG character doing good, they ditch the code or amend it. If Han Solo needs to blast Greedo so he can go save the galaxy faster he'll do it.OK, so what you're basically saying is that the predictable nature of LG means it simply cannot be anything but a prescriptive "straitjacket for restricting your character", while the unpredictable nature of CG means it simply cannot be anything but descriptive (and only rarely a "straitjacket")?


It's not though, that conundrum is on one axis. LG doesn't support slavery either, and all three good alignments would not want to rip up the carpet if it meant hurting the innocents caught in the crossfire.But why does it matter which alignment it's tougher for? The important point is that it's tougher for the pally following the quoted CG pally code. The alignment part is - or should be - simply a side-effect of following that code, and only because CG happens to be the most fitting alignment description. Most importantly, the alignment part itself should definitely not be seen as the cause for the code.

Again: descriptive, not prescriptive. Unlike the code which can - and IMO should - certainly be prescriptive.

[upho]

The point you're missing is that Paizo's best and most popular material is, and has always been, not rules but settings and adventures. They write P2 to support their settings and adventures, not some random guy's homebrew.Yeah, this is true. And IMO you can often tell this is the case when comparing the quality of their products. It's not that "some random guy's homebrew" is ignored, it's simply not a priority. If nothing else, Golarion as whole also includes so many widely varying fantasy/SF themes it's really easy to pilfer and/or adapt stuff and use it in whatever your particular homebrew setting might be. It really is an extreme kitchen-sink world, including whatever a particular previous AP needed, so there's everything from gritty low fantasy medieval style regions to Faerun-style "glam-fantasy", in addition to crazy AI's with L-A-Z-O-R-S, armies of space invaders and Lovecraftian ancients occasionally popping by and messing things up.

But regardless, a non-LG Paladin-ish class work just fine in Golarion, even if disregarding the setting's more crazy elements. And there are plenty of suitable non-LG deities for such "Paladins" to serve, many of which arguably have far better reasons for having divinely empowered "templars" than some of the LG ones, conceptually speaking.

[Kish]

If it was about having "templars" to serve a god, that's called clerics.

[upho]

If it was about having "templars" to serve a god, that's called clerics.Well, I guess our PF-related connotations of the term "templar" differ then. But regardless, it was intended as shorthand for "non-LG class with a Paladin chassis sworn to follow and uphold the ideals of their deity". I had hoped that was kinda obvious, considering the context.

And for example Gorum, Sarenrae, Abadar, Shelyn, Asmodeus and especially Pharasma and Milani, just to name a few of the non-LG Inner Sea deities, have ideals and often churches/organizations which make the existence of some "non-LG paladin" clergy reasonable, if not expected.

[Kish]

And I think it should be obvious that if you disconnect paladins from "champion of Good" and make them "champions of a god" instead, you've got more martial clerics--a role for an archetype, not a class.

So I guess each of us can agree that someone is missing the obvious.

Fortunately or un, depending on one's individual point of view, Pathfinder 2ed apparently makes the class champions of Good, not alignment-general champions of a god as some people were hoping they would copy from 4ed and 5ed. If they keep the concept of archetypes from 1ed, and you want "templars of Gorum," my advice would remain to look at the cleric archetypes, but you have no reason to take my advice, of course.

[Kurald Galain]

Well, I guess our PF-related connotations of the term "templar" differ then. But regardless, it was intended as shorthand for "non-LG class with a Paladin chassis sworn to follow and uphold the ideals of their deity".

"Non-LG class sworn to follow and uphold the ideals of their deity" simply means "cleric". "Paladin chassis" is pretty vague though. It generally means that you're good with weapons and get divine casting, which again means "cleric". Are you're looking for more melee ability and less casting, like a P1 warpriest or inquisitor? Did you mean that you have to use a sword and/or fullplate? Did you expect non-LG templar to get the exact same abilities as a LG templar, even though those abilities do come from the LG literary archetype? Mark/aggro ability like in MMORPGs or 4E? Really, what even is a "paladin chassis"?

[Psyren]

I don't see what makes you think he was close to failing on the G-E axis, but yes, he was close to failing the L bit.

She explicitly said she would have kicked him from LG to TN if he had abandoned Elan, so that's two axes, not one.



The thing I think you're missing is that nothing says you couldn't have a situation just as tough but with a CG Roy trying to get into whatever is the equivalent of PF's Elysium or D&D's Ysgard.

I agree that such a situation could exist, but where I take issue is with it being "just as tough."

"You obeyed authority that one time to try and solve a larger problem" is a much easier situation to explain away than "you broke an oath in order to try and solve a larger problem." The first is just doing what's convenient even if it creates inconsistent behavior, which Chaos has no problem with. The second is also just doing whats convenient even if it creates inconsistent behavior, which Law opposes. There's a reason why the latter gets much more attention in fiction than the former.



But regardless, this is irrelevant since see the whole idea that champions of an ideal/cause/deity primarily must or should be defined by their alignment is simply counter-productive, needlessly limiting or shutting out great related character/design concepts. Not to mention this idea is very much an example of allowing the alignment system to become prescriptive instead of descriptive, as is also touched upon in the following very important paragraph in PF's alignment system description:

"Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent."

Many people forget this. Including the PF designers themselves sometimes.

That passage means you won't change alignments for an occasional act (based of course on the magnitude of that act.) But a pattern of behavior, a go-to method of approaching problems, or a sufficiently serious act is an indication that you might have the wrong alignment on your sheet. Otherwise there's no point in it, and you can do whatever you want regardless of what you have marked there. Which isn't a badwrong way to play, but at that point I would just use one of the variants that removes alignment entirely.



That's what I meant by "expanding the Golarion theme". Meaning it easily could have CG paladin equivalents, and those equivalents could have code primarily dictated by their deities' ideals, not the fact that they happen to be best described as CG.

But that goes right back to Kurald's statement that we have that already, and it's called clerics.

Which honestly might be the better approach. Use the Divine Obedience as a guide and create "Exemplar" codes for each deity. The "Paladin" is the class that has to follow those divine codes and match their deity's alignment. Then the CG Paladin doesn't fall for not being CG, but for veering from their deity's view of what that should mean.

Clerics meanwhile are the ones that have more freedom to interpret the deity's dogma (as indicated by the One-Step Rule) but they have to rely more on their granted magic for protection than innate powers like Divine Grace.



OK, so what you're basically saying is that the predictable nature of LG means it simply cannot be anything but a prescriptive "straitjacket for restricting your character", while the unpredictable nature of CG means it simply cannot be anything but descriptive (and only rarely a "straitjacket")?

I don't see every restriction as a "straitjacket." Law needs some restrictions, or else what's the point in calling it that? That doesn't mean you can't have multiple approaches to even the standard paladin, as the Giant demonstrated with O-Chul, Hinjo, Lien, Thanh, and of course Miko.



But why does it matter which alignment it's tougher for? The important point is that it's tougher for the pally following the quoted CG pally code. The alignment part is - or should be - simply a side-effect of following that code, and only because CG happens to be the most fitting alignment description. Most importantly, the alignment part itself should definitely not be seen as the cause for the code.

Again: descriptive, not prescriptive. Unlike the code which can - and IMO should - certainly be prescriptive.

What originally started this whole tangent was Kurald's statement about "power at a price" being more interesting narratively and mechanically. Law is stricter than Chaos (which is the whole point of Law) and therefore the "price" is higher. That doesn't mean LG is more powerful or more effective than CG - just that that specific dichotomy/tradeoff is more interesting to craft mechanics around. It's the reason why LG paladins have more representation throughout the game's history than any other kind, and in all other fictional portrayals too.

Put another way, LG paladins can "fall" in two directions - by doing something evil, or by doing something dishonest. CG paladins really only have to worry about the evil part - a chaotic person being honest just means its the most expedient way to get what they want at that moment. A lawful person meanwhile will be honest even if it makes their overall objective more difficult to attain.

[Kish]

For example, Delsenora the mage began the game neutral good. However, as she adventured, she regularly supported the downtrodden and the oppressed, fighting for their rights and their place in society. About the time she reached 5th level, it was clear to the DM that Delsenora was behaving more as a lawful good character and he enforced an alignment change.
Just to make sure everyone's at least on the same page with regard to what's being argued about, there are, as far as I can tell, three distinct positions here:
1. Paladins have been Lawful Good because the Lawful Good alignment is uniquely suited for having special knights in shining armor, and should be forever Lawful Good. This is the position taken by Kurald (as I understand it; I'll edit it if requested, as long as the request doesn't include statements that this position is more valid than the others).

2. Paladins are martial champions of deities, long restricted to Lawful Good completely arbitrarily, and should be opened up to every deity, with the alignment restriction dropped as it never made any sense. This is the position taken by upho (as I understand it; I'll edit it if requested, as long as the request doesn't include statements that this position is more valid than the others).

3. Paladins have been Lawful Good because of the longstanding and pretty overt tradition (quote put in to support this) that Lawful Good was the most good of the good alignments, and as D&D finally steps away from that idea, it makes sense to open them up to Neutral and Chaotic Good. It makes no sense to open them up to non-Good alignments because paladins are champions of Good, not of gods; the role of champions of gods is filled by clerics (and other miscellaneous riffraff like warpriests and inquisitors, as Psyren pointed out). A paladin should always be a holy champion of Good, the best of the best, who cannot commit an evil act and remain a paladin. This is the position taken by Kish.

[Psyren]

Just to make sure everyone's at least on the same page with regard to what's being argued about, there are, as far as I can tell, three distinct positions here:
1. Paladins have been Lawful Good because the Lawful Good alignment is uniquely suited for having special knights in shining armor, and should be forever Lawful Good. This is the position taken by Psyren and Kurald (as I understand it; I'll edit it if requested, as long as the request doesn't include statements that this position is more valid than the others).

Well, not really - I was explaining why LG paladins have been the go-to, not advocating that it has to be that way. My actual preference is indeed a paladin for each alignment extreme (the corners), but I'm acknowledging the difficulty in making the Chaotic ones have a "code" that is as much of a trade-off for them as such would be for the lawful ones. I don't have a solution to the conundrum that I find appealing, which is probably why I'm coming across as pro status-quo when I'm actually not. I think LG-only is boring, and I think the CE code just encourages stupid-evil behavior. (Plus I thoroughly detest the term "antipaladin" - in the handful of games I've seen where someone was interested in that class, we just called it a Blackguard and ignored the PrC.)

The closest thing to a compromise I can readily think of is closer to your #2, that the codes are geared more at the deities than the alignments themselves, because then you can have a chaotic "paladin" that can violate their code in a quick/dramatic way without having to be overly lawful, however that might even be defined. And the standard LG paladin code would then just be Iomedae's edict, because she's the quintessential paladin.

I probably muddied the waters even further but that's where I'm coming from.

[Morty]

The relationship of paladins with gods has been weird. The basic 3E rules don't actually require them to follow a deity, and neither do older editions as far as I can tell, but many people assume they do. Is it because of Forgotten Realms, which explicitly require all divine casters to have a patron god? Is it a quirk of this site because OotS assumes that paladins follow deities as well?

The PF SRD only mentions deities once in a pretty ambiguous manner. But the PF2E playtest does outright call them champions of a deity. I'm not really sure why. But I personally don't think paladins should serve gods. I favour separating them from deities and alignments and emphasizing different oaths, orders and creeds.

[Boci]

The PF SRD only mentions deities once in a pretty ambiguous manner. But the PF2E playtest does outright call them champions of a deity. I'm not really sure why. But I personally don't think paladins should serve gods. I favour separating them from deities and alignments and emphasizing different oaths, orders and creeds.

Wouldn't that be a knight or cavalier?

As for mentioning dieties in PF:

"Upon reaching 5th level, a paladin forms a divine bond with her god." and "At 20th level, a paladin becomes a conduit for the power of her god."

That doesn't seem ambiguous. Its wierd that they don't codify a requirement to worship a god, but the intent seems clear based on those two lines.

[Florian]

The relationship of paladins with gods has been weird. The basic 3E rules don't actually require them to follow a deity, and neither do older editions as far as I can tell, but many people assume they do. Is it because of Forgotten Realms, which explicitly require all divine casters to have a patron god? Is it a quirk of this site because OotS assumes that paladins follow deities as well?

The core rules try to be a bit of generic and give leeway to home-brewed settings, so some of the divine casters are handled in a rather vague way, like Rangers and Druids only needing to revere "Nature" and such. Setting rules will mostly override and replace that, be it the Forgotten Realms or Golarion,


Just to make sure everyone's at least on the same page with regard to what's being argued about, there are, as far as I can tell, three distinct positions here:
1. Paladins have been Lawful Good because the Lawful Good alignment is uniquely suited for having special knights in shining armor, and should be forever Lawful Good. This is the position taken by Kurald (as I understand it; I'll edit it if requested, as long as the request doesn't include statements that this position is more valid than the others)

I´m of the opinion that the Paladin class as is works only as a direct representative of LG. It´s not a generic "champion", see Clerics, Inquisitors and Warpriests for that, but is a distinctive Knight in Shining Armor type, that exemplifies "Right Makes Might". The Azatariel archetype for Swashbuckler is a great example how a champion based on CG could look like and is quite different from the Paladin class.

[Kurald Galain]

The relationship of paladins with gods has been weird. The basic 3E rules don't actually require them to follow a deity, and neither do older editions as far as I can tell, but many people assume they do. Is it because of Forgotten Realms, which explicitly require all divine casters to have a patron god? Is it a quirk of this site because OotS assumes that paladins follow deities as well?

Practically speaking, there is no visible difference between a character who follows the ideal of X, and a character who worships the deity of X. It's one of those little academic things that's a topic for lengthy forum debate, but that basically never comes up in actual gameplay.

[Remuko]

Well, not really - I was explaining why LG paladins have been the go-to, not advocating that it has to be that way. My actual preference is indeed a paladin for each alignment extreme (the corners)

This catches my eye so I thought I might chime in and pick your brain. The 4 "extremes" are of course: LG, CG, LE, and CE. But I have always felt like D&Ds alignment system (at least as it is in 3.5, and i believe PF1 as well) has a 10th alignment, instead of the 9 listed. I've always seen True Neutral as two separate and entirely conflicting alignments with the same name, and fell that in your "extremes" example, a "Paladin" of one of these "True Neutrals" could work as well, as an extreme alignment (imo) itself.

To clarify in case its not clear as is, the two variations of neutrality I see, are All Encompassing Neutrality, and All Rejecting Neutrality (i have no idea what better names to give them atm). One seeks Neutrality by seeing the merit in all alignments and balancing them harmoniously. While the later finds all alignments straying from the purity of nature (which tends to be TN itself), thus thinking that engaging in too much of any of the 4 axes is blasphemous. Dont be good, dont be evil, dont be lawful or chaotic, just...be.

But yeah hearing your idea about 4 extremes as the only "Paladins" made me think that a Paladin of All Rejecting Neutrality seems like an extreme alignment in-line with your views. What do you think? Under your idea of Paladin classes, would this 5th one work? Do you need more info about something? Anyone else could chime in as well I suppose as well.

[Morty]

Wouldn't that be a knight or cavalier?

Do all knights or cavaliers have divinely-powered abilities? And is every paladin necessarily a knight?


As for mentioning dieties in PF:

"Upon reaching 5th level, a paladin forms a divine bond with her god." and "At 20th level, a paladin becomes a conduit for the power of her god."

That doesn't seem ambiguous. Its wierd that they don't codify a requirement to worship a god, but the intent seems clear based on those two lines.

Right, I missed those two lines but I don't think they make it any more consistent. There's no mention of gods in the code of conduct, but they get randomly mentioned in some abilities.



I´m of the opinion that the Paladin class as is works only as a direct representative of LG. It´s not a generic "champion", see Clerics, Inquisitors and Warpriests for that, but is a distinctive Knight in Shining Armor type, that exemplifies "Right Makes Might". The Azatariel archetype for Swashbuckler is a great example how a champion based on CG could look like and is quite different from the Paladin class.

I'd buy this argument if the only difference between clerics and paladins were alignment requirements. But putting aside the 3E cleric's ability to do the paladin's job better, clerics are spellcasters and paladins are warriors with divine abilities. If someone wants to play the latter, telling them to play the former isn't terribly helpful. And since we're talking about PF2E, inquisitors and warpriests don't exist yet. It's arguable if they should in the first place.

[Kurald Galain]

clerics are spellcasters and paladins are warriors with divine abilities.
Clerics have traditionally worked very well as "warrior with divine abilities". In all editions I can think of, they have enough hit points, armor, and saving throws to be a capable frontliner; and enough choice of martially-inclined gods that give you a good weapon proficiency.

I'm all in favor of having four classes for (1) divine caster who can't fight, (2) divine fighter with lesser casting, (3) arcane caster who can't fight, and (4) arcane fighter with lesser casting; but traditionally clerics have always covered both #1 and #2 (whereas wizards are just #3 and building an effective #4 is more complicated than it should be).

So yes, if you want a "warrior with divine abilities" that's not lawful good, cleric does cover that and has done so since first edition.

[Morty]

Clerics have traditionally worked very well as "warrior with divine abilities". In all editions I can think of, they have enough hit points, armor, and saving throws to be a capable frontliner; and enough choice of martially-inclined gods that give you a good weapon proficiency.

I'm all in favor of having four classes for (1) divine caster who can't fight, (2) divine fighter with lesser casting, (3) arcane caster who can't fight, and (4) arcane fighter with lesser casting; but traditionally clerics have always covered both #1 and #2 (whereas wizards are just #3 and building an effective #4 is more complicated than it should be).

So yes, if you want a "warrior with divine abilities" that's not lawful good, cleric does cover that and has done so since first edition.

Unless someone doesn't want to wrangle the considerable size of a cleric's spell list. Or be the party's go-to healer. Besides, if clerics do the job just fine, why are paladins a full class? Seems to me like it'd be easier to make them a variant cleric that's LG-only and has a strict code of conduct but can smite evil targets.

[Kurald Galain]

Besides, if clerics do the job just fine, why are paladins a full class?
Because paladins have the whole power-at-a-price thing that we've been discussing throughout this thread :smallamused:

[upho]

And I think it should be obvious that if you disconnect paladins from "champion of Good" and make them "champions of a god" instead, you've got more martial clerics--a role for an archetype, not a class.My bad, I should've been more clear: the "non-LG Paladins" I'm imagining certainly don't have to be "champions of a god", and I have no problems whatsoever with some of them being "champions of Good (or LG)". In fact, I'd even say it would be better if at least a majority of these "paladins" (LG or not) were indeed champions of a distinct ideal, philosophy or mission not tied to a specific deity (even though many of those ideals might match those of certain deities and alignments better than those of others, of course). Likewise, I have no problems whatsoever with reserving the specific name "Paladin" exclusively for the LG champion sub-class/archetype/variant, nor do I have any problems depicting "paladins" (LG or not) of certain ideals shared by several deities in a pantheon, like the Sovereign Host in Eberron or similar.

What I do have a problem with is giving the LG alignment exclusive rights to a pretty awesome class concept, based on the "power at a price" and "power of conviction"/"right makes might" themes. Because that exclusiveness is per definition objectively arbitrary simply by it's inherent subjectivity. And it remains objectively arbitrary even if one stipulates that only dedication to an extreme alignment position can fuel such a concept. Since even in that case, the "price of power" could and most likely would be primarily set by the respective alignments' associated code and of course the specific character and game, not primarily by how "tough" the alignment itself might appear on an abstract philosophical level. Which in turn also means that such a stipulation means that Psyren's approach of "corner-paladins", probably with the addition of the "Unaligned" and "TN Equilibrist" N extremes mentioned by Remuko, is objectively vastly more reasonable than LG-exclusiveness.

And I guess I should also clarify that while I do find that stipulation in itself arbitrary, I also recognize that there's still a pretty strong D&D (and PF) tradition and setting-related matters connected to this issue. So in practice, changing everything according to my personal preferences in PF2 may very well turn out to be counter-productive in the long run, and maybe also in the short run from a commercial PoV.


Fortunately or un, depending on one's individual point of view, Pathfinder 2ed apparently makes the class champions of Good, not alignment-general champions of a god as some people were hoping they would copy from 4ed and 5ed. If they keep the concept of archetypes from 1ed, and you want "templars of Gorum," my advice would remain to look at the cleric archetypes, but you have no reason to take my advice, of course.The cleric class is at least currently and traditionally pretty far from the concept, in terms of fluff as well as crunch.


"Paladin chassis" is pretty vague though. It generally means that you're good with weapons and get divine casting, which again means "cleric". Are you're looking for more melee ability and less casting, like a P1 warpriest or inquisitor? Did you mean that you have to use a sword and/or fullplate? Did you expect non-LG templar to get the exact same abilities as a LG templar, even though those abilities do come from the LG literary archetype? Mark/aggro ability like in MMORPGs or 4E? Really, what even is a "paladin chassis"?How 'bout something like: "the most elite knight who gains significant supernatural abilities through their utter dedication to uphold and defend a distinct ideal, cause, philosophy or mission"?

So conceptually closer to the PF cavalier than to the cleric, warpriest or inquisitor, with the most important exceptions being the cavalier's lack of "significant supernatural abilities", its too narrow mechanical focus on mounted/charge combat, and the cavalier order edicts being generally far too weak-sauce and forgiving (not enough "price" for "power" or "fanaticism right" to "make might").

[Morty]

Because paladins have the whole power-at-a-price thing that we've been discussing throughout this thread :smallamused:

This might be a stronger argument if clerics weren't significantly more powerful than paladins throughout D&D 3E and Pathfinder 1E. Though I guess PF paladins aren't quite as much of a trainwreck as the original 3.5 ones, at least.

But even if we were to actually accept it, giving those variant clerics extra powers for their code of conduct, on top of everything clerics get, is an option. So, again, why not just do that?

[Kurald Galain]

How 'bout something like: "the most elite knight who gains significant supernatural abilities through their utter dedication to uphold and defend a distinct ideal, cause, philosophy or mission"?
I like it, and it matches the classic literary version well. I still feel that "utter dedication to uphold and defend" strongly suggests a lawful alignment. Not necessarily lawful good, though.


But even if we were to actually accept it, giving those variant clerics extra powers for their code of conduct, on top of everything clerics get, is an option. So, again, why not just do that?
I'm fine with that. It does mean that the class of "paladin but without alignment restriction" has no reason to exist. I'd say most D&D variants have too many classes anyway, we can have a few less.

[upho]

She explicitly said she would have kicked him from LG to TN if he had abandoned Elan, so that's two axes, not one.Huh? She literally said:

"I don't think there's any doubt you're a good man... you regularly battle the forces of Evil without expecting compensation. And I see very few truly Evil acts... nothing here even merits a blip on the Malev-o-meter."

The only place she was threatening to kick him to was NG, and that had nothing to do with Elan, but mostly with how he had been "conspiring behind the backs" of the Azur pally order.

Are you reading some other episode than the one you linked to (and which I can't remember), or do you have some kinda special cool "Super-Limited Psyren Edition" just 'cause you're the MVP "naysayer"? :smallannoyed:


I agree that such a situation could exist, but where I take issue is with it being "just as tough."

"You obeyed authority that one time to try and solve a larger problem" is a much easier situation to explain away than "you broke an oath in order to try and solve a larger problem." The first is just doing what's convenient even if it creates inconsistent behavior, which Chaos has no problem with. The second is also just doing whats convenient even if it creates inconsistent behavior, which Law opposes. There's a reason why the latter gets much more attention in fiction than the former.I absolutely agree with your conclusion, but not with your premises. So while "You obeyed authority that one time to try and solve a larger problem" most likely doesn't go against C in any way, something like "You sacrificed your personal freedom and individuality because it was a more convenient way to try and solve a larger problem" definitely does. And that scenario is also highly plausible. In fact, you could probably apply it to nearly the same "my lazy-ass dad swore a stupid oath he didn't even try to take responsibility for and instead dumped on me" backstory as that of LG Roy, and instead end up with a CG Roy being questioned on the grounds of being way too accepting of this fate, of not trying nearly hard enough to stand up for his independence and oppose the "tyranny" of his dad's oath.

Thing is, on the individual level relevant in this context, ultimately the way you unwillingly "fall" from either C or L is the same; by not having the back-bone to act in accordance with their most fundamental principles when there's an actually significant price to pay for doing so. And contradictory as it may sound, on an individual level C is in practice a principle every bit as absolute and demanding as L. If you conform to expectations and traditions because standing up for who you are and going against the grain is darn scary, or let yourself be pushed around by authority because resisting is darn tough, you're breaking that C principle just as hard as if you had been L and instead failed to do basically these very same things when that is darn scary and tough. And indeed, actually remaining true to either principle will also without fail be darn scary and tough sometimes. IME this goes for PCs in the game as well as for people IRL, though the latter practically never have as much back-bone as Paladin PCs have... :smallsmile:

And neither L or C becomes any easier or harder than the other by also adding G to the mix.


That passage means you won't change alignments for an occasional act (based of course on the magnitude of that act.) But a pattern of behavior, a go-to method of approaching problems, or a sufficiently serious act is an indication that you might have the wrong alignment on your sheet. Otherwise there's no point in it, and you can do whatever you want regardless of what you have marked there. Which isn't a badwrong way to play, but at that point I would just use one of the variants that removes alignment entirely.Agreed. My point is that this also applies to LG Paladins, in exactly the same way it applies to everyone else. Full stop.

The paladin code is however another matter entirely, and not even close to as forgiving as the LG alignment. Or to use Roy as an example again, if he had been a paladin he likely would've fallen well before episode 100 or so. He'd still definitely be LG though.


I don't see every restriction as a "straitjacket." Law needs some restrictions, or else what's the point in calling it that? That doesn't mean you can't have multiple approaches to even the standard paladin, as the Giant demonstrated with O-Chul, Hinjo, Lien, Thanh, and of course Miko.My point is that the same is true for the Chaotic alignments, at least on an individual practical level for PCs. The C alignments aren't chaotic in terms of what actually defines their ideals, they're chaotic in the eyes of others in terms of how they behave. Or in other words, it's simply that the C restrictions aren't as obvious or all found in the same areas those of L. Or to quote PF's description of a character with a CN alignment:

"He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions."

If you're actually going to live according to this ideal, I assure you it's going to be tough and it's going to demand you make major sacrifices. And note also that this ideal is also something very different from being an opportunistic individualist, which would just make you a NE egoist rather than a CN individualist. And frankly, if this wouldn't be true in a game, it's most likely simply because the GM haven't actually given it a serious enough thought, and/or don't know how to make those sacrifices felt.


What originally started this whole tangent was Kurald's statement about "power at a price" being more interesting narratively and mechanically. Law is stricter than Chaos (which is the whole point of Law) and therefore the "price" is higher. That doesn't mean LG is more powerful or more effective than CG - just that that specific dichotomy/tradeoff is more interesting to craft mechanics around. It's the reason why LG paladins have more representation throughout the game's history than any other kind, and in all other fictional portrayals too.And I'm simply saying there's an infinite number of possible paladin codes which would involve at least as much "power at a cost" or "dichotomy/tradeoff", yet not demand LG behavior.


2. Paladins are martial champions of deities, long restricted to Lawful Good completely arbitrarily, and should be opened up to every deity, with the alignment restriction dropped as it never made any sense. This is the position taken by upho (as I understand it; I'll edit it if requested, as long as the request doesn't include statements that this position is more valid than the others).The only thing off here is the focus on deities and alignments. Yes, I believe you definitely can have paladin equivalents as dedicated servants of non-LG deities (as is already the case in Golarion), or as champions of a certain alignment. But they wouldn't work if one simply tried to tweak the LG paladin's code according to each alignment, because that would indeed have a large risk of resulting in far less "power at a cost" and less "interesting narratively and mechanically", to quote Psyren. And as a continuum of that, I also believe it would be far more interesting to also have paladin equivalents first and foremost dedicated to distinct ideals/causes/missions, not by alignments.


I'd buy this argument if the only difference between clerics and paladins were alignment requirements. But putting aside the 3E cleric's ability to do the paladin's job better, clerics are spellcasters and paladins are warriors with divine abilities. If someone wants to play the latter, telling them to play the former isn't terribly helpful. And since we're talking about PF2E, inquisitors and warpriests don't exist yet. It's arguable if they should in the first place.This. It all comes back to the LG alignment arbitrarily hogging the "power at a cost" and "dedication to an ideal makes might" themed warrior class.

[Kurald Galain]

Just because you don't agree with a reason doesn't make it "arbitrary" :smallamused:

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/982/077/839.png

[Morty]

Are we arguing, or using "gotchas" accompanied by a smug smiley? I feel like we should decide one way or the other.

[upho]

Just because you don't agree with a reason doesn't make it "arbitrary" :smallamused:Oh please, read and then respond to what I actually write instead of making straw-man implications about my grasp of the terms I use. It's beneath you.

[upho]

I like it, and it matches the classic literary version well. I still feel that "utter dedication to uphold and defend" strongly suggests a lawful alignment. Not necessarily lawful good, though.Well, since it happens to be really easy, I'll give you an example code of such an ideal right away:

"You must be an individualist first and last. You must value your own liberty but not strive to protect others’ freedom. You must avoid authority, resent restrictions, and challenge traditions."

How Lawful would it make you if you had "utter dedication to uphold and defend" this ideal?

[Florian]

"You must be an individualist first and last. You must value your own liberty but not strive to protect others’ freedom. You must avoid authority, resent restrictions, and challenge traditions."

Bards have a code now?

[upho]

Bards have a code now?Are bards in your games utterly dedicated to defend and uphold such an ideal? Even all those who start out say LG? But why?

Regardless, I'm impressed, 'cause they must be some seriously brave badass (or short-lived) bards... :smalleek:

[Kurald Galain]

Stories need conflict. Power at a price is an interesting conflict, so it turns up in many of stories. Taking restrictions to obtain power is very much a lawful thing: Galahad gets superpowers whereas Robin Hood does not. But it is not a good thing: the archetypical counterpart of the paladin is Faust. Selling your soul to the devil is also a form of power-at-a-price.

As for chaotic, every chaotic "code of honor" I've seen so far (such as the aforementioned "bard code") boils down to a code of "do whatever I want". Being able to do whatever you want is clearly not a tradeoff or conflict. I can't think of any common examples of this in fiction, either.

[Boci]

As for chaotic, every chaotic "code of honor" I've seen so far (such as the aforementioned "bard code") boils down to a code of "do whatever I want". Being able to do whatever you want is clearly not a tradeoff or conflict. I can't think of any common examples of this in fiction, either.

I can think of the ragabash from werewolves. Each member of the tribe had their role:

Warriors defended the packs land.
Bards told stories of the packs exploits, which was important in a society where social advanced was achieved through honour and glory (and wisdom).
Judges settled disputes when the interpretation of the strict traditions was disputed.
Theurges communed with the spirits.
And the trickster ragabash's challenged traidtion. WHen the warrior, bard and judge agreed to do X because it was the honourable thing, the thing that tradition demanded, it was the ragabash's job to play devils advocate, and ask "But is it the smart thing?"

The "challenge traditions" part of the code is key. That is not just do what you want, it is requiering you to go out of your way to demand people justify their traditons rather than just blindly follow them, which couldn easily be not something you wanted to do at the moment, given the danger and effort involved.

[Psyren]

This catches my eye so I thought I might chime in and pick your brain. The 4 "extremes" are of course: LG, CG, LE, and CE. But I have always felt like D&Ds alignment system (at least as it is in 3.5, and i believe PF1 as well) has a 10th alignment, instead of the 9 listed. I've always seen True Neutral as two separate and entirely conflicting alignments with the same name, and fell that in your "extremes" example, a "Paladin" of one of these "True Neutrals" could work as well, as an extreme alignment (imo) itself.

To clarify in case its not clear as is, the two variations of neutrality I see, are All Encompassing Neutrality, and All Rejecting Neutrality (i have no idea what better names to give them atm). One seeks Neutrality by seeing the merit in all alignments and balancing them harmoniously. While the later finds all alignments straying from the purity of nature (which tends to be TN itself), thus thinking that engaging in too much of any of the 4 axes is blasphemous. Dont be good, dont be evil, dont be lawful or chaotic, just...be.

But yeah hearing your idea about 4 extremes as the only "Paladins" made me think that a Paladin of All Rejecting Neutrality seems like an extreme alignment in-line with your views. What do you think? Under your idea of Paladin classes, would this 5th one work? Do you need more info about something? Anyone else could chime in as well I suppose as well.

I think a TN "exemplar" could work as an archetype; of what I'm not sure though. (But see below.)


Wouldn't that be a knight or cavalier?

As for mentioning dieties in PF:

"Upon reaching 5th level, a paladin forms a divine bond with her god." and "At 20th level, a paladin becomes a conduit for the power of her god."

That doesn't seem ambiguous. Its wierd that they don't codify a requirement to worship a god, but the intent seems clear based on those two lines.

I think it's a lot cleaner honestly. Allows for the iconic "fall" without having to judge the paladin based on a universal moral/ethical standard that D&D is ill-equipped to deliver on anyway. Then the deity themselves can step in if a given circumstance warrants bending the rules. Ioemedae would likely be okay with lying to the stormtroopers to send them on their way while the slaves cower in the cellar for example.

This also solves the problems of CG and NG having vague standards. Instead of saying that you're "not chaotic enough" because you told the truth three times in a row or somesuch, now the nature of the act not fitting with the deity's ideals is what matters. Desna for example might not be thrilled if one of her exemplars permanently abandoned the open road to join a city guard, even if that guard was a Good organization - she might drop hints that they aren't cut our for her church, and nudge that guy over to Abadar or Iomedae instead. Not a dramatic, "Miko-style" fall, but a growing feeling of distance or attenuation that encourages the exemplar to go convert. A more generic Robin Hood-type CG character could absolutely settle down in a city like that - lots of opportunity for good deeds and flouting the rules alike - but a Desnan specifically would get smacked with Greatly Disapproves from his boss.


Huh? She literally said:

"I don't think there's any doubt you're a good man... you regularly battle the forces of Evil without expecting compensation. And I see very few truly Evil acts... nothing here even merits a blip on the Malev-o-meter."

The only place she was threatening to kick him to was NG, and that had nothing to do with Elan, but mostly with how he had been "conspiring behind the backs" of the Azur pally order.

Are you reading some other episode than the one you linked to (and which I can't remember), or do you have some kinda special cool "Super-Limited Psyren Edition" just 'cause you're the MVP "naysayer"? :smallannoyed:


Not the "Psyren Edition," no. I was referring to this line:

"I'll tell you, if you hadn't gone back then whether he lived or died, I'd be chucking your file into the True Neutral bin right now." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html)

For the rest of your post, see above (reply to the passage Boci quoted) for what I think is the most workable compromise.

[upho]

Stories need conflict. Power at a price is an interesting conflict, so it turns up in many of stories. Taking restrictions to obtain power is very much a lawful thing: Galahad gets superpowers whereas Robin Hood does not. But it is not a good thing: the archetypical counterpart of the paladin is Faust. Selling your soul to the devil is also a form of power-at-a-price.No, power-at-a-price is definitely not inherently restricted to L. I think you're associating the theme with a way too narrow a selection of stories, which also probably makes it difficult to disassociate the theme from concepts and terms with distinctively L connotations, such as "oath", "honor", "contract" or "punishment". But the theme doesn't rely on any of those concept or terms. It simply needs an ideal/cause/mission, an associated code which is suitably tough to follow, and powers rewarded in return for behaving in accordance with the code. And regardless of the fact that there is some kind of rudimentary "rules" involved (sacrifice traded for power) such a code could indeed result in Chaotic behavior just as extreme as the Lawful behavior resulting from adhering to an L code.

For examples, see the moral of basically every story involving an outsider protagonist who dares to stand up for who they are and refuses to be bullied by into conformism. Or in more obvious form, see the typical NG or CG wuxia (or xianxia) "hero of the people" who fights oppressive authority using superpowers (often including plenty of cunning "dirty tricks"). Superpowers often gained by leaving home and loved ones to learn a secret martial arts code explicitly based on defying expectations, beliefs, tradition and even physical laws. So yeah, Robin Hood with "anti-L superpowers".


As for chaotic, every chaotic "code of honor" I've seen so far (such as the aforementioned "bard code") boils down to a code of "do whatever I want". Being able to do whatever you want is clearly not a tradeoff or conflict. I can't think of any common examples of this in fiction, either.First, again, most explicitly C codes (such as the mentioned CN "bard code") would of course not be "codes of honor", and imagining them as such simply increases the risk of misinterpretations. Instead, they're the mentioned raw "trade mechanics" of the LG paladin code laid bare, basically "as long as you don't fail to behave according to this code you'll gain superpowers". No honor, no oaths, no contracts, no punishments, and in most cases not even dress codes (except perhaps "distinctly individual and rebellious")!

Second, please read that CN "bard code" again, and imagine you, Kurald Galain, personally trying adhere to it IRL. If you still don't see how that would be difficult and require you to make major sacrifices, I'd say you're simply not imagining hard enough. Because going against the grain, defying tradition, refusing to conform, questioning everything and resisting authority with every step - even when the step is damn scary, difficult, costly and one you'd rather not take - is fundamentally different from the opportunistic egoist NE "do whatever I want".


The "challenge traditions" part of the code is key. That is not just do what you want, it is requiering you to go out of your way to demand people justify their traditons rather than just blindly follow them, which couldn easily be not something you wanted to do at the moment, given the danger and effort involved.This. And it's a good example to illustrate that fundamental difference from "do whatever I want". The same goes for the CN "bard code", even though it probably involves more than what I assume most people associate with "challenge traditions". But yeah, in its broadest and most all-encompassing way.

[Morty]

I'm not sure where bards come in, since they never had to be chaotic, they just couldn't be lawful. And Pathfinder drops that nonsense restriction anyway.

[upho]

I'm not sure where bards come in, since they never had to be chaotic, they just couldn't be lawful. And Pathfinder drops that nonsense restriction anyway.He did it! *points at Florian*
Bards have a code now?

[upho]

I think it's a lot cleaner honestly. Allows for the iconic "fall" without having to judge the paladin based on a universal moral/ethical standard that D&D is ill-equipped to deliver on anyway. Then the deity themselves can step in if a given circumstance warrants bending the rules. Ioemedae would likely be okay with lying to the stormtroopers to send them on their way while the slaves cower in the cellar for example.I agree. On top of that, it opens up for what has already started to happen in Golarion: codes based on ideals often more distinct and with more numerous and varied options than those of the nine alignments.


This also solves the problems of CG and NG having vague standards. Instead of saying that you're "not chaotic enough" because you told the truth three times in a row or somesuch, now the nature of the act not fitting with the deity's ideals is what matters. Desna for example might not be thrilled if one of her exemplars permanently abandoned the open road to join a city guard, even if that guard was a Good organization - she might drop hints that they aren't cut our for her church, and nudge that guy over to Abadar or Iomedae instead. Not a dramatic, "Miko-style" fall, but a growing feeling of distance or attenuation that encourages the exemplar to go convert. A more generic Robin Hood-type CG character could absolutely settle down in a city like that - lots of opportunity for good deeds and flouting the rules alike - but a Desnan specifically would get smacked with Greatly Disapproves from his boss.I like it. And I can see plenty of advantages with this solution. Especially in terms of actually implementing it, considering there's already paladins explicitly serving specific deities, and the numerous deities already have distinct ideals and focus areas which could often easily be converted into codes.


Not the "Psyren Edition," no.Aha! I knew there was one, you spoiled special snowflake you!


I was referring to this line:

"I'll tell you, if you hadn't gone back then whether he lived or died, I'd be chucking your file into the True Neutral bin right now." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html)Ah, now I found it. Thanks! But I can't remember that he was actually ever seriously considering not going back as an option he'd be fine with. I'm gonna have to re-read that part.

Regardless, both Miko's fall and that whole evaluation of Roy's alignment provides a lot of good examples of a (mostly) functional alignment system at work, plus some of the more comically absurd consequences. I personally don't have any urges to put it back as written into my games though.

[Cosi]

Requiring Paladins to be Lawful Good in any meaningful way is an obviously terrible idea. Alignment is dumb and bad, alignment codes are extra dumb and extra bad, and writing another version of "defensive warrior with some magic" for non-Lawful Good people (or worse, for every other alignment) is obviously a waste of everyone's time.

If you really think people will not accept "Paladin" describing anyone except Lawful Good characters who have a code to be Lawful and Good, make Paladin a feat or an ACF. Then we don't have to duplicate all the space we spent on Paladin abilities for people who wear heavy armor and cast defensive buffs, but are dedicated to Lloth or Grummsh or Kord.

If you ever find yourself arguing for alignment to have a more central place in the game, you should step back and figure out why you are committing to defending one of the stupidest parts of D&D.

[VoltsofEight]

Stories need conflict. Power at a price is an interesting conflict, so it turns up in many of stories. Taking restrictions to obtain power is very much a lawful thing: Galahad gets superpowers whereas Robin Hood does not. But it is not a good thing: the archetypical counterpart of the paladin is Faust. Selling your soul to the devil is also a form of power-at-a-price.

As for chaotic, every chaotic "code of honor" I've seen so far (such as the aforementioned "bard code") boils down to a code of "do whatever I want". Being able to do whatever you want is clearly not a tradeoff or conflict. I can't think of any common examples of this in fiction, either.

Speaking from a mechanics standpoint, the problem that I have with the "only LG" Pally is that it worked at a time where the Paladin WAS the biggest kid on the yard when it came to martials, and to a lesser extent the spellcasters as well. They got a lot of fairly unique, incredibly powerful stuff that while not particularly cohesive mechanically, thematically it created a strong image. Nowadays there are so many classes that compete with them there, at the very least in terms of strong themes, that also get incredibly powerful stuff. In 5e you got the Monk(and certain subclasses), the Barbarian(same), the Warlock. And in Pathfinder you have the same classes and then the Magus, or the Warpriest, or the Inquisitor. And the spellcasters of D&D/Pathfinder has built such a strong image over time that even/especially they could have choose to embody those aspects of the Paladin.

I and many people could and have take huge pieces of what would inspire a person to play a Paladin and play it just as well with more flexibility in how we play it. I just see little point in maintaining that piece of old world game design at a time when a dozen of other classes could/have done the inspiration just as well.

[Kurald Galain]

The "challenge traditions" part of the code is key. That is not just do what you want, it is requiering you to go out of your way to demand people justify their traditons rather than just blindly follow them, which couldn easily be not something you wanted to do at the moment, given the danger and effort involved.
That is a very good example, thank you.


Desna for example might not be thrilled if one of her exemplars permanently abandoned the open road to join a city guard, even if that guard was a Good organization
That, however, is another example of a "code" that lets you do whatever you want anyway. While I'm all in favor of having different kinds of codes, I'm absolutely not in favor of players who self-impose a "restriction" that doesn't actually restrict them in any way.


Speaking from a mechanics standpoint, the problem that I have with the "only LG" Pally is that it worked at a time where the Paladin WAS the biggest kid on the yard when it came to martials, and to a lesser extent the spellcasters as well.
Yes, but players who want power-at-a-price for narrative reasons usually don't mind that they're not the strongest character at the table.

It's too bad that D&D doesn't have player types like MtG does, otherwise we could point out that this is about (e.g.) Spike disliking a class meant for Timmy.

[Psyren]

That, however, is another example of a "code" that lets you do whatever you want anyway. While I'm all in favor of having different kinds of codes, I'm absolutely not in favor of players who self-impose a "restriction" that doesn't actually restrict them in any way.

The generic CG code, or the one specific to Desna? Because for the latter, I cited a scenario where you specifically couldn't do whatever you want. Her version of freedom is very much "don't linger too long, don't put down too many roots, if you haven't seen the world yet you're not done."

[Boci]

The generic CG code, or the one specific to Desna? Because for the latter, I cited a scenario where you specifically couldn't do whatever you want. Her version of freedom is very much "don't linger too long, don't put down too many roots, if you haven't seen the world yet you're not done."

That's good from a world building perspective, but it is good for a PC class? Most parties don't put down roots, and if they do, seems like that would more lead to the CG-paladin leaving the group than a moral dilemna for them.

[Psyren]

That's good from a world building perspective, but it is good for a PC class? Most parties don't put down roots, and if they do, seems like that would more lead to the CG-paladin leaving the group than a moral dilemna for them.

I was speaking purely from worldbuilding. For an actual PC, they're typically doing something important like saving the region/world (otherwise they wouldn't be needed) so special dispensation is usually warranted. Remember that making PCs fall with a no-win "gotcha!" dilemma is not really the point of GMing for a paladin.

Rather, what I would probably do here is have Desna (or more likely, her church) get in touch with the PC in question and resolve the dilemma some other way. For example, yeah you can stay here in town with the rest of the party for as long as it takes for the plot to wrap up. But your boss expects you to move on as soon as The Great Evil is vanquished, and in the meantime, she expects you to routinely go and seek out new experiences using these visions that she'll conveniently send you. (*insert additional plothooks here.*)

If the PC refuses or otherwise acts out of character, then and only then would I suggest a change of faith or crisis point - and they very well may want to do that organically, within the story. Maybe the paladin falls in love with an NPC in the town and doesn't want to leave, becoming instead a Caydenite or Shelynite. Or maybe they stop being a paladin altogether. A fall doesn't have to mean the player failed after all, it can be something that appeals to their vision of the character over time, or even something they planned all along.

[VoltsofEight]

That is a very good example, thank you.


Yes, but players who want power-at-a-price for narrative reasons usually don't mind that they're not the strongest character at the table.



If that's the case why don't we make the that part the Paladin's identity something that any character can choose to pick up. Make it a scaling feat called "Oath of the Paladin" or whatever. Choosing it gives you the typical Pally benefits, general public loves you, most merchants are willing to give you a discount, directives from a God, etc. As long as you follow the vow, which in this case can be even stricter to balance out the now open nature of it but it allows for character concepts like a Wizard Pally or Barbarian Pally or even a Rogue Pally and allows for the player to make such characters regardless of if the stats normally wouldn't match up(unless you make an entire build around being a spellcasting Pally which is possible but not the point). Hell Pathfinder 2e is doing something like that with archetypes why not a Paladin archetype for every class?

If the narrative is the whole reason people wanna be one then why not open that narrative up to allow people to do so without the baggage that alot modern gaming is leaving behind?

[Boci]

If that's the case why don't we make the that part the Paladin's identity something that any character can choose to pick up. Make it a scaling feat called "Oath of the Paladin" or whatever. Choosing it gives you the typical Pally benefits, general public loves you, most merchants are willing to give you a discount, directives from a God, etc. As long as you follow the vow, which in this case can be even stricter to balance out the now open nature of it but it allows for character concepts like a Wizard Pally or Barbarian Pally or even a Rogue Pally and allows for the player to make such characters regardless of if the stats normally wouldn't match up(unless you make an entire build around being a spellcasting Pally which is possible but not the point). Hell Pathfinder 2e is doing something like that with archetypes why not a Paladin archetype for every class?

If the narrative is the whole reason people wanna be one then why not open that narrative up to allow people to do so without the baggage that alot modern gaming is leaving behind?

So like better Exalted Vows from Book of Exalted Deeds?

[upho]

That, however, is another example of a "code" that lets you do whatever you want anyway. While I'm all in favor of having different kinds of codes, I'm absolutely not in favor of players who self-impose a "restriction" that doesn't actually restrict them in any way.
That's good from a world building perspective, but it is good for a PC class? Most parties don't put down roots, and if they do, seems like that would more lead to the CG-paladin leaving the group than a moral dilemna for them.
If the PC refuses or otherwise acts out of character, then and only then would I suggest a change of faith or crisis point - and they very well may want to do that organically, within the story. Maybe the paladin falls in love with an NPC in the town and doesn't want to leave, becoming instead a Caydenite or Shelynite. Or maybe they stop being a paladin altogether. A fall doesn't have to mean the player failed after all, it can be something that appeals to their vision of the character over time, or even something they planned all along.First off, since Psyren hasn't suggested an actual code for paladins of Desna, it seems a bit premature to jump on his specific example of how he might deal with a PC breaking that code in the described particular way. I mean, also this hypothetical Desna code could very well be one which allows for much much harsher interpretations, resulting in restrictions that would be much more challenging in practice for a typical PC.

And regardless, I firmly believe these kinds of codes should allow for slightly different interpretations for varying degrees of restrictions, and most importantly they should be accompanied by a few suggestions on how they're actually best implemented in different types of games and for different types of players. Not everyone enjoys soft fluffy codes or there not being much of an impact if they're broken, and similarly not everyone enjoys codes which drastically limit the number of allowed actions/behaviors/methods or there being very serious consequences if they're broken.

These extremes and everything in between should be possible and explicitly described as such in the accompanying rules.


Yes, but players who want power-at-a-price for narrative reasons usually don't mind that they're not the strongest character at the table.

It's too bad that D&D doesn't have player types like MtG does, otherwise we could point out that this is about (e.g.) Spike disliking a class meant for Timmy.But we're not talking about individual cards among several hundred, we're talking about one of 10-ish core classes. Which is precisely why there should be alternative ways to implement codes and the consequences of breaking them, allowing for other ways to play the class preferred by the hypothetical PF-Johnny and PF-Spike. (Just as I understand many MtG cards are designed to simultaneously appeal to several MtG psychographic profiles, but in different ways.) Doing otherwise is simply repeating past mistakes, such as attempting to make martials "easy for noobs" and restricting them to the inflexible, repetitive and tactically uninteresting, while attempting to make casters "challenging for vets" and forcing the player to learn a stupendous amount of options riddled with traps and game-breaking nukes. Not a good idea.