|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 9:04AM
#31
|
|
|
Two things.
First, I think part of the problems that has arisen in the past with paladins is the lack of explicit codes of conduct. It's always tricky when what the DM views as Lawful Good behaviour and what the player views as Lawful Good behaviour come into conflict. And not all LG paladins might follow the same code.
As such, there should be several sample paladin codes, examples of expected behaviour and tenants. Descriptions of gods should include some reference to acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. This is also a great way of injecting flavour into the class. How does a LN paladin of pure order behave opposed to one of LG or LE? What are the restrictions placed on a LE paladin, if any? Can paladins lie? Can they ally with evil if it's to defeat a greater evil? Second, another issue has always been the penalty for infraction. There's only been the one penalty: loss of paladin-hood. This is pretty damn harsh, reducing a 1-2e pally to a fighter, and a 3e pally to an NPC warrior. And the method of restoration has never been easy, especially in a world or campaign with few NPC clerics or at low levels. Instead, there needs to be a unique penalty for violating a paladin's code. And maybe a couple penalties. A small slap-on-the-wrist penalty for stupid or impulsive mistakes and a greater loss for evil acts. These should be built into the paladin class as a sub-section or sidebar. The paladin should not become unplayable and there should be several examples of story-based ways to restore one's paladin-hood in addition to a couple strict mechanical options. Make it less of a mechanical slap and more of a built-in story hook (with optional mechanical slappage).
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? Spoiler:
Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 9:05AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
If they have 'the paladin follows a code' as one of their design goals, then it seems reasonable that such character is, at least, lawful. Imagine the paladin of a malign deity. Even if code of this deity is to spread chaos and evil, it is still the loyalty to this code that drives the paladinhood. The restriction makes sense and it doesn't implies that mechanical alignment rules will take a big impact here.
If your actions match that code not because you have to follow it and go out of your way to enact it, but because it is your nature to do it, then you are not lawful (unless the code is also lawful), but rather the alignment of your diety.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 9:06AM
#33
|
|
|
Rules should not cover roleplaying. There, I said it. Alignment is roleplaying. We don't need rules for roleplaying, we should not have rules for roleplaying, we should not be considering rules for roleplaying.
Every indy game I have every played or read would disagree. 
And while we may not need lengthy, comprehensive rules some advice and guidelines would be nice.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?Spoiler:
Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 9:07AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Even if your code is to spread chaos discord and suffering whenever given the chance you are following a code.
Not if it is your nature to spread chaos, discord and suffering whenever you have the chance. If it's your nature to do those things, then you are not FOLLOWING the code, you are simply acting out your chaotic alignment in a way that you God approves of and rewards with Paladinhood.
It really isn't that hard of a concept to understand.
No it isn't.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 9:17AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
Even if your code is to spread chaos discord and suffering whenever given the chance you are following a code.
Not if it is your nature to spread chaos, discord and suffering whenever you have the chance. If it's your nature to do those things, then you are not FOLLOWING the code, you are simply acting out your chaotic alignment in a way that you God approves of and rewards with Paladinhood.
It really isn't that hard of a concept to understand.
No it isn't.
Paladinhood is a choice not a reward. A god can totally reward you with powers, but that doesn't make you a paladin or even a cleric. A Paladin actively chooses to be the warior of a god. He actively chooses to be the champion of the god and adhere to the strictures. At some point no matter what a Paladin makes an active choice to be a Paladin. From that point on the paladin is adhering to the tenets. Even if it is what he would naturally do. Being anutrally good at being lawful for this specific code doesn't make you any less lawful it just makes you good at it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 9:22AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jan 30, 2012
|
So I wonder what the mechanical dfference will be between "Class: Paladin" and "Class: Fighter / Theme: Divine Chosen / Background: Raised at a Demon Hunter Academy."
I mean, the second one sounds like you'd get a paladin that flips a finger at the alignment system. If Paladin, the class, means "you get a mount and a cool sword, but have to be lawful" and I can replicate a paladin like I want to play out of a fighter with a cool sword and some divine theme....
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in an thread with GM_Champion" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go in against AzureShade when card design is on the line!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 9:25AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2012
|
Why should one group not be forced to make their own houserules but the other group is? What makes your position the one that is "normal" and the other one that is "different"?
From a game design standpoint, I'd think houseruling to give more player options is favorable to houseruling to restrict the players. If the paladin has requirements from the beginning, and maybe a sidebar to help the DM modify the class to be a non-restricted champion of any deity, then when the DM says "Hey guys, I'm all for Paladins of the Harvest God if you'd like, or you can play a more old-school paladin too", players gain an additional class option. If the game is designed so that the class is completely open, and has a sidebar option explaining how DMs can restrict access to the class (uh oh!), when the DM tells a player "Hey man, I like LG paladins, and that's how they are in my world - your Paladin of the Harvest God can be a fighter/cleric", they players now feel as though options are being removed.
So, looking it at as unbiased as I can (I prefer LG paladins), I'd think baseline LG paladin is best because I think it's better to provide more for players than take away.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 9:25AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Paladinhood is a choice not a reward. A god can totally reward you with powers, but that doesn't make you a paladin or even a cleric.
I disagree. It can be a reward for service. Service does not have to be a lawful action, not if those services are a part of the nature of the one doing them.
A Paladin actively chooses to be the warior of a god.
Great! So the CE PC whose alignments and actions innately mirror the God's code asks to be a Paladin. He chooses it, but he does not have to be lawful.
He actively chooses to be the champion of the god and adhere to the strictures.
He actively chooses to be the champion of the God and his innate behavior mirrors those strictures, so no actual ACTIVE adherence is ever necessary.
From that point on the paladin is adhering to the tenets. Even if it is what he would naturally do.
Which does not make him lawful. Lawful is part of the nature of a PC. If it is the Paladin's nature to be chaotic, he is not lawful simply because his chaotic nature mirrors the tenets.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 9:29AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Mar 24, 2002
|
It helps if you actually address a point rather than just make snarky comments.
You're right. I'm sorry. I'm just so frustrated with this whole "OMG! They're placing restrictions on us!" line of argument. I took it out on you.
Rules should not cover roleplaying. There, I said it. Alignment is roleplaying. We don't need rules for roleplaying, we should not have rules for roleplaying, we should not be considering rules for roleplaying.
Not trying to be snarky here, but in all seriousness: Then why are you playing a role-playing game? Put together a group improv friends and go to town with a Theatre of the Mind style storytelling session if you want to play free of restrictions. Wear costumes if you like.
D&D is not free association time. D&D is a game. Games have rules. Rules govern play. Roleplaying is a part of D&D, so it only makes sense that the rules will somehow affect the roleplaying as a part of play.
Heck, the very fact that rules define roles means that rules affect roleplaying. You choose to be a paladin? The rules have just affected your roleplaying. That's the point. When I choose to be a fighter, I choose to play within the rules that govern fighters. I don't rail against the designers because they won't let me call myself a fighter but stand in back and cast fireball every round.
Further, in all the older editions of the game, alignment was *not* just a roleplaying restriction. That's something that people have forgotten. Alignment meant something to the game. It was a reflection of cosmic forces that impacted the game world and that could affect die rolls. There were weapons you couldn't use if you weren't aligned right, or creatures you could damage better if you were.
Like it or not, alignment's a part of the rich history of D&D. Paladins as a class were concieved as a class built around an alignment system. They work best within it. I for one am happy to see it return.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 9:31AM
#40
|
|
|
There are two beliefs of people in regards to how a Paladin is Born. It seems that some believe a Paladin to be a knight or fighter trained with respect for a divine being and taught to follow the tenants of said god or goddess and learns how to channel that divine sources power for the purpose of defeating the enemies and promoting the power of that god/dess. The second option is that a fighter with such a close calling, such a close natural following to the god/dess is blessed and given the powers of a Paladin so long as they remain somewhat true to the tenants of said divine being.
The find, personally, the second option less appealing. Suddenly you wake up with knowledge of all this power and how to wield it, and how to put it to use, you know nothing of religion but somehow you know what is and isn't the calling of the being that decided "y'know - that guy, he gets the smitey juice". I personally prefer the trained method, as it seems to make a lot more sense.
That said, in my opinion, any alignment can have a dedicated holy warrior, but I don't always think these holy warriors are Paladins. Paladins uphold codes, and their strength comes from their devotions to their god/dess and their code - and that feels non-chaotic to me (though not necessarily lawful).
Alignment, you are a classic - but sadly so many people hate you for they don't understand you, how you function, how you work, and how you are not the be-all end-all to your character's actions, think of them more as...guidelines.
|
|
|
