The Gaming Den

Kingdom of Iuz metaregion (which was Texas and Oklahoma if I recall)

I think Texas is a the bandit kingdoms outside iuz's reach or whatever.

Inquisitor crosses his arms and sneers, "YOU loot the bodies. I'm just here to burn the unrighteous."

I like that quite a bit. I think I encountered someone playing a ToB Crusader just like that. In the TOME that sounds like the the Great Knight, or maybe more so the imperial knight, but its really a kinda cool character.

This whole post confuses me. If paladins worked like that they wouldn't be paladins. Why not just say you don't like to play paladins?

Cause the op question was also

Is the existence of a class with unique roleplaying restriction a good thing?

So you know talking about the inquisitor is related, So is the knight, so is anyone who can lose powers I guess. Clerics for example CAN lose their powers, and I've never understood why people don't play "GOTCHA!" with them though. Its likely happened to someone, but its no where NEAR as prevalent.

...

gets Paladin powers from Pelor while all the others who keep to their code are stuck with useless fighter levels are get slaughtered.

It was crazy, the first time someone fell In our 3.5 games WAAYY back in the day, I was a fighter and he was a paladin. He fell and was like "Oh well, I guess I'll just start picking feats then" when I objected a whole awakening about 2nd edition Paladins being fighters when they fell really showed how worthless fighter ended up being, and also how bad it was to fall and become a warrior.

Drolyt wrote:

Neon Sequitur wrote:I've come to see the (relatively) new Inquisitor class as everything the Paladin should have been, and I'm playing my current character as such. After helping our party take down a bunch of mooks with the judicious and repeated use of the Blistering Invective spell, (people he intimidates burst into flames), someone in the group shouts something about looting the bodies.

Inquisitor crosses his arms and sneers, "YOU loot the bodies. I'm just here to burn the unrighteous."

He's on a mission and he doesn't give a holy Lawful Good f**k about anything else.

If I could play a Paladin like that and get away with it....

This whole post confuses me. If paladins worked like that they wouldn't be paladins. Why not just say you don't like to play paladins?

And there's the whole problem with paladins, in a nutshell.

Paladins have been forced into a such a tiny, narrowly defined, unplayable niche for so long that some people can't even imagine anything else. Suggesting any other concept is rejected out of hand, so the whole conversation might as well be over before it starts.

It reminds me of those gawds-awful fighter threads... everyone knows there's a problem with the class, but every single solution anyone comes up with is declared "dead on arrival" and the whole thing just trails off into another pissing contest....

So yes, paladins, as currently defined, aren't really playable. They need to be let off the "fuck you" leash and given the freedom to actually play the game, at least to the same degree as the other divine classes, if they're going to be worth a damn. If that makes them "not paladins any more" by some people's definitions, then they're missing the point, they need to change their definition of what a paladin is so they can keep up with those of us who actually remember the point of this thread, and move on.

Neon Sequitur wrote:And there's the whole problem with paladins, in a nutshell.

Paladins have been forced into a such a tiny, narrowly defined, unplayable niche for so long that some people can't even imagine anything else. Suggesting any other concept is rejected out of hand, so the whole conversation might as well be over before it starts.

It reminds me of those gawds-awful fighter threads... everyone knows there's a problem with the class, but every single solution anyone comes up with is declared "dead on arrival" and the whole thing just trails off into another pissing contest....

So yes, paladins, as currently defined, aren't really playable. They need to be let off the "fuck you" leash and given the freedom to actually play the game, at least to the same degree as the other divine classes, if they're going to be worth a damn. If that makes them "not paladins any more" by some people's definitions, then they're missing the point, they need to change their definition of what a paladin is so they can keep up with those of us who actually remember the point of this thread, and move on.

The fuck? Look, fighter can mean whatever the hell you want, but the definition of paladin is either "one of the twelve peers of France" or "a knight renowned for heroism and chivalry". The source materials for the D&D Paladin are medieval romances like Le Morte d'Arthur, The Song of Roland, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, etc. The inquisitor you described does not fit that character archetype at all.

Drolyt wrote: The fuck? Look, fighter can mean whatever the hell you want, but the definition of paladin is either "one of the twelve peers of France" or "a knight renowned for heroism and chivalry". The source materials for the D&D Paladin are medieval romances like Le Morte d'Arthur, The Song of Roland, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, etc. The inquisitor you described does not fit that character archetype at all.

And that's why we can't have nice things.

kzt wrote:

Drolyt wrote: The fuck? Look, fighter can mean whatever the hell you want, but the definition of paladin is either "one of the twelve peers of France" or "a knight renowned for heroism and chivalry". The source materials for the D&D Paladin are medieval romances like Le Morte d'Arthur, The Song of Roland, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, etc. The inquisitor you described does not fit that character archetype at all.

And that's why we can't have nice things.

What are you talking about? Roland cut a 100 meters tall and 40 meters wide gap in the Pyrenees with his sword. Sir Kay could make himself as tall as a tree just because. D&D Paladins get divine magic. The sucking of the 3e Paladin is a mechanical issue, not a conceptual one.

Drolyt wrote:

kzt wrote:

Drolyt wrote: The fuck? Look, fighter can mean whatever the hell you want, but the definition of paladin is either "one of the twelve peers of France" or "a knight renowned for heroism and chivalry". The source materials for the D&D Paladin are medieval romances like Le Morte d'Arthur, The Song of Roland, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, etc. The inquisitor you described does not fit that character archetype at all.

And that's why we can't have nice things.

What are you talking about? Roland cut a 100 meters tall and 40 meters wide gap in the Pyrenees with his sword. Sir Kay could make himself as tall as a tree just because. D&D Paladins get divine magic. The sucking of the 3e Paladin is a mechanical issue, not a conceptual one.

It gets better for Roland. He didn't cut that--that happened when he tried to smash Durandal up against the rock to break the sword so the other army wouldn't find it.

That was musclepower, man.

Neon Sequitur wrote:If that makes them "not paladins any more" by some people's definitions, then they're missing the point, they need to change their definition of what a paladin is so they can keep up with those of us who actually remember the point of this thread, and move on.

The reason you want to use definitions is because they mean something to people. You're better off creating something new instead of completely redefining a concept that people like (even if it is 'unplayable').

ishy wrote:

Neon Sequitur wrote:If that makes them "not paladins any more" by some people's definitions, then they're missing the point, they need to change their definition of what a paladin is so they can keep up with those of us who actually remember the point of this thread, and move on.

The reason you want to use definitions is because they mean something to people. You're better off creating something new instead of completely redefining a concept that people like (even if it is 'unplayable').

Well no, because playing around with those definitions and people's explanations makes it interesting.

If your Paladin is a crazy guy who tried to slay windmills, that says something about the nature of honor and chivalry and says it more strongly than inventing a Windmill Tilter class would.

If your Paladin is a mass murderer who gets away with it because of rules lawyering and strict alignment definitions, that says something about the nature of Good and Evil that simply making a new class wouldn't communicate.

If your Paladin is a guy who smashes Balors through tabled will yelling "fuck" very loudly, that says something that you can't say by making another class.,

If your Paladin gets reward for sacrificing his code, that says something that you can't say be making another class.

If your Paladin is a giant asshole, that says something that you can't say by making another class.

If your Paladin is a cool guy, that says something that you can't say by making another class.

ishy wrote:

Neon Sequitur wrote:If that makes them "not paladins any more" by some people's definitions, then they're missing the point, they need to change their definition of what a paladin is so they can keep up with those of us who actually remember the point of this thread, and move on.

The reason you want to use definitions is because they mean something to people. You're better off creating something new instead of completely redefining a concept that people like (even if it is 'unplayable').

Seriously? If you're admitting the concept is unplayable, why do you even want to keep it in the game, and what purpose do you think it serves, other than being a "trap" option?

hyzmarca wrote:

ishy wrote:

Neon Sequitur wrote:If that makes them "not paladins any more" by some people's definitions, then they're missing the point, they need to change their definition of what a paladin is so they can keep up with those of us who actually remember the point of this thread, and move on.

The reason you want to use definitions is because they mean something to people. You're better off creating something new instead of completely redefining a concept that people like (even if it is 'unplayable').

Well no, because playing around with those definitions and people's explanations makes it interesting.

If your Paladin is a crazy guy who tried to slay windmills, that says something about the nature of honor and chivalry and says it more strongly than inventing a Windmill Tilter class would.

If your Paladin is a mass murderer who gets away with it because of rules lawyering and strict alignment definitions, that says something about the nature of Good and Evil that simply making a new class wouldn't communicate.

If your Paladin is a guy who smashes Balors through tabled will yelling "fuck" very loudly, that says something that you can't say by making another class.,

If your Paladin gets reward for sacrificing his code, that says something that you can't say be making another class.

If your Paladin is a giant asshole, that says something that you can't say by making another class.

If your Paladin is a cool guy, that says something that you can't say by making another class.

This sounds like a good argument for getting rid of the code of conduct so players can be creative with the class. I don't think it is a good argument for changing the default assumptions of the class.

Neon Sequitur wrote:

ishy wrote:'unplayable'

unplayable

Notice the difference here.

Drolyt wrote:

hyzmarca wrote:

ishy wrote:The reason you want to use definitions is because they mean something to people. You're better off creating something new instead of completely redefining a concept that people like (even if it is 'unplayable').

Well no, because playing around with those definitions and people's explanations makes it interesting.

If your Paladin is a crazy guy who tried to slay windmills, that says something about the nature of honor and chivalry and says it more strongly than inventing a Windmill Tilter class would.

If your Paladin is a mass murderer who gets away with it because of rules lawyering and strict alignment definitions, that says something about the nature of Good and Evil that simply making a new class wouldn't communicate.

If your Paladin is a guy who smashes Balors through tabled will yelling "fuck" very loudly, that says something that you can't say by making another class.,

If your Paladin gets reward for sacrificing his code, that says something that you can't say be making another class.

If your Paladin is a giant asshole, that says something that you can't say by making another class.

If your Paladin is a cool guy, that says something that you can't say by making another class.

This sounds like a good argument for getting rid of the code of conduct so players can be creative with the class. I don't think it is a good argument for changing the default assumptions of the class.

Getting rid of the code of conduct would defeat the point of playing with the code of conduct, though. It's better to allow and encourage interpretation of the code.

hyzmarca wrote:

Drolyt wrote:

hyzmarca wrote:
Well no, because playing around with those definitions and people's explanations makes it interesting.

If your Paladin is a crazy guy who tried to slay windmills, that says something about the nature of honor and chivalry and says it more strongly than inventing a Windmill Tilter class would.

If your Paladin is a mass murderer who gets away with it because of rules lawyering and strict alignment definitions, that says something about the nature of Good and Evil that simply making a new class wouldn't communicate.

If your Paladin is a guy who smashes Balors through tabled will yelling "fuck" very loudly, that says something that you can't say by making another class.,

If your Paladin gets reward for sacrificing his code, that says something that you can't say be making another class.

If your Paladin is a giant asshole, that says something that you can't say by making another class.

If your Paladin is a cool guy, that says something that you can't say by making another class.

This sounds like a good argument for getting rid of the code of conduct so players can be creative with the class. I don't think it is a good argument for changing the default assumptions of the class.

Getting rid of the code of conduct would defeat the point of playing with the code of conduct, though. It's better to allow and encourage interpretation of the code.

Why no give them the PBH 2's Knight's penalties to Paladin.
Though instead of losing Challenges, you lose Smite Evil uses (they still return the next day).
If you have none then penalties to all rolls (if you want to make it rough these don't go away till atoned).

You atone, not because you lose all your goodies, but because you want to have no penalties.

Still the Code guides you but doesn't turn you into a warrior.

DMs can still do traps, but you have all your stuff but penalty to rolls (if you are out of Smites when he does).

hyzmarca wrote: If your Paladin is a crazy guy who tried to slay windmills, that says something about the nature of honor and chivalry and says it more strongly than inventing a Windmill Tilter class would.

I don't see any relation between the nature of honour and chivalry, and slaying windmills. A windmill Tilter class with some kind of honour and chivalry rule would be a much better fit.

Lets try your examples with a different class, with some kind of code dealing with good and evil:

• If your Paladin Priest is a mass murderer who gets away with it because of rules lawyering and strict alignment definitions, that says something about the nature of Good and Evil that simply making a new class wouldn't communicate.
• If your Paladin Priest is a guy who smashes Balors through tabled will yelling "fuck" very loudly, that says something that you can't say by making another class.
• If your Paladin Priest gets reward for sacrificing his code, that says something that you can't say be making another class.
• If your Paladin Priest is a giant asshole, that says something that you can't say by making another class.
• If your Paladin Priest is a cool guy, that says something that you can't say by making another class.

Well that all fits perfectly.

I always liked Quest for Glory's paladins.

They're basically given the extra powers because even if they DIDN'T have them, they'd still be doing good (distinction there: "Doing Good" comes over "Fighting Evil"). And thankfully don't have the baggage about being Lawful to worry about. They're just Good.

Come to think of it, that's what the Dresden Knights of the Cross are like, too.

Why are you even talking about taking the Paladin away? Fuck you guys! I like paladins.
They belong in everything.

Anyway, you just have to change the severity of the code, and the association part and you are all good.
basically take the greyguard from Complete Scoundrel and make their code the paladin code.

ishy wrote:I don't see any relation between the nature of honour and chivalry, and slaying windmills.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote

Otakusensei wrote:In Pathfinder, my group usually allows the paladin to follow a specific deity rather than the default good guy dynamic. Under those rules you are basically living your life in the service of the deity and their personal philosophy, as long as you keep it in those guidelines you're fine.

I like the idea of having some sort of in game direction, like a spirit guide, to help navigate. Not because I think people can't handle roleplaying, or MC are looking to fuck with paladins, but because without communication an honest mistake can look like either of those.

I'm about to start a new campaign this week and plan on playing a dhampir paladin of a lawful good god, I'm thinking of specifically asking the MC if at some point we can do a fall and redemption story arc. It sounds like a blast.

That's an old hat paladin houserule.

Generally speaking, I think my houserule was that you had to be lawful to be a paladin, and then whatever G/N/E alignment of your patron deity you had to take as well. It was slightly different from the other houserules at the time going around where you just took the alignment of your patron God.

The ideas was that you were a religious zealot. The lawful part was there because there was no "other way" other than the way of your god. Your divine abilities manifested because if the choice was between the universe bending and your faith not being true enough, the universe was going to motherfucking bend.

The idea of losing your paladin/antipaladin powers arose not from some ethical or moral code, but moreso because you didn't walk a tight enough path of faith and some doubt crept into your faith and suddenly the universe stopped bending. At least, that's the paladin's POV. If it's divine god-granted mojo or really a paladin simply telling reality to go fuck itself I left intentionally vague.

Being so zealous meant frequently a disconnect from reality as even most adventurers would see it, and Paladins, regardless of their alignment, were generally feared as forces of nature with an alien guiding code.

In my homebrew setting Paladins were referenced to a family of questing knights named the Paladins who swore an oath and went off on an ancient quest and didn't come back for years. And when they did they came back... altered. They were all hunted down and destroyed but occasionally other individuals would "go Paladin".