|
Usually Neutral alignments, but I once played this blackguard that was "I'm corporate evil, not kick-puppies evil, though that is a hobby of mine...".
But my favorite characters are Chaotic Neutral, like the save-the-princess-and-then-stab-her-until-it's-no-longer-funny-then-reanima te-her-for-extra-laughs kind of Chaotic.
Lawful good, in some measure because 70% of the PCs I play are paladins.I'm glad to hear the class has some fans. Out of curiosity, however, if paladin limitations were merely "non-chaotic, non-evil," do you think you'd take advantage of other alignment options?No.
It would likely drive me away from the class entirely.
it would actually draw me to the class, though i would make it simply any nonevil for the Chaotic Good Players.
|
Lawful good, in some measure because 70% of the PCs I play are paladins.I'm glad to hear the class has some fans. Out of curiosity, however, if paladin limitations were merely "non-chaotic, non-evil," do you think you'd take advantage of other alignment options?
Speaking as someone who allows CG Paladins, this would upset me. If you're not Good you're not a Paladin. Period.
|
Speaking as someone who allows CG Paladins, this would upset me. If you're not Good you're not a Paladin. Period.Lawful good, in some measure because 70% of the PCs I play are paladins.I'm glad to hear the class has some fans. Out of curiosity, however, if paladin limitations were merely "non-chaotic, non-evil," do you think you'd take advantage of other alignment options?
Same feeling. The Good part of that equation has always been the most important element in what makes a paladin a paladin to me. Possibly goes back to the very first paladin I was exposed to that was called a paladin.
Having something roughly equivalent but functioing differently for law/chaos/neutrality/evil exemplars would be perfectly ace in my book though. It's just that personally, when I think Paladin, I think Good.
|
I think we've already established that most if not all paladin enthusiasts would consider that paladin in name alone—a violation of the class' intended and proper spirit.it would actually draw me to the class, though i would make it simply any nonevil for the Chaotic Good Players.Lawful good, in some measure because 70% of the PCs I play are paladins.I'm glad to hear the class has some fans. Out of curiosity, however, if paladin limitations were merely "non-chaotic, non-evil," do you think you'd take advantage of other alignment options?No.
It would likely drive me away from the class entirely.
+100 to what Jaelithe said. Paladin = lawfulgood. Make a neutral or chaotic good class and call it champion or whatever you want to call it, do like they did with the samurai and basically reskin the cavalier for all I care. But don't make the paladin something else.
Mostly Chaotic Good, although I've been trending more in the direction of Neutral Good lately. I don't mind Lawful Good, either, although it's a bit more difficult to play.
I tend to play anything on the Good/Evil axis, while sticking to Lawful on Chaos/Law.
For some reason I don't tend to play chaotic characters; it's not in me.
I enjoy playing different alignments, challenging myself with each new character and trying very hard to stay withing the bounds of the alignment that the character was created with. A Neutral Good Rogue, and Chaotic Good Sorcerer, a Chaotic Neutral Witch (and I mean Chaotic Neutral, not diet-evil), a True Neutral Druid, I enjoy putting in the effort to playing something different with every new persona. I'm hoping to play a Paladin next time my group starts a campaign!
But of all time my favorite alignment to play was Chaotic Evil. A lieing, cheating, hateful, cowardly bully who wanted to painfully destroy everying good, kind, or loving in the world.
Same feeling. The Good part of that equation has always been the most important element in what makes a paladin a paladin to me. Possibly goes back to the very first paladin I was exposed to that was called a paladin.
For me it's the smite evil thing. It all but screams "GOOD GUY!", ya know?
Having something roughly equivalent but functioing differently for law/chaos/neutrality/evil exemplars would be perfectly ace in my book though. It's just that personally, when I think Paladin, I think Good.
Yeah, I would't mind modifying the paladin so that any alignment is allowable, and the paladin simply smites opposing alignments rather than just evil. That makes it cooler to be a doubly-aligned paladin (LG, CG, LE, or CE), but still leaves room for more focused paladins. And obviously, the spell list would be tweaked as appropriate to the paladin's alignment.
Call the class 'crusader' or whatever, and then call the LG ones 'paladins' to keep the paladin enthusiasts happy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we've already established that most if not all paladin enthusiasts would consider that paladin in name alone—a violation of the class' intended and proper spirit.it would actually draw me to the class, though i would make it simply any nonevil for the Chaotic Good Players.Lawful good, in some measure because 70% of the PCs I play are paladins.I'm glad to hear the class has some fans. Out of curiosity, however, if paladin limitations were merely "non-chaotic, non-evil," do you think you'd take advantage of other alignment options?No.
It would likely drive me away from the class entirely.
+1.
I am not averse to archetypes or alternate classes that allow for Non-LG Paladins though, but the core paladin must be LG.
I allow "Any Evil" for Antipaladins though. (And call them Blackguards because that's such a better name.)
What is your most commonly played (or favorite to play) alignment and why?
When I was younger I used to do the lawful thing and play a lot of good aligned characters, but over the years I've been more diverse, anywhere from lawful good to chaotic evil to chaotic good and I think lately I've really settled into the Chaotic Neutral if I have to pick an alignment. Less into the morality of things and more into being adventurous to have my fun.
Also, I'd like to throw in my 2 cents about paladins and say that my paladins are the bestest of the best paladins ever and there is no other way to play them and no way to change my mind!
Chaotic good.
The official alignment of
This.
|
|
And if you're not lawful you're not a paladin. Period.Speaking as someone who allows CG Paladins, this would upset me. If you're not Good you're not a Paladin. Period.Lawful good, in some measure because 70% of the PCs I play are paladins.I'm glad to hear the class has some fans. Out of curiosity, however, if paladin limitations were merely "non-chaotic, non-evil," do you think you'd take advantage of other alignment options?
I can certainly understand where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree. I'm just comfortable with a slightly wider spectrum of Paladins than that.
I don't think I've ever actually played a non-LG Paladin, it just vaguely seems like a thing that should potentially exist.
|
|
What is your most commonly played (or favorite to play) alignment and why?
While the games I play don't usually have alignments, my characters would probably fall in the top right quadrant of a classic alignment table (NG, CG, CN). Good cause I generally like to help those in need, and it's often reflected in my characters. Chaotic because the end justifies the means.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought this was a thread on what alignment you play, not paladins. Maybe I got lost or something. Somewhat related to the unrelated, new Paladin coming soon.
So what about those alignment things anyway?
I don't consider a paladin discussion too off topic, although we should certainly approach the subject with caution as it has a tendency to... dominate discussions.
Personally I don't think LG is enough of a restriction; alignments have too much leeway and too much grey area, which is why I have paladin players pick specific aspects of LG that they're paladin has to follow or start to lose his powers (honesty, mercy, etc.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I don't think LG is enough of a restriction; alignments have too much leeway and too much grey area, which is why I have paladin players pick specific aspects of LG that they're paladin has to follow or start to lose his powers (honesty, mercy, etc.)
I think they have way too few restrictonis too. They should also be male, blonde, at least 5' 8', 14 charisma, hetero, and anything else I come up with about my ideal paladin or they instantly fall. OH! they can't fail saving throws either, that wouldn't be heroic.
Not a fan of paladins as chosen by another person or alignments because everyone has a different idea about what they are and how they work.
Alignment is good as a measuring stick, but i hate how the measuring stick is used as a straightjacket and used as a means to balanced the percieved power levels of certain classes or used as a means to limit certain multiclasses by encouraging behavioral restrictions that do little more than limit roleplay choices and give abusive DMs another tool to screw players over. it is why i don't play paladins in games that include alignment as a major factor, would i play a paladin in Ebberron? sure, because alignment restrictions don't exist in Ebberron nor does alignment really matter, would i play one in Golarion? i wouldn't because i would choke for trying to do what is right over what is honorable, which could be seen as chaotic in it's own accord. because i would be choosing to protect the freedom and safety of billions of innocent lives by slaying the villain mercilessly on the spot while he couldn't defend himself over giving the captured villain a fair and unbiased trial. even if the villain had a hostage, because i figure the importance of one hostage is outweighed by the protecting of billions of innocent and helpless lives that could be held hostage later. even if i risked the lone hostage's life to defeat the villain. i wouldn't consider it evil, but many would consider it chaotic, but the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the one.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just don't duplicate (either actually or functionally) the power-set of paladins (especially those specific powers and abilities that traditionally identify them as "holy")
....except that all the powers of the paladin are about Holy (Good) and none of them are about Law! That's why a CG paladin wouldn't want or need to change those powers, beyond the merest tweak to the spell list and swapping Axiomatic to Anarchic as a Divine Bond weapon power choice.
I get that some people want to play 'any Good' paladins and others want to only play LG paladins. That's okay. Each to their own.
I remember when rangers were limited to 'any good' and they were changed to be any alignment. Some were unhappy about this, thinking that a non-good ranger wasn't really a ranger. But those people could continue to play only Good rangers.
I understand wanting to choose for myself what I play, but I don't understand or support anyone telling other people what they can or cannot play. If someone else plays a CG paladin, this doesn't affect you at all, and it's not your business to dictate to the rest of the gaming community your biases.
I would never play a wizard if I could play a sorcerer, but I wouldn't force everyone else to play sorcerers instead of wizards. Each to their own.
My two most commonly-played alignments are Lawful Good and Chaotic Good.
Personally I don't think LG is enough of a restriction; alignments have too much leeway and too much grey area, which is why I have paladin players pick specific aspects of LG that they're paladin has to follow or start to lose his powers (honesty, mercy, etc.)I think they have way too few restrictonis too. They should also be male, blonde, at least 5' 8', 14 charisma, hetero, and anything else I come up with about my ideal paladin or they instantly fall. OH! they can't fail saving throws either, that wouldn't be heroic.
Not a fan of paladins as chosen by another person or alignments because everyone has a different idea about what they are and how they work.
That's exactly the reason why I make players choose specific codes of conduct instead of just saying "You must do LG things always". I'm not sure how that goes against your complaint.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is your most commonly played (or favorite to play) alignment and why?** spoiler omitted **
I disagree. I can't fathom Lawful Neutral being "lacking dedication to a path" in any sense. True Neutral, maybe. But LN characters can be every bit as dedicated and passionate to LN as a would-be Paladin to LG. LN is dedicated to law, balance, fairness, etc. I play many, many LN characters, and could easily see a Lawkeeper-type class being the LN version of a Paladin.
But, I would probably go with a different name for something paladin-like that wasn't outright Good-aligned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
old ≠ good
|
|
Just a note to those discussing paladins rather than their favorite alignments: years ago, when Dragon was made of paper, they ran a set of articles detailing "paladin-style classes" for the other eight alignments, each of which got its own class name and set of alignment-related abilities. Issues 310 (for NG, CG, LN, N, and CN) and 312 (for LE, NE, and CE), or so a web search assures me. Some conversion will be required, of course - for Smite if nothing else.
(Hard as I find it to remain LG, I'd rather do that than try to maintain 'perfect' N.)
I hated them. I was really looking forward to the CG paladin, and what turned up was useless against Evil, it was anti-Law! James Jacobs wrote them, and even he didn't like what he wrote.
It's because any writer asked to write an article that details NG and CG paladins isn't going to just say, 'Keep it the same, tweak the spell list', even if that is the best solution! It's not going to fill the four pages you've been asked to write. : /
Alignment is not a limitation on any class whose abilities are not specifically tied to their behavior, and may thus be ignored for the most part ...
As Malachi mentioned, nothing in particular about the paladin screams LAWFUL, or even GOOD, if you make a few simple tweaks. And there are plenty of classes with alignment restrictions unrelated to their class abilities: the barbarian (What, lawfuls can't channel anger? Rage can't be refluffed to a physique-enhancing combat trance?) and the monk (What, non-lawfuls can't be disciplined? And what exactly about a grab-bag of quasi-magical tricks requires such extreme discipline to begin with?) come immediately to mind.
(Hard as I find it to remain LG, I'd rather do that than try to maintain 'perfect' N.)
I guess it depends on which rendition of N you're going by. 2e's weird "I always side with the underdog in the big cosmic Good vs. Evil / Law vs. Chaos conflict"? Yeah, that'd be difficult to stick with for any length of time.
Personally though, I use the "N is humanity's default alignment" rendition, which probably makes it the easiest one to role play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. That's precisely the point. No.I get that some people want to play 'any Good' paladins and others want to only play LG paladins. That's okay. Each to their own.
I get the feeling this conversation is like talking to a wall. A highly opinionated wall that really wants to have its way and is yelling at you, which is a whole lot worse than the normal wall.
Probably best to just to let everyone have their fun and have your own fun your way.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every one of these arguments and discussions can be ended with, "It's a game. You do as you and your players like, and I'll do the same." That's a given.
If people found that sufficiently satisfying, they wouldn't come here and say, "You're doing it wrong" or "You're not open-minded enough"—which, ironically enough, is yet another way of saying, "You're doing it wrong."
You mean, like the way you're saying that anyone playing a CG paladin is doing it wrong?
I apologise if this seems directed at you personally, Jaelithe; it isn't. I'm just replying to your post. But there seems a clear divide on this issue, with roughly equal numbers on both sides, as far as I can tell.
Although we can both say that each side is entitled to its opinion, only your side is trying to forbid the other from playing what it wants.
Personally, I don't care for non-good paladins, for two reasons: fluff and crunch.
Crunch-wise, how can a non-good paladin justify having Smite Evil and Detect Evil. They can't. But a CG paladin can.
Fluff-wise, the paladin has always been the Holy warrior of Good, and a non-good paladin is obviously inconsistent with that fluff. But a CG paladin is consistent with that.
When the hobby first appeared, there was no Good/Evil axis, no nine alignments. There were only three: Law, Neutrality and Chaos. But in that system 'Law' became equivalent to 'Good' and 'Chaos' to 'Evil' (a bias which continues to this day, which leads many to believe that LG is somehow a better kind of Good than the rest). In that system, the paladin first appeared, and under that system the 'Holy warrior of Good' must obviously be Lawful, if the only alternatives are Neutral or Chaotic. But as soon as the Good/Evil axis appeared in the game, the class had to include Good in the required alignment. More for ennui than anything else, the Lawful part remained. I speculate that had the Good/Evil axis appeared in the game before the paladin class first appeared, then the alignment requirement would've been 'any good', to match both the fluff of 'Holy Warrior of Good' AND the crunch of 'Smite/Detect Evil'.
What is your most commonly played (or favorite to play) alignment and why?
NG or CG. I am very much the "I want to be heroic" type (though I've got a few anti-heroes), and it is hard for me to play a character who lacks compassion. I really deeply want my character to be able to save the world and care about the people on it. I like NG just for focusing on people who function well in society but are neither beholden to the law nor beholden to challenging it, and CG for the sort of rebellious but kind individualist hero type. I have trouble playing evil even in sandbox video games where you can slaughter the whole town and the only consequence is paying a hefty fine. I do try to stretch out to N or CN occasionally--it is fun sometimes to play someone with a bit more of a mercenary attitude, or someone with a strong personal driving goal that may be self-serving but not cruel. I've played LG on occasion. I don't think I've ever played an evil alignment that wasn't an NPC I was playing as GM (strangely, as GM, I feel okay playing evil.... funny, that ;) ).
How often does the alignment of your character change mid-campaign? When it does change, is it typically your choice (you feel this is what you've become) or the GM's (you've done a lot questionable stuff, you're shifting from NG to N)?
In a Pathfinder or D&D game I don't think I've ever been through an alignment shift. I think in some old World of Darkness games I've played both characters who started off callous and then ended up softening up (I had a fairly distant and self-serving bubasti who ended up being a nice kitty by the end after she made some friends), or a kind person who due to the nature of the world became increasingly more callous. Sometimes this caused an "archetype shift" (change in nature or demeanor).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I am with Jaelithe. A Paladin should be a paragon of Good and Law. Anything less isn't a Paladin... it's a rainbow variety of the moment holy warrior; and should have lesser or different powers.