Opinion on Neutral Good Paladins - Page 4 - OG Myth-Weavers

Notices


Gaming Discussion

For all things gaming related.


Opinion on Neutral Good Paladins

   
I may have said this before, but the alignment lawful should be changed to order. Too many people put too much weight in the word "law." In all my 30 years of gaming, nobody has ever told me I'm playing my alignment wrong. Paladins remain one of my favorite classes. I've played many varieties, from the stoic to the fun-loving sort. Paladins don't generally devote themselves to a god so much as the ideals of order and good. That devotion is what makes them paladins. To say all gods should have a paladin is poor word choice. Champion is more appropriate. That's like saying all gods in Faerun should be able to have Morninglords, not just Lathander. As far as I'm concerned, if you want the goodies the paladin has, you need to make the commitment. Yes, I have a strong opinion on the matter. I guess it's a silly matter to debate since everyone is free to change names and definitions in their own game world.

Or just get rid of alignments altogether, maybe reserving subtypes for beings that are literally made out of alignments (ie. outsiders).

I believe that Paladins should stick to their Lawful Good alignment. They are not the Champions of their gods. That role is fulfilled by the Cleric who are actual authorities on the matter. The more martial aspect can also be fulfilled by the Warpriest.

Paladins are the champions of Order and goodness/justness. The deities they worship have to be close enough that they can fuse their code with the gods own areas of interest.

Plus it is possible to make a Paladin who worships no deity. Their own conviction to Justice and Good manages to empower them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epimetheus View Post
It's true. =/ I think there's already a paladin of every alignment.

The source is DragonMag, so Sentinel is probably obscure. However, now that you're aware, it's worth looking at.
The SRD lists the CG/LE/CE paladin variants from the UA. I feel like this entire issue can be rectified by just copying the template for those variants onto a new alignment.

If alignments weren't so central to the system (many abilities and spell being based on alignments), I would agree with getting rid of alignments. Actually, I think the new Unchained has rules for getting rid of alignments, doesn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverwolfer View Post
Ill be honest, I don't see why your are hurting yourself to be NG, your job is not to be lawful or liberatic, your job is just to do good, if someone is enslaved, then you free them, if someone is being chaotic and killing random folks, you knock them out, you DO the same thing as a CG or LG would do, just different reasons.
Actually how they do things is exactly the difference between chaotic and lawful characters. A lawful person believes that order is paramount and would not go against the established laws of where they live, even if they disagree with it. That doesn't prevent them from (ab)using every loophole, ambiguity, or contradiction in those laws to further their own ideals. Nor would it prevent them from trying to change said laws from within the systems structure.

The issue isn't with lawfulness itself, but with people being unimaginative about it when it comes to good aligned characters. Lawful evil PC are always seen as cunning and manipulative for the sake of evil, but for some reason we don't allow Pallies to be that way for the sake of good, even though it would allow for some great rp opportunities. In other words, a paladin is not obligated to follow the spirit of the law, if the spirit is based on an evil foundation.

So no. I don't think a LG character would kick down the door of a slavers den in a society where slavery is legal. S/he'd arrive there with a search warrant, request excessively detailed paperwork, documentation, and proof for every slave in there as well as anything else that s/he could come up with to catch any irregularity. If the respective slavers fail to provide all necessary forms filed out in minute detail, and refuse to subject themselves to the consequences, then s/he can commence with the butt-kicking.

Oh... and in the case that the slaver den really has every paperwork in order... Well, there are always those pesky CG teammates who would have no qualms about manipulating evidence beforehand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bandersnatch View Post
Actually how they do things is exactly the difference between chaotic and lawful characters. A lawful person believeope. The rules are pretty clear that s that order is paramount and would not go against the established laws of where they live, even if they disagree with it
I always hate the "law of the land" interpretation of lawful. Proximity shouldn't be the issue. A lawful neutral character is under no obligation to obey laws created by a lawful evil tyrant simply because it is the law of the land. Unless something big changed between 3.5 and Pathfinder, lawful characters are allowed to make the determination of whether or not an authority is legitimate.

I always try to remember, in regards to alignments 'lawful' means 'order.' A lawful person follows 'evil' laws because he respects order. A pally may not like the laws, but he will follow them while working to change them. It is still up to the individual on how to deal with those issues. An LG person would campaign for abolishing slavery, for example, before resorting to a full blown revolution. A CG person might jump immediately on board a revolt. An NG person would look at both sides, weigh the pros and cons, and then never make a decision. Of course, all that is more appropriate to a philosophy class and not really the subject of this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Man in Black View Post
A pally may not like the laws, but he will follow them while working to change them.
I have to disagree. Lawful characters value order, honor, etc, but they are not under any obligation to follow the letter of the law if they do not believe it comes from a legitimate authority.

"A paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority . . . "

Yes, but there must be strict guidelines on when an authority is illegitimate. If a pally can simply declare "I don't like these laws, hence they're not legitimate" it would water down the definition of lawfullness to the point where it would be indistinguishable from NG or even CG. Besides it would be boring...





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2024-03-28 05:19:56pm local time
Myth-Weavers Status