Obviously I have missed something...

[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.

[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.

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!

[grarrrg]

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

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

[OgresAreCute]

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

"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

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...? 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.

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.