AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

I'm wondering about paladins of certain deities such as Kelemvor. Why he wouldn't grant powers to a neutral one, since this is his way, after all ? Probably because there is no way to change this mechanism already set in NWN ? I honest believe a neutral paladin would represent him better. Then, there would be a problem regarding Smite Evil. So why not having Smite Evil and Good ? Thoughts ?

alamut wrote:

I'm wondering about paladins of certain deities such as Kelemvor. Why he wouldn't grant powers to a neutral one?

We have that already. They're called Divine Champion. They come with smiting (or a very close equivalent), laying on hands, the whole deal.

Because that's how it is. Why is the system based on d20 rather than d100? Why do wizards prepare and then forget specific spells rather than have some kind of mana reserve? Why are there two axes of alignment rather than three or four?

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, we just have to work with it to the best of our ability. If I got my way, we would remove all alignment restrictions and everything about the system from the game, but you might as well settle with how you know it's going to be.

Say if I RP my LG paladin of Kelemvor being neutral, would he get a fall ? Or perhaps a change of alignment that would result in lost of power ?

IronAngel wrote:

Because that's how it is. Why is the system based on d20 rather than d100? Why do wizards prepare and then forget specific spells rather than have some kind of mana reserve? Why are there two axes of alignment rather than three or four?

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, we just have to work with it to the best of our ability. If I got my way, we would remove all alignment restrictions and everything about the system from the game, but you might as well settle with how you know it's going to be.

Can't add any more than this really. If you want to be a holy warrior and you don't want to be a paladin, than DC is your game.

alamut wrote:

Say if I RP my LG paladin of Kelemvor being neutral, would he get a fall ? Or perhaps a change of alignment that would result in lost of power ?

Yes.

msheeler wrote:

Can't add any more than this really. If you want to be a holy warrior and you don't want to be a paladin, than DC is your game.

I have no idea how to request that. And that was supposed to come from the character creation. Mikal is max already.

I think you misunderstood. DC there means Divine Champion, not Dream Coin.

You might consider a rebuild request, though.

Mind that every deity has its unique twists to paladinhood. In some ways Kelemvorites may operate on a more gray area than Tormtar, for example, but I'm not sure what those would be. I haven't written about them in the PoR series because there's already so much player- and DM-supported lore and interpretation on the subject. You don't really have a safe point of reference for Kelemvorite paladins, but you're always free to make your own interpretations; risking divine retribution, of course. If there's some specific thing you feel paladins of Kelemvor would have to do or believe, and you have a good justification for it, then you'll just have to take that chance.

This reads as: "Let me play my paladin without the dogmatism that makes the class less fun than a fighter with spells!"

Bini wrote:

This reads as: "Let me play my paladin without the dogmatism that makes the class less fun than a fighter with spells!"

Not really, it's adding a different layer to the class. LN can be just as rigid as LG, so can LE. You still have dogma to adhere to, it just a more neutral one.

The good aspect of a paladin's alignment restriction is equally as important as the lawful one. Without both, a paladin you are not.

But it doesn't have to be, and that was Naivat's point. Bini's comment is a typical one, and it's as insulting as it is unimaginative.

I know the LE was pushing it, because that's a completely different class, but we have to remember that DnD is primarily G/N fighting E game. If it was properly fleshed out, there would be a proper component for N and E paladins. They wouldn't be the same class name, but something that they could use.

And, yes, I know about Divine Champion and Blackguard, but to be honest they both fall short of a true Paladin counterpart. BG is a prestige class and, while cool and useful, would serve nicely coupled with a evil-pally class as well as the typical fighter and such types. DC is the same. I will admit, however, that DC and BG might have lessened utility if people had E (and possibly N) pallies.

Same reason Urogalan or Ulutiu doesn't accept LG or LE druids. Which, at least to me, doesn't make much sense, seeing how druids are some of the most dogmatic people around.

IronAngel wrote:

Mind that every deity has its unique twists to paladinhood. In some ways Kelemvorites may operate on a more gray area than Tormtar, for example, but I'm not sure what those would be. I haven't written about them in the PoR series because there's already so much player- and DM-supported lore and interpretation on the subject. You don't really have a safe point of reference for Kelemvorite paladins, but you're always free to make your own interpretations; risking divine retribution, of course. If there's some specific thing you feel paladins of Kelemvor would have to do or believe, and you have a good justification for it, then you'll just have to take that chance.

I really like Iron's point here. In all religions people make interpretations all the time that are right to thier own point of view but actual counter to the dogma of their chosen god in the long run. Kinda part and parcel of trying to understand a God with a human mind. You're going to screw it up sooner or later. I'd say play it as close to what you think is right and is you're God happens to disagree with you at some point and you Fall well now you've got a whole new RP thread to follow don't you? At that point you can choose to openly repent, hide it and hope no one notices, embrace it and switch Gods etc. Could turn into the most exciting RP you've ever had

Nivo wrote:

The good aspect of a paladin's alignment restriction is equally as important as the lawful one. Without both, a paladin you are not.

This.

In my own straight forward way of thinking the Paladin is kinda singular in that his class ~is~ his RP too.

Fighter class could be used to represent a tavern brawler, a professional soldier, a hard bitten mercenary etc.

Rogue class could be used to represent a robin hood type or a highwayman etc.

But a Paladin Class character ~is~ a Paladin regardless of what ever other classes taken in addition and a core quality of a Paladin is his Goodness, his shining beacon, his white soul, his teflon coated armour. All these things are central to it, regardless that the patron deity may accept neutral or evil alignment as well.

To reverse polarity this would open the door for Black guards where were more grey....or even have white streaks.

I can see why the O/P asked their question but I have to put my opinion firmly in the divine champion or even just a Fighter type RPed as a neutral type camp

Nat.

p.s.

Bini wrote:

This reads as: "Let me play my paladin without the dogmatism that makes the class less fun than a fighter with spells!"

This sort of comment is way out of line imo totally uncalled for.

Scimiter wrote:

IronAngel wrote:

Mind that every deity has its unique twists to paladinhood. In some ways Kelemvorites may operate on a more gray area than Tormtar, for example, but I'm not sure what those would be. I haven't written about them in the PoR series because there's already so much player- and DM-supported lore and interpretation on the subject. You don't really have a safe point of reference for Kelemvorite paladins, but you're always free to make your own interpretations; risking divine retribution, of course. If there's some specific thing you feel paladins of Kelemvor would have to do or believe, and you have a good justification for it, then you'll just have to take that chance.

I really like Iron's point here. In all religions people make interpretations all the time that are right to thier own point of view but actual counter to the dogma of their chosen god in the long run. Kinda part and parcel of trying to understand a God with a human mind. You're going to screw it up sooner or later. I'd say play it as close to what you think is right and is you're God happens to disagree with you at some point and you Fall well now you've got a whole new RP thread to follow don't you? At that point you can choose to openly repent, hide it and hope no one notices, embrace it and switch Gods etc. Could turn into the most exciting RP you've ever had

You guys gave me different views, but equally in essence that would reach these two statements above, from Iron and Scimiter. I think, after all you're right. It's part of your toon's RP and interpretations of a certain dogma. You may say "well its obvious" and "why you didn't think about it before". Well, in my defense, I was just looking for inputs to do not run around so blind while RPing an aasimar paladin of Kelemvor. Thank you all ! ^^

Just tossing two cents in here. And before I begin, I want to state that I personally loathe Paladins, yet I support the idea that they could/should see a more varied allowance for alignment. Why?

Paladin is, in my opinion, an eminently flawed class from an RP perspective. Any class where the mere inclusion of said class lets a DM say "You do not fit my idea of this class, Ima smack you" reeks of potential problems and forced RP. This is, to put it simply, Bad. Any class with some sort of interpretive element like that is ripe for problems, drama, and unfair treatment in both directions.

In PnP, if I am not mistaken, there are variants on paladins (not blackguards, I'm heading that one off before it even gets started) for just about every alignment- a holy warrior with the same skills, feats, spells, etc. as the classic paladin but adjusted for the alignment in question. Don't jump on that sentence and say "Well you said a holy warrior, a divine champion fits that criteria"- it does not. These are ACTUAL paladins operating under a different alignment for different reasons- they are a carbon copy of the LG paladin with a few adjustments made to fit their alignment. The fact that they exist in PnP and not here shows not that no consideration exists for the idea of non-good Paladins, but rather that the persons making the decisions here simply do not see fit to expand the class to cover those considerations as they exist in PnP.

What we have is a case where the game as-packaged is simply not set up to work with LN and LE holy warriors (including antipaladins- again, NOT blackguards) and people like to make up "RP Reasons" why the class should stay as it is instead of face the pure and simple fact that alternate alignment variations of that exact class exist in almost the exact same form in PnP. I personally see no viable reason why any non-good variants of paladins would be disallowed, assuming that the powers that be want to be open to PnP and work outside the initial limitations of the NWN engine. If, of course, the intent is not to work to emulate PnP but rather to provide a wide-ranging and immersive experience beyond the limitations of NWN's engine and default packaging, I fully support this as well and believe that is absolutely the right of the module gurus to do- and such a goal would well allow restriction of Paladin to LG on the basis of "It is good for the server and community".

To bring it to a point, I believe that anyone saying that there is any RP element to a class at all is blowing smoke- NWN has one of the most robust and flexible character building systems in existence, and I always treat my characters as their own being, separate and independent of their classes. If my 29 wizard/1 ranger is RPd as a wizard, that's serendipity. If I RP her as a drunken and ineffective bar brawler who never actually casts a spell, somehow I don't think I would be stopped by anything other than the actual limitations of the build. I certainly don't think a DM would interpose and say "You are not acting like a wizard, relevel"- I would call foul on this sort of thing instantly. I do not think that merely being OF A CLASS should force a player into any type of RP, which is why Paladin so grossly offends my sensibilities.

Let me make a point as well that clerics and divine champions are not forced to RP in a certain narrow way because of their class, they are forced to because of their followership of a deity. If they fail to uphold that deity's tenants, they are absolutely deserving of a smack for it. But as you see, this is an IC choice leading to IC consequences, both stemming from RP. A Paladin inherently has pre-set RP before them, limiting the character and functionally forcing it to kowtow to the preconceptions of the class rather than ANY RP choice made by the player or character. Thus, Paladin is the ONLY class with an inherent "you must play in this fashion if you pick this class" element, a marked difference from any other class.

It is not a game engine limitation- I have played in places where Paladin was in fact renamed to Holy Warrior and unlocked for all lawful alignments. I won't go into it more than that- just making a point that it's modifiable in such a way.

Paladin also faces a lot of discrimination because it is, as its core, a linchpin class for powerbuilds. With saves, AB, AC, damage, and HP all at top or near-top levels, Paladin is a bear in melee if built correctly and near-impossible for a mage to stop. Some of the reluctance to change this class comes from this- having Paladin crossed with new classes (Assassin, Blackguard) scares people who don't understand that Divine Champion is already one of the most powerful companion classes in existence. There is functionally nothing that a Paladin would gain from having access to those classes that it can't already get via alternate means (Assassin:Rogue, Blackguard:Divine Champion are functional equivalents for the sake of how these builds would work out). Most won't admit it, of course, but this is a large concern weighing on many minds (including my own, admittedly). The larger fear I would have is allowing a wider range of character types access to this class, as frankly I wouldn't be a big fan of paladins romping around everywhere.

I wish I could summarize all of this, but I can't- I guess all I can really say, in short, is that while I don't really want to see paladins tromping about everywhere and of every alignment, I really can't think of a solid RP reason why they shouldn't be allowed to- and, frankly, when you're an RP server, that's kind of a big factor.

Paladins are paragons of good not neutrality.

Silent sums it up in a sentence.

Divine Champion was already unlocked for evil alignments for this reason. It suits the paradigm that alamut mentioned in the first post. As Nivo said, the Good -and- Lawful aspects of the class are equally important. Alignment should be a huge part of your character. That's not to say you should always act Lawful or always act Chaotic or Good or Evil or whatever your character's alignment is, but that you mostly should. Certain classes have less wiggle room in that, certainly. But those are some of the most rewarding classes to play, RP-wise.

In reply to Eugiga, I find the rigidness part of the fun of the class. So what if a DM can smack you if you play your paladin wrong. That can make for a good learning experience (Ask Azeriel's player about that, since I seem to recall him going through it somewhat recently). Their decision is not arbitrary. They confer with each other on a situation and decide if a Fall is necessary. This smacking also applies to a number of classes, by the way: Paladin, Blackguard, Cleric, Druid, Divine Champion.

Just to add to my sentiments: I don't advocate for altering the Paladin requirements, I'm speaking on behalf of additional classes.

That's not to say I would push for them, merely that I understand the point about Paladins and the lacking non-LG counterparts.

DerkDerkistan wrote:

This smacking also applies to a number of classes, by the way: Paladin, Blackguard, Cleric, Druid, Divine Champion.

Eurgiga wrote:

...clerics and divine champions are not forced to RP in a certain narrow way because of their class, they are forced to because of their followership of a deity. If they fail to uphold that deity's tenants, they are absolutely deserving of a smack for it. But as you see, this is an IC choice leading to IC consequences, both stemming from RP. A Paladin inherently has pre-set RP before them, limiting the character and functionally forcing it to kowtow to the preconceptions of the class rather than ANY RP choice made by the player or character.

Cleric RP is just about entirely dependent on choice of deity, that's true. But you can't really say the same for druid or (to a slightly lesser extent) blackguard. There's doctrine inherent in those classes, just as much as there is in paladin, that's independent of deity selection.

Thats silly. Paladins have as much freedom as a rogue, they just won't keep their abilities if they deviate from a strict paladinic code. Theres no "pre-set roleplay"

I can guarantee you that a paladin of Tyr is different than a paladin of Ilmater and they are both different than a paladin of Sune. Then there are paladins of Hoar and Kelemvor and Corellon.... Off the top of my head, I just named six gods that would have vastly differently roleplayed paladins.

Edit to add:
Paladins are held to dogmatic code just as much as a cleric is. The only difference is that there are less options for a paladin than a cleric.

Paladins, in my understanding, are very pious, upholding the absolute best traits of their deity and representing that deity with as close to infallibility as mortally possible.

With that belief of paladins in mind... I could see the actual paladin class extending from LG to include LE, as they are two opposite but very defined edges of the spectrum while with neutral there is too much grey area. (IMO). In this sense, there could easily be a Paladin for Bane, as Bane is very structured, very strict. While the argument I suppose could be made about Paladins for other neutral/evil deities, say Cyric, well Cyric in my understanding, doesn't have the defined structure, nothing to solidify or justify a code for paladins which frankly that is what paladins are supposed to follow to the letter.

Silent2001 wrote:

Thats silly. Paladins have as much freedom as a rogue, they just won't keep their abilities if they deviate from a strict paladinic code.

Exactly. I'm not saying paladins are 'wrong', but I do feel the class itself is flawed not because of its limitations, but because of its failure to recognize that it's within the power of any deity to grant paladin-like powers (and they do so in PnP, hence the alternate-alignment paladin variants). A LG paladin will fall if he acts LN, but at the same time LN deities have the same powers that LG ones have, likewise with LE. The idea that the entire concept is constrained to only one of its variants is what gets under my skin.

Simply, there exists at least a lawful variant of paladin for neutral and evil in PnP, and it's frankly a minor matter to tweak the NWN class to allow representation of all these classes without going through a mountain of headaches with a new class (after all, it's far easier to balance one class as opposed to three). My issue is not that the class itself is rigid, rather that it rigidly applies to a single alignment and fails to encompass the broader spectrum that exists. Maybe I simply find it ridiculous that Bane wouldn't go "Hey, that paladin thing is pretty baller, why don't I give my guys some of that juju?".

So... guess I'm more noting that the class in NWN is a representation of one slice out of a much larger PnP pie that we don't have.

Once the paladin begins his/her life as a LN Kelemvorite, to use the thread's example, they would have to follow those tenants strictly. I'm not saying that the class in and of itself is unduly prohibitive within its scope, I'm saying that its scope is unduly prohibitive given that the outside material has variants of the class.

Again, I'm not saying "this has to change", just that I don't really think the reasons given have much merit. I feel restricting it for the good of the server is just fine, but saying that no basis exists for it to be usable by a wider range of alignments is pure bunkum.

WinterBlaze wrote:

Paladins, in my understanding, are very pious, upholding the absolute best traits of their deity and representing that deity with as close to infallibility as mortally possible.

With that belief of paladins in mind... I could see the actual paladin class extending from LG to include LE, as they are two opposite but very defined edges of the spectrum while with neutral there is too much grey area. (IMO). In this sense, there could easily be a Paladin for Bane, as Bane is very structured, very strict. While the argument I suppose could be made about Paladins for other neutral/evil deities, say Cyric, well Cyric in my understanding, doesn't have the defined structure, nothing to solidify or justify a code for paladins which frankly that is what paladins are supposed to follow to the letter.

This.

WinterBlaze wrote:

Paladins, in my understanding, are very pious, upholding the absolute best traits of their deity and representing that deity with as close to infallibility as mortally possible.

With that belief of paladins in mind... I could see the actual paladin class extending from LG to include LE, as they are two opposite but very defined edges of the spectrum while with neutral there is too much grey area. (IMO). In this sense, there could easily be a Paladin for Bane, as Bane is very structured, very strict. While the argument I suppose could be made about Paladins for other neutral/evil deities, say Cyric, well Cyric in my understanding, doesn't have the defined structure, nothing to solidify or justify a code for paladins which frankly that is what paladins are supposed to follow to the letter.

This is not all of what a paladin is. Yes, they uphold the best traits of their deity and their church as a whole, but that is not where being a paladin ends. A paladin is a paragon of law and of good. They uphold a very strict code that governs what they can and cannot do, and that code is not applicable to a Lawful Evil character. Bane is Lawful, but he actively oppresses and torments the weak, using tyranny and control to gain power for himself with no thought of others. His code and dogma are fundamentally opposed to that of a paladin. They might both be Lawful, but that is where the similarities end.

We are not planning to change the requirements of this class.

Amen!

A Paladin is Lawful, and Good. Even the Grey Guards , a Prestige class that would be DAMN hard to earn IMHO have to hold to those in princple, but are granted some measure of flexibility when it is nescessary.

At most, you might see some different interpretations due to the different faerunian gods but if you really absolutely must have a Non-LG Paladin, a Divine Champion will suit for what you need.

PaladinOfSune wrote:

We are not planning to change the requirements of this class.

Good, I'm glad when I see a build team stick to its guns. I'm mostly just arguing to express an opinion, not to particularly say anyone is wrong. Though if the insights I provide provoke discussion amongst the DMs, I'd be rather happy for it. I won't bother restating my points, but I do suggest at least reading them carefully and giving them some thought- I never try to argue to hurt the server, just to try and make things better and happier.

Someone called Zelly chaotic and "paladin-like" recently. I said, "No. She's a Divine Champion."

And that's exactly what the class is for, in my opinion.

Jes wrote:

Someone called Zelly chaotic and "paladin-like" recently. I said, "No. She's a Divine Champion."

And that's exactly what the class is for, in my opinion.

Eurgiga wrote:

In PnP, if I am not mistaken, there are variants on paladins (not blackguards, I'm heading that one off before it even gets started) for just about every alignment- a holy warrior with the same skills, feats, spells, etc. as the classic paladin but adjusted for the alignment in question. Don't jump on that sentence and say "Well you said a holy warrior, a divine champion fits that criteria"- it does not. These are ACTUAL paladins operating under a different alignment for different reasons- they are a carbon copy of the LG paladin with a few adjustments made to fit their alignment.

My opinion differs, but I respect yours all the same.

DerkDerkistan wrote:

In reply to Eugiga, I find the rigidness part of the fun of the class. So what if a DM can smack you if you play your paladin wrong. That can make for a good learning experience (Ask Azeriel's player about that, since I seem to recall him going through it somewhat recently). Their decision is not arbitrary. They confer with each other on a situation and decide if a Fall is necessary. This smacking also applies to a number of classes, by the way: Paladin, Blackguard, Cleric, Druid, Divine Champion.

His was about a year and a half ago, yes, and I've seen a number since, some prefer to keep it between them and their god with the inclusion of their ranking priest/ess... what everyone is overlooking is that the traditional way of looking at paladins is they sacrifice a lot for what they get, depending on their god it can be worldly goods, having a family of their own... many things most classes will take for granted they can eventually get, can often be denied a Paladin played to his/her deity well... and some times the desire to just be mortal and 'human' is too much and they step away from the ideals of their faith... and they pay, in a class so closely allied with the ideals and dogma of their deity it's often portrayed as painful (both physically and emotionally) to be separated from your god and many will seek to repent to get back right with their god, some will look elsewhere for a god more suiting their current moral outlook... if that deviates from the Lawful and Good axis, then they should not be a paragon of that axis any longer.

Mechanically its true, Paladin =/= Blackguard or Divine Champion: the former has many more strictures on it and is recompensed accordingly, the later two have fewer and gain a slightly different set of powers in accordance to their required level of devotion.

I was talking about our Amian version of Neverwinter Nights, without those other PnP variations. Divine Champion does fit the bill for our setting, just as paladin is what it is in our setting. I think that's what the DMs and most everyone is getting at.

One thing I forgot to say: Paladins are often raised or taught from a very young age to follow their path, Blackguards and Divine Champions often choose their path later on in life.

Manarethan wrote:

WinterBlaze wrote:

Paladins, in my understanding, are very pious, upholding the absolute best traits of their deity and representing that deity with as close to infallibility as mortally possible.

With that belief of paladins in mind... I could see the actual paladin class extending from LG to include LE, as they are two opposite but very defined edges of the spectrum while with neutral there is too much grey area. (IMO). In this sense, there could easily be a Paladin for Bane, as Bane is very structured, very strict. While the argument I suppose could be made about Paladins for other neutral/evil deities, say Cyric, well Cyric in my understanding, doesn't have the defined structure, nothing to solidify or justify a code for paladins which frankly that is what paladins are supposed to follow to the letter.

This is not all of what a paladin is. Yes, they uphold the best traits of their deity and their church as a whole, but that is not where being a paladin ends. A paladin is a paragon of law and of good. They uphold a very strict code that governs what they can and cannot do, and that code is not applicable to a Lawful Evil character. Bane is Lawful, but he actively oppresses and torments the weak, using tyranny and control to gain power for himself with no thought of others. His code and dogma are fundamentally opposed to that of a paladin. They might both be Lawful, but that is where the similarities end.

Why? Because traditionally a paladin is considered good and lawful? The basic premise of a paladin, the basic makeup of them is highly structured, pious to their particular deity, having a code to follow and live by... all of these things a paladin of bane could accomplish. In this way it is fundamentally the exact same, just evil instead of good.

WinterBlaze wrote:

In this way it is fundamentally the exact same, just evil instead of good.

"They're fundamentally the same except for being absolute opposites" is not an argument I understand.

No. You aren't describing a paladin. They aren't "traditionally" considered good and lawful. They are paragons of Law and Good, and if they deviate from this, they Fall, and are no longer a paladin. The basic premise of a paladin isn't that they have a code to follow and live by. Its that they have the Paladin's Code to follow and live by. Its a very specific code, with clear rules and guidelines. A Banite would not follow those guidelines without being Fallen from Bane, and thus a paladin of Bane cannot exist.

Manarethan wrote:

No. You aren't describing a paladin. They aren't "traditionally" considered good and lawful. They are paragons of Law and Good, and if they deviate from this, they Fall, and are no longer a paladin. The basic premise of a paladin isn't that they have a code to follow and live by. Its that they have the Paladin's Code to follow and live by. Its a very specific code, with clear rules and guidelines. A Banite would not follow those guidelines without being Fallen from Bane, and thus a paladin of Bane cannot exist.

I'll just quote Wikipedia:

Wikipedia wrote:

Later editions brought forward the more generalized concept of the "paladin" just being the pinnacle of combat related to a particular religious organization. This allowed "paladins" of various gods that were of an alignment other than Lawful Good. All "paladins" had a code or set of rules that must be followed but because of the differences in point of view between the alignments the rules governing behavior changed from order to order.

That's kinda what I've been trying to get at- PnP disagrees with you.

I'm fairly certain that is referencing 4th edition, which allows paladins of any alignment. We don't support 4th edition. (I'm not disputing that there are classes which are very similar to paladins but aren't LG, but they aren't the paladin class that we have on Amia)

Manarethan wrote:

I'm fairly certain that is referencing 4th edition, which allows paladins of any alignment. We don't support 4th edition. (I'm not disputing that there are classes which are very similar to paladins but aren't LG, but they aren't the paladin class that we have on Amia)

Awesome.

Thank you for flat-out stating that "this is how paladins are on Amia", you have no idea how simple and yet how welcome that reasoning is. If that's just the way it is I really can't quibble. Thanks for the debate though, quite happy to have DMs who can spar with me now and again on points like this.

Lizzie wrote:

WinterBlaze wrote:

In this way it is fundamentally the exact same, just evil instead of good.

"They're fundamentally the same except for being absolute opposites" is not an argument I understand.

They aren't exact opposites... they both have structure, strict oaths, guidelines, etc. the only thing thats "exact opposite" is the Good and evil...

the exact opposite of LG would be CE, not LE... as both are lawful

Thats nitpicking, and hardly the point of this discussion. Paladins and followers of Bane are fundamentally opposed. They both have oaths and guidelines, but the oaths and code of a Banite is in -direct- opposition to the oaths and code of a Paladin. Just because they're Lawful doesn't mean they approach things in the same way.

Manarethan wrote:

Thats nitpicking, and hardly the point of this discussion. Paladins and followers of Bane are fundamentally opposed. They both have oaths and guidelines, but the oaths and code of a Banite is in -direct- opposition to the oaths and code of a Paladin. Just because they're Lawful doesn't mean they approach things in the same way.

That is assuming there can and will only ever be one code of a paladin. After all they had to be made in the first place right? Why couldn't a code for an evil paladin be created using the first code as a general guide?

If that happened, then the individual would not be a paladin. A paladin follows the Paladin's Code. If they created a new code and followed that, they'd be something else.

That way of reasoning sort of defeats itself... in that there can be a new paladin code created for evil deities, just as with the first paladins code, prior to the codes being created there were no paladins. So theoretically there can be an evil paladins code written up and followed. Just with that it could be built around the first code, meeting the main structure and guidelines.

Given, it would be ultimately the DMs decision to allow this kind of evil code to be written and what it would say but, from a theoretical standpoint (which is where this debate is now) it is entirely possible.

I mentioned it before. I was playing a paladin of Helm. The hardest thing I was ever playing. The constant fight between paladin codex and Helm's dogma and other aspects.

DC all the way. Paladin... never again.

Paladin: Lawful Neutral

Who is online