Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
romeo_longsword

Ranger and Paladin

Recommended Posts

Solution: Disallow anyone to take the Paladin class, and only allow them to use the Divine Champion Prestige Class or at least some sort of variant. This I believe is Sammael's house rule.

 

After all, it doesn't make sense that only good Gods get holy knights. Don't talk about blackguards, because I think blackguards are lame. With the whole lawful good thing pitched out, you can now make a campaign based more on dogmatic religion and opposing ideologies instead of the whole good/evil/law/chaos thing. Moral ambiguity rocks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a DM/GM/ST I feel the need to break down rules and look for exploits.  As such, I constantly look for loopholes players might use, etc.

 

I've never played a Paladin, nor do I have any desire to do so.  I like playing hero characters, but I think the Paladin class isn't balanced personally.

 

Nothing is really balanced in D&D.

 

Paladins are balanced by their "severe" roleplaying limitations.

 

if you don't think "lawful good" is a limitation, you're not playing it right :p

I'm not a big fan of the alignment system. I really prefer morality path systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a DM/GM/ST I feel the need to break down rules and look for exploits.  As such, I constantly look for loopholes players might use, etc.

 

I've never played a Paladin, nor do I have any desire to do so.  I like playing hero characters, but I think the Paladin class isn't balanced personally.

 

Nothing is really balanced in D&D.

 

Paladins are balanced by their "severe" roleplaying limitations.

 

if you don't think "lawful good" is a limitation, you're not playing it right :)

 

Unless you are a what they called a role-playing nazie, there is no right or wrong way to role-play. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless you are a what they called a role-playing nazie, there is no right or wrong way to role-play. :)

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

 

Nice generalization.... I'm guessing you're a rollplayer ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless you are a what they called a role-playing nazie, there is no right or wrong way to role-play. :)

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

 

Nice generalization.... I'm guessing you're a rollplayer ;)

 

?

 

You seems to be pressured to name other players non-roleplayer.

 

Guess what you may, I am a romantic role-player, built to smite RP nazi such as yourself. :) By RP nazi I mean, one that EXPECT how others to play their characters in a certain way, or, believing naming themselves a role-player if though its some superior status. But really? I welcome everyone. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now see, you're the one who started with the labeling... :rolleyes:

 

I just decided to run with it.

 

I am also really not happy with you labeling me a "nazi" in any format.

 

Now if assuming a person will take the disadvantages (and actually play them) that go along with the advantages of a character class makes me a "roleplaying *undefined term*" then so be it. In this case (a paladin) the character has a very specific set of limitations that go with it's advantages and model that are built into the ruleset.

 

If you want to be a powergaming muppet munchkin, that's fine, play as you want.

 

I am a romantic role-player, built to smite RP nazi such as yourself.

 

No, you're an annoying twit who likes to throw names around like you know what they mean without actually understanding what the people you are discussing things with are trying to say.

 

So based on that I only have two words for you.

 

Piss off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't any "alignment" allow for roleplaying restrictions, then? I mean, that basically means a Chaotic Evil guy MUST always be bathat crazy, Chaotic Good people MUST resist "authority" and stick it up to the evil corporation MAN, True Neutral people MUST be totally balanced and reasonable and listen to both sides of the argument, Lawful Neutral people MUST not jaywalk, etc. etc. etc. So how is being "Lawful Good" a restriction on how powerful Paladins are?

 

Are you going to force the paladins to go NWN style and refuse any form of monetary reward for their good deeds in return for extra EXP? ROFLMAO.

 

This just goes to show how completely wtflame the alignment system is. Roleplaying should be completely defined by how the player plays his character, not through some ultra simplified symbolic morality system. I mean, what *is* good anyways? What if you were raised in a culture that believes that if you do not cannibalize your close friends, you are denying their souls to reincarnate as your children? Under that belief, not cannibalizing someone would be akin to denying them salvation and forcing them to live forever in the underworld as a damned soul, which could be seen as worse than murder. So is being a cannibal considered "good" or "evil" in that aspect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe I ever said the alignment system was a good one, and I get the feeling some people are assuming far too much about what I post. :sorcerer:

 

But it is the system that's in place.

 

Personally I like the alignment shift system presented in the old 2nd edition Dragonlance book I saw a long time ago.

 

But in the case of the Paladin, alignment "is" a part of the package, as much as the bonuses it gets.

 

Are you going to force the paladins to go NWN style and refuse any form of monetary reward for their good deeds in return for extra EXP?

 

Nope. Any Paladin (or Lawful Good person for that matter) would most likely refuse the reward (if they didn't need it) accept it (if they really did) or give it to someone who really needed it more (if the person who offered it didn't need it) or even tithe it to their church (since I always see a church providing for all their paladin's needs like a Daimyo provides for their Samurai).

 

Lawful Good does not mean Lawful Stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roleplaying should be completely defined by how the player plays his character, not through some ultra simplified symbolic morality system.

 

This I agree with "except" where "morality" is a part of the character.

 

Like a Paladin.

 

I mean honestly, would you (as a mage) try to be a front line tank? No, that's not what your character is built as, the same applies to the Paladin... this class is built a particular way.

 

If you don't like the Lawful-Good restriction, don't whine about it, either change it for your campaign or create your own class variation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's another part of the reason why I don't like Paladins, and why I don't like D&D.

 

Heck, I'll take GURPS over D&D.

 

 

Ouch :sorcerer:

 

:)

 

I prefer 7th sea

 

But I figure you'd already see that coming :p

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, rules were made to be broken. I dislike the Paladin class, and I think it really should be a prestige class.

 

Second of all, I'm not whining about the whole "restriction" thing. I don't like rollplaying, and I think the paladin is overpowered. But you're saying a particular type of character is restricting, and I disagree- I don't see any hindrance of being lawful good, especially when you're a paladin. So I think that the paladin is just munchkiny through-and-through. Which is why I prefer it be made into a prestige class.

 

I mean, what if I wanted to play a lawful good mage? Should I automatically become more powerful and get some bonus spells because I'm lawful good? According to you, anything that's lawful good would get some sort of penalty, so wouldn't it be unfair if the paladin was a powerful class because of this? Won't that mean all the lawful good mages in the world are getting jipped?

 

Now if the Paladin, on the other hand, got some sort of Code of Conduct that specifically forbade the paladin from doing certain things that would clearly put them at a disadvantage, then I'm okay with that. For example, let's say an honorable paladin refuses to ambush his enemies, and must face his enemies head on or else receive an XP penalty. Or maybe a protector paladin has sworn never to take a life again, and also cannot allow a life to be lost at the hands of another while he is present, Isaac Asimov style. Now that is a definite, tangible restriction.

 

But that can apply for any alignment. Evil paladins may have a code where they cannot allow any of their enemies to flee them- they all must die. Or else, XP Penalty. In this way the code of conduct a paladin has is more in line with his Deity, and infact a DM may create a specific code of conduct with his player before the campaign begins. It's stupid to pigeonhole everything into Good and Evil, Black and White.

 

See, now THAT is roleplaying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you don't like the Lawful-Good restriction, don't whine about it, either change it for your campaign or create your own class variation.

 

In other words, if you want a tank, but you don't like a paladin do a warrior or a barbarian, but the paladin is "lawful good", and you have to accept that limitation.

 

I have play with the paladin and the warrior, and they aren't as powerfull as you say here, a ranger with his feats can beat them without many problems, the paladin or the warrior almost always will be melee chars, and the ranger usually is a ranged char, you can't kill what you can't hit. :sorcerer:"

 

First of all, rules were made to be broken. I dislike the Paladin class, and I think it really should be a prestige class

 

In other words if it's difficult, then cheating and ready no? <_<


PRIUS FLAMMIS COMBUSTA QUAM ARMIS NUMANCIA VICTA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean, what if I wanted to play a lawful good mage? Should I automatically become more powerful and get some bonus spells because I'm lawful good?

 

They are at a disadvantage, they can "only" be Lawful good, a limitation the Mage doesn't share. So your argument dies right there. To quote Volourn... you lose.

 

If you're going to play the ubermunchkin powerhour, it doesn't matter what restrictions are there since you'll ignore them anyway. But the Paladin's "code" is a limitations since there are a lot of things that character can.. and can't do.

 

If you follow the whole alignment thing.

 

According to you, anything that's lawful good would get some sort of penalty, so wouldn't it be unfair if the paladin was a powerful class because of this? Won't that mean all the lawful good mages in the world are getting jipped?

 

:sorcerer: You fail once again.

 

Nowhere did I say that lawful good grants any kind of bonus or penalty, it's mearly a path your character follows.

 

Since I apparently have to dumb this down so you won't apply wild accusations to what I post, I shall attempt to.

 

The Paladin has certain abilities and limitations, one of those limitations is the fact it can only have "one" alignment path.

 

One, singular.

 

That means if you roleplay that alignment and class you have a VERY strict path you can follow with very little variation on your actions.

 

There are certain things you can do, and a vast number of things you cannot since you're "shackled" to the Lawful good alignment.

 

Nowhere have I stated that an alignment causes a penalty. Being forced into a singular alignment choice "is" the penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alignment is a tool; not a straitjacket. Do people even read the D&D sourcebooks. No one; not even paladins, are forced to play a certain way.

 

 

"shackled" to the Lawful good alignment."

 

Paladin characters are not shackled. It's not ahrd coded. There are paladins that mistakes,m there are paladins that fall, there are paladins thata re rude, overly aggresive, etc., etc.

 

Has anyone here played the module Dragon Mountain? There's a prime exmaple in that 'official' module where there's a paladin who isn't exactly a perfect beacon of light.

 

Anywyas, back to alignment, there's a reason why the concept of 'falling' from one's alignment exists.

 

The alignment one chooses (or is given as is the case of paladins) at the start of a character's career is just a guideline how a characetr has been acting and basic code of ethics. This cna change during the course of play for so many reasons and there's lots of 'wiggle room" within a single alignment.

 

A LG dwarf from Mithril Hall is gonna have a different outlook of life than a LG human from Amn. No doubt about it.


DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Second of all, I'm not whining about the whole "restriction" thing. I don't like rollplaying, and I think the paladin is overpowered. But you're saying a particular type of character is restricting, and I disagree- I don't see any hindrance of being lawful good, especially when you're a paladin. So I think that the paladin is just munchkiny through-and-through. Which is why I prefer it be made into a prestige class.

 

I mean, what if I wanted to play a lawful good mage? Should I automatically become more powerful and get some bonus spells because I'm lawful good? According to you, anything that's lawful good would get some sort of penalty, so wouldn't it be unfair if the paladin was a powerful class because of this? Won't that mean all the lawful good mages in the world are getting jipped?

 

The limitation on the paladin is that he is sworn to be LG. Evil characters have more options; an evil character can use the means of a good character if it is the most convenient method that leads to their ends. It doesn't go the other way though -- a good character cannot use evil means and remain good. Chaotic is not quite as clear cut, but chaotic characters can still act in lawful ways when it suits them (they aren't madmen). LG is the most restricted of the alignments because you can't have a lawful character that acts chaotic when it is necessary or a good character that does evil things when it is convenient.

 

The difference between the LG paladin and the LG mage is that the mage still has more options. He isn't required to be LG, that's just the way he is. If there is a situation in which he desperately needs to do something chaotic or evil, he can do it -- all that will happen is that it will weigh on his conscience. On the other hand, the paladin cannot do it without breaking an oath and, depending on how significant the action is, possibly losing his ability to be a paladin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple things about the Paladin to bring up.

 

The Lawful Good restriction is not a shackle. A Paladin may deviate from the Lawful Good alignment. However, if they do so, they lose their class abilities and cannot take further levels in Paladin until they have atoned.

 

Also, they may never multiclass. If a Paladin takes levels in another class, they may never raise in Paladin again. Per the PHB:

The path of the Paladin requires a constant heart.  If a character adopts this class, she must pursue it ot the exclusion of all other careers.  Once she has turned off the path, she may never return.

These are the most prominent class restrictions. I am not passing judgement on any part of the system, just wanted that clearly stated since it's been a point of debate for the past couple of pages.

 

If you'd like to play an evil Paladin, I believe there are rules for anti-Paladins in Sword and Fist, the complete warrior sourcebook, as well as rules for evil Rangers, etc.

 

As far as spells, spell progression is the same for Paladins as it is for the Ranger, they just have access to different spells. As far as healing in combat, the Ranger and Paladin gain Cure Light, Cure Moderate and Cure Serious at the exact same levels.

 

Combat - The Paladin can wear heavy armor, but by 13th level a Ranger who took Two-Weapon Fighting for his combat style has SIX attacks per round, to the Paladin's 3. The Paladin can take Two-Weapon fighting and the associated feats, but the Ranger does so without sacraficing any feats. Combined with Weapon Finesse and the high dexterity that is so useful to a Ranger, the Ranger has a pretty good chance of taking down the Paladin in melee.

 

At range, of course, the Ranger has the advantage since he won't be wearing heavy armor and thus will be able to use his full Dex bonus (assuming Dex is 18 or less), in addition to only having a minor armor check penalty. With the high number of skill points allotted to Rangers in 3.5e, the Ranger is a excellent at sniping from cover, and the Paladin in his heavy armor simply cannot keep up.

 

Is a Ranger a good line trooper? Not really; like I said it's a tank versus a Humvee. But Rangers can certainly hold their own in melee or in the city, and will always be Masters of the Wild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Lawful Good restriction is not a shackle.  A Paladin may deviate from the Lawful Good alignment.  However, if they do so, they lose their class abilities and cannot take further levels in Paladin until they have atoned.

 

ROFLMAO :):rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

I can't believe how many of you are trying to split hairs and have a war over symantics. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

Shackle, restriction, limitation. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

Geeze, some of you people are unbelievable. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I brought it up because it's being looked at as an unescapeable limitation of the class, and thus a limitation of your ability as a player to role play your character.

 

The point is it's not, but there are penalties.

 

And again, I brought that up as clarification not judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize, I think this topic (and specifically some of the replies within) has put me on a short fuse. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...