Paladin Class Preview

Monday, May 7, 2018

All it takes is a cursory browse of the Paizo forums to see that paladins are not just the most contentious class in Pathfinder, they are the most contentious conversation topic. Weeks before we previewed the class, multiple threads with thousands of posts arose in advance, filled with passionate fans with many different opinions and plenty of good ideas. Turns out, the Paizo office isn't too different.

The Quest for the Holy Grail

Early last year, I went on a sacred quest through the office and surveyed all the different opinions out there about paladins. Turns out, almost everyone had slightly different thoughts. But there was one element in common: whether they wanted paladins of all alignments, paladins of the four extreme alignments, lawful good paladins and chaotic evil antipaladins, lawful evil tyrant antipaladins, or even just lawful good paladins alone, everyone was interested in robust support for the idea that paladins should be champions of their deity and alignment. That is to say, whatever alignments paladins have, they should have an array of abilities deeply tied into that alignment.

Since that was the aspect of the paladin that everyone agreed upon, that's what we wanted to make sure we got right in the playtest. But given the limited space for the playtest, we chose to focus on getting that aspect fine-tuned for one alignment, and so in this book we're presenting only lawful good paladins. That doesn't mean antipaladins and tyrants are gone (there's even an antipaladin foe in one of the adventures!) or that the door is closed to other sorts of paladins down the road. We'll have a playtest survey on the matter, we're open to more opinions, and even among the four designers we have different ideas. But we want to focus the playtest on getting lawful good paladins right, first and foremost. If or when we do make more paladins and antipaladins, having constructed a solid foundation for how an alignment-driven champion functions will be a crucial step to making all of them engaging and different in play.

Illustration by Wayne Reynolds

The Code

Tell me if you've heard this one before: My paladin was brought to a court where she was forced to testify under oath to tell the whole truth, by a legitimate authority, about the whereabouts of certain innocent witnesses, but she knows that if she answers the questions, a villain is going to use that information to track down and harm the innocents. It's the "Inquiring Murderer" quandary from moral philosophy set in a way that manages to pin you between not just two but three different restrictions in the old paladin code. Sure, I can beg and plead with the judge that the information, if released, would harm innocents, but ultimately if the judge persists, I'm in trouble. These sorts of situations are some of the most common paladin threads on the forums, and they're never easy.

With the playtest presenting the opportunity, I wanted to analyze the paladin's code down to basic principles and keep all the important roleplaying aspects that make paladins the trustworthy champions of law and good we've come to expect while drastically reducing, and hopefully eliminating, the no-win situations. Here's what it looks like at the moment.

Code of Conduct

Paladins are divine champions of a deity. You must be lawful good and worship a deity that allows lawful good clerics. Actions fundamentally opposed to your deity's alignment or ideals are anathema to your faith. A few examples of acts that would be considered anathema appear in each deity's entry. You and your GM will determine whether other acts count as anathema.

In addition, you must follow the paladin's code below. Deities often add additional strictures for their own paladins (for instance, Shelyn's paladins never attack first except to protect an innocent, and they choose and perfect an art).

If you stray from lawful good, perform acts anathema to your deity, or violate your code of conduct, you lose your Spell Point pool and righteous ally class feature (which we talk more about below) until you demonstrate your repentance by conducting an atone ritual, but you keep any other paladin abilities that don't require those class features.

The Paladin's Code

The following is the fundamental code all paladins follow. The tenets are listed in order of importance, starting with the most important. If a situation places two tenets in conflict, you aren't in a no-win situation; instead, follow the most important tenet. For instance, if an evil king asked you if innocent lawbreakers were hiding in your church so he could execute them, you could lie to him, since the tenet forbidding you to lie is less important than the tenet prohibiting the harm of an innocent. An attempt to subvert the paladin code by engineering a situation allowing you to use a higher tenet to ignore a lower tenet (telling someone that you won't respect lawful authorities so that the tenet of not lying supersedes the tenet of respecting lawful authorities, for example) is a violation of the paladin code.

  • You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.
  • You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.
  • You must act with honor, never cheating, lying, or taking advantage of others.
  • You must respect the lawful authority of the legitimate ruler or leadership in whichever land you may be, following their laws unless they violate a higher tenet.

So let's break down what's the same and what's different. We still have all the basic tenets of the paladin from Pathfinder First Edition, with one exception: we've removed poison from the tenet of acting with honor. While there are certainly dishonorable ways to use poison, poisoning a weapon and using it in an honorable combat that allows enhanced weaponry doesn't seem much different than lighting the weapon on fire. However, by ordering the tenets and allowing the paladin to prioritize the most important tenets in the event of a conflict, we've cut down on the no-win situations. And of course, this opens a design space to play around with the tenets themselves, something we've done by incorporating one of the most popular non-core aspects for paladins...

Oaths

Oaths allow you to play around with the tenets of your code while also gaining mechanical advantages. For instance, the Fiendsbane Oath allows you to dish out near-constant retribution against fiends and eventually block their dimensional travel with an Anchoring Aura. Unlike in Pathfinder First Edition, oaths are feats, and you don't need an archetype to gain one.

Paladin Features

As many of you guessed when Jason mentioned it, paladin was the mystery class that gains the highest heavy armor proficiency, eventually reaching legendary proficiency in armor and master proficiency in weapons, as opposed to fighters, who gain the reverse. At 1st level, you also gain the Retributive Strike reaction, allowing you to counterattack and enfeeble any foe that hits one of your allies (Shelyn save those who strike your storm druid ally). You also get lay on hands, a single-action healing spell that not only heals the target but also raises their AC for a round to help prevent future damage. Combine that effect used on yourself with a raised shield, and you can make it pretty hard for a foe to hit you, and it helps recovering allies avoid another beating.

Lay on hands is the first of a paladin's champion powers, which include a whole bunch of elective options via feats. One of my favorites, gained automatically at 19th level, is hero's defiance, which makes a paladin incredibly difficult to take down. It lets you keep standing when you fall to 0 HP, gives you a big boost of Hit Points, and doesn't even use up your reaction! Leading up to that, you gain a bunch of fun smite-related boosts, including the righteous ally class feature that you saw mentioned in the code. This is a 3rd-level ability that lets you house a holy spirit in a weapon or a steed, much like before, but also in a shield, like the fan-favorite sacred shield archetype!

Paladin Feats

In addition to the oath feats I mentioned when talking about the code, paladins have feats customized to work with the various righteous ally options, like Second Ally, a level 8 feat that lets you gain a second righteous ally. There are also a variety of auras that you can gain to improve yourself and your allies, from the humble 4th-level Aura of Courage, which reduces the frightened condition for you when you gain it and at the end of your turn for you and your allies, to the mighty 14th-level Aura of Righteousness, which gives you and your allies resistance to evil damage. Feats that improve or alter your lay on hands include mercy feats, which allow you to remove harmful conditions and afflictions with lay on hands, up to and including death itself with Ultimate Mercy. And we can't forget potent additional reactions like Divine Grace, granting you a saving throw boost at 2nd level, and Attack of Opportunity at 6th level.

To close out, I'll tell you about one more popular non-core paladin ability we brought in, a special type of power called...

Litanies

Following their mold from Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Combat, litanies are single-action Verbal Casting spells that last 1 round and create various effects. For instance, litany of righteousness makes an enemy weak to your allies' attacks, and litany against sloth slows down an enemy, costing it reactions and potentially actions as well. One of the coolest story features of the litanies against sins is that they now explicitly work better against creatures strongly aligned with their sin, so a dretch (a.k.a. a sloth demon) or a sloth sinspawn treats its saving throw outcome for litany against sloth as one degree worse!

Just as a reminder to everyone, please be respectful to each other. Many of us have strong opinions about the paladin, and that's OK, even if we each have different feelings.

Mark Seifter
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Paladins Pathfinder Playtest Seelah Wayne Reynolds
401 to 450 of 1,735 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

14 people marked this as a favorite.

After talking with my venture agent on why I am looking to exit running and playing PF 2 ed after Gencon, he suggested that I give the reasons on why this poor class design bothers me so much.

For me, this class design about being the one true way to behave is too reminiscent of dictatorial thinking patterns that cause heinous results. The holier than thou created by this design literally poisons table atmospheres. This poor class design encourages the paladin to believe that their character is "always right" because they are a "paladin" and there is one true path. The paladin player therefore feels entitled to tell others the way they should play their characters. I managed to escape one groupthink society so I have no desire to encourage similar thinking patterns.

If this class was not essential and you rarely saw people playing them then you suffer thou the occasional table. However in PF 2.0, the paladin is a core component because no one is comparable in armor skills. Locking a core component of the system to such a groupthink character is pretty poor design.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have always like Lawful Good Paladins without any ties to specific gods. Is there a mechanical reason for the worship rules?

I run my own settings almost exclusively and gods and religions are kind of de-emphasized (there are only two major Gods and then everything else is a mix of ancestor worship/worship of holy States).

I understand wanting to walk Clerics more towards gods, but why do the Paladins need that? Will there be a way to build Paladins otherwise in the complete rules, maybe?


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:


Even when we do make decisions that are nearly perfect for an individual person, that doesn't mean all of them will be. It's unrealistic for anyone to expect to definitely like absolutely everything in the entire playtest. I don't think that's true for anyone, not even the designers! So, for instance, there's a Sarenite sorcerer concept that RickDias was talking about early in the playtest blogs, as an example of something that can only be executed with recent splatbooks, and that we just so happen to be able to cover brilliantly in the playtest book alone (and I think two designers managed to respond to that in quick succession). A game this big is bound to be full of some things you really like and some things you don't, especially since sometimes there are groups of people who want mutually exclusive things to be in the game.

One thing is for certain: we're working hard to make things more effective for fans of all sorts. For instance, we're trying to both use alignment in interesting ways and to make it easy to remove alignment from your game if you want. Or for the paladin, we're working on perfecting the chassis for the lawful good paladin, but the paladin class chassis in the playtest book is much more flexible in terms of creating non-lawful-good versions than the one in the PF1 CRB (for instance, the antipaladin in the adventure has delightfully selfish versions of several of the abilities). I can't say one way or the other...

Mark,

The bigger concern, based on the ten years of PF1, is that 'it's just going to be a re-hash in PF2', when the game should evolve and DEFINITELY not lock Legendary abilities behind one class that has one alignment and is so disruptive to play historically that the class is banned from some communities and tables.

I'm glad that the development team is excited about the prospects, but we've been hearing that for *years* and then we get the American pilsner of paladin in Archetypes that deviate from LG and Guinness for the LG ones.

One is deep, dark, rich, and hearty.

The other... well.

So please, consider that we'd like ALL variants to be Guinness and not American water-beer, and that may help show the concerns?

Thank you for chiming in though, as I said above, it's good to have an excited development team.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
A lot of the hurt feelings I’m seeing here are acting like the CRB is the only book that will ever come out. This version of the Paladin has a very malleable chassis, in a way the previous Paladin never did. Even with archetypes it was real difficult to make a divergent Paladin.

Well, Core will be the only book that comes out for a bit, anyway, and that puts people wanting something different -- or something that isn't in Core like the multitude of races/classes/stuff that already exists in 1E -- are in for a wait of +1 day to goodness knows when.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I've never liked the idea of a paladin having to serve a deity. I've always seen paladins as being very devoted to their personal idea of justice. In fantasy pantheons like in D&D and PF, the gods are usually just people. Very large, very potent and very important people, yes, but ultimately just people. And people can be wrong. If a god is just as capable of being wrong as a man, then the man is better off listening to the voice in his heart than to a voice from the sky. I've never thought of paladin powers as coming from the gods. I've always seen it as the power within, closer in principle to philosophy clerics or oracle mysteries. They may believe in divinity, but they do not serve it. Their mentor and guiding light is something from the grand universe that they learned how to reach; light inside of themselves they learned to turn on. That's how all of my favorite paladins have always played.

Please, don't take that away from me.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
Xerres wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
Xerres wrote:


The Paladin is all about exclusion and superiority.

Not really. It's about "You know this guy? The guy which you loved from day 1? He's still there, his class is still there. Come and play it!"

That's my opinion, at least :)

Yes, you got to keep the exclusive, morally superior class, locked to those Chaotic peasants.

I'd take that joke further, but it would start to seem more of a insult than a fallacious comment. Because I refuse to imply anything about people's personal character, I'm talking entirely about the class.

But yes, you are indeed getting the class the way you wanted it. That way excludes many people from playing it, because they don't want to be locked into the notion that Lawful Good is best good, or that somehow Chaotic Good is lax in their opposition to Evil, or many number of other stances I can't completely cover.

But by virtue of its "Neutral and Chaotic Good aren't Good enough!" existence, it is a class of exclusion and superiority by definition.

Not really. Each 3 types of good are equally good. However, Lawful Good rests in special place of the alignment chart.

Alignment is a lot more than a worthless mechanic. I invite anyone here to think about a little bit. Especially, on why people would have the alignments they have.
It's so much of a food for thought. Really, this is a Brilliant system. It's a shame many people cannot use it right :)

how is LG special? Its sugar coated tyranny, the alignment of fundamentalists, so it is especially cruel I guess....


7 people marked this as a favorite.

'Meh' 5th Edition did a better job.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As the codes are re-written, my tengu grandmother could not be a paladin in PF2, paradoxically enough.

That's usually an indication that something has gone awry, when a LG character in one ruleset is actually not viable as a LG character in the technical 'descendant' of the class.

Shadow Lodge

24 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
how is LG special? Its sugar coated tyranny, the alignment of fundamentalists, so it is especially cruel I guess....

You know, I don't even LIKE alignment and I feel like you are grossly misrepresenting it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So just to share it here before I have to post in on 3 different sub threads.

This is My personal compromise for you guys with that paladin alignment problem its the name game. Allow paladins of differing alignments but don't call them paladins change their name to complement their alignment and slightly change their abilities to match the feel of the alignment.

So a LG paladin or CE/LE anti-paladin would have similar abilities but with a noticeable difference such as paladin auras give bonuses to allies AP auras give penalties to enemies. Neutral paladins (who we would rename somehow for when they are not LG) would be more similar to fighters except focusing on armor and a more tanky defend ally type role.

So for like A CG paladin we might call a crusader for example and he might be more mobile and more about bringing down evil dictators for example.

I could see those kinds of things being added later as archetypes easy enough. I hope this time around Archetypes aren't made specifically to be weaker then the regular stuff as well.

So I suspose working with what we've seen what we would do is have 8 paladin archetypes eventually each positioned to make the paladin a different alignment and giving that aligned pally a name to coincide. such as crusader anti-paladin, tyrant, etc. I think that would be a reasonable way to make everyone happy. I know some people wanted it right out of the box but this does keep the paladin from taking up to much room compared to other classes and maybe give paizo some more time to perfect the other paladin options so we don't have a weaker one like the greyaladin. Instead an equal but different kind of paladin.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I for one am happy with the LG only Paladin. Though I’m fine with the LE anti Paladin and even a LN paladin. No other alignment really makes sense. There are a few things I don’t like about the 2e paladin, but I’ll have to wait untill the book is out before I worry about it too much. Hopefully we can make changes as needed through the play test period.


Vidmaster7 wrote:

So just to share it here before I have to post in on 3 different sub threads.

This is My personal compromise for you guys with that paladin alignment problem its the name game. Allow paladins of differing alignments but don't call them paladins change their name to complement their alignment and slightly change their abilities to match the feel of the alignment.

So a LG paladin or CE/LE anti-paladin would have similar abilities but with a noticeable difference such as paladin auras give bonuses to allies AP auras give penalties to enemies. Neutral paladins (who we would rename somehow for when they are not LG) would be more similar to fighters except focusing on armor and a more tanky defend ally type role.

So for like A CG paladin we might call a crusader for example and he might be more mobile and more about bringing down evil dictators for example.

I could see those kinds of things being added later as archetypes easy enough. I hope this time around Archetypes aren't made specifically to be weaker then the regular stuff as well.

So I suspose working with what we've seen what we would do is have 8 paladin archetypes eventually each positioned to make the paladin a different alignment and giving that aligned pally a name to coincide. such as crusader anti-paladin, tyrant, etc. I think that would be a reasonable way to make everyone happy. I know some people wanted it right out of the box but this does keep the paladin from taking up to much room compared to other classes and maybe give paizo some more time to perfect the other paladin options so we don't have a weaker one like the greyaladin. Instead an equal but different kind of paladin.

And now that I have fixed that problem can we talk about how icky divine grace as a reaction is?

Designer

18 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


As the codes are re-written, my tengu grandmother could not be a paladin in PF2, paradoxically enough.

The paladin code above doesn't really add any tenets to the ones in the PF1 paladin code, though; it loosens up the interactions between them so you don't get caught in a no-win situation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CactusUnicorn wrote:
I'm hoping for 3 archetypes in core Tyrant (LE), Avenger (CG), and Antipaladin (CE). Each one should be different (zfrom each other and vanilla paladin) and I hope smite works on both of the opposite alignments (chaos/evil for pallies)

that leaves out the most focused on good and evil alignments (and the most focused on law and chaos) the Ns LN is law above all, Ng is good abive all etc. If anything they should be the ones getting the apecial treatment if we are gating it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Fennris wrote:
I for one am happy with the LG only Paladin. Though I’m fine with the LE anti Paladin and even a LN paladin. No other alignment really makes sense. There are a few things I don’t like about the 2e paladin, but I’ll have to wait untill the book is out before I worry about it too much. Hopefully we can make changes as needed through the play test period.

...How on earth do you have the belief that being Lawful is more integral to a Paladin's identity than being Good? Smite Chaos is an archetype feature.


Finally

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Is there a thread somewhere with some non-LG paladin concepts? I’m hung up on the current ideal.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


As the codes are re-written, my tengu grandmother could not be a paladin in PF2, paradoxically enough.
The paladin code above doesn't really add any tenets to the ones in the PF1 paladin code, though; it loosens up the interactions between them so you don't get caught in a no-win situation.

Eh my favorite way to avoid a no-win paladin situation will remain the same I suspect... threatening to punch my DM in the head for setting that non-sense up!

(Just kidding my DM's would not do that.... cause they know I would punch them in the head!)

(edit: incidentally punching your DM in the head when he doesn't deserve it can actually make your paladin fall be warned!)


KingOfAnything wrote:
Is there a thread somewhere with some non-LG paladin concepts? I’m hung up on the current ideal.

See to me I don't think their paladins anymore but some people still want the mechanics so that's why My suggestion is to change their names and fluff when you want to use that class for another alignment.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Reasonable discourse about variant Paladins.

Personally, all I really want is "Other alignments have Champions that are either equal or parallel to the Paladin." They don't have to be Paladins with a different alignment, though I'm find with that, I just want fair representation among the alignments. Like I said, I love Lawful Good, I hate the idea that its special or better.

I'd prefer that if they're delayed, Paladin is delayed too. So everyone can wait patiently together, and Paladin doesn't get a leg up in mechanics because its in the Core book and the other alignment classes are in a forgotten splatbook.

And they shouldn't suck compared to the Paladin. That would be a biggie.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
So for like A CG paladin we might call a crusader for example and he might be more mobile and more about bringing down evil dictators for example.

So, I want to zero in on this one to say I like the notion of calling Chaotic Good equivalent 'Crusader', but I really don't like the common suggestion that the 'Enemy Type' of a Chaotic character is so extremely specific. Slavers, tyrants, unjust lawmen, whatever, its always so narrow.

CG "I am good at fighting the slavers!"
LG "The slavers are invariably evil, so I'm good at fighting them too."
CG "I'm good at fighting the Tyrants?"
LG "They trend to Evil too bud, and are normally end game villains that you aren't really fighting on the reg."
CG: "... Unjust lawmen?"
LG: "Hey, they're Neutral often enough that you'll do better than me! Lets hope there are as many of those in a normal campaign as there are Evil enemies."
CG: "Why do I exist."
LG: "Sorry to say, it was a cruel joke. Let me buy you a beer..."

If there's some difference in how they fight, fine. But 'Evil' is an extremely broad enemy designation that makes Paladins very often relevant. Slavers and Tyrants are not nearly so common.

So call then Crusaders, following some manner of inner voice or something, I dunno. I like the name for the idea that they're driven by inner passions. Love it far more than 'Liberator' or 'Freedom Fighter'. Just please not ridiculously narrow focused.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Fennris wrote:
I for one am happy with the LG only Paladin. Though I’m fine with the LE anti Paladin and even a LN paladin. No other alignment really makes sense. There are a few things I don’t like about the 2e paladin, but I’ll have to wait untill the book is out before I worry about it too much. Hopefully we can make changes as needed through the play test period.

Yeah, I’m with you. The strength of conviction I associate with the paladin is very much tied to oaths, honor, and other strictures of lawful alignment. Those legendary defenses and ability to persevere in battle bring to mind the stone tablets of law.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Xerres wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Reasonable discourse about variant Paladins.

Personally, all I really want is "Other alignments have Champions that are either equal or parallel to the Paladin." They don't have to be Paladins with a different alignment, though I'm find with that, I just want fair representation among the alignments. Like I said, I love Lawful Good, I hate the idea that its special or better.

I'd prefer that if they're delayed, Paladin is delayed too. So everyone can wait patiently together, and Paladin doesn't get a leg up in mechanics because its in the Core book and the other alignment classes are in a forgotten splatbook.

And they shouldn't suck compared to the Paladin. That would be a biggie.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
So for like A CG paladin we might call a crusader for example and he might be more mobile and more about bringing down evil dictators for example.

So, I want to zero in on this one to say I like the notion of calling Chaotic Good equivalent 'Crusader', but I really don't like the common suggestion that the 'Enemy Type' of a Chaotic character is so extremely specific. Slavers, tyrants, unjust lawmen, whatever, its always so narrow.

CG "I am good at fighting the slavers!"
LG "The slavers are invariably evil, so I'm good at fighting them too."
CG "I'm good at fighting the Tyrants?"
LG "They trend to Evil too bud, and are normally end game villains that you aren't really fighting on the reg."
CG: "... Unjust lawmen?"
LG: "Hey, they're Neutral often enough that you'll do better than me! Lets hope there are as many of those in a normal campaign as there are Evil enemies."
CG: "Why do I exist."
LG: "Sorry to say, it was a cruel joke. Let me buy you a beer..."

If there's some difference in how they fight, fine. But 'Evil' is an extremely broad enemy designation that makes Paladins very often relevant. Slavers and Tyrants are not nearly so common.

So call then Crusaders, following some manner of inner voice or something, I dunno. I like the name for the...

Proposal: Both LG and CG variants Smite Evil as normal, but LG Paladins get an additional bonus against Chaotic Evil enemies and CG Crusaders get an additional bonus against Lawful Evil enemies.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

So how are hands managed in PF2? Paladins are designed as "tanks" which probably means most of them will use sword and shield. Can a paladin wielding sword and shield still use lay on hands? And how about somatic spell actions? (Should Paladins actually still be spell casters.)

Having a one action heal like lay on hands would be pretty pointless if you need to waste two more actions (sheath and draw weapon) to even use it in combat.


Leyren wrote:


Even the name is a bit lazy since it references the paladin, meaning the class wouldn't be possible without them, which is not true.

Bear in mind, the anti-paladin originally dates back to original D&D where evil (or rather, just "chaotic") clerics were sometimes called anti-clerics. That terminology was inspired by the real world religious (well, Catholic) term, antipope. .

Beyond that, the paladin is literally from the source of D&D's alignment system (Poul Anderson's novel 3 Hearts and 3 Lions) so strictly speaking, it's not possible without them. Or D&D (and descendants) as we know it, for better or for worse


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like a lot of this. I'm okay with the Paladin being LG in the playtest, because, well, it's just the playtest. I would like to see a "Paladin" of any Good alignment in Core when the time comes.

And it doesn't have to be super complicated. Just something like, "If a Paladin follows a different code of goodness and deity, she is called a Guardian," [or whatever] "is of the NG alignment, and she replaces X with Y." And so on. Likewise, "a Paladin may be called a Champion and be of the CG alignment, and he changes X to Z." And so on.

I think something like this in the CRB would be good. And I don't think the other, non-good alignments should be based off the chassis of the Paladin, an inherently GOOD aligned class.

More work that way, so sorry 'bout that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm in the "alignments shouldn't be a big deal for paladins" camp. I was hoping for something closer to 5e oaths. That said, I can see why Paizo would be using LG only at this stage. I'd like it if the final core rulebook had other alignments, but putting those in other books means the LG only folks can get what they want by limiting their game to core only.

It is a little weird that the best martial armor class is locked behind all these restrictions, but honestly the PF1 Paladin often felt like the best martial, period. I'm not sure what the PF2 Paladin will have over the Fighter, but the Fighter does still sound like a hella good tank.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

In my almost 20 years of playing D&D 3.X and other similar tabletops, I have never played a Paladin and have never had one at my table. Nobody in my circles have ever had any interest in them, it’s not a well designed class and letting tradition hamstring it has just guarantee that my table will not give any helpful feedback about it in the playtest.

It’s somewhat hopeful that it was said “when” other alignments get added, but unless that is in the final core rulebook I really have no interest. It really wouldn’t be hard to have a pair of core abilities that are based on your alignment, like other users have suggested. You would still have the ability to have them have an alignment based playstyle and open them up to people who want to play a heavy armor type but don’t want to play a traditional Arthurian holy knight.

So I definitely hope that the LG-only restriction goes away after the playtest when you have figured out how to reach your goals with the class without being held back by tradition. I was really hoping after the Alchemist and goblin were added that we were going to get all sorts of great surprises about the other classes, but this blog post really disappointed me.

Second Seekers (Roheas)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:
'Meh' 5th Edition did a better job.

First and only time I have had this thought regarding a class too.

This just feels significantly watered down with only mastery of armor replacing a lot of iconic paladin things.

And the threat to bring rainbow alignment paladins in the game only reinforces that notion that we are getting the, as Wei Ji so elegantly put it, American Pilsner of Paladins.


Xerres wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Reasonable discourse about variant Paladins.

Personally, all I really want is "Other alignments have Champions that are either equal or parallel to the Paladin." They don't have to be Paladins with a different alignment, though I'm find with that, I just want fair representation among the alignments. Like I said, I love Lawful Good, I hate the idea that its special or better.

I'd prefer that if they're delayed, Paladin is delayed too. So everyone can wait patiently together, and Paladin doesn't get a leg up in mechanics because its in the Core book and the other alignment classes are in a forgotten splatbook.

And they shouldn't suck compared to the Paladin. That would be a biggie.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
So for like A CG paladin we might call a crusader for example and he might be more mobile and more about bringing down evil dictators for example.

So, I want to zero in on this one to say I like the notion of calling Chaotic Good equivalent 'Crusader', but I really don't like the common suggestion that the 'Enemy Type' of a Chaotic character is so extremely specific. Slavers, tyrants, unjust lawmen, whatever, its always so narrow.

CG "I am good at fighting the slavers!"
LG "The slavers are invariably evil, so I'm good at fighting them too."
CG "I'm good at fighting the Tyrants?"
LG "They trend to Evil too bud, and are normally end game villains that you aren't really fighting on the reg."
CG: "... Unjust lawmen?"
LG: "Hey, they're Neutral often enough that you'll do better than me! Lets hope there are as many of those in a normal campaign as there are Evil enemies."
CG: "Why do I exist."
LG: "Sorry to say, it was a cruel joke. Let me buy you a beer..."

If there's some difference in how they fight, fine. But 'Evil' is an extremely broad enemy designation that makes Paladins very often relevant. Slavers and Tyrants are not nearly so common.

So call then Crusaders, following some manner of inner voice or something, I dunno. I like the name for the...

Just an off the top of my head example it doesn't have to be exactly like that. Just kind of the jest of it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The players at my table view paladins much in the same way some people have negatively reacted to goblins as core race. They downright hate them with an immense passion. With that being said, perhaps there will be enough changes to soften their views but I won’t hold my breath.
I know other peoples tables are different from ours and to those that like paladins I hope that the overall finished product will be to your liking.

Second Seekers (Roheas)

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Alceste008 wrote:

After talking with my venture agent on why I am looking to exit running and playing PF 2 ed after Gencon, he suggested that I give the reasons on why this poor class design bothers me so much.

For me, this class design about being the one true way to behave is too reminiscent of dictatorial thinking patterns that cause heinous results. The holier than thou created by this design literally poisons table atmospheres. This poor class design encourages the paladin to believe that their character is "always right" because they are a "paladin" and there is one true path. The paladin player therefore feels entitled to tell others the way they should play their characters. I managed to escape one groupthink society so I have no desire to encourage similar thinking patterns.

If this class was not essential and you rarely saw people playing them then you suffer thou the occasional table. However in PF 2.0, the paladin is a core component because no one is comparable in armor skills. Locking a core component of the system to such a groupthink character is pretty poor design.

This notion that "nobody plays paladins", as a venture officer and veteran convention GM completely baffles me.

They are probably the class I see MOST often after Oracle and Sorcerer. Many people have no problems roleplaying a LG alignment.

More than that though, I think even if you completely abolished alignment that Paladins should have this same code or a code very much like it more tailored to SPECIFIC deities (and not every Deity that is one step from LG should have them, Paladins of Abadar always bugged me and even as a player of a paladin of Shelyn, it isn't the most comfortable fit).

A Paladin is a champion of the downtrodden and poor and the holder of uncomfortable virtues who faces real consequences for taking shortcuts and as long as that is reflected in any character that gets to hold that title I will be happy.


Anyone else noticing a pattern with feats? Is it just me or does it sound like they are going to be making this very feat tree intensive again? Unless anyone can give me a post link on the new playtest that suggests we get more feats then before.

Second Seekers (Roheas)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fennris wrote:
I for one am happy with the LG only Paladin. Though I’m fine with the LE anti Paladin and even a LN paladin. No other alignment really makes sense. There are a few things I don’t like about the 2e paladin, but I’ll have to wait untill the book is out before I worry about it too much. Hopefully we can make changes as needed through the play test period.

I feel like this is actually reflected by in-game lore already.

We of course have entire nations run by Paladins (mostly of Iomedae), like Lastwall

We have large orders of "LN Paladins" running around Cheliax, Magnimar, and Brevoy. We call them Hellknights.

And LE Paladin is what an anti-paladin will always be to me. I always thought CE Anti-Paladins were dumb.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Alright, this is an interesting preview. There is a lot to digest here and it requires reading everything fairly carefully.

Some things I like:
* The Paladin Code is prioritized.
* Poison use is no longer verboten. Technically, some medicines are poison.
* Like all the classes, you will be able to choose the focus of your character. Prevents all Paladins from being the same.

Some things I don't like:
* The immediate action on a saving throw does not work well with Play By Post. Anything that requires back and forth communication can delay the game for days. This is the same problem that Swashbucklers and Dual-Cursed Oracles have in the current system.
* Making the prime defensive class be alignment locked. The Juggernaut from Marvel comics is a pretty good example of a highly defensive build that is not lawful, good, or divinely inspired.
* They still use the word Paladin. I've read English translations of The Song of Roland and did not care for the genocidal paladin there.

Things I think they still need to adjust:
* Clearly defining murder without requiring a law degree. Does it include justifiable homicide or only only pre-meditated and crimes of passion?
* The second code concerns itself with individuals. Lawful implies that the group is more important than an individual. This portion should be adjusted so as to preserve the greatest number of innocents rather than 'an innocent'.
* Clearly defining how anathema relate with the code. Can a Paladin of Shelyn lie about the location of a masterwork painting knowing that if those of Iomedia find it they will destroy it for the heresy? Can a Paladin of Erastil force a marriage when it is for the good of the community?

Lastly, I think we still have one big issue with alignments. How are they going to test that the alignment descriptions work?

Each version of D&D has made some changes to the descriptions of the alignments. In general, the changes have been improvements. Still we have people arguing about if something is an alignment restriction and what really defines each alignment.

How is playtest going to judge if they have correctly defined the alignments?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It still confuses me how people are so protective of the paladin alignment that it has to be LG, its merely a chassis for a martial with some divine powers with a name that invoke the "good old days" of D&D.

Lets see on to the points that i do like: I like that the code have a proper wording and mechanical explaination on how to enforce them, now the players and GM both new and old will get a better idea on how it works instead of having a philospohical argument that last for decades.

I hope to see more varied paladins at the table now instead of the default "Goodie Two-shoes" or "Lawful-Stupid" that way too many players fall into, its up there with the "Dick-Rogue" and "Half-Wit Barbarian". Its still a wonder how a Role Playing Game and its mechanics lead to the same character traits over and over again.


Dracoknight wrote:

It still confuses me how people are so protective of the paladin alignment that it has to be LG, its merely a chassis for a martial with some divine powers with a name that invoke the "good old days" of D&D.

Lets see on to the points that i do like: I like that the code have a proper wording and mechanical explaination on how to enforce them, now the players and GM both new and old will get a better idea on how it works instead of having a philospohical argument that last for decades.

I hope to see more varied paladins at the table now instead of the default "Goodie Two-shoes" or "Lawful-Stupid" that way too many players fall into, its up there with the "Dick-Rogue" and "Half-Wit Barbarian". Its still a wonder how a Role Playing Game and its mechanics lead to the same character traits over and over again.

It shouldn't be that confusing people hate breaking tradition.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Right now i cant give you an answer on how to build anything in an effective manner. Im sure we will all have fun getting to this down the line, but without the full rules, there are limits.

We dont even know all the perks fighters get or that the paladin get...

Does it have a huge gap by end game if you focus on this? What it looks at high level? Why these fighers get a small shield bonus at 14? Does that make sense?

We need the full rules.

And we will get them. It's less than three months now. Patience.

Second Seekers (Roheas)

3 people marked this as a favorite.

* The second code concerns itself with individuals. Lawful implies that the group is more important than an individual. This portion should be adjusted so as to preserve the greatest number of innocents rather than 'an innocent'.

Eh, I think this is the sort of judgement call we shouldn't be codifying fully. I mean there are literally centuries of moral philosophy arguing over the ethics in play with the "save one life at all costs or sacrifice one life to save multiple lives" question and I think asking Paizo to come up with a definitive answer to that and other moral quandaries of the sort is a bit much.

Lastly, I think we still have one big issue with alignments. How are they going to test that the alignment descriptions work?

I think the Paladin is the case in which alignment is going to matter LEAST, ironically. They have a code clearly outlining the gist of the alignment for the purposes of the class.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:


It shouldn't be that confusing people hate breaking tradition.

Well personally never been the one to understand the draw to tradition, so i might just lack that human aspect entirely i suppose?


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
RickDias wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Though... Paizo never promised you Alignment free Paladins.

You're right, they didn't.

I trusted them to continue being willing to try interesting new ideas and then walk back if they present a problem. This is the idea of a playtest.

No. The playtest is about ironing out kinks in the mechanics. A playtest is not about design decisions.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

A few thoughts:

I think the plans to place an "order of importance" on the tenets a Paladin has to follow is excellent. It will go a LONG way to ensure that Paladin players know where they stand and bad GMs will have a much harder time trying to bully into a fall.
Kudos!

That said, I think your structuring points a giant spotlight at the very problem of "LG-only" paladins; your list is so very strongly NG ;).
You've clearly decided that Good is the most important and Law takes a backseat (as always, frankly).
When law comes into conflict with doing good? Leave law behind and do the best good.
When good comes into conflict with upholding law? So what? Just do the best good!
Sounds like a pretty standard NG aligned character. Except a NG character can't be a Paladin because Paladins must be LG...
Law has always come second fiddle to Good for Paladins (both in powers received and in importance of code), so the idea that Paladins must remain LG even going into a new edition? How is that anything but sacred cow worship?

And lastly...

Paladin Blog wrote:
Paladins are divine champions of a deity.

Er, no, Clerics are the divine champions of a deity.

Aren't they?
...
The distinction between Paladin and Cleric has always been very muddied, but I feel like doubling down on Paladins being tied to Gods, you've only muddied the issue further.

(I'd like to comment on the mechanics, but honestly, there just isn't enough here to have an opinion on. :( )


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Steelfiredragon wrote:

and the side bar allowing the removal of alignment from the game is moot. if pfs makes it mandatory to be in.

It might be moot for PFS, but Pathfinder is not PFS. While I know that for some players PFS is their only way to play, there are many more players who do not care for PFS or don't even have access to it. PFS concerns should never dictate design decision for the full game.

Second Seekers (Roheas)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh right the mechanics of the class - I think that Paladins should have the option to START the game with a holy mount.

It's really never quite been on the same power level as the weapon anyway and its a bit awkward to have to transition into having a "valiant steed" as you level up and its never not been awkward. This is one of the legitimately existing places where de-coupling class features from static levels could be useful and beneficial instead of nerfy to boot.

I think this goes double especially true if Cavalier is planned to be shelved permanently (though as an avid cavalier player, say it ain't so) but mostly I just want to be able to play my Dog Riding Halfling Paladin to Erastil, Champion of the countryside to be playable at all levels and not start really existing at level 4.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.

I find the italicized part unclear. I think that I get what it mean, but I am not sure, and i think it will generate future "fallen paladin" debates. It would be a good idea to rephrase it so that it is more clear. Maybe simply changing "possible harm" with "potential harm".

And the first tenet of the code is still open to the long standing joke "Paladin, go gathering wood for the campfire (while we torture the prisoner for information)". Not making evil acts should include "non allowing your companions to do evil acts that you can reasonably prevent without undue conflict."
That way you should try to prevent your companions from torturing the prisoners but aren't forced to attack them.
Allowing others to torture prisoners for whatever supposedly good reason is as evil as doing it yourself.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neurophage wrote:
I've never liked the idea of a paladin having to serve a deity. I've always seen paladins as being very devoted to their personal idea of justice.

Then they should not have Divine Grace, Litanies, or divine spells

401 to 450 of 1,735 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Paladin Class Preview All Messageboards