Fey Creature

Malachandra's page

Organized Play Member. 202 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Gunny wrote:
Can you explain how you arrived at 15 missiles if cast as a 9th level spell? I can't figure out the math here.

I think it's this: At level 1 you get 1 missile per component, so 3 if you use all three components. Every time you heighten it, you add two to the level and one missile per component. So at level 3 its 2 missiles per component, at level 5 it's 3, and level 7 it's 4, and level 9 it's 5. So if you use all three components at level 9, you get 3 * 5 = 15 missiles.


Ring_of_Gyges wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
"You know those animals that I died trying to save innocent people from being horribly torn apart by? They're great. Stamp of approval. Raise them, take care of them, all that jazz."

Stranger things have happened.

Christians are really pretty pro-crosses. They wear them as jewelry, they build cathedrals with them as the layout, they carve them into giant monuments, they print them on their national flags and banners, etc...

One might easily forget that the Cross (they even capitalize it in English) was the method of execution of their founder. If Jesus had been hanged we might have loop shaped architecture all over Europe.

Pretty majorly a different situation there...


CraziFuzzy wrote:
Tender Tendrils wrote:
A well designed product has limitations and restrictions and that actually helps to improve the quality.
That has been contradicted many times over the years by devs stating that they couldn't fix this or that, or word something more specifically to avoid disagreements of interpretation, because of word count or space on the page.

Sure, but I don't think the point is that there are no downsides to those limitations and restrictions; just that there are also benefits to using them, benefits that we can't dismiss out of hand.

Although I don't see how wording due to disagreements of interpretation has anything to do with space. Maybe in updates to the CRB, but that will have to be true in online resources as well, because we will need to be able to cite the CRB. So once it's written, there's only so much you can change/update.


I don't think the Law/Chaos axis is as focused as Good/Evil. What I mean by that is that there are a lot of different opposites that could be used to define Law vs Chaos: Discipline vs spontaneity, laws vs anarchy, order vs randomness, intuition vs reason, and probably lots more. So to say that all chaotic characters MUST be anti-laws or anti-codes is missing the big picture. A chaotic person can still follow the law, or have a code. They are chaotic in other ways, maybe in their lifestyle, interests and hobbies, routines, or whatever. A 100% all-about-the-chaos person might be a complete anarchist sure, but simply labeling someone CN doesn't mean they register strong on the chaos side. They might just feel stifled by living in one place to long, and do a lot of wandering. They could still follow all the laws of wherever they are currently living, but that doesn't make them lawful. And honestly, someone can be 100% chaos and STILL follow laws or have a code (like demons for example. It could easily be said that they have a code). Proteans fit that description, but there is more than one type of chaos.


CraziFuzzy wrote:

They do not necessarily need to bring back very many 'classes' into the game - they need to bring back the concepts the various classes allowed. If cavalier, warpriest, samurai, and paladin could all be done with once 'champion' class, varied simply by the oath/code, and the specific powers granted by that oath/code, then they don't need to be different classes.

Similarly, if there was the ability to devote a wizards studies to witchcraft instead of rote dedication to a particular school of arcane magic, then do we need a witch class?

What if instead of choosing a deity to worship, a cleric chose a 'mystery'?

I understand and agree to a certain extent, but I think that might bring us a little too close to a "point buy" system without actually ditching classes altogether. I mean, in a point buy there are no classes, just abilities that you can purchase, with many of them have prerequisites so you have to build a "class". And that's a fun way of doing things, but I would prefer they either go full point buy (which won't happen) or stick with more solid classes and use archetypes to introduce modularity and classes to introduce new flavors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tender Tendrils wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Is he^^ suggesting no more books? *Goes for his pitchfork*
I'm suggesting that the restriction to page counts, and non-flexible formatting has already hamstrung the design process so much, that I wish the digital (PRD/SRD) format was the primary game design space, and beautified products were secondary.

That would make it impossible for me to continue playing, as I only have a mobile phone and only have non-work computer access one day a week (due to current financial limitations).

Also, having hard copies of the books enables me to have a "no phones or tablets" rule at my table. Part of the appeal of tabletop rpgs to me is a group of people can connect with an experience and each other and be in that experience without distractions, and having devices at the table hampers that.

Also, Hardcover books are beautiful and feel nice to read and use.

Finally, page and formatting restrictions are still a thing in a digital product - if your combat section or whatever is 150 pages long it is too long because that is too complicated and too much to read and navigate, not because it uses up too much paper.

A well designed product has limitations and restrictions and that actually helps to improve the quality.

I agree with everything here. I like having access to digital copies out of game, but I would be very upset to lose my books as I prefer them out of game and use them exclusively in game. In my experience, having devices at the table takes away from the game, and I try to keep people from using them.

Good news is, I really, REALLY doubt that Paizo would ever get rid of physical books. It makes too much sense from a business perspective and my guess is most players like having the books.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So first, I don't think a paladin should fall for telling a lie. For lying consistently yes, but not one lie. That said, I think in both of those situations the truth should be told in a constructive manner (or maybe nothing should be said), and it should be assumed that the other person is mature enough to handle it. That is how I would like to be treated in either of those cases. I don't necessarily think lying is always evil, but I do think there is almost always a better way to handle it. Either way, for me truth is more about right vs wrong then law vs chaos.


Ok, so I don't fully get the proficiency system, but maybe there should be a way to swap out the legendary armor proficiency? Armor is certainly iconic to paladins, but being built around the armored knight can hold back a lot of builds.


Let's be honest here:

Dungeons and Dragons: The Alternative


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Elegos wrote:
I think we can respectfully disagree on this. I appreciate that youre willing to consider my point and examples, even if you dont agree. I would be curious to hear what makes you think that deceit in the absence of harm is still evil.

I think so too, which is something the internet needs more of :)

I guess it's primarily due to my worldview. I believe Truth is inherently good and that being deceitful is in opposition to truth. And the thing is, whenever I see real life examples of cases where people think the best thing is to not be truthful, to me it always feels like they could have handled the situation better to avoid the need to be deceitful. I can't really point things like that out in a 2 sentence internet example though, because we would need more context and depth, if that makes sense.

telling your little kid Santa Claus give him gifts is not inherently evil. Or chaotic, for that matter. A Paladin does not fall if he says that Santa brings Christmas presents

OK, that's a really good point. Maybe I'm off to say that all deceit is evil. But it also still feels like deceit is wrong, but this doesn't qualify. Maybe because they are kids? I mean, if you told an adult a lie in order to make them happy, a lie that was harmless, is that wrong? Or is it maybe that it's OK to have imagination, and telling your kid that Santa Clause is real falls under that category?

Geez, now you have me questioning whether or not I should let my son believe in Santa Clause when he's a few years older! That said, I do think this is firmly in the realm of personal philosophies. But more importantly (for this thread), I think a CG paladin could have a code and that the code could leave wiggle room for things like this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elegos wrote:
I think we can respectfully disagree on this. I appreciate that youre willing to consider my point and examples, even if you dont agree. I would be curious to hear what makes you think that deceit in the absence of harm is still evil.

I think so too, which is something the internet needs more of :)

I guess it's primarily due to my worldview. I believe Truth is inherently good and that being deceitful is in opposition to truth. And the thing is, whenever I see real life examples of cases where people think the best thing is to not be truthful, to me it always feels like they could have handled the situation better to avoid the need to be deceitful. I can't really point things like that out in a 2 sentence internet example though, because we would need more context and depth, if that makes sense.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
I'm OK with the base assumption of paladin being a shining knight, as long as you can opt out with proper archetypes or alternate traits. I think people in the Jungle of Garund should be able to be paladins too, even if they do not wear full plate and ride a horse and fight with a Lance because those things are not practical in a jungle

Do you (and Elegos above) feel like those options existed in PF1? I ask because the options that existed to open up the paladin weren't always great options and I agree that these options, both to play the paladin in atypical ways and to play paladins of other alignments, should exist.


Elegos wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Elegos wrote:
Telling the truth exactly with the intent to mislead is textbook lawful (evil or neutral) behaviour. Telling a lie with the intent to lead someone to a truth, that seems perfectly chaotic but not chaotic good (generally). (Like lying that you witnessed something inorder to convince someone to go investigate a site, perhaps protecting a source)

Bold text is mine.

I think we need to be clear in terms between being truthful and being honest. For me, both being untruthful and being dishonest are forms of lying. And I'd say both are evil (or sometimes neutral) acts. I'd agree that CG can bend those rules, but I also think they are sacrificing the value of their word to do so, and I think they will look for ways to do otherwise.

I strenuously disagree with your edits! With examples!

Telling the truth to mislead as a lawful good act:

In order of the stick: no cure for the paladin blues, Durkon tells the absolute truth in order to decieve Miko Miyazaki. In doing so he protects people from an overzealous enforcement of the law by a person known for overaggresive action and a refusal to listen to extenuating circumstances.

Telling a lie in order to uncover a truth as a chaotic good action: In a recent episode of Brooklyn 99, Jake Peralta lies about what he thinks the murder weapon is to a perp he is interrogating. In doing so he is able to talk the perp into admitting his culpability and as such brings a murderer to justice.

Deceit is not evil. It is a tool. A hard tool to wield without committing evil...just like a sword.

Actions fitting my descriptions can be found up and down the good-evil axis. However, i feel that the definitions I have given them on the law-chaos axis are accurate. Do wish to quibble them on that axis?

Hmm, gonna have to disagree with your interpretation of alignment ;) That said, I do think that there is much wiggle room for interpretation here.

If I had a paladin lie for the greater good, I wouldn't do anything about it. Until they started doing it regularly. Even then, I would give them some kind of in-game warning, but eventually they would absolutely fall. Good people can do bad things, but that doesn't make the action good or the person bad. And the heart of it is that I absolutely think deceit is wrong (and therefore Evil mechanically). I see where you are going with the sword analogy, and I even agree to a certain extent. I guess I would say that deceit is almost impossible to wield without committing evil, and even if you manage it it's because you failed to either avoid the situation or find a better alternative.


Elegos wrote:
Telling the truth exactly with the intent to mislead is textbook lawful (evil or neutral) behaviour. Telling a lie with the intent to lead someone to a truth, that seems perfectly chaotic but not chaotic good (generally). (Like lying that you witnessed something inorder to convince someone to go investigate a site, perhaps protecting a source)

Bold text is mine.

I think we need to be clear in terms between being truthful and being honest. For me, both being untruthful and being dishonest are forms of lying. And I'd say both are evil (or sometimes neutral) acts. I'd agree that CG can bend those rules, but I also think they are sacrificing the value of their word to do so, and I think they will look for ways to do otherwise.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the point that honesty is more a Good trait than a Law trait. Honesty isn't just speaking truthful words. It's being clear in your communication while also being truthful, so that you make your best effort to communicate your intent. A devil will say one thing but intend something else. It may be lawful, but it's still lying in my book.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess it kind of depends on the connotation you associate with "dignity". Dignity

If it's "the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect", then absolutely, CG and LG both have dignity.

If, however, it's "a composed or serious manner or style", then LG definitely has more dignity than CG (in general).

That said, immediately jumping to the assumption that another user simply has their opinion in order to keep you from having fun is a little dramatic. And aggressively attacking someone for an opinion simply because you don't share it is out of line. In reality, the only denigration of others' ideas here is coming from you. It's come from others in the past, but right now it is not.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I really like combining DR and Resistance. They're two similar mechanically to justify being different. Not sure how I feel about the Weakness. Adding 5, regardless of whether you're a trained assassin with a rapier or a beggar with a dagger, feels off.

Overall though, I love the mindset of making monsters more unique and memorable while also simplifying the system. Very excited to try some of these out. And why did I never think to give ambush predators sneak attack damage??


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mbertorch wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
They do have a solid year to pull it off, and no real reason besides money to not pull in more people into the design team, but I was joking in any case.

Yeah, I was gonna say...

But to be serious, what exactly was wrong with what I suggested? Just so I know.

Oh, I'm (mostly) fine with it. So are probably the seven or so other people that have proposed something along these lines. I would be quite shocked if this never occurred to the Devs themselves, since it IS reasonable.

But there are people that would quit the game if the paladin isn't a core class, and if that paladin didn't have LG exclusive alignment. That's why I said it's not about being reasonable. Anything less than total victory, at least within core, is a complete loss for them.

Ah. Okay. That makes sense. So, would it be possible for someone who is LG-only for paladins to comment on what I wrote, and tell me what specifically they don't like about it?

I'd be up for what you suggested (assuming uniqueness between the subclasses). That'd be a nice way of "spreading out" the paladin subclasses, I think, and keep a lot of people happy while giving everyone else a good chance of getting what they want in later books.

Neo2151 wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

The compromises listed would create a ton of work for Paizo, which makes them very unlikely to be implemented. Ideas need to account for that.

Building alternative alignments in the vein of the Tyrant archetype is reasonable. Building 3-8 alternatives that have distinct balanced mechanics is not reasonable.

Quoting for emphasis, not to reply to.

The reason that my position is to share the Paladin chassis with other alignments/codes is not because I want to take the fun parts of the Paladin and leave the parts I don't like, but because Paizo is absolutely not going to devote the development resources to build X different mechanically-similar-yet-thematically-distinct classes.

And we all know it.
Because this is "Pathfinder: The TTRPG." It's not "Paladins: The TTRPG."

tl;dr - A reasonable compromise among the fanbase that the developers definitely won't go for is not, in fact, a reasonable compromise.

Honestly, I doubt any of our compromises will make it into the CRB. But there's a chance. More importantly, my hope is that the designers will see our compromises and implement more options in later rulebooks. And if our compromises are good enough, it could lead to balanced, flavorful options for the paladin that open it up to other alignments while keeping the LG-only flavor for LG subclass. I think we've shown that the existing archetypes for paladin are not what we need them to be, and we've given some good ways for the paladin to be better.

But really, we, as a community HAVE to find compromises. If our only options are the two extremes, then there is no point in discussing. If that's the case, we are best served by giving our opinion and reasoning to Paizo, and leaving it at that. Discussing compromises is worthwhile for it's own sake, because we can start to see the validity of the other side's (assuming two sides, which isn't true) point of view and work to make the situation better. We become a more mature and understanding community if we can work through things like this. But without hope of compromise we lose that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Isabelle Lee wrote:
In my shower thoughts yesterday, I brainstormed up "paladin" variants for each of the good and evil alignments, complete with unique themes and playstyles. They still need a lot of refining, but I think I had enough for proof of concept. ^_^

I'd love to see them when you get the chance to type them up :)


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
I'd be concerned about the space requirements to make 9 distinct sub-classes

I don't feel the urge to make everything symetric, and I have no problem if some of the aligments are left out (I think NE and CN are the ones I have more problems envisioning a paladin archetype for), and I agree it's a waste of space to design 9 full classes in the way Antipaladins are, for example. That said, I think a savvy game designer (and Paizo have those a plenty) might find the way to fit those 9 "flavors" in not much more space you need for, say, the 8 specialty wizards, which I'm absolutely positive will find space in the CRB.

So the problem for 9 kinds of paladins, one for each aligment, is not as much "book space", like pages and words, as "design space", like "what the hell do we give this particular alignment as tennet, to make it different enough from the two alignments it's closer to". If Paizo finds a way to write 9 codes that make sense, cool. If not, drop a few, it's not the end of the world if in the end it's not symetric.

I could easily leave out NE, although it seems like a lot of people would want CN. And if we're going to do most of them, we might as well do all of them. I agree, it could definitely be done in less space than the wizard section. I'm just not design savvy enough to know how to do it myself ;) I wonder if they could take the axis approach for the codes? Then a LG paladin would take the law and good codes. That might be harder for the neutral alignments though.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
It changed the status quo because the paladin is not a divine champion for me. So we took out the Round Table knight class and introduced a class with an entirely different flavor, if that makes sense. Similar mechanics, different flavor.

Ah, this make sense, I didn't understood it the first time. So your position would be that LG paladin will also be one of these Divine Champions, which will follow the same frame, more or less (like, full martial, dash of divine spells, etc), with every Divine champion gaining slightly different unique things (such as smite evil for LG paladins, and freedom of movement or whatever for CG, and hold person for LE, or whatever other things that make sense and seem balanced).

That's fair. Yes, that's compromise. It's different from the proposition I've read often, which is that the LG "champion" is a paladin, then the rest are like variants of Inquisitors or Warpriests. That's exactly the current status quo (I can play a warpriest of Desna right now), so I did not see the point of it.

Quote:
In a four corners option, I sacrifice the 100% unique paladin. I'd be up for a subclass for each alignment, I just think that's a lot of work and space, and I kind of like the idea of paladins (or exemplars maybe?) being hard-line (two non-neutral aspects) for alignment.

That's interesting.

What would you think about adding also a NG one? I don't mean a single tenet that will work for "all good". But an specific NG one, with a slightly different code than the LG or the CG.
I say that because I always feel that Saerenrae herself should be able to be a paladin, ando followers of her should be able to be paladins without being either more zealot than she is (ie: more lawful) or more free-spirit than she is (ie: more chaotic, if CG champions make it into the book)

And while we are at it... what would you think about a N one? Specifically, around Pharasma. Do you think it's doable a code for it?

Quote:
But I also offered to let
...

I'm trying to think of a way to say this without sounding cheesy, but I think I owe you an apology. One of the recent posts put me on edge, and I ended up lashing out (especially in my post before this one), and there was no need for that to be directed at you. That said, thank you for keeping with this discussion, I'm really excited about some of the options we've got.

For the divine champion, it's more like I'd like to see the two separate. Maybe a warpriest-like class with adjustments to keep it distinct from the paladin but also give it the martial feel that people are wanting. Maybe some more divine champion-esque abilities rather than smiting, while moving the paladin to more Round Table ablities. Not sure how that would work, it just seems like Paizo would need to keep them distinct to avoid repetition.

For the four corners (which is my favorite option), I kind of like the idea, for symmetry purposes, of having four subclasses with two non-neutral alignment components. But that's a minor thing, and one I'd be willing to give up to make room for NG. I'd be concerned about the space requirements to make 9 distinct sub-classes, but I think with some creativity and game design savvy it could be done. A neutral code would be tough, since neutral is so often defined by being NOT good/evil/law/chaos, and since neutral probably has more interpretations than any other alignment. But it could be done, and Pharasma feels like a deity that would be well served by a champion-esque class.


The Artist Formerly Known as Pathfinder


If I understand correctly, there are going to be archetypes that can be applied to multiple classes. I wonder if a "Divine Champion" archetype could be made that could be equally applicable to all classes? Then if you want a champion of Norgober, you can be a rogue with the divine champion archetype.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder 2: Pathfinder Strikes Back


3 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
My minimum is that there is a class (or subclass in the four corners option or a prestige class) that is LG only, has a few unique mechanics and is the only one named Paladin. I am willing to wait till the next book and switch out the paladin for a divine champion in Core (although I think the divine champion idea is an impossible standard). An "any good" option doesn't work, because all of the alignments would be the same, and the paladin would lose its flavor for me. But even with that, I think my position leaves plenty of room for compromise.

I am not sure I follow you.

Let's call that divine champion who is not a paladin the "warpriest".

How did that change the current status quo?

Remember, in order to compromise, you have to sacrifice points from your position. For example, my preferred outcome is something like 5e, with tenets, but no required Alignment. I understand that is too much change for some people, so I give up that. I also give up some alignment based champions, like CN, to go for some easier ones, which I listed. That is what I give up, from my "this is a revolution" position. I am not sure I see what do you sacrifice from your "status quo is fine" position? Not saying there is none, but I missed it

It changed the status quo because the paladin is not a divine champion for me. So we took out the Round Table knight class and introduced a class with an entirely different flavor, if that makes sense. Similar mechanics, different flavor.

In a four corners option, I sacrifice the 100% unique paladin. I'd be up for a subclass for each alignment, I just think that's a lot of work and space, and I kind of like the idea of paladins (or exemplars maybe?) being hard-line (two non-neutral aspects) for alignment.

For the warpriest plus paladin prestige class option, I'm trading in a base class for a prestige class. That's a LOT to give up. But I also offered to let the paladin wait a book. That's also huge (not sure whether it gives up more or less than making the paladin a prestige class).

So I've given my minimum, and offered multiple options that would meet that minimum and take steps toward opening the class up. One of them (the prestige class option) would be very painful for me. So I think I can say in confidence that I've sacrificed points from my position and made a solid attempt at compromise.

Problem is, I've been at this point of the conversation before. Previously, what I've heard in reply is "No, those compromises don't work, we want any-Good and that's not to much to ask". And we go around in circles as I explain why that won't work for me. So my urge is to simply not compromise. I have what I want in PF1, and I have what I want in the PF2 Playtest (sort of, I'd like to see other options tested). I don't like the balance of the other options in PF1 (Antipaladin, Gray Paladin, etc.), but that's not my problem to solve (because if everyone thought like I thought, there would be no need for those options). I want to compromise, because I want people to have fun options and enjoy the game and because I accept that not everyone feels the way I do, but with the way the conversation has been going, why should I?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What about a Disrupt Preparation ability? It would switch around prepared spells or make the caster forget them entirely.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:

I tried to be clear that my example did not imply that you were against women vote, but to illustrate how I see the issue of giving something to a group meaning the other group loses what they have. I understand your feeling is different, but as I said, there is no other moral issue implied.

Compromise is a half measure, a middle ground.
The compromise between "I don't want to move the status quo" and "I want a revolution", is "we can change the status quo a bit, but not that much as to have a revolution". Keeping the status quo is not compromise, and starting a revolution is not compromise.

So, what is the bare minimum you are abke to change the status quo in order to compromise?

I understand that, but there were so many other examples you could have used. Off the top of my head "You can drive a Ford while I drive a BMW", or "I'm not saying we stop airing the NFL. I just think there is room for other sports too". And the thing is, I've been getting a lot of analogies that use an obviously bigoted or otherwise wrong alternative to describe the LG-only crowd. Even if every one of those posters didn't mean to imply that I am bigoted, when you take them all together how can I not get frustrated?

My minimum is that there is a class (or subclass in the four corners option or a prestige class) that is LG only, has a few unique mechanics and is the only one named Paladin. I am willing to wait till the next book and switch out the paladin for a divine champion in Core (although I think the divine champion idea is an impossible standard). An "any good" option doesn't work, because all of the alignments would be the same, and the paladin would lose its flavor for me. But even with that, I think my position leaves plenty of room for compromise.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Geez, I tried to take a break yesterday because I was feeling frustrated at not being listened to. Since then, I've been compared to a heinous thief and a sexist who doesn't want women to have suffrage in this thread and a racist party host in another.

What's even more frustrating is that I think there is room for compromise. We can open the class up without it losing all flavor. But we aren't even trying to discuss that. Every time I try to bring up a compromise, I get the question "Why do we even need one? I'm not sure you understand, but my character being CG doesn't mean yours can't be LG". If I'm not being clear in my position, can we just accept that this is my position, and move on?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:

A great difference between the 2 positions (if we reduce it to 2 positions, which is probably an oversimplyfication), is that many of us do not see the paladin, and other champions, as champions of the alignment, because the alignment itself is not monolythic.

A paladin of Ragathiel is not like a paladin of Shelyn. A paladin of Erastil is not like a Paladin of Iomedae. A paladin of Torag is not like a Paladin of Apsu. And that's before we start with LG paladins of non LG deities, like paladins of Irori, Saerenrae, or Abadar.

Same goes with CG. CG "champions" of Besmara are not like CG paladins of Desna. Cayden Caylean has differnt goals than Milani or Desna. And CG "champions" of Besmara are not like CG "champions" of Gorum, and CG "champions" of Gorum are not like CG champions of Calistria. Actually, CG champions of Calistria might have more in common with CE champions of Calistria than they have with CG champions of Milani, for example.

So this is one of the contention points. If those "divine champions" or "holy warriors" that Paizo mentioned, including the paladin, are, in fact, divine champions. If they are, then trying to characterize them as "the defenders of everything that is LG" or "everything that is CG", or whatever, misses the point by a lot. Because there is not a clear description of "everything that is LG". Erastil is LG. Iomedae is too. So is Ragathiel. They don't work the same. A paladin that represents "everythign that is LG" cannot represent the three of them at the same time.

I think I actually agree with everything here. I guess "alignment champion" isn't quite what I'm going for, it's just a good distinction from "divine champion". That said, different champions of the same alignment could still look radically different, because there isn't an "everything that is LG". But I think if you were to go the "divine champion" route, these problems would grow beyond control. There is no one class that can champion every deity, no matter how modular it is.

So when people say they want to open up the paladin so that all gods have a champion... I think it's giving up a class with a lot of flavor in an unsuccessful attempt to get something we already have. I mean, pretend that the alignment restriction went away. The paladin would still make zero sense as a champion of Cayden Cailean. And honestly, even with the restriction the paladin makes zero sense as a champion of Erastil.

Using a four corners option would let these deities have paladin orders devoted to them, without the strange responsibility of these orders being the one true champions of their god.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neurophage wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

But it's not just Good I'm interested in. I don't want them to be the "goodest of good". I don't want them to be the only shining torch. I don't want them to embody the ideal hero. I think if any of those things were true, all of the other classes would be meaningless. I mean, I might be a really selfless wizard, but as long as I'm not a paladin, I can't embody the ideal hero?

I just want Paladins to keep their Round Table flavor. That's it. And I think I've stated a few times why "Any Good" doesn't fit that (including the post you quoted...) But there are some great compromises out there.

Well now I'm really confused. How does opening the paladin up to NG and CG preclude "Round Table flavor"? More to the point, if they do open up, how does that prevent you from playing that? It doesn't. Keeping it closed just prevents other people from playing it how they want.

I keep hearing and answering this question. There are plenty of posts above.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Quote:
. I don't want them to embody the ideal hero,
The difference is I think the ideal hero can have multiple alignments. Thor is an ideal hero.

My problem is the word ideal. If Thor is the ideal hero, then everyone else is... a hero. They might be pretty great, but they will never be Thor great. The Paladin is not the ideal hero. It's the embodiment of a historical archetype. If we try to make them the ideal hero, the one and only champion of the gods, everyone loses.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neurophage wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Neurophage wrote:
I just want the paladin, the full paladin package with the defensive abilities and the healing and the smiting and the code of conduct and whatever else they decide belongs on the paladin chasis, with an alignment requirement of "Any Good" and no requirement to worship a deity. I don't think Neutral Good and Chaotic Good need their own package of unique mechanics. If the standard paladin mechanics are good enough for LG, they're sure as hell good enough for NG and CG. That's my minimum. Whatever the other alignments get, if I can get "Any Good" paladins who don't need to worship a deity, I'll be happy.
For points made many times, this won't work for me. But I think some great compromise are floating around.
Is it the lack of deity aspect, or all good alignments?
It's the all good alignments that I have trouble with. I actually don't think paladins should be tied to a deity at all, they are alignment champions for me, not divine champions. I guess that distinction is why there is so much trouble. If you think paladins are divine champions, then every deity should be able to have a champion. But if they are alignment champions, then opening them up to any alignment but LG (without some mechanical differences), means they're just some random class. Which is why the "sack of mechanics" phrase comes up often.
Opening paladins up to Any Good does not make them "just some random class." They're still paragons of virtue and personal nobility. They're still the default goodest of good guys. They're still the ones who swore their oaths, even if they didn't think anyone was listening, to stand against evil and be the brilliant torch shining in the stormy night and all that other stuff. They still embody the ideal hero. But who that ideal hero is means different things to different people. If one person perfectly follows every tenet of the code, but they just happen to believe in personal...

But it's not just Good I'm interested in. I don't want them to be the "goodest of good". I don't want them to be the only shining torch. I don't want them to embody the ideal hero. I think if any of those things were true, all of the other classes would be meaningless. I mean, I might be a really selfless wizard, but as long as I'm not a paladin, I can't embody the ideal hero?

I just want Paladins to keep their Round Table flavor. That's it. And I think I've stated a few times why "Any Good" doesn't fit that (including the post you quoted...) But there are some great compromises out there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Maybe we should remove religion from their mechanics entirely? This seems to be the hangup for many people, but the paladin (at least for me) is entirely separate from religion. They don't get their abilities from a deity. They get them from their way personal beliefs and discipline.
I actually agree with this pretty much entirely. I just also think there's room for a CG version with a different set of personal beliefs to empower them (plus LE and CE Antipaladin versions, naturally).
why do people consider L and C G/E more hardline? To me NG/NE/LN/CN are potentially more so, in that they only care about one axis, and could be seen as the purest versions possible of that axis,

I agree that NG is the purest version of Good (and in my opinion, the best version of Good), but that doesn't make it hardline. For me, paladins aren't just interested in Good, they are interested in Good and Order, or Good in the way they think it should be accomplished. A CG "Liberator" would be interested in Good, but would be almost equally interested in individual freedom. Kind of like they all three have strong opinions on good vs evil, but LG/CG also have strong opinions on discipline vs freedom, and so are less flexible in their world views.


Tectorman wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

I'm not sure why people even think of the Paladin as the divine champion class. I mean, for most of the deities their divine champion would look nothing like the paladin. A champion of Nethys would have way more magic. A champion of Calistria would be more subtle in conflict. A champion of Irori wouldn't use weapons or armor. The deities already have champions. It's just that the paladin is not the divine champion class. It's the knight in shining armor class. Subtle difference, but really important.

What would a champion of Erastil look like? More like a Ranger than anything else. But despite how unthematic an LG Paladin might be for Erastil, he can have his LG Paladins, no problem. But other deities' champions? No, we have to gut the entire class and start from scratch. Paladin for Erastil when Ranger is more thematic, sure. Paladin of Nethys when a more caster-y class would be more thematic, no? Why?

But to answer your question, Clerics, starting in at least 3.5 if not sooner and extending at least into P1E, were the most spellcastiest class of a deity OR of a philosophy. And if that deity isn't LG or LG-adjacent or if that philosophy isn't lawful and good, then that's how much refinement you're allowed without going the extra steps of making a multiclass Frankenstein's monster. But a LG deity or LG as a philosophy, if you see your character as being more warrior-y and less caster-y, then you get more choices on how to express your character.

Oh, unless your theme is nature. Then you get also get that level of refinement (full Druid or dialed back to Ranger).

Why? We have a class that CAN be both the "knight in shining armor" class AND the "divine champion" class. And I think it's unfairly stifling to have that opportunity sitting right in front of you and not allow it to be used to its fullest potential. I'm not even sure how people could NOT see that. By having a class that can easily fulfill your idea for what it should be used for and...

That's the point, I don't think there should be "Paladins of" anything. A Paladin of Erastil doesn't make sense because the flavor doesn't really work. Paladins are NOT the divine champion class. There are so many other options for that. To make them both divine champions and the knight class means that they kind of half-ass both roles. We end up losing the knight class and getting yet another divine champion class.

And I'm open to compromise to open the class up to more playstyles. I'd like to see a "champion of alignment" class, with LG, CG, CE, and LE subclasses. I think PF can be the game where you can play anything you're interested in without making all the classes feel samey by sacrificing flavor.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

If they don't have religion, then in my opinion things like divine grace or Litanies and divine spells should change or disapear. In that case, the class start to look more like Cavalie, sort of.

The problem is that, as they are written, being influenced by the Grail Knights of Round Table, paladins are always religious. The question is if they follow religious tenets from religions in game, or from a real life religion. But their whole mechanics are built using the Christian knights as example (Templars, Grail knights, crusaders, Charlemagne paladins, etc)

I'm fine with them losing some abilities to make them less deity focused. Others can stay, because there are already many different ways to power spells. Calling them alignment champions rather than divine champions is a flavor difference, not a mechanical difference, so why take things like spells away?

I'm not saying they can't be religious. Just that it's not their big thing. I'd argue that's the case already. PF1 paladins don't require a deity. (Not sure about PFS). And the Round Table really wasn't overtly religious until the Holy Grail. A lot of the mythology was balancing old and new cultures, so yes there were Christian elements, but honestly, they were few and far between.


There were a couple druid posts that I wanted to touch on. Sorry for the multiple posts, they were all kind of different and I wanted them to be in their own posts.

The Sideromancer wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

Perhaps a better example would be:

"I want to be a Druid. But a druid that really doesn't care about the whole nature thing"
"OK... why do you want to be a druid then?"
"Well, I like the druid spell list, and I want to be a full caster with an animal companion"
...

If you're intent on declaring metal as not a part of nature, then I have run into this problem enough to houserule the restriction away. Missing the ability to fulfil a crucial part of their intended concept is painful, and leads to the likes of the class only appearing on villains with little grasp on reality.

But that's enough of my personal war. What say you about paladins?

I kind of like the metal restriction. But I wouldn't mind seeing it go. I don't have a strong opinion, just as long as druids continue to be nature oriented.

Arachnofiend wrote:
Also, for the record, you can totally play an urban druid that focuses on the variety of life found in a city, or a blight druid that venerates disease and pestilence (Nurgle loves you!). There's even undeath-focused druids that hail from a forest where undead creatures spawn naturally (it's in Nidal IIRC).

There are lots of cool archetypes to use druids in unconventional ways, but all of them specifically still revere nature (I checked your examples, although I couldn't find the undeath druid, but I'm willing to bet I'm right here ;) ).

I'm hoping to use the druid example to explain my feelings about paladins. I don't mean to say that people are greedy and just want the mechanics. I mean to say that paladins have a unique flavor that I think should be preserved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Emeric Tusan wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:

I'm partial to four corners, myself.

As I've mentioned before, putting a different small bonus on lay on hands for each alignment is a small, but significant way to distinguish the different aligned classes. That and a few alignment exclusive feats in the class list goes a long way toward satisfying my LG protective instinct.

Can we get a list of abilities that you think should be paladin only? Knowing goes a long way towards letting us know what you don't want touched right now we are going back and forth with out knowing what we want to be in a paladin.

Edit: oops meant for that to be a post to Malachandra

It's not so much the mechanics that are important to me, just that there are distinct classes. QuidEst's options sound great, and I would need their codes to be vastly different, because the playstyle has to be vastly different. But my post above might help answer that question too?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mbertorch wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Neurophage wrote:
I just want the paladin, the full paladin package with the defensive abilities and the healing and the smiting and the code of conduct and whatever else they decide belongs on the paladin chasis, with an alignment requirement of "Any Good" and no requirement to worship a deity. I don't think Neutral Good and Chaotic Good need their own package of unique mechanics. If the standard paladin mechanics are good enough for LG, they're sure as hell good enough for NG and CG. That's my minimum. Whatever the other alignments get, if I can get "Any Good" paladins who don't need to worship a deity, I'll be happy.
For points made many times, this won't work for me. But I think some great compromise are floating around.
Is it the lack of deity aspect, or all good alignments?

It's the all good alignments that I have trouble with. I actually don't think paladins should be tied to a deity at all, they are alignment champions for me, not divine champions. I guess that distinction is why there is so much trouble. If you think paladins are divine champions, then every deity should be able to have a champion. But if they are alignment champions, then opening them up to any alignment but LG (without some mechanical differences), means they're just some random class. Which is why the "sack of mechanics" phrase comes up often.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Maybe we should remove religion from their mechanics entirely? This seems to be the hangup for many people, but the paladin (at least for me) is entirely separate from religion. They don't get their abilities from a deity. They get them from their way personal beliefs and discipline.
I actually agree with this pretty much entirely. I just also think there's room for a CG version with a different set of personal beliefs to empower them (plus LE and CE Antipaladin versions, naturally).

I would love to see something like that. Kind of a class that gets benefits directly from alignment, specifically the more hard-line alignments? Although I don't really like the name Antipaladin, I want the class to kind of stand on it's own two feet, if that makes sense. I've been talking so much about the four corners option, I'm starting to feel like a four corners chearleader. I just think it's a fun idea.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Whatever time this is for you guys right now (11:38 for me), I usually get off work roughly 4.5-5 hours ago. But I'm a paizo messageboarder for life, since before working here, so I'm often found around here long past the time when I probably should be.

Just wanted to throw this up there, because it's awesome. Thanks Mark! And thanks Paizo! I really appreciate how communicative you all are, it makes me feel a part of the process.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Clerics are perfectly capable of being built as divine warriors, for one. They can fit that archetype, they just aren't locked into it.
No they can't, they can be pure casters who hit people. No belssings, no grace, way to much casting, not full BAB.. They aren't warriors and they study for their spells, they aren't granted their blessings, they feel completely different and are completely different in both rules and lore.

Clerics and Warpriests don't study for their spells. They are granted by their deity.

I'm not sure why people even think of the Paladin as the divine champion class. I mean, for most of the deities their divine champion would look nothing like the paladin. A champion of Nethys would have way more magic. A champion of Calistria would be more subtle in conflict. A champion of Irori wouldn't use weapons or armor. The deities already have champions. It's just that the paladin is not the divine champion class. It's the knight in shining armor class. Subtle difference, but really important.

I'm actually in favor of removing alignment restrictions for everyone but the paladin. A chaotic monk is an important archetype that we are missing. But the flavor of the paladin IS lawful good. They are inseparable. To me, the restriction is a natural byproduct of the flavor.

Maybe we should remove religion from their mechanics entirely? This seems to be the hangup for many people, but the paladin (at least for me) is entirely separate from religion. They don't get their abilities from a deity. They get them from their way personal beliefs and discipline.


Part of the definition of Good is that they are willing to work with people they disagree with. CN and LN deities do have conflict, just not always violent conflict. As for CE and LE... any nonviolent interactions they have are by far the exception.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neurophage wrote:
I just want the paladin, the full paladin package with the defensive abilities and the healing and the smiting and the code of conduct and whatever else they decide belongs on the paladin chasis, with an alignment requirement of "Any Good" and no requirement to worship a deity. I don't think Neutral Good and Chaotic Good need their own package of unique mechanics. If the standard paladin mechanics are good enough for LG, they're sure as hell good enough for NG and CG. That's my minimum. Whatever the other alignments get, if I can get "Any Good" paladins who don't need to worship a deity, I'll be happy.

For points made many times, this won't work for me. But I think some great compromises are floating around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
A Paladin wouldn't carry any more authority than a Cleric of the same deity (or hell, in the type of society where Paladins would be venerated as such a Lawful Good Investigator would be just as praised unless you're talking specifically of a theocracy which... has its own problems). Meanwhile a Paladin of Torag or Ragathiel could even be considered untrustworthy in communities that follow more temperate gods like Shelyn.

I don't know about the whole "badge of authority" thing (HWalsh's opinion, not mine), but this whole "LG-only Paladins make Lawful Good the Best Good" argument really misses the point for me. No one is saying that (not even HWalsh). Because Paladins are more than just a divine champion. Not alignment-wise (I'm not saying they are more righteous than a divine champion), but flavor wise. There's more to them than that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Dethand wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:


It doesn't matter what the system is or what the class is you can have bad players acting bad. It's a player thing, not a class thing.

There are a multitude of people who happily play with paladins blissfully unaware of the angst on the nets because it is not an issue for them - you don't hear about it, because it's not an issue for them.

I understand the desire to blame the class though, although I hqave never had a problem with paladins themselves - for me it is Kender though. Something about them...

The paladin class is the closest thing to giving a badge of authority to a player this game can give. It's a mark that the Gods of Good (whatever they are) back that character and just like a lot of people who are given authority, they tend to abuse it.

Not all.

Just some.

And those are the ones you remember. And a lot of power gamers are drawn to the paladin on that basis.

So yeah, I agree.

It's not the class but, the players that give it a bad name.

The Paladin class is not a badge of authority, and the fact that some people think it is is part of the problem. Lawful Good is not the Best Good, and in some situations it can even be the worst good.
That's not my issue, my issue is LG being held up as the only alignment and group of deities that get a holy warrior, and no War Priests are not holy warriors, neither are Inquisitors.

Why not? And why not Cleric? Heck, if we want to remove flavor from the game and generalize the classes, why can't a religious Cavalier or Fighter be a holy warrior?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I haven't been paying too much attention to this thread, but since I really like Lord of the Rings, I want to mention some of the comments here. Aragorn didn't carry a Palantir for most of the books, that was Gandalf. The magic rope was Sam's. The rations and ring weren't magical, just unique. Magical plant that he carried around?

Aragorn was absolutely capable without Anduril. I would argue the weakest of the wraiths were greater than CR 5, especially with minor artifacts like Rings of Power. The Witch-King was certainly more powerful than that. And Aragorn fought off 5 of them on Weathertop by himself. So he was no slouch. But Anduril was definitely better than a +1 sword (I actually would put it up there just below Excalibur). Not sure where that all puts me in this conversation, but I wanted to say it.

That said, Middle Earth is a really bad example for a Pathfinder-style RPG setting. It's much lower magic and is really not comparable in terms of magic items. So for me, any examples (on either side) from Lord of the Rings are kind of meaningless.


I think we can all agree that the most important alignment is Chipotle vs Qdoba. Although I would also like to mention Marvel vs DC


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
knightnday wrote:
So back to fighting man, holy man, magic user, elf, dwarf, halfling?
Do I have to be an Elf to play Elf or can I be a Human? Can I take levels in Elf and then multiclass into Dwarf?

Only if you take the Super Munchkin feat.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
I disagree that a NG character can't be a Round Table knight. Saerenrae would kick ass as Round Table Knight. I also disagree with the idea that Order of Ancients paladins in 5e are flavorless. So at this point, it is a matter of taste only.

I think she (and her champions, more importantly) would certainly be an effective knight... they just wouldn't "fit in" as a Knight. And I don't mean to say that 5e is flavorless, just that it misses the flavor I, at least, associate with paladins (I haven't looked that much into 5e paladins, but alignmentless misses the mark for me).

All that said, I'm OK with your opinion. But are you willing to compromise?


SilverliteSword wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

Are you though? I've pointed out what the paladin would lose by switching to any alignment, yet you continue to say that it would be a compromise. To go back to the druid example, if we made druids not nature oriented, they would no longer be druids.

To use your example, I can really see a CG nature themed Druid, without being forced to be neutral.

I don't want to change the paladin theme. Just want to open his alignment.

Quote:
But paladins are no longer Round Table knights
Yes, they still are. Just not all of them are Sir Gallahad.

I had a player play a CG Druid. No problem with that. This is the exact same discussion I had just a few posts before. It's the flavor that matters. Being CG doesn't make a druid less nature themed. Making it not nature themed makes it less nature themed. The paladin is unique, because when you change the alignment, you do change the theme. You make it flavorless. For some classes that's OK. We need the basic fighter. But we also need flavorful options, especially for the paladin. Hence the four corners option, or any other compromise I've brought up.

I never said all paladins should be Sir Gallahad. Do you think all LG paladins are the same? A NG paladin is not a Round Table knight. And that's the point.

So what about (LG only) Paladin as a subclass of the more generic (any alignment) "Holy Champion" class? That way Paladins are unique and restricted to "Knights of the Round Table" while I can still make a "Holy Champion of Veganism"?

Yup, as long as they have some uniqueness and maintain maximum flavor, that'd be great. The hard part is uniqueness. It'd be a little annoying to have 9 subclasses. But I would listen if Paizo showed an idea for it.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

Are you though? I've pointed out what the paladin would lose by switching to any alignment, yet you continue to say that it would be a compromise. To go back to the druid example, if we made druids not nature oriented, they would no longer be druids.

To use your example, I can really see a CG nature themed Druid, without being forced to be neutral.

I don't want to change the paladin theme. Just want to open his alignment.

Quote:
But paladins are no longer Round Table knights
Yes, they still are. Just not all of them are Sir Gallahad.

I had a player play a CG Druid. No problem with that. This is the exact same discussion I had just a few posts before. It's the flavor that matters. Being CG doesn't make a druid less nature themed. Making it not nature themed makes it less nature themed. The paladin is unique, because when you change the alignment, you do change the theme. You make it flavorless. For some classes that's OK. We need the basic fighter. But we also need flavorful options, especially for the paladin. Hence the four corners option, or any other compromise I've brought up.

I never said all paladins should be Sir Gallahad. Do you think all LG paladins are the same? A NG paladin is not a Round Table knight. And that's the point.

1 to 50 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>