Bards and Paladins.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

So, if in PF Bards can be lawful now, why couldn't they just change Paladins so they don't have to be?


meatrace wrote:
So, if in PF Bards can be lawful now, why couldn't they just change Paladins so they don't have to be?

One has nothing to do with the other?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

meatrace wrote:
So, if in PF Bards can be lawful now, why couldn't they just change Paladins so they don't have to be?

Because from the very first incarnation of the paladin in the game, they've been lawful good. It's part of what defines the character class, and has been from the start. MANY of the paladin's abilities work off of this flavor, granting them thematic abilities that one would expect a lawful good crusader/knight to have, and if we removed the lawful good alignment restriction, then we would have had to rewrite and change those classic abilities.

Bards, on the other hand, only gained their "can't be lawful" restriction with the third edition rules of the game, and none of their powers really hinge on any inherent unlawful behavior. More importantly, the concepts of a LG royal herald or messenger or a LE con artist or politician are VERY compelling builds for a bard (and indeed have appeared as bard builds at various points throughout editions of the game already).

In short: maintaining the LG requirement for paladins and removing the no-lawful restriction for bards from the game both accomplish the same thing—they both support the classes as they've been classically played across ALL editions.

Silver Crusade

I've always wondered, though. What abilities does a Paladin have that are inherently lawful rather than just good? I mean, I can understand why a Paladin has always to be Good, but I can think of some pretty compelling builds for an NG or CG "Paladin".


uriel222 wrote:

I've always wondered, though. What abilities does a Paladin have that are inherently lawful rather than just good? I mean, I can understand why a Paladin has always to be Good, but I can think of some pretty compelling builds for an NG or CG "Paladin".

I don't know about abilites, per say, but the fact that the class pretty much hinges on upholding vows makes them quite lawful, IMHO.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

uriel222 wrote:

I've always wondered, though. What abilities does a Paladin have that are inherently lawful rather than just good? I mean, I can understand why a Paladin has always to be Good, but I can think of some pretty compelling builds for an NG or CG "Paladin".

Paladins have always been weirdly more focused on the good & anti-evil part of their alignment rather than also the lawful & anti-chaotic part.

What it REALLY boils down to is that paladins, perhaps more so than ANY other class, is VERY STRONGLY identified with a single alignment type. A non lawful good paladin, in my eyes, is simply not a paladin.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
uriel222 wrote:

I've always wondered, though. What abilities does a Paladin have that are inherently lawful rather than just good? I mean, I can understand why a Paladin has always to be Good, but I can think of some pretty compelling builds for an NG or CG "Paladin".

I believe there will be some variants in the Advanced Player's Guide that will let you play paladin-like characters of different alignments.

Scarab Sages

James Jacobs wrote:
What it REALLY boils down to is that paladins, perhaps more so than ANY other class, is VERY STRONGLY identified with a single alignment type. A non lawful good paladin, in my eyes, is simply not a paladin.

+5 holy avenging interwebs

I cannot stress enough how heartily I agree with that. I can't count how many arguments I've gotten into over "Well, book x made the paladin of tyranny or the paladin of freedom." No. They called it that. They are no more paladins than calling a compass a computer makes it a computer. Anything less than lawful and good is a holy warrior. It is not a paladin. I was so happy that the paladin kept his LG alignment as part of the transition over to Pathfinder. So, thank you, James. Thank you from the bottom of my LG heart.

15th level half-celestial elven Paladin of Bahamut (2001-2008)


Even the literary characters on which the Paladin draws from tend to be lawful good, where the bard doesn't have this. The first things that come to mind when anyone I know thinks of a paladin is Arthurian legends or the stories of the peers of Charlemagne. The bonded mount is drawn right from those stories, as is the 'right makes might' mentality that propels the class.

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
What it REALLY boils down to is that paladins, perhaps more so than ANY other class, is VERY STRONGLY identified with a single alignment type. A non lawful good paladin, in my eyes, is simply not a paladin.

Agreed. However, I still enjoy the Champion of X concept as seen in Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, and it would be interesting to "alternate paladins" (for lack of a better term) focused on other alignments or causes.


Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
What it REALLY boils down to is that paladins, perhaps more so than ANY other class, is VERY STRONGLY identified with a single alignment type. A non lawful good paladin, in my eyes, is simply not a paladin.
Agreed. However, I still enjoy the Champion of X concept as seen in Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, and it would be interesting to "alternate paladins" (for lack of a better term) focused on other alignments or causes.

The Hellknight embodies ultimate law, and the advanced Player's Guide will have paladin variants.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

KaeYoss wrote:
Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
What it REALLY boils down to is that paladins, perhaps more so than ANY other class, is VERY STRONGLY identified with a single alignment type. A non lawful good paladin, in my eyes, is simply not a paladin.
Agreed. However, I still enjoy the Champion of X concept as seen in Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, and it would be interesting to "alternate paladins" (for lack of a better term) focused on other alignments or causes.
The Hellknight embodies ultimate law, and the advanced Player's Guide will have paladin variants.

The Hellknight is a GREAT choice for a lawful neutral or even a lawful evil paladin variant.

Alas, it's looking like the Advanced Player's Guide is not going to have much room to talk about paladins who are something other than lawful good (with the exception of the antipaladin as a chaotic evil variant, of course). It just ended up being too complex to solve in the limited space we had for paladins in the book—it would have meant NO variant paladin support for lawful good paladins, and that's not really an option.

So we might address non LG/CE paladin/antipaladin options with some product (and again, hellknights are a good example), but that product isn't going to be the Advanced Player's Guide, it looks like.


Wait, so the only non-LG paladins according to the APG will be the anti-paladin? I'm actually thrilled by this. I wasn't a big fan of muddying the paladin waters. I know it may still be coming, but for now, this was the one thing I had seen coming down the pike in the APG that I wasn't a fan of.


And it isn't too hard to houserule a paladin variant by switching lawful Good to lawful Evil, then just alter the rest to affect the opposite alignment.

But didn't I hear a rumor of the Blackguard coming back as a base class?


Swordsmasher wrote:

And it isn't too hard to houserule a paladin variant by switching lawful Good to lawful Evil, then just alter the rest to affect the opposite alignment.

But didn't I hear a rumor of the Blackguard coming back as a base class?

Thats be the CE only anti-paladin. I find just filing good off cheap and shoddy way to go. To me Paladin is LG and nothing else. And if ya have a non LG holy champion class it should not just be a paladin with the good powers switched.


"James Jacobs wrote:
So we might address non LG/CE paladin/antipaladin options with some product (and again, hellknights are a good example), but that product isn't going to be the Advanced Player's Guide, it looks like.

Hip hip Hoorah!

As for Paladin abilities based on Lawfulness, I feel the Aura of Courage is the brightest star of that, as well as the Aura of Resolve and Aura of Righteousness (other than the DR/evil). Aura of Justice is slightly lawful, in the "group = lawful, individual = chaotic" trend, as well.


James Jacobs wrote:
So we might address non LG/CE paladin/antipaladin options with some product (and again, hellknights are a good example), but that product isn't going to be the Advanced Player's Guide, it looks like.

Do I hear a web enhancement there?

No, just kidding! It's okay! You can stop shaking!

Beyond shamelessly touting my attempt at making a blackguard [url=anpreissen][link][/ulr], I guess we could homebrew these classes. The CN Anarchon, the CG Liberator, the N Equaliser....

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

NG Sentinel...

Actually, I'm fine with Paladins being any Good, Blackguards any Evil, and Templars being any Neutral. But that's just me.


Huh. Well, I guess I'll just have to finish up my Holy Warrior class and post it, then. It's designed as a Paladin replacement who gets powers based on the domains their deity grants. For example:

  • A Paladin who worships a deity with the Magic domain could choose to get detect magic (and later, arcane sight) as an at-will SLA, could dispel magic with his attacks, and could gain access to more spells.
  • A Paladin who worships a deity with the Death domain could choose to get deathwatch, channel negative energy with his attacks, and gain an aura that granted a bonus to his undead minions/allies.
  • A Paladin of the Sun could get an aura of sunlight, the ability to see even in magical darkness, and the ability to disrupt shadowy/vulnerable to sunlight creatures with attacks.
    Etc.

    The main reasons I hadn't posted it already were Paizo's Templars and the fact that I have to create a bunch of abilities for every domain. Now one of those reasons is gone, so I guess I should dust the class off again...

    EDIT: To be clear, you could choose abilities from any of the domains your deity granted. So a Holy Warrior of Pharasma would be able to choose deathwatch from the Death domain powers but an anti-undead aura from the Repose domain instead of a pro-undead aura from the Death domain, etc.


  • I think it's important to note that paladins aren't just "holy warriors." They're champions of law and good. The actual deity is sort of a side thing :p


    ProfessorCirno wrote:
    I think it's important to note that paladins aren't just "holy warriors." They're champions of law and good. The actual deity is sort of a side thing :p

    True, but in most settings you can not have one, without the other.


    ProfessorCirno wrote:
    I think it's important to note that paladins aren't just "holy warriors." They're champions of law and good. The actual deity is sort of a side thing :p

    See, I don't agree with that. IMO, Paladins are the ultimate champion of their deity. Anyone interested in Paladins should really read The Deed of Paksenarrion by Elizabeth Moon. That's my "best. Paladin. EVAR" high water mark.

    EDIT: That said, the "Paladin" in the list in my previous post should have read "Holy Warrior" instead. It IS a different class, albeit a replacement for Paladins.


    One vote for bringing back the "Cavalier" class- all the horse mounted heavy tin suit lady wooing darring do you can get without all the Paladin side affects.


    Zurai wrote:
    Huh. Well, I guess I'll just have to finish up my Holy Warrior class and post it, then. It's designed as a Paladin replacement who gets powers based on the domains their deity grants.

    This sounds fantastic, and I would LOVE to see the work you've done on it thus far.. While I understand that there are certainly preconceptions about the term Paladin, I've always felt that any established deity in a setting would very likely have his or her own militant arm of followers. I called them all paladins for the sake of simplicity, and allowed players to make a "paladin" of any god, provided that their alignment exactly matched their god's and that they roleplayed a shining example of their tenants of faith. (I'm SO thankful for the book "Gods and Magic" in that area.. There was almost nothing about religious beliefs in the core rulebook. A rather glaring oversight imo, but I know they were pushing the page count as it was.)

    However, as far as deity-specific special abilities, I really never put the time into it I would've liked to.. and basically just shifted the alignment restrictions on the pre-existing paladin special abilities as needed. Tying it to domains and allowing players to mix and match for their own flavor is a stroke of brilliance, and I'm jealous I didn't think of it.


    James Jacobs wrote:


    Because from the very first incarnation of the paladin in the game, they've been lawful good. It's part of what defines the character class, and has been from the start. MANY of the paladin's abilities work off of this flavor, granting them thematic abilities that one would expect a lawful good crusader/knight to have, and if we removed the lawful good alignment restriction, then we would have had to rewrite and change those classic abilities.

    Yes, how ridiculous that would have been? Providing a series of customizable options for the Paladin to provide for more than just a Lawful Paladin? That would have cut into your customization of the Sorcerer, Wizard, and the other classes!


    Cartigan wrote:
    James Jacobs wrote:


    Because from the very first incarnation of the paladin in the game, they've been lawful good. It's part of what defines the character class, and has been from the start. MANY of the paladin's abilities work off of this flavor, granting them thematic abilities that one would expect a lawful good crusader/knight to have, and if we removed the lawful good alignment restriction, then we would have had to rewrite and change those classic abilities.
    Yes, how ridiculous that would have been? Providing a series of customizable options for the Paladin to provide for more than just a Lawful Paladin? That would have cut into your customization of the Sorcerer, Wizard, and the other classes!

    A paladin is LG, an option that makes it something else might as well make it a new class. As you seem to want the same class, then you want a paladin, which is LG.

    Taking LG out o paladin is like taking spellcasting out of a wizard and going "see still a wizard". LG is not just a small part of the class , it's the core tenant of the class.

    You want a holy warrior of a god, guess what we have that class, it's called a cleric

    The Exchange

    seekerofshadowlight wrote:

    Taking LG out o paladin is like taking spellcasting out of a wizard and going "see still a wizard".

    LOL you mean like the WOtC Warlock?

    Paizo Employee Creative Director

    Cartigan wrote:
    Yes, how ridiculous that would have been? Providing a series of customizable options for the Paladin to provide for more than just a Lawful Paladin? That would have cut into your customization of the Sorcerer, Wizard, and the other classes!

    Since the book itself already blew out it's initial page count, it would have been pretty ridiculous indeed.


    Crimson Jester wrote:
    seekerofshadowlight wrote:

    Taking LG out o paladin is like taking spellcasting out of a wizard and going "see still a wizard".

    LOL you mean like the WOtC Warlock?

    No, that junk does have spellcasting ablity. It just does not use the same rules. But kinda the same point it's not a wizard now is it?


    seekerofshadowlight wrote:
    Taking LG out o paladin is like taking spellcasting out of a wizard and going "see still a wizard". LG is not just a small part of the class , it's the core tenant of the class.

    Not really, no. It's nowhere close. You can easily replace every instance of "good" with "evil" and vice versa in the Paladin class entry and it's still recognizable as a Paladin (if an evil one). If you remove spellcasting from a Wizard, it wouldn't be recognizable as a Wizard. Just about 100% of a Wizard's class features are spellcasting or spellcasting-related. Not even half of a Paladin's class features are related to his alignment, and none of them are indelibly tied to alignment.


    Zurai wrote:
    seekerofshadowlight wrote:
    Taking LG out o paladin is like taking spellcasting out of a wizard and going "see still a wizard". LG is not just a small part of the class , it's the core tenant of the class.
    Not really, no. It's nowhere close. You can easily replace every instance of "good" with "evil" and vice versa in the Paladin class entry and it's still recognizable as a Paladin (if an evil one). If you remove spellcasting from a Wizard, it wouldn't be recognizable as a Wizard. Just about 100% of a Wizard's class features are spellcasting or spellcasting-related. Not even half of a Paladin's class features are related to his alignment, and none of them are indelibly tied to alignment.

    I disagree. Everything in the class is built as it is because of his AL, everything. Just as everything in the wizard class is built around him casting spells. LG is the core of the paladin, not what powers he has.

    Ya can't just file the good off and go see still a paladin as he is not. That simple.


    seekerofshadowlight wrote:

    I disagree. Everything in the class is built as it is because of his AL, everything. Just as everything in the wizard class is built around him casting spells.

    Ya can't just file the good off and go see still a paladin as he is not. That simple.

    Actually, you could very easily file off the Lawful part. NOTHING AT ALL in his abilities has jack-crap to do with Lawfulness except for his code of conduct (which isn't an ability, but rather just an extension of the alignment restriction), and even there it's under-represented.

    Paladins have no pro-Law powers and no anti-Chaos powers. They are not prevented from associating with Chaotic entities and do not fall if they take Chaotic actions. A CG or NG character can fit within the Paladin's abilities as written.

    In addition, there are quite a few powers that Paladins have that are not at all associated with alignment. Charisma to saves? Nothing to do with alignment (it's a blessing from their deity). Ability to heal with a touch? Nothing to do with alignment (neutral clerics of neutral deities can heal). Ability to cure diseases, curses, fatigue, etc etc? No alignment ties there. Aura of Courage? Nope. Don't have to be lawful or good to be brave; Chaotic Evil Fighters get major bonuses vs fear. Divine Health? More deific gifts. Channel Positive Energy? Nope; again, neutral clerics of neutral deities can CPE. Aura of Resolve? Nope.

    EDIT: And as for a conceptual level -- again, seriously, read The Deed of Paksenarrion. Paks is (minor but inevitable spoiler) a Paladin in pretty much every sense of the word and recognizable to someone who only knows of D&D Paladins, but she is also not Lawful Good. I'd classify her as Neutral Good, although there could be an argument for CG as well.


    seekerofshadowlight wrote:


    A paladin is LG, an option that makes it something else might as well make it a new class.

    Disagree

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
    Cartigan wrote:
    seekerofshadowlight wrote:


    A paladin is LG, an option that makes it something else might as well make it a new class.

    Disagree

    Some people don't believe those are paladins. Me, I've played a paladin of freedom. Isn't too bad.

    The Exchange

    Cartigan wrote:
    seekerofshadowlight wrote:


    A paladin is LG, an option that makes it something else might as well make it a new class.

    Disagree

    Paladins in name only. Not in concept and any way that really matters to most of us.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
    Crimson Jester wrote:
    Paladins in name only. Not in concept and any way that really matters to most of us.

    Case in point. :)

    We'll never have a consensus on the subject of paladins because everyone has a different ideal image of them. Same with the definitions of alignments.


    Crimson Jester wrote:
    Cartigan wrote:
    seekerofshadowlight wrote:


    A paladin is LG, an option that makes it something else might as well make it a new class.

    Disagree

    Paladins in name only. Not in concept and any way that really matters to most of us.

    How are they not in concept? They concept of the Paladin is dedication to an ideal and divinity. Only LG gods can have Paladins? What?

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
    Cartigan wrote:
    How are they not in concept? They concept of the Paladin is dedication to an ideal and divinity. Only LG gods can have Paladins? What?

    Paladins can only be Lawful Good to some people. Otherwise it's not their image of a paladin.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Cartigan wrote:
    How are they not in concept? They concept of the Paladin is dedication to an ideal and divinity.

    No, that's a cleric.

    You want a champion of a deity, a holy warrior, a crusader? That's what the cleric class is explicitly for, modeled after the "religious orders of knighthood of medieval times" (1e PHB). They can accordingly be any alignment, in order to provide holy warriors for any god.

    Paladins, however, are chivalric heroes in the mold of the better of the Peers of Charlemagne or the Knights of the Round Table. Not "holy warriors", but knights sans peur et sans reproche, holding to a chivalric code of honor. Piety is one of the chivalric virtues, but only one of them.

    It is because of this dedication to the chivalric code of honor that they are lawful good, not the other way around. A character who truly adheres strictly to a restrictive code in all circumstances is by definition acting lawfully, and alignment matching consistent deed, an adherent will have a lawful alignment. The content of a chivalric code includes a requirement to protect the weak, a good act, and alignment matching consistent deed, the adherent will have a good alignment. A character who is not LG cannot be consistently adhering to a code of chivalry, and so cannot be a chivalric hero, and so cannot be a paladin.


    Cartigan wrote:
    seekerofshadowlight wrote:


    A paladin is LG, an option that makes it something else might as well make it a new class.

    Disagree

    And you would be wrong. Those are not paladins. They are hollow mockys's of a paladin,nothing but inmatations. Not paladins, but wannabe's lacking what it takes to be a paladin.

    Those would never be allowed in any games I run. Ya want to play a paladin, then man up and play a paladin.A paladin is the line in the sand. He is tied to his concept in way no other class is. You simply can not take away the point and the core of the class and still keep it the same class.


    Ah, yes, because anyone who wants to play a paladin that isn't LG isn't a man.

    <rolls eyes>

    Amusingly, Paksenarrion is female. I guess that means non-LG paladins are OK as long as they're women?


    I would call em powergamers.As your wanting the powers not the class. Ya want to play a paladin then play one, but no your wanting the class without everything that comes with it.

    Your not wanting a paladin.

    Edit: who or what is a Paksenarrion ? and no LG or not a paladin, sex has nothing to do with it.


    Wow, so anyone who wants to play a character concept that doesn't fit into your narrow world view -- completely ignoring the mechanics of a character, here, we're just talking alignment -- is a powergamer? They're seeking to do nothing but destroy everything you hold dear, huh? They'll wreck all of your books, put fire to them, and piss on them for good measure. They're nothing but the scum of the earth.


    Paladins are LG, nothing else. They wish to play one it shall be LG or they shall not be playing that class.

    And yes playing it purely for power while getting out of the core class restriction and limitations is powergameing. A paladin can not be separated from those and remain a paladin.


    seekerofshadowlight wrote:
    And yes playing it purely for power while getting out of the core class restriction and limitations is powergameing.

    Except, of course, that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the UA Paladin variants, because they have just as many alignment and roleplaying restrictions as the core Paladin. Actually MORE, because they are based off of the more-restrictive 3.5 Paladin Code.

    Dark Archive

    Uh would this be a bad time to mention that I would still really prefer the name Blackguard to anti-paladin (rather random I know but still thought I would mention it.


    Zurai

    I disagree, and will stop being this up with you, as you and me have totally different ideals on just what a paladin is.

    Kevin, I agree, but paizo does not..so we are stuck with the goofy silver age villain name.


    seekerofshadowlight wrote:

    Zurai

    I disagree

    You can disagree all you want; it's a fact. Not an opinion. You can actually read the variants and see that the UA variants are just as restrictive as core Paladins. Actually, the Paladin of Slaughter is basically unplayable because it's so restrictive -- you MUST "sow destruction and death at all opportunities". You can't ever just talk with someone if you have any other choice. You MUST kill them. Even the core Paladin can choose to let demons or devils go if it serves a greater purpose. Not so a Paladin of Slaughter. He is forced to kill everyone and everything he can, or he falls.


    Just to reiterate. I'm not saying anyone else is right or wrong. To me, a paladin is LG, and has always been. I would prefer, as a customer expressing my opinion, that there not be "official" non-LG paladin options, because it does mean that I have to specifically disallow the option if I let the product into my game.

    Others may disagree. They may not be as invested in the LG archetype. That may work just fine for their games, but its not really my view of how the paladin class should work.

    I don't really want to try and convince anyone else of my opinion, just letting Paizo know what my opinion is as a consumer. Part of why I'm not looking to try and convince anyone is that the next step along this path is for the conversation to start to degenerate into conversations about alignment in general, etc.

    If it works for enough customers, then it would be silly for Paizo to take my opinion over anyone else's, so if the customer base is for non-LG paladins, I expect Paizo to listen to that.

    Which is why I don't want the Paizonians to have to sort through a lot of discussions to figure out a preference.

    1 to 50 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Bards and Paladins. All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.