Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Society


Starfinder


Starfinder Society

Why all the Paladin hate?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

601 to 650 of 961 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

Also yeah, you need a summoner for pokemon training. Base companions just don't cut it for dragons, chimeras, animate swords, computer programs or whatever this is.


Senko wrote:

I just want to point out on the subject of impersonating paladin's and to a lesser extent clerics I wouldn't want to do it in a world where the gods are (a) real, (b) actively involved and (c) not going to be very happy with you pretending to be a holy warrior of theirs.

I'm reminded of the scene in one of Pratchett's novels where the golem say's he will debate religion with the priest of any god who can prove their existence then gets hit by a lightning bolt.

Shiny Man in armour: "I am a paldin of Iomadae and I'm here to . . . " Crack THOWOM.
Nearby villager: " Why do we always get imposters in harvest season, Elena could you pass me the broom."

Really?

Huh...
Don't get me wrong, you see the occasional "cursed by the gods" person crop up in products, but not really that many "smote by the Gods for various wrong", but then again I don't have an encyclopedic memory of all the products...
I mean it could probably happen...its just well...it feels cheap.
Imagine you were infiltrating an Urgathoan/Asmodean/whatever tempel, to stop some world ending/shattering/changing ritual. To facilitate said infiltration, you don the robes of an member of said faith.
All looks well, until you set foot in the temple itself, where suddenly a dis embodied voice booms: "Heresy! a non-believer defiles the vestments of my faithful!".
The next thing you hear is a piercing scream, that drains the life from you and your companions bodies or you all suddenly erupt in hellfire or whatever.
I bet your player would bristle at such shenanigans, and so would mine.
So what am I actually say...
Well, I agree with you on (a), but I far less certain in how correct your take on (b) and (c) really is in the PF-setting.
Heck I could probably give some alternative interpretations on (b) and (c) if your interested.

Hows the kingdom building going by the way? gotten all those different peoples to consent to your ruler-ship yet?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The Paladin, shining and bright
will never mistake wrong from right.
We admire her zeal,
but in truth, the appeal
is our small, secret hope that she might.

(not my credit ... and honestly, I prefer not to reveal the author lest anybody goes off to bugger her about what Paladins *really* are).

Shadow Lodge

Matthew Downie wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Good fluff and mechanics work off of each other.

The druid is an example of that. Its a nature themed character: animals, plants, elements, that has a thematic tie as a protector and promoter of nature.

When I hear this, my mind immediately constructs a character who has the powers of a druid, but a different theme. He enjoys controlling animals and making them fight one another. He doesn't have reverence for nature, instead representing the dominion of mankind over the natural world.

He'd make a good circus ringmaster, Colosseum owner, or Pokemon trainer.

That might be a druid (or better, hunter) archetype or something, but wouldn't really explain why nature hands him the ability to call down fire from the sky. (unless it's aimed at his own head)

Grand Lodge

I am still allowed to bounce off my tables disruptive players who are intent to make paladins what they aren't. They can't expect to have the advantages without the disadvantages, or they accept the nerf bat.

It's simply an Inquisitor without close links to a deity.


Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:

They want dwarfs who can level above 6th level in fighter. Rangers that can choose something other then orcs for "favored enemy", Re-naming the Thief to rogue? Now they want to get rid of alignment restrictions!?!?!

Kids these days don't they know that a class is more then just a function of its class features. The game is more then just the mechanics fluff and mechanics go hand and hand. Heck they made up the class abilities by sitting around and thinking hmm what fits into the theme of a paladin? not the other way around.

(but for real how about a compromise? A class that is fairly similar to paladin but a different name I heard avenger for CG that sounded ok to me. so a set of archetypes for different alignments but they wouldn't be paladins anymore and some of their abilities would be a bit different and not just changing smite evil to smite good or smite law but having some of them work slightly different maybe one doesn't get divine grace and gets something else instead.)

I'd be fine with that. One condition though.

They don't get Divine Grace. That stays on the LG Paladin only. Why? It's the main reason people dip Paladin.


Suppose we generalize antipaladin instead of paladin. You're obviously still here after the tyrant archetype, so we could just flip a few things around. Paladin is still above the rest, since it's unmodified. How's that for a compromise?


The Sideromancer wrote:
Suppose we generalize antipaladin instead of paladin. You're obviously still here after the tyrant archetype, so we could just flip a few things around. Paladin is still above the rest, since it's unmodified. How's that for a compromise?

Antipaladin is already a weaker version of paladin.

positive energy and a swift action self heal > negative energy
mercies>cruelties
Having a class based unique weapon>not

Also tyrant is poorly designed, they don't even alter the spell list or divine bond to account for lawful alignment instead of chaotic.


RDM42 wrote:
It does effect it - it makes so the base assumption is that a chaotic neutral Paladin, a complete contradiction in terms, is officially sanctioned. If you want it, just huserule it yourself - why does the official system need to change for you to do that?

I explained both the base assumption and houseruling multiple times already. I'm not about to continually repeat myself. If you really want to know the answer, you might want to look through the thread for it. It really helps to read the whole thread and not cherry pick single posts out to read and reply to while ignoring the rest.

RDM42 wrote:
You can. Nothing in the world or ruleset right now prevents you from playing a holy warrior of a different alignment, just not using the Paladn chassis. Unless it's houseruled.

The 'chassis' already allows for NG LN and CE... It ALREADY isn't strictly for LG.


Ryan Freire wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
Suppose we generalize antipaladin instead of paladin. You're obviously still here after the tyrant archetype, so we could just flip a few things around. Paladin is still above the rest, since it's unmodified. How's that for a compromise?

Antipaladin is already a weaker version of paladin.

positive energy and a swift action self heal > negative energy
mercies>cruelties
Having a class based unique weapon>not

Also tyrant is poorly designed, they don't even alter the spell list or divine bond to account for lawful alignment instead of chaotic.

The joke was if there was agreement, the CG equivalent would still have Cha to saves, since the antipaladin does as well (thus being more inclusive than the previous compromise)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Paladin is by its nature and history an exclusive class. Making it more alignment inclusive makes the game worse for at least as many people as it makes it better for. Houserule it instead of expecting the game itself to change so y'all can make your cha only paladins of desna.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
They don't get Divine Grace. That stays on the LG Paladin only. Why? It's the main reason people dip Paladin.

Then I guess you're also saying that its Not ok for the Antipaladin (and Apparently Tyrants, YaY for Lawful Evil Inclusion!) to have Unholy Resilience, which does the exact same thing as Divine Grace. And if not, then you're saying its ok to have it if you're LE or CE but not CG? That seems really rather strange.

Ryan Freire wrote:
Paladin is by its nature and history an exclusive class. Making it more alignment inclusive makes the game worse for at least as many people as it makes it better for. Houserule it instead of expecting the game itself to change so y'all can make your cha only paladins of desna.

Then I guess you're saying that Antipaladin should Have NEVER been made a thing, cuz it is Literally built on the Paladin chassis as an Inversion.... They're called an Alternate rather than a Base Class for a REASON.

Alternate Classes: Alternate classes are standalone classes whose basic ideas are very close to established base classes, yet whose required alterations would be too expansive for an archetype. An alternate class operates exactly as a base class, save that a character who takes a level in an alternate class can never take a level in its associated class — a samurai cannot also be a cavalier, and vice versa.

They say Standalone, yet its very Heavily implied to be the same class, just so differentiated that it couldn't just be made an Archetype (like the Tyrant is to the regular Antipaladin)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Paladin is by its nature and history an exclusive class. Making it more alignment inclusive makes the game worse for at least as many people as it makes it better for. Houserule it instead of expecting the game itself to change so y'all can make your cha only paladins of desna.

If that's so, then the game is ALREADY worse... CE, NG and LN all use the same basic framework as the LG paladin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think part of what is missing in this discussion is the question:

Why do you play a Paladin?

If it's because you want the mechanical class features, then I'm actually totally fine with a different class that has those features. All of them. Go with it.

But that's not the reason I would play a Paladin. I play Paladins and characters like that in other games specifically because the moral code and rules they live by is what I'm looking for.

The idea of the Paladin is what I'm looking for. Paladins have undergone a lot of different mechanical changes from one edition to another, from D&D to Pathfinder. But while the mechanics have changed, the idea that creates the character haven't - not significantly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

FWIW, I'd like all of the nine alignments to have their own iconic "champion of this alignment" and to have a variety of different BAB, spellcasting, and class-features chassis.

Like there's no reason the exemplar for every alignment needs to be a full BAB/4 level caster with good healing and defense. Some could be 9 level casters or non-casters, some could have animal companions, etc.


graystone wrote:
If that's so, then the game is ALREADY worse... CE, NG and LN all use the same basic framework as the LG paladin.

Don't forget LE!

P.S.

Ryan Freire wrote:

Antipaladin is already a weaker version of paladin.

positive energy and a swift action self heal > negative energy
mercies>cruelties
Having a class based unique weapon>not

A) Negative Energy Damages, I don't see your Positive Energy Hurting the Living Antipaladin

B) Mercies being greater than Cruelties only Works if the Antipaladin doesn't get off a condition you wanna get rid of with Mercies, without using a Cruelty, then it becomes a battle of conservation of Mercies vs Cruelties
C) The Antipaladin DOES get a Unique Class Weapon just the Same as the Paladin's, Go Look at Fiendish Boon!


5 people marked this as a favorite.

OK, you all do understand that those non-LG Paladin Archetypes, Antipaladins, and Antipaladin archetypes all make qualitative and/or quantitative changes to the actual powers of the character. Using them in your argument that there should be NO qualitative or quantitative changes to the Paladin powerset but still allowing any allignment is specious.

Why this is a big deal to some players is the simple fact that righteous battle against evil, with all the hard moral choices is central to the game for them. That this is hard baked into the mechanics is one of the draws to the game for these players, and counters the rather mechanistic anti-roleplay bias the game can also encourage.

While I personally allow some odd things at my tables, after all I dropped straight D&D the moment I discovered Arduin, and was involved in most early game systems to one degree or another. My way is my way only. I understand the heartache of not being able explore a concept that resonates with you. You need to understand that changes you are asking for can destroy the resonance Pathfinder has to a rather lot of people, who might be willing and able to accept your concept as a special case, but not as the norm.


Daw wrote:
OK, you all do understand that those non-LG Paladin Archetypes, Antipaladins, and Antipaladin archetypes all make qualitative and/or quantitative changes to the actual powers of the character. Using them in your argument that there should be NO qualitative or quantitative changes to the Paladin powerset but still allowing any allignment is specious.

Specious? The argument on the other side was that ANYTHING that makes a paladin more alignment inclusive was badwrongfun. I don't recall ANY talk on what was done to make it more inclusive, JUST that it in fact has already been done. It's a counterargument to a statement: as such, not specious in the least.

I'm unsure why you thought it was a general argument as I quoted the post I replied to and made no general 'all alignments' statements.

Basically it's like he said the sky can only blue, then I pointed out that it can be gray or orange too: So you come in and say that isn't a reason for the sky to be hot pink... Who said anything about that?


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Like there's no reason the exemplar for every alignment needs to be a full BAB/4 level caster with good healing and defense. Some could be 9 level casters or non-casters, some could have animal companions, etc.

Cue complaints about how [Alignment] gets [Feature], when someone wants [Feature] for their [Different Alignment] character.

(I'm not blaming those who complain, I just want to point out how "create more alignment-locked classes" isn't helping those who complain about alignment-locks on classes.)


graystone wrote:
Daw wrote:
OK, you all do understand that those non-LG Paladin Archetypes, Antipaladins, and Antipaladin archetypes all make qualitative and/or quantitative changes to the actual powers of the character. Using them in your argument that there should be NO qualitative or quantitative changes to the Paladin powerset but still allowing any allignment is specious.

Specious? The argument on the other side was that ANYTHING that makes a paladin more alignment inclusive was badwrongfun. I don't recall ANY talk on what was done to make it more inclusive, JUST that it in fact has already been done. It's a counterargument to a statement: as such, not specious in the least.

I'm unsure why you thought it was a general argument as I quoted the post I replied to and made no general 'all alignments' statements.

Basically it's like he said the sky can only blue, then I pointed out that it can be gray or orange too: So you come in and say that isn't a reason for the sky to be hot pink... Who said anything about that?

Yes I stand by "specious".

Also I am a bit concerned that you ignored my second two paragraphs and posed questions that I had already answered. As I have said, I understand your point, but you fail or refuse to understand and admit the validity of people who feel differently. In a forum, this is bad form.


graystone wrote:
Daw wrote:
OK, you all do understand that those non-LG Paladin Archetypes, Antipaladins, and Antipaladin archetypes all make qualitative and/or quantitative changes to the actual powers of the character. Using them in your argument that there should be NO qualitative or quantitative changes to the Paladin powerset but still allowing any alignment is specious.

Specious? The argument on the other side was that ANYTHING that makes a paladin more alignment inclusive was badwrongfun. I don't recall ANY talk on what was done to make it more inclusive, JUST that it in fact has already been done. It's a counterargument to a statement: as such, not specious in the least.

I'm unsure why you thought it was a general argument as I quoted the post I replied to and made no general 'all alignments' statements.

Basically it's like he said the sky can only blue, then I pointed out that it can be gray or orange too: So you come in and say that isn't a reason for the sky to be hot pink... Who said anything about that?

Almost everyone I see seems fine with creating alternate alignment 'Exemplars' with unique and cool abilities belonging to them ... they just aren't the Paladin. And yes, as said - those Archetypes pretty much make the Paladin almost another class through significant modifications.

Get your own new toy, no need to break the existing one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Daw what you're saying specifically, while Yes I said that earlier, I honestly don't care if its that way, it was only a suggestion, honestly I wouldn't mind if the CG Paladin was just an Archetype, heck I WOULD Prefer that. People Obviously don't care if there's an Archetype that changes alignment as they don't mind the Antipaladin, Tyrant, and Gray Paladin....

All I'm asking for is a CG Liberator Type Paladin of Freedom. Which Honestly shouldn't be watered down like the Gray Paladin cuz they're Not Neutral, They're taking a stand on their convictions to an Extreme same as the Paladin, the Tyrant, and the Antipaladin. And AGAIN Other than The Code that the Paladin needs to live by, the Fluff behind them, and a Few Select Spells there is NOTHING Mechanically about the Paladin that is LAWFUL.... All of It is about being Good! Same reason that the Tyrant didn't change much about the Antipaladin (though I agree that the spell list should have been altered to include Lawful Spells from the Paladin and Evil Spells from the Antipaladin, and maybe some Deviously Lawful Evil Spells, ONLY).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, I would love to see a Liberator as you have described. I would like to see its powers focused more on countering and defeating physical, cultural and magical bondage. Definitely some divine tricksterish, make-you-think kind of undertones would be appropriate. I rather hope that Paizo or a 3PP will put out a well done version of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:
Yes I stand by "specious".

I refuted a specific contention with a specific example. Nothing "specious".

Daw wrote:
Also I am a bit concerned that you ignored my second two paragraphs and posed questions that I had already answered. As I have said, I understand your point, but you fail or refuse to understand and admit the validity of people who feel differently. In a forum, this is bad form.

Ignored? No I looked over them. I just don't agree and when pushed, the 'other side' has agreed it's pure semantics. For example, HWalsh finally agreed that he was FINE with alternate paladins as long as they weren't CALLED paladins. Or look at RDM42 last comment.

Adding options takes nothing away from those that want paladins a certain way, as proven by the archetypes already out there. Adding new archetypes/alternate classes doesn't CHANGE anything. Adding background skills or Variant Multiclassing didn't FORCE the paizo police to come to your game and force you to use them so I REALLY don't understand the pushback for an optional non-LG paladin: It LITERALLY doesn't have any impact in ANYONE'S game that doesn't add it.


Dracala wrote:

Daw what you're saying specifically, while Yes I said that earlier, I honestly don't care if its that way, it was only a suggestion, honestly I wouldn't mind if the CG Paladin was just an Archetype, heck I WOULD Prefer that. People Obviously don't care if there's an Archetype that changes alignment as they don't mind the Antipaladin, Tyrant, and Gray Paladin....

All I'm asking for is a CG Liberator Type Paladin of Freedom. Which Honestly shouldn't be watered down like the Gray Paladin cuz they're Not Neutral, They're taking a stand on their convictions to an Extreme same as the Paladin, the Tyrant, and the Antipaladin. And AGAIN Other than The Code that the Paladin needs to live by, the Fluff behind them, and a Few Select Spells there is NOTHING Mechanically about the Paladin that is LAWFUL.... All of It is about being Good! Same reason that the Tyrant didn't change much about the Antipaladin (though I agree that the spell list should have been altered to include Lawful Spells from the Paladin and Evil Spells from the Antipaladin, and maybe some Deviously Lawful Evil Spells, ONLY).

I don't think it needs to be watered down, just DIFFERENT.

I could see a Chaotic Neutral exemplar having all sorts of bonuses against mind control and freedom of movement type abilities, as an example. I could see a lawful neutral INDUCING effects that hinder motion, etc. But some flavorful things which belong to them.


Daw wrote:
Actually, I would love to see a Liberator as you have described. I would like to see its powers focused more on countering and defeating physical, cultural and magical bondage. Definitely some divine tricksterish, make-you-think kind of undertones would be appropriate. I rather hope that Paizo or a 3PP will put out a well done version of it.

I would Prefer if Paizo did it to a 3PP, because it would be more likely to be Allowed at tables... And Ya, I could see some of the Paladin's Aura's being switched out for stuff like defeating Physical and Magical bondage (Cultural would be about Fluff and actions though, not necessarily mechanics), Divine Tricksterism could definitely be used as a Divine Bond option!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the "Liberator" CG Paladin analogue should trade some of the Paladin's defensive features for some more offensive features. Since, to me, LG is about constructive order, and CG is about constructive chaos- the former builds good stuff and the latter tears down bad stuff.

But then people are going to complain about "why do we get [cool offensive feature] instead of divine grace?"


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like the "Liberator" CG Paladin analogue should trade some of the Paladin's defensive features for some more offensive features. Since, to me, LG is about constructive order, and CG is about constructive chaos- the former builds good stuff and the latter tears down bad stuff.

But then people are going to complain about "why do we get [cool offensive feature] instead of divine grace?"

I mean if you can't make your mono-charisma multiclass abomination of Desna what's even the point?


The Sideromancer wrote:
Also yeah, you need a summoner for pokemon training. Base companions just don't cut it for dragons, chimeras, animate swords, computer programs or whatever this is.

that would be a dinosaur combined with a banana tree


Philippe Lam wrote:

I am still allowed to bounce off my tables disruptive players who are intent to make paladins what they aren't. They can't expect to have the advantages without the disadvantages, or they accept the nerf bat.

It's simply an Inquisitor without close links to a deity.

what advantages justifies the disadvantages cuz i don't see any


HWalsh wrote:
Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:

They want dwarfs who can level above 6th level in fighter. Rangers that can choose something other then orcs for "favored enemy", Re-naming the Thief to rogue? Now they want to get rid of alignment restrictions!?!?!

Kids these days don't they know that a class is more then just a function of its class features. The game is more then just the mechanics fluff and mechanics go hand and hand. Heck they made up the class abilities by sitting around and thinking hmm what fits into the theme of a paladin? not the other way around.

(but for real how about a compromise? A class that is fairly similar to paladin but a different name I heard avenger for CG that sounded ok to me. so a set of archetypes for different alignments but they wouldn't be paladins anymore and some of their abilities would be a bit different and not just changing smite evil to smite good or smite law but having some of them work slightly different maybe one doesn't get divine grace and gets something else instead.)

I'd be fine with that. One condition though.

They don't get Divine Grace. That stays on the LG Paladin only. Why? It's the main reason people dip Paladin.

if all i want is just divine grace i can dip anti paladin for that so why would it matter if paladins of other alignments got divine grace


Ryan Freire wrote:
Paladin is by its nature and history an exclusive class. Making it more alignment inclusive makes the game worse for at least as many people as it makes it better for. Houserule it instead of expecting the game itself to change so y'all can make your cha only paladins of desna.

there were 9 different paladins in 3.5, there are 9 different paladins in 5e there are multiple different paladins in 4e so no it hasn't been "largely and exclusive class"


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like the "Liberator" CG Paladin analogue should trade some of the Paladin's defensive features for some more offensive features. Since, to me, LG is about constructive order, and CG is about constructive chaos- the former builds good stuff and the latter tears down bad stuff.

But then people are going to complain about "why do we get [cool offensive feature] instead of divine grace?"

I mean if you can't make your mono-charisma multiclass abomination of Desna what's even the point?

Pretty much this...

People only want the other Paladins so they can pull the mono-charisma Desna Starknife build.

Oracle (Nature or Lore) 1
Scaled Fist Monk 1
Paladin X

Take Desna's Divine Fighting Technique and whammo, there ya go...

Charisma to Attack, Damage, Saves, Armor Class, and a Charisma-Based BONUS to Armor Class.

Which is all people want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like the "Liberator" CG Paladin analogue should trade some of the Paladin's defensive features for some more offensive features. Since, to me, LG is about constructive order, and CG is about constructive chaos- the former builds good stuff and the latter tears down bad stuff.

But then people are going to complain about "why do we get [cool offensive feature] instead of divine grace?"

I mean if you can't make your mono-charisma multiclass abomination of Desna what's even the point?

Pretty much this...

People only want the other Paladins so they can pull the mono-charisma Desna Starknife build.

Oracle (Nature or Lore) 1
Scaled Fist Monk 1
Paladin X

Take Desna's Divine Fighting Technique and whammo, there ya go...

Charisma to Attack, Damage, Saves, Armor Class, and a Charisma-Based BONUS to Armor Class.

Which is all people want.

then they lose out on cha to hit from smite so with desnas star is worse to hit then using str


I think, though, we can say that the problem here is the "Desna's Shooting Star" feat and not anything else. That feat is unreasonable on, say, mono-classed bards.

It's one of few feats I have outright banned.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like the "Liberator" CG Paladin analogue should trade some of the Paladin's defensive features for some more offensive features. Since, to me, LG is about constructive order, and CG is about constructive chaos- the former builds good stuff and the latter tears down bad stuff.

But then people are going to complain about "why do we get [cool offensive feature] instead of divine grace?"

I mean if you can't make your mono-charisma multiclass abomination of Desna what's even the point?

Pretty much this...

People only want the other Paladins so they can pull the mono-charisma Desna Starknife build.

Oracle (Nature or Lore) 1
Scaled Fist Monk 1
Paladin X

Take Desna's Divine Fighting Technique and whammo, there ya go...

Charisma to Attack, Damage, Saves, Armor Class, and a Charisma-Based BONUS to Armor Class.

Which is all people want.

That may be all some people want. Surprisingly, not everyone is interested in multiple dip, oradins, or the dreaded Desna starknife build.

They aren't even interested in Divine Grace.

Some people, believe it or not, have issue that only a certain number of gods can create some sort of champion ala the paladin or the anti-paladin. Do they have a secret the rest don't? Are the other evils and goods just not evil or good enough?

Not everyone is looking to game the system, but rather to build worlds with a little more sense. I know, we've been working on it forever.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
Some people, believe it or not, have issue that only a certain number of gods can create some sort of champion ala the paladin or the anti-paladin. Do they have a secret the rest don't? Are the other evils and goods just not evil or good enough?

If we filled in the holes with a few "champions of this alignment" classes that are mechanically distinct from the Paladin, would that suffice?


i for one would much rather spend a feat on exotic weapon proficiency butchering axe then waste it on desnas star the weapon does more then quintuple damage and doesn't make me lose my cha to hit when smiting


PossibleCabbage wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Some people, believe it or not, have issue that only a certain number of gods can create some sort of champion ala the paladin or the anti-paladin. Do they have a secret the rest don't? Are the other evils and goods just not evil or good enough?
If we filled in the holes with a few "champions of this alignment" classes that are mechanically distinct from the Paladin, would that suffice?

Yes it would. Now, I've never expected Paizo (or TSR, or WOTC, etc) to do anything about it so I've done various types over the years. It hasn't been until recently that I've seen some of the more .. vociferous .. arguments about how it is taking something away from the paladin not to be, for lack of a nicer term, the most special.


I'm fine with alternate champions of other alignments which have their own specialness. Most people who don't want to change the Paladin that I see seem to be open to alternate champions of other alignments which are not the Paladin. They mostly seem to object to the concept that "the Paladin, that specific class, MUST be opened up to all alignments and nothing else will do"


PossibleCabbage wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Some people, believe it or not, have issue that only a certain number of gods can create some sort of champion ala the paladin or the anti-paladin. Do they have a secret the rest don't? Are the other evils and goods just not evil or good enough?
If we filled in the holes with a few "champions of this alignment" classes that are mechanically distinct from the Paladin, would that suffice?

I wouldn't mind if the "mechanically distinct" was thematic and made sense. I wouldn't want them to be different JUST so that they can be different. If this was all about an all cha character, I can do what I do now: get almost all of that WITHOUT a paladin. For me it's about parity with 'holy warriors' of LG/CE: I'd like a 'holy warrior' of Desna, or Pharasma or Cayden Cailean. And as Lady-J points out, the Desna's Divine Fighting Technique actually works against a paladin that can smite.

Myself, I'd like to see something similar to Unearthed arcana. A few ability swaps, a code swap and there you go. Something fairly simple that a quick archetype can cover. That's something doable in a splat book. 7 whole new alternate classes is something that's a LOT harder to fit in.

Silver Crusade

This is why I like Irori as a god and the idea of an irorian paladin

Cause Irori's doctrine is very simple.

"Strive to be the best person you can possibly be"

How you go about doing that is entirely up to you. Which makes an irorian paladin SO bloody Flexible in it's code of conduct.


Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:

This is why I like Irori as a god and the idea of an irorian paladin

Cause Irori's doctrine is very simple.

"Strive to be the best person you can possibly be"

How you go about doing that is entirely up to you. Which makes an irorian paladin SO bloody Flexible in it's code of conduct.

That's good if you only care about the code. Most 'falls' are over differences of opinion over alignment though, not code violations in my experience.

Silver Crusade

graystone wrote:
Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:

This is why I like Irori as a god and the idea of an irorian paladin

Cause Irori's doctrine is very simple.

"Strive to be the best person you can possibly be"

How you go about doing that is entirely up to you. Which makes an irorian paladin SO bloody Flexible in it's code of conduct.

That's good if you only care about the code. Most 'falls' are over differences of opinion over alignment though, not code violations in my experience.

I actually talked to someone about this a while back, and explained why lawful good doesn't mean you gotta be a buzzkill.

That said it's very unlikely a lawful good character will work will with anyone that isn't either in the good alignment or is lawful neutral. If all the party wants to be is a bunch of murder hobos who kill first and not bother asking questions. Then there was no hope for that group anyway

But Lawful good can be flexible, for example say the party wants to take down some big bad gov official, but the means to do it are less then honorable.

The Lawful good guy probably wouldn't go along with it, but if all other options are exhausted, then he wouldn't get in their way either, and instead would do what he could on his end to buy the rest of the team as much time as possible.

I would also view the lawful part as more militant then anything. I won't lie lawful good...is NOT an easy alignment to roleplay. But it's not disingenuous to the party either.

Scarab Sages

Kjeldorn wrote:
Senko wrote:

I just want to point out on the subject of impersonating paladin's and to a lesser extent clerics I wouldn't want to do it in a world where the gods are (a) real, (b) actively involved and (c) not going to be very happy with you pretending to be a holy warrior of theirs.

I'm reminded of the scene in one of Pratchett's novels where the golem say's he will debate religion with the priest of any god who can prove their existence then gets hit by a lightning bolt.

Shiny Man in armour: "I am a paldin of Iomadae and I'm here to . . . " Crack THOWOM.
Nearby villager: " Why do we always get imposters in harvest season, Elena could you pass me the broom."

Really?

Huh...
Don't get me wrong, you see the occasional "cursed by the gods" person crop up in products, but not really that many "smote by the Gods for various wrong", but then again I don't have an encyclopedic memory of all the products...
I mean it could probably happen...its just well...it feels cheap.
Imagine you were infiltrating an Urgathoan/Asmodean/whatever tempel, to stop some world ending/shattering/changing ritual. To facilitate said infiltration, you don the robes of an member of said faith.
All looks well, until you set foot in the temple itself, where suddenly a dis embodied voice booms: "Heresy! a non-believer defiles the vestments of my faithful!".
The next thing you hear is a piercing scream, that drains the life from you and your companions bodies or you all suddenly erupt in hellfire or whatever.
I bet your player would bristle at such shenanigans, and so would mine.
So what am I actually say...
Well, I agree with you on (a), but I far less certain in how correct your take on (b) and (c) really is in the PF-setting.
Heck I could probably give some alternative interpretations on (b) and (c) if your interested.

Hows the kingdom building going by the way? gotten all those different peoples to consent to your ruler-ship yet?

I was making a joke more than anything else but I think the basic point still stands that being impersonating a holy warrior of a god is not going to be a good long term practice. Sooner or later one of those gods is going to get annoyed and take action even if said action is waiting till you die then sending your soul to the deepest depths of the abyss.


Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:
graystone wrote:
Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:

This is why I like Irori as a god and the idea of an irorian paladin

Cause Irori's doctrine is very simple.

"Strive to be the best person you can possibly be"

How you go about doing that is entirely up to you. Which makes an irorian paladin SO bloody Flexible in it's code of conduct.

That's good if you only care about the code. Most 'falls' are over differences of opinion over alignment though, not code violations in my experience.

I actually talked to someone about this a while back, and explained why lawful good doesn't mean you gotta be a buzzkill.

That said it's very unlikely a lawful good character will work will with anyone that isn't either in the good alignment or is lawful neutral. If all the party wants to be is a bunch of murder hobos who kill first and not bother asking questions. Then there was no hope for that group anyway

But Lawful good can be flexible, for example say the party wants to take down some big bad gov official, but the means to do it are less then honorable.

The Lawful good guy probably wouldn't go along with it, but if all other options are exhausted, then he wouldn't get in their way either, and instead would do what he could on his end to buy the rest of the team as much time as possible.

I would also view the lawful part as more militant then anything. I won't lie lawful good...is NOT an easy alignment to roleplay. But it's not disingenuous to the party either.

All of that really had nothing to do with what I said. the fact that YOU have a reason "why lawful good doesn't mean you gotta be a buzzkill", doesn't mean the a player or his/her DM agree with you. Lawful good is as flexible or inflexible as the player, DM and/or game/setting wants.


Just ran across this and had a good chuckle.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think, though, we can say that the problem here is the "Desna's Shooting Star" feat and not anything else. That feat is unreasonable on, say, mono-classed bards.

It's one of few feats I have outright banned.

I've been looking at it for a bit, and don't see what the fuss is. Prior to obtaining the Returning property, the Initial Benefit does little for you unless you wand into melee with one of the worst weapons in the game (making yourself a front-liner, and therefore eligible to eat all the inbound damage and fort-saves a full-BAB class is better equipped to deal with). Unless you're routinely throwing your weapons away and picking them up after the fight is over.

DSS won't stack with Smite, and the Advanced Benefit is worse than vanilla Manyshot with a bow (assuming you're reliably up to four shots per round by then, which you ought to be since the Advanced prerequisites are Dex 17, Divine Fighting Technique, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, and 11th level minimum). Even if he avoided the prerequisites somehow, he still averages 2.5 attacks per full-attack, which is not more and often less than if he just threw any old thing with the Returning property. Or, again, shot a bow, and didn't have to worry about all those crappy increment penalties that throwers have to keep track of.

...what am I missing?

Oh. The Blinkback Belt.

Idea: ban that.

(Mutation Warriors with four arms may also be problematic.)


Well, the only other way to get a thrower who gets the same stat to attack and damage on a thrown weapon is with a 14,000 GP item that eats your belt slot. It's not "Cha to hit with a bad weapon" it's "Cha to hit and damage" with a bad weapon. So a Cha 20 character at level 1 with Desna's Shooting Star gets +5 to hit and deals an average of 7.5 damage.

Blinkback belt can be skipped with Martial Focus + Ricochet Toss.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Well, the only other way to get a thrower who gets the same stat to attack and damage on a thrown weapon is with a 14,000 GP item that eats your belt slot.

It pretty much allows a viable melee/throwing character using Cha: They aren't going to outshine any 'normal' top tier melee/ranged by a long shot, so I've never understood the uproar over the feat. At best it gets you to ok.

And in THIS thread, it's actually worse for a paladin than using str [that has smite]...

601 to 650 of 961 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Why all the Paladin hate? All Messageboards

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.