| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point of option 4 is to say "Paladins are still LG, but you can play a 90% similar thing as a different alignment."
However, the point of the pill is more, "should paladins be a class," than "should paladins be LG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
no they're votes for paladin being LG.Yep. A LG archetype, a subset of a parent "Champion" class, with other alignments getting different archetypes.
I would vote for that too. I'm totally happy with that solution.
Sweet as long as they don't get called paladins or simply copy paste the paladin abilities onto a less behaviorally restrictive chassis.
Not sure what you call " simply copy paste". But those who voted that option, voted for Paladin being an archetype. While there are some differences between archetype and parent class, the main frame of the class is the same. A Beast Master Cavalier replace some proficiencies and the horse, for the ability to mount beasts. A Burglar is a Rogue who swaps Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge for some disabling device talents. And so on.
The point of option 4 is to say "Paladins are still LG, but you can play a 90% similar thing as a different alignment."
However, the point of the pill is more, "should paladins be a class," than "should paladins be LG.
But he thrust of the arguments isn't about whether it should be a class, archetype or prestige class. The thrust of the argument is, and has most always been about whether it should be LG alignment restricted or not.
You are far less likely to find someone bent out of shape if it was changed to a figher/cleric/cavalier archetype than you would if the alignment portion of the class was removed.
Not sure what you call " simply copy paste". But those who voted that option, voted for Paladin being an archetype. While there are some differences between archetype and parent class, the main frame of the class is the same. A Beast Master Cavalier replace some proficiencies and the horse, for the ability to mount beasts. A Burglar is a Rogue who swaps Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge for some disabling device talents. And so on.no they're votes for paladin being LG.Yep. A LG archetype, a subset of a parent "Champion" class, with other alignments getting different archetypes.
I would vote for that too. I'm totally happy with that solution.
Sweet as long as they don't get called paladins or simply copy paste the paladin abilities onto a less behaviorally restrictive chassis.
IF the CG "paladin analogue" swaps something out for Divine Grace, Lay hands, and Smite evil with higher bonuses vs LE, and the CN analogue gets Divine grace, Divine bond, and Smite Law. That's a copy/paste.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point of option 4 is to say "Paladins are still LG, but you can play a 90% similar thing as a different alignment."
However, the point of the pill is more, "should paladins be a class," than "should paladins be LG.But he thrust of the arguments isn't about whether it should be a class, archetype or prestige class. The thrust of the argument is, and has most always been about whether it should be LG alignment restricted or not.
Yes. But "LG paladins are a subset of a larger class with an alignment for different gods/ethos" is not a vote for "Paladins should be LG restricted". It's a vote that concede to call the parent class something else (like "Champion"), as long as it's still the same class, with minor differences. That's what an archetype is. Warpriest is not an archetype of Cleric. Evangelist is an archetype of cleric. An evangelist is pretty much a cleric, with a few touches that give him a different flavor.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Roughly 2 to 1 for LG onlyOur playtests are not a democracy. Our designers will evaluate feedback in the context of their own experiences.
Roughly 2 to 1 for LG onlyOur playtests are not a democracy. Our designers will evaluate feedback in the context of their own experiences.
I'm aware. Its more to shut up the attitude that there's some silent majority salivating at the thought of LG being removed from paladin requirements. There isnt.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
IF the CG "paladin analogue" swaps something out for Divine Grace, Lay hands, and Smite evil with higher bonuses vs LE, and the CN analogue gets Divine grace, Divine bond, and Smite Law. That's a copy/paste.Not sure what you call " simply copy paste". But those who voted that option, voted for Paladin being an archetype. While there are some differences between archetype and parent class, the main frame of the class is the same. A Beast Master Cavalier replace some proficiencies and the horse, for the ability to mount beasts. A Burglar is a Rogue who swaps Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge for some disabling device talents. And so on.no they're votes for paladin being LG.Yep. A LG archetype, a subset of a parent "Champion" class, with other alignments getting different archetypes.
I would vote for that too. I'm totally happy with that solution.
Sweet as long as they don't get called paladins or simply copy paste the paladin abilities onto a less behaviorally restrictive chassis.
Then stop counting the votes of option 4 for "your side", because an Archetype is exactly that. The base class, with a few mechanics changed for other mechanics. The "CG paladin Analogue" is so close to the base Paladin, as the current Hospitaler Paladin is to the current Sacred Shield Paladin. Two different ARchetypes of the same class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm aware. Its more to shut up the attitude that there's some silent majority salivating at the thought of LG being removed from paladin requirements. There isnt.Roughly 2 to 1 for LG onlyOur playtests are not a democracy. Our designers will evaluate feedback in the context of their own experiences.
It is split. It has always been split.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is split. It has always been split.I'm aware. Its more to shut up the attitude that there's some silent majority salivating at the thought of LG being removed from paladin requirements. There isnt.Roughly 2 to 1 for LG onlyOur playtests are not a democracy. Our designers will evaluate feedback in the context of their own experiences.
And the only ones claiming otherwise are the people trying to tally up support for their side, running around proclaiming about "2-to-1" and "no post no vote" other equally ridiculous things.
Then stop counting the votes of option 4 for "your side", because an Archetype is exactly that. The base class, with a few mechanics changed for other mechanics. The "CG paladin Analogue" is so close to the base Paladin, as the current Hospitaler Paladin is to the current Sacred Shield Paladin. Two different ARchetypes of the same class.IF the CG "paladin analogue" swaps something out for Divine Grace, Lay hands, and Smite evil with higher bonuses vs LE, and the CN analogue gets Divine grace, Divine bond, and Smite Law. That's a copy/paste.Not sure what you call " simply copy paste". But those who voted that option, voted for Paladin being an archetype. While there are some differences between archetype and parent class, the main frame of the class is the same. A Beast Master Cavalier replace some proficiencies and the horse, for the ability to mount beasts. A Burglar is a Rogue who swaps Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge for some disabling device talents. And so on.no they're votes for paladin being LG.Yep. A LG archetype, a subset of a parent "Champion" class, with other alignments getting different archetypes.
I would vote for that too. I'm totally happy with that solution.
Sweet as long as they don't get called paladins or simply copy paste the paladin abilities onto a less behaviorally restrictive chassis.
I"m chalking this up to the language barrier, but option 4 specifies LG only pretty clearly. and "split" is 50/50, its 66/33 LG only to Other alignments.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me explain it simply then.
It specifies that there will be AN LG OPTION. But as it is an archetype, it IMPLIES that there will be OTHER OPTIONS of that class, OTHER ARCHETYPES, that LACK THE LG REQUIREMENT.
Is that clearer?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I"m chalking this up to the language barrier, but option 4 specifies LG only pretty clearly. and "split" is 50/50, its 66/33 LG only to Other alignments.Then stop counting the votes of option 4 for "your side", because an Archetype is exactly that. The base class, with a few mechanics changed for other mechanics. The "CG paladin Analogue" is so close to the base Paladin, as the current Hospitaler Paladin is to the current Sacred Shield Paladin. Two different ARchetypes of the same class.IF the CG "paladin analogue" swaps something out for Divine Grace, Lay hands, and Smite evil with higher bonuses vs LE, and the CN analogue gets Divine grace, Divine bond, and Smite Law. That's a copy/paste.Not sure what you call " simply copy paste". But those who voted that option, voted for Paladin being an archetype. While there are some differences between archetype and parent class, the main frame of the class is the same. A Beast Master Cavalier replace some proficiencies and the horse, for the ability to mount beasts. A Burglar is a Rogue who swaps Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge for some disabling device talents. And so on.no they're votes for paladin being LG.Yep. A LG archetype, a subset of a parent "Champion" class, with other alignments getting different archetypes.
I would vote for that too. I'm totally happy with that solution.
Sweet as long as they don't get called paladins or simply copy paste the paladin abilities onto a less behaviorally restrictive chassis.
With just a little bit more effort you could be completely disingenuous. You're ALMOST there.
To be clear, it's completely clear #4 isn't a vote for LG only paladins, just for a LG version of that class as an archetype.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I"m chalking this up to the language barrier, but option 4 specifies LG only pretty clearly. and "split" is 50/50, its 66/33 LG only to Other alignments.
It specifies clearly LG only as a subset of the same class, with other subsets for different alignments. PEople who voted for it, like Orthos, also voted to remove the alignment restriction at all. I would vote for that too, it's good enough for me.
Trying to read "no other alignment for Paladins" into the people who voted "LG is a subset of the class, but you can get the same class with different alignements if you don't pick that specific archetype" is ludicrous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fine with the base class being LG so long as the archetypes or whatever play somewhat equally. We got 3/4 in PF1.
Let me explain it simply then.
It specifies that there will be AN LG OPTION. But as it is an archetype, it IMPLIES that there will be OTHER OPTIONS of that class, OTHER ARCHETYPES, that LACK THE LG REQUIREMENT.
Is that clearer?
You keep saying that over and over, I full well understand what it means. You seem to be interpreting it as There will be this other class that is basically identical to paladin but the LG archetype is titled paladin.
Thats not how it reads, especially given that it references several examples, including Warpriest (established in many threads as not good enough).
Paladin (meaning the mechanics that make up paladin and he rp baggage associated with it) as a LG only archetype of X other class does not mean read as reskin the paladin's mechanics with a different name then make a LG archetype named paladin.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's pretty exactly how I and several others interpreted it. So who's the one who's more off?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its more to shut up the attitude that there's some silent majority salivating at the thought of LG being removed from paladin requirements. There isnt.
No, you have no data to back up your opinion.
You've counted posts on one of many Paladin threads in the Playtest sub forum. You haven't counted the opinions of all the other posters talking about Paladins in this subforum
Nor have you counted the opinions of all the posters in all the other forum threads that aren't in this subforum.
And it's obvious that participants in this forum are a tiny minority of the people who own the PF1 Core Rulebook. And the even larger number of people who just use the PRD.
You've gotten the opinion of a few people who are replying in this thread. It's pretty laughable to try to try to stretch that to show that a majority of players want the Paladin to remain LG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fine with the base class being LG so long as the archetypes or whatever play somewhat equally. We got 3/4 in PF1.
I'm pretty sure most people who want different ethos for paladins will agree with that too. The name "paladin" is not that important. Call the main class "Heroe" if you want. Or Champion. Then you can be a Hero of Vengeance, a Hero of Ancients, and a Hero of devotion (just like in 5e), and plenty of other options, with different ethos and alignments. One of those options being LG, and called "paladin". I'm ok with that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin (meaning the mechanics that make up paladin and he rp baggage associated with it) as a LG only archetype of X other class does not mean read as reskin the paladin's mechanics with a different name then make a LG archetype named paladin.
Paladin being an archetype of another class, means exactly that. Being an archetype of another class.
Just like "Two handed specialist", "lore warden", and "two weapon warrior" are archetypes of fighter.
Even better: do you realize that Orthos said he voted for that option, and why? Are you really trying to explain him why did he vote for it?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't view archetypes equally to classes?
Classist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When will Pathfinder move into the 21st century and realize that alignment-based restrictions are simply silly and pose no basis for balance?
If we're dead set on forcing alignment, then I guess the best case is a base class like a cavalier or crusader with a LG Archetype called a Paladin, a LN version called the Enforcer, a CG version called the Freedom-Fighter or other derivative thereof, etc..
That's pretty exactly how I and several others interpreted it. So who's the one who's more off?
Not my fault you and several others somehow interpreted change paladin into a LG archetype of already existant holy warrior classes as Rename paladin something else then make it a LG archetype of its old chassis.
No, you have no data to back up your opinion.
I have more than you've presented in opposition thus far.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently soon because they've already talked about how they've removed some alignment restrictions but want to wait until the blog post.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's pretty exactly how I and several others interpreted it. So who's the one who's more off?Not my fault you and several others somehow interpreted change paladin into a LG archetype of already existant holy warrior classes as Rename paladin something else then make it a LG archetype of its old chassis.
In truth, neither of us has the answer, because we can't read the OP's mind and only s/he can say which is more accurate to what was meant.
So at best we are both operating off assumptions, which are clearly colored by our own biases and preferences.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's pretty exactly how I and several others interpreted it. So who's the one who's more off?Not my fault you and several others somehow interpreted change paladin into a LG archetype of already existant holy warrior classes as Rename paladin something else then make it a LG archetype of its old chassis.
Do you realize that you are the one doing that interpretation, right? Nobody else, including the guy who wrote the poll, and people who voted for that option, saw it like you, nor voted for that option trying to support your possition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's pretty exactly how I and several others interpreted it. So who's the one who's more off?Not my fault you and several others somehow interpreted change paladin into a LG archetype of already existant holy warrior classes as Rename paladin something else then make it a LG archetype of its old chassis.In truth, neither of us has the answer, because we can't read the OP's mind and only s/he can say which is more accurate to what was meant.
Already done:
The point of option 4 is to say "Paladins are still LG, but you can play a 90% similar thing as a different alignment."| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's pretty exactly how I and several others interpreted it. So who's the one who's more off?Not my fault you and several others somehow interpreted change paladin into a LG archetype of already existant holy warrior classes as Rename paladin something else then make it a LG archetype of its old chassis.In truth, neither of us has the answer, because we can't read the OP's mind and only s/he can say which is more accurate to what was meant.
Already done:
The point of option 4 is to say "Paladins are still LG, but you can play a 90% similar thing as a different alignment."
Well there it is!
That's pretty exactly how I and several others interpreted it. So who's the one who's more off?Not my fault you and several others somehow interpreted change paladin into a LG archetype of already existant holy warrior classes as Rename paladin something else then make it a LG archetype of its old chassis.In truth, neither of us has the answer, because we can't read the OP's mind and only s/he can say which is more accurate to what was meant.
Already done:
The point of option 4 is to say "Paladins are still LG, but you can play a 90% similar thing as a different alignment."
This literally comes out and says "paladins are LG"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently soon because they've already talked about how they've removed some alignment restrictions but want to wait until the blog post.
I can only hope.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This literally comes out and says "paladins are LG"
Yes. And as "I can play something which is 90% like the paladin, but with another alignment.
A Champion of Order with Detect Chaos, Aura of Order (+4 vs Confusion) and Smite chaos instead of Detect Evil, Aura of Devotion, and Smite Evil, is good enough for me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have more than you've presented in opposition thus far.
I"m not claiming that I know what other people think and how many of them there are that think that way and what percentage of the people who want to see Paladins in the game that might represent.
You're making up a bunch of numbers, then trying to create statistics out of those imaginary numbers, and then claiming that your statistics are a valid representation of what people who play Pathfinder think.
You'd honestly be more persuasive if you just talked about your own ideas and feelings, instead of creating imaginary statistics to make your ideas seem representative of the people who play Pathfinder.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Started counting stuff myself. At time I started collecting data, working off purely Unique votes:
People calling for an LG-only Paladin class (combining options 1 and 2): 32
People calling for non-Alignment-locked Paladins (Option 3 and 8): 24
People calling for a Holy Warrior class with "Paladin" as an LG-locked archetype of said class: 6
People that want Paladins to be Any Good: 2
- Notable (IMO): Among others that voted here: 2 overlap with Any Alignment, no unique overlap with any other
Now for some blending area
Among the various "Paladin as an Archetype of X":
People that also voted for Any Alignment: 5 (4 voted for Holy Warrior, fifth voted Fighter or Cav)
People that also voted for LG-locking: 2 (both voted for Holy Warrior, 1 also voted for Fighter, Cav saw no love)
Among the people that voted for the (IMO very nebulous) "Paragon of Good with a Code of Conduct":
Even split 3 and 3 of LG-Locked and Any Alignment
--
Conclusions: Comparing specifically LG-Locked to Any Alignment is more 4:3, not 2:1. Both dramatically outclass other options though. Which disappoints me as one of the 2 unique votes to "Any Good"
EDIT: Words
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, If I understand well, 5 of the 11 people who voted for "paladin as an archetype" also voted for "any Alignment", right?. With 2 voting for "LG only" and 6 having unique votes for "LG archetype, other archetypes for non LG"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
#3
Bring back Paladins of Freedom, Paladins of Tyranny, and Paladins of Slaughter from 3.5. Free up the restrictions so any god can have a Paladin.
It sucks as a GM when one of your players wants to be a paladin for a god that with the LG restriction wouldn't support it. Especially when your other players immediately jump on them for thinking it should be possible.
I want Paladins to be less dramatic so I don't have to worry about people crawling under each others skin at my table whenever anyone decides they want to play one.
any lawful
Aren't those Hellknights?
#3
Bring back Paladins of Freedom, Paladins of Tyranny, and Paladins of Slaughter from 3.5. Free up the restrictions so any god can have a Paladin.
It sucks as a GM when one of your players wants to be a paladin for a god that with the LG restriction wouldn't support it. Especially when your other players immediately jump on them for thinking it should be possible.
I want Paladins to be less dramatic so I don't have to worry about people crawling under each others skin at my table whenever anyone decides they want to play one.
You should check out Dragon issue #310 for more variants. Its called Champions of the Divine and details 5 more versions: Anarch, Avenger, Enforcer, Sentinel, and Incarnate. All have the Paladin chassis and most class features but with variations on spells and a feature here or there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny how this thread stopped being a poll almost immediately and just turned into "Paladin debate thread #147"
I suspect that by July (when the playtest still won't be out) this board will be at least 80% Paladin arguments. Perhaps we'll get a sub-board just for those.
Which is probably why one of the devs already declared in one of these threads that Paladins will be addressed in one of the early blog posts. Get the explosion of fights out of the way early and then move on.
Well, barring a miracle they're gonna leave some people pretty unhappy whatever they decide.
Like, to me, a Paladin is about "always doing the right thing while still playing by the rules" (which is harder than doing the right thing if you're free to ignore the rules) so either "Paladins can be CN now" or "Paladins are inextricably linked to service of a deity" are gonna annoy me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Croud:"RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE(etc)!!!!"
Randy Marsh:"We have to stop all these child abductions non-LG paladins!"
Croud:"RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!!"
Mayor:"It's not going to help the situation if all you people do is stand there and yell RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!"
Croud:"RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!"
BTW: 36 votes between options 1 and 2, and 34 between options 3 and 4 (didn't check for double votes, tho).
So, if we go by this poll, the answer is "the community is split about it".
4 is also a LG only option, which is my point.
Since its obviously going to have to go this way. At 5:54pm (since the use of the word currently is apparently easy to disregard)
1. 27 votes LG only option
2. 6 non duplicated, LG only option
4. 11 non duplicated LG only option
Total: 44 for LG only3. 22 votes, Open alignment
Demon Lord of paladins post for open alignment is all duplicate votes
Greystone's drop all alignments 1 non duplicate vote.
Total 23 for Open up their alignment totally.Roughly 2 to 1 for LG only
Good only is >50% duplicate votes from both sides.
4 makes "LG paladin" an archetype of a parent class without LG component. As I said before, if you agree with that, (and other people who want LG only paladins do too), it might be the solution.
Make a Paladin class, with multiple ethos, then give one of the archetypes the name of "true paladin" or whatever, give it a LG restriction, and those who want to play LG paladins can use that archetype and those who don't can use the parent class and/or other archetypes.
If we can agree with that, by consensus, I think we solved the issue.
Or leave the lg paladin the standard and all the others archetypes. Why should YOU object to that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which one would be paladins should remain like how they are but have archetypes that changes them to non-paladins named but similar classes with differing abilities and differing names I.E. crusader would be your CG pally, blackguard your LE, anti your CE etc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which one would be paladins should remain like how they are but have archetypes that changes them to non-paladins named but similar classes with differing abilities and differing names I.E. crusader would be your CG pally, blackguard your LE, anti your CE etc.
That would be option 4.
According to certain posters though, you'll still be a munchkin for wanting your divine grace in your copy-pasted class and you'll also be casting a vote to destroy those non-LG-only heretics, even though that's explicitly not what you're doing.