Cleric Alignment Rules and the Paladin


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So I was thinking in regards to the new cleric alignment rules for 2E and was wondering how this could affect the Paladin. For example the Paladin for Asmodeus would no longer be a talking point since Asmodeus probably will no longer have LN clerics.

One of my favorite deities in Pathfinder is Milani, and I always wanted to play a Paladin serving her which was impossible. However in 2E I could see Milani’s Cleric alignments being CG, NG, and LG. Milani does respect lawful authority when it serves the people and paladins are known to be able to stand against a government if it no longer serves the public good and wellfare (see Hell’ Rebels for examples) thus making her a possible choice for LG clerics and thus paladins. And paladins are now able to lie if it is done to protect people and save lives. Also Milani is disgusted by Galt a CN nation and is usage of revolution for anarchy and mob rule, which makes me believe she wouldn’t accept a CN cleric.

Sorry for the rant. But my main point is with this new treatment of Gods and alignment we could see paladins being able to serve deities who could be other than LG, NG or LN if they allow their clerics to be LG. What are your thoughts?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Given James Jacobs' heavy dislike of the whole Paladin of Asmodeus thing, I have no doubt they will definitely be excised from PF2E.

As for increasing which gods have Paladins in their portfolio? It might happen, though as long as the Paladin a, stays LG; and b, has some form of steer as to how to portray someone who is LG with a CG (for example) god, then it might work.


With the new alignment rules for Clerics, Asmodeus could certainly have Lawful Neutral Clerics/etc. if he wanted them. Some trait or feat (that now I can't remember the name of) even exists in Pathfinder 1st Edition that lets you treat Asmodeus as a Lawful Neutral deity for worship compatibility purposes, thus theoretically re-allowing Paladins of Asmodeus in Pathfinder 1st Edition, if he wanted them.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I believe Jason Bulhman (sorry I misspelled the name) said in a know direction podcast that Asmodeus would not have Paladin followers.

I think that they would allow paladins to follow deities that allow LG clerics to work for them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So many threads on this OP. Some people indeed feel that paladins now could be any good, hell some people actually are in favor of paladins of any alignment.

What the devs will do remain to be seen, for now not a word as far im aware of what is happening the the class on these forums.

Personally my thoughts remain exactly the same as they were at the start.

If paladins arent only LG first try to homebrew them back in this for PF2, if it is too much work to make them back into LG, ban the class and only make LG NPCs.


and all of them are locked

I'm for any good and only because of how the pf1 paladin was written out showed nothing why that the paladin's powers could not have come from any of the celestial planes instead of just he LG heavens.

that is just me...

but even then, it is still just from a certain point of view and not to go and look through a keyhole at it as one might miss the big picture


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

hell some people actually are in favor of paladins of any alignment.

(snip)

Personally my thoughts remain exactly the same as they were at the start.

If paladins arent only LG first try to homebrew them back in this for PF2, if it is too much work to make them back into LG, ban the class

Remind me not to share a table with you. You seem to hate fun.

Why in the world a fairly intuitive playstyle like 'martial focus with modest amounts of healing and buffing functionality, tied to Charisma' needs to be LG only, why letting that be Any Alignment is controversial, is beyond me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
RickDias wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

hell some people actually are in favor of paladins of any alignment.

(snip)

Personally my thoughts remain exactly the same as they were at the start.

If paladins arent only LG first try to homebrew them back in this for PF2, if it is too much work to make them back into LG, ban the class

Remind me not to share a table with you. You seem to hate fun.

Why in the world a fairly intuitive playstyle like 'martial focus with modest amounts of healing and buffing functionality, tied to Charisma' needs to be LG only, why letting that be Any Alignment is controversial, is beyond me.

Paladins seem to be the leading cause of smug in gaming today. ;)


I'm normally vegan, and I normally try to avoid fast food, but if one of these places would serve hamburger made with sacred cow, I could be persuaded to reconsider . . . .


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

I'm normally vegan, and I normally try to avoid fast food, but if one of these places would serve hamburger made with sacred cow, I could be persuaded to reconsider . . . .

Don't forget to ask them to put on some sacred cow cheese and a sacred cow milkshake on the side. Now is you could find a sacred pig for some sacred bacon... Mmmmmmmm..... Bacon....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I kind of feel that the overpoweredness of Paladins needs to be tempered by being LG only.

Any deviation from this would mean that chaos and evil would cover the world in total darkness.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Wait Paladin's are overpowered? Why would devs deliberately make a class overpowered? That seems like a bad idea, especially as for people who wanted to play LG anyway the alignment isn't a restriction and thus changes balance not at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Wait Paladin's are overpowered? Why would devs deliberately make a class overpowered? That seems like a bad idea, especially as for people who wanted to play LG anyway the alignment isn't a restriction and thus changes balance not at all.

Because it isn't just an Alignment - The Alignment is part of it, the code is another part.

Yes, 1 on 1, a Paladin (Especially at higher levels) will Wreck a Fighter if they both are similar type combatants. The Paladin will triple wreck the Fighter if the Fighter is evil.

But yes, the Paladin has extra powers, and has always had specific powers, because they have to play by a higher set of rules than other people. No poisons, no fighting dishonorably, etc.

The idea is that a Paladin fighting "Fair" has to be just as effective as a Fighter fighting "Dirty" because the Paladin *has* to fight fair.

LG non-Paladin Fighter comes across a sleeping bandit. Sneaks up, Coup De Grace.

LG Paladin comes across a sleeping bandit. Sneaks up, Coup De Grace, and then falls from Grace because they acted without honor or fairness.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Wait Paladin's are overpowered? Why would devs deliberately make a class overpowered? That seems like a bad idea, especially as for people who wanted to play LG anyway the alignment isn't a restriction and thus changes balance not at all.

They're not. Some people say they are. In PF1 they are better than the fighter sure, but equal to barbarian, bloodrager, etc. Spellcasters are like 5 leagues ahead still


Malk_Content - To explain the power of a Paladin vs a Fighter for example I will use my PFS Paladin.

A Level 10 2-handed heavily armored PFS Fighter on average is going to look something like this:
+10 BAB, +2 Attack Bonus from Feats, +6 from Strength, +2 Weapon, +2 damage from feats, using a Greatsword, +2 damage from Weapon Training, +3 Dex (Full Plate w/ Armor Training 2), Full Plate, +2 Armor Enchantment, +2 Ring of Protection, +2 Cloak of Resistance, +2 Amulet of Natural Armor.

Probably a +2 Con bonus, and a -1 Wisdom

He will have Power Attack as well.

Stat Block:

Offense:
Attack (with Great Sword): +22 / +19 (Power Attack)
Damage (With Great Sword): 2d6+15 / 2d6+24 (Power Attack)

AC: 28

Saves:
Fort: +11
Ref: +8
Will: +4 (+7 vs Fear)

Now - My Paladin (swapping into Greatsword) doesn't have all of those bits and bobs. He's built to be a Paladin. However in combat they serve the same roll.

Offense:
Attack (With Great Sword): +18 / +15 (Smiting +23 / +20)
Damage: 2d6+9 / 2d6+15 (Smiting 2d6+19 / 2d6+25)

AC: 24 (27 while smiting)

Saves:
Fort: +15 (I also have a lower con)
Ref: +10 (and note I have a lower Dex)
Will: +13 (and mine has a -1 Wisdom)

On top of that I'm immune to fear, mind control, and disease.

On top of all of that, I can drop an LoH (of which I have a *lot* of per day) to add +2 Sacred Bonus to my AC (raising my AC to 26 / 29) I can increase the potency of my weapon (Divine Bond), I can cast spells, and - Importantly - I have a Swift Action LoH.

Every single round of combat I can self heal for 8d6+16 HP. If the Fighter manages to burst me down to 0, I can Hero's Defiance for 9d6+18.

If it is a straight 1 on 1 slug fest, the area the Fighter should be at his strongest, the odds are that the Paladin wins just from the fact that in a war of attrition he has so much more durability (despite probably having lower HP.) and that is because Paladins don't have the same options. The durability, longevity, and higher saves are there because the Paladin fights fair and has to fight fair.


Sort of agree with HWalsh. A paladin can kill a fighter easy (esp without advanced armor/weapon training) but a barbarian/bloodrager can keep up imo.


CactusUnicorn wrote:
Sort of agree with HWalsh. A paladin can kill a fighter easy (esp without advanced armor/weapon training) but a barbarian/bloodrager can keep up imo.

I don't disagree - Though, in my time, I have seen 2 Barbarians and 1 Blood Rager eat permadeath against things that I could stand up to simply due to saves and LoH.

(In the case of one of the Barbarians, he took the Cleric with him. Shield Other can bite you in the butt.)

The point is that the Paladin is stronger than normal because it has restrictions.

Barbarians do as well, as they have to be Chaotic.

Its not a claim about is the class stronger for the Paladin, it is the class is stronger than unrestricted classes *because* the Paladin has to fight fair.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Paladin"

"Overpowered"

I think I just turned into the dog from Duck Hunt, in real life.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
RickDias wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

hell some people actually are in favor of paladins of any alignment.

(snip)

Personally my thoughts remain exactly the same as they were at the start.

If paladins arent only LG first try to homebrew them back in this for PF2, if it is too much work to make them back into LG, ban the class

Remind me not to share a table with you. You seem to hate fun.

Why in the world a fairly intuitive playstyle like 'martial focus with modest amounts of healing and buffing functionality, tied to Charisma' needs to be LG only, why letting that be Any Alignment is controversial, is beyond me.

Paladins seem to be the leading cause of smug in gaming today. ;)

IDK, you dont play paladins.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So comparing them against one class means they are overpowered? Okay lets go with that.

Now lets get into the circular logic. They are overpowered? Why, because they are more restricted in their options due to alignment and code. Okay why is the class so restricted by alignment and code? They have to be, because otherwise they are overpowered!


Malk_Content wrote:

So comparing them against one class means they are overpowered? Okay lets go with that.

Now lets get into the circular logic. They are overpowered? Why, because they are more restricted in their options due to alignment and code. Okay why is the class so restricted by alignment and code? They have to be, because otherwise they are overpowered!

If you remove the restrictions placed on them, yes, they are overpowered.

With the restrictions they are not overpowered.

Edit to add:

I have proved this to GMs on 2 separate occasions. Take off the code, take off the alignment restrictions, etc and let me focus 100% on just maximizing the mechanics.

I can make something that can, and has, made a GM literally decide to put alignment and restrictions back into the game, from a game where he took them out, but only applied them to Paladin.

When a Paladin starts fighting dirty they become a LOT more of a headache than they are when you can count on them to fight fairly.


How do those restrictions of alignment and conduct matter when it comes to efficiency and viability in a group?

A paladin can't use poison... The damage isnt that exciting for the feat and money cost poison entails. Paladins cant sneak up on people... well hardly anyone in plate truly can. Paladins have to fight honourably... but that doesnt mean to act stupid. Just honourably. So what restrictions again? All is cost of opportunity.

And any small group in a regular setting welcome any paladin as long as he is well played.


And here we go again, another soon to be locked paladin thread. Meh, since it is going down anyway will, again, give my 2 cents.

Certain classes go beyond being just a bunch of powers tagged together, which is a great thing.

The fact one would think a paladin is:

RickDias wrote:
Why in the world a fairly intuitive playstyle like 'martial focus with modest amounts of healing and buffing functionality, tied to Charisma'

Is an oversimplification like the paladin could just be a fighter who happens to also have healing based on Charisma. They arent.

Im honestly quite glad the devs are not only keeping alignment restrictions they are even adding anathemas to clerics, this adds exactly to the paladin point. They are part of the world and this goes beyond a bunch simple class features.

Playing a paladin means something, which is unique to the paladin and changing any of its restrictions change what that means also.

RickDias wrote:
Remind me not to share a table with you. You seem to hate fun.

Dont worry, your concept of fun and mine are quite diferent clearly, since i dont believe fun comes from classes being just a bunch of disconnect features that makes no difference to the ingame world. So it will spare us both if you go play at someones else table.


Orville Redenbacher wrote:
IDK, you dont play paladins.

Oh, you don't have to play one to hear about them. They are the hybrid/electric car of RPG's... :P

RickDias wrote:

"Paladin"

"Overpowered"

I think I just turned into the dog from Duck Hunt, in real life.

Squirrel!!!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Certain classes go beyond being just a bunch of powers tagged together, which is a great thing.

Any well written character goes beyond being just a bunch of powers tagged together. I could say the EXACT SAME THING about any well written Wizard, Sorcerer, Ranger, Monk, whatever.

Quote:

The fact one would think a paladin is:

RickDias wrote:
Why in the world a fairly intuitive playstyle like 'martial focus with modest amounts of healing and buffing functionality, tied to Charisma'
Is an oversimplification like the paladin could just be a fighter who happens to also have healing based on Charisma. They arent.

Here's the thing. What I just described is a playstyle that ought to be open to a far wider range of concepts than 'LG only.' It doesn't have to be called a Paladin, but I damn well want the playstyle I described to be more widely available.

Quote:
Im honestly quite glad the devs are not only keeping alignment restrictions (snip) paladin (snip)

Would like a citation on the alignment restriction being retained for 2E Paladins. First I've heard of this.

Quote:
Playing a paladin means something,

So does playing a Fighter, Sorcerer, Bard, Cleric, Warpriest, Skald, Magus, etc.

Your elitism is showing. You might want to tend to that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CactusUnicorn wrote:
Sort of agree with HWalsh. A paladin can kill a fighter easy (esp without advanced armor/weapon training) but a barbarian/bloodrager can keep up imo.

Barbarian/Bloodrager keep up..with damage. They don't keep up with survivability, ability to weather magical attack or ability to do all the non hp damage things adventuring entails.


no paladins should not have to fight honorably.
you think their enemies will?? think not.

most honored forum moderators, me thinks this thread needs examined


RickDias wrote:
Any well written character goes beyond being just a bunch of powers tagged together. I could say the EXACT SAME THING about any well written Wizard, Sorcerer, Ranger, Monk, whatever.

The game doesnt care for your writting really since it cant accommodate for everything you could create. That is for the table to decide react on. The class itself on the other hand must have flavor to distinguish itself from all others.

Playing a paladin is playing a paladin, so is playing a wizard and so on.

The world comes forth and reacts to what you are playing on a basic level aswell. Cause no matter your story, a wizard isnt a paladin even if also is LG. While the GM reacts to what you made during the story on another level.

Quote:
Here's the thing. What I just described is a playstyle that ought to be open to a far wider range of concepts than 'LG only.' It doesn't have to be called a Paladin, but I damn well want the playstyle I described to be more widely available.

Wanting a play style doesnt justify changing a well know class over. That simple.

What made paladins unique in PF1 should remain what make them unique in PF2.

There is a reason paizo kept trying later with stuff like warpriest, which thus fill the concept you are looking for.

Quote:
Would like a citation on the alignment restriction being retained for 2E Paladins. First I've heard of this.

Its called text edting. You just cut the part where I clearly say they made it for CLERICS. Which is why im hopeful for paladins.

Quote:

So does playing a Fighter, Sorcerer, Bard, Cleric, Warpriest, Skald, Magus, etc.

Your elitism is showing. You might want to tend to that.

Your desire to see others as elitists so you can attempt to discredit others is the only thing showing. Nothing i said was excluse for the paladins.

Yes it should mean something to play every single class. Which is why im happy for the cleric that got anathemas to further set it in the world in a logical and distinguished sense.

One can only hope every class is unique enough to bring about things the game world will recognize them for and react to. Like the paladin does. Cause it certanly isnt this way in PF1 for all classes unfortunately , but it sure is for a paladin and in my games i will make sure it remains the same.

Well anyway, this is a waste of time till we see how it will work for PF2. One of us clearly already got our way, cause the paladin is already in the game and it isnt going anywhere, lets see what the devs decided on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wonder how much trouble it would be to sue/ask/bribe paizo to remove the paladin from the crb 2.0 and not put it back in the game until they do a faiths of the inner sea 2.0


HWalsh wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Wait Paladin's are overpowered? Why would devs deliberately make a class overpowered? That seems like a bad idea, especially as for people who wanted to play LG anyway the alignment isn't a restriction and thus changes balance not at all.

Because it isn't just an Alignment - The Alignment is part of it, the code is another part.

Yes, 1 on 1, a Paladin (Especially at higher levels) will Wreck a Fighter if they both are similar type combatants. The Paladin will triple wreck the Fighter if the Fighter is evil.

But yes, the Paladin has extra powers, and has always had specific powers, because they have to play by a higher set of rules than other people. No poisons, no fighting dishonorably, etc.

The idea is that a Paladin fighting "Fair" has to be just as effective as a Fighter fighting "Dirty" because the Paladin *has* to fight fair.

LG non-Paladin Fighter comes across a sleeping bandit. Sneaks up, Coup De Grace.

LG Paladin comes across a sleeping bandit. Sneaks up, Coup De Grace, and then falls from Grace because they acted without honor or fairness.

Most classes are going to look OP compared to a fighter.

A paladin is very well balanced in a group with a wizard, cleric and alchemist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Still NOBODY has given a reason why Lawful Good (which is NOT the only Good alignment with restrictions) is so special as to get the only usable Paladin (or the exclusive sneak preview on the new Paladin) AND Chaotic Evil is so special as to get the main Antipaladin (although as of a handful of years ago, finally not the only usable one). Although I did finally manage to scrape the bottom of the barrel for one reason for this: If a Dragon eats a Paladin and an Antipaladin, this ensures that they will completely cancel out, leaving the Dragon hungry . . . assuming that this didn't instead cause a massive explosion . . . .


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want to be paladin...sorry, I mean honest, with you
I have no Idea. I don't exactly think that LG is so special (and in my parties it gets usually dubbed as 'boring good')
I am a lot for Paladins just beeing good. (Emphasis on good, neutral paladins can call themselves chevaliers and go unblessed)
It makes a certain sense to stick a strict code and a lawful class together, lawful can mean a lot of things.
(Hello to everyone who thinks a paladin has to have a stick up their blessed posteriors)

On the counterside I would say the only reason why CE gets the Antipaladin is because it is basically the evil twin which is the same but the opposite - the tyrant (LE Antipala) makes a lot more sense (And I think would be a lot more interesting to play)

Can't say much about a paladin beeing OP, didnt play them enough but I think restrictions because the char would be OP without them is a flawed concept and I REALLY hope that BS goes in pf2


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Nox Aeterna wrote:
RickDias wrote:
Any well written character goes beyond being just a bunch of powers tagged together. I could say the EXACT SAME THING about any well written Wizard, Sorcerer, Ranger, Monk, whatever.

The game doesnt care for your writting really since it cant accommodate for everything you could create. That is for the table to decide react on. The class itself on the other hand must have flavor to distinguish itself from all others.

Playing a paladin is playing a paladin, so is playing a wizard and so on.

The world comes forth and reacts to what you are playing on a basic level aswell. Cause no matter your story, a wizard isnt a paladin even if also is LG. While the GM reacts to what you made during the story on another level.

If my wizard voluntarily obeys the strictures of an appropriate code of conduct, dreams the impossible dream, and especially if he's a member of an appropriate in-game knightly order, you're damn tootin' he's a paladin. Just like there's lots of paladins who would never use that word, and may not have any kind of worldly or ecclesiastical title. Just like a Samurai could also be a Fighter, a Paladin, a Magus, or literally any other class that serves as a knight to a feudal lord in the 'Eastern' part of the setting. Just like a Sorcerer could absolutely call himself a Cleric of Nethys completely honestly. Just like the crime boss need not have a single level of rogue. Just like how Wizard, Witch, Arcanist, Magus, Sorcerer, Oracle, Shaman, can all easily be *completely interchangeable* terms within the context of the world. Because a class tells you what you can do, it does not, or at least *should not* tell you what you are.


Revan wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
RickDias wrote:
Any well written character goes beyond being just a bunch of powers tagged together. I could say the EXACT SAME THING about any well written Wizard, Sorcerer, Ranger, Monk, whatever.

The game doesnt care for your writting really since it cant accommodate for everything you could create. That is for the table to decide react on. The class itself on the other hand must have flavor to distinguish itself from all others.

Playing a paladin is playing a paladin, so is playing a wizard and so on.

The world comes forth and reacts to what you are playing on a basic level aswell. Cause no matter your story, a wizard isnt a paladin even if also is LG. While the GM reacts to what you made during the story on another level.

If my wizard voluntarily obeys the strictures of an appropriate code of conduct, dreams the impossible dream, and especially if he's a member of an appropriate in-game knightly order, you're damn tootin' he's a paladin. Just like there's lots of paladins who would never use that word, and may not have any kind of worldly or ecclesiastical title. Just like a Samurai could also be a Fighter, a Paladin, a Magus, or literally any other class that serves as a knight to a feudal lord in the 'Eastern' part of the setting. Just like a Sorcerer could absolutely call himself a Cleric of Nethys completely honestly. Just like the crime boss need not have a single level of rogue. Just like how Wizard, Witch, Arcanist, Magus, Sorcerer, Oracle, Shaman, can all easily be *completely interchangeable* terms within the context of the world. Because a class tells you what you can do, it does not, or at least *should not* tell you what you are.

And that is where we have a fundamental gap.

I dont consider pathfinder to be such a sandbox game and i treat classes like i treat races and so on.

A paladin is a paladin, a wizard is a wizard, a fighter is a fighter...

A fighter, will never be a paladin, doesnt matter what he does, what his story says... as long as his sheet says fighter and not paladin, he isnt a paladin. He might be invited to become one for sure during the game, which would only make sense for me, but he isnt one.

If someone does this during creation i would directly advise to pick a class that represents what they actually want to play or atleast pick an archetype that justifies that jump.

Same way a goblin could say he is an elf, act like an elf, talk like an elf... and will still be a goblin. Nobody will say, well some might for the fun of it :P, "look at that elf".

A goblin is an goblin, an elf is an elf, a paladin a paladin and a wizard is a wizard.

Ofc, feel free to GM the way you want, to each their own.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Revan wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
RickDias wrote:
Any well written character goes beyond being just a bunch of powers tagged together. I could say the EXACT SAME THING about any well written Wizard, Sorcerer, Ranger, Monk, whatever.

The game doesnt care for your writting really since it cant accommodate for everything you could create. That is for the table to decide react on. The class itself on the other hand must have flavor to distinguish itself from all others.

Playing a paladin is playing a paladin, so is playing a wizard and so on.

The world comes forth and reacts to what you are playing on a basic level aswell. Cause no matter your story, a wizard isnt a paladin even if also is LG. While the GM reacts to what you made during the story on another level.

If my wizard voluntarily obeys the strictures of an appropriate code of conduct, dreams the impossible dream, and especially if he's a member of an appropriate in-game knightly order, you're damn tootin' he's a paladin. Just like there's lots of paladins who would never use that word, and may not have any kind of worldly or ecclesiastical title. Just like a Samurai could also be a Fighter, a Paladin, a Magus, or literally any other class that serves as a knight to a feudal lord in the 'Eastern' part of the setting. Just like a Sorcerer could absolutely call himself a Cleric of Nethys completely honestly. Just like the crime boss need not have a single level of rogue. Just like how Wizard, Witch, Arcanist, Magus, Sorcerer, Oracle, Shaman, can all easily be *completely interchangeable* terms within the context of the world. Because a class tells you what you can do, it does not, or at least *should not* tell you what you are.

And that is where we have a fundamental gap.

I dont consider pathfinder to be such a sandbox game and i treat classes like i treat races and so on.

A paladin is a paladin, a wizard is a wizard, a fighter is a fighter...

A fighter, will never be a paladin, doesnt matter what he...

Well that's the thing. I *did* pick a class that represented what I wanted to play. It has all the abilities I need to accomplish my vision. I'm just choosing a different social role than you expect.

Has no Fighter or Paladin ever called himself a Warrior in your games? Does no proud tribal warrior consider 'Barbarian' to be a pejorative term? For that matter, can his tribe have a Witch Doctor if they are not orcs? Are the Sklar-Quah SHoanti disallowed from calling their druidic spiritual leader the Sun Shaman? Has no one ever referred to a 'Witch of the Woods' or some such who was actually a druid or a sorcerer? Must every crime boss have levels in Rogue? Must all detectives have the Investigator class?


Revan wrote:

Well that's the thing. I *did* pick a class that represented what I wanted to play. It has all the abilities I need to accomplish my vision. I'm just choosing a different social role than you expect.

Has no Fighter or Paladin ever called himself a Warrior in your games? Does no proud tribal warrior consider 'Barbarian' to be a pejorative term? For that matter, can his tribe have a Witch Doctor if they are not orcs? Are the Sklar-Quah SHoanti disallowed from calling their druidic spiritual leader the Sun Shaman? Has no one ever referred to a 'Witch of the Woods' or some such who was actually a druid or a sorcerer? Must every crime boss have levels in Rogue? Must all detectives have the Investigator class?

The point isnt that you cant be things, the point is you cant outright be other classes and so on.

For example going back the wizard, if he behaved exactly like a paladin, he would eventually, as you gain power so you should gain fame, be know for being always true, for helping defend those who need, for fighting evil...

Pretty much for the things a paladin is, but at no point any NPC who can understand the diference would ever call him or treat him like he is a paladin.

Simply put, they would often say "you are fit to be a paladin", "you remind of the great paladins", but never, "you are a paladin". Ofc, this stuff is out of place, but you got the idea the general idea.

Taking the barbarian, you could have a barbarian that doesnt like to be called a barbarian. He is still one, but he doesnt like the name, this means as his fame grow and people catch wind of this, they would either respect him and not call him that or outright use this to get him pissed. What he is didnt change, but the world reacts to it.

This is a good example for the goblin case, he might really hard want everyone to treat him like an elf, people know he isnt, but they can come around to treating him like one if they like him or using the fact he is a goblin to get to him. This again didnt change what he is, just made the world react to it in a way that favors the players vision with time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Revan wrote:

Well that's the thing. I *did* pick a class that represented what I wanted to play. It has all the abilities I need to accomplish my vision. I'm just choosing a different social role than you expect.

Has no Fighter or Paladin ever called himself a Warrior in your games? Does no proud tribal warrior consider 'Barbarian' to be a pejorative term? For that matter, can his tribe have a Witch Doctor if they are not orcs? Are the Sklar-Quah SHoanti disallowed from calling their druidic spiritual leader the Sun Shaman? Has no one ever referred to a 'Witch of the Woods' or some such who was actually a druid or a sorcerer? Must every crime boss have levels in Rogue? Must all detectives have the Investigator class?

The point isnt that you cant be things, the point is you cant outright be other classes and so on.

For example going back the wizard, if he behaved exactly like a paladin, he would eventually, as you gain power so you should gain fame, be know for being always true, for helping defend those who need, for fighting evil...

Pretty much for the things a paladin is, but at no point any NPC who can understand the diference would ever call him or treat him like he is a paladin.

Simply put, they would often say "you are fit to be a paladin", "you remind of the great paladins", but never, "you are a paladin". Ofc, this stuff is out of place, but you got the idea the general idea.

Taking the barbarian, you could have a barbarian that doesnt like to be called a barbarian. He is still one, but he doesnt like the name, this means as his fame grow and people catch wind of this, they would either respect him and not call him that or outright use this to get him pissed. What he is didnt change, but the world reacts to it.

This is a good example for the goblin case, he might really hard want everyone to treat him like an elf, people know he isnt, but they can come around to treating him like one if they like him or using the fact he is a goblin to get to him. This again didnt change what he is, just made the world react to it in a way that favors the players vision with time.

Ok, so this is the real hangup between the "Paladins should be any alignment" crowd and the "Paladins are LG only" crowd. You assume that when a rogue walks down the street people look at him and go "Oh, you're a rogue!" I expect that such metagame terms would never cross an NPC's mind or lips, and instead they would say "Good morning Ambassador, how are you doing today?" In none of my roleplaying games would anyone use an OOC term like class while in character. NPCs don't ask "What Class are you?" It's just not a thing. In other words, a "Cleric" character doesn't have to be a member of the in-world clergy.

Classes are just bundles of skills and abilities, sometimes with some cool lore attached. I don't mind house-ruling the narrative backing to the class, however, because at the end of the day all a "class" does is give me a bundle of abilities that I'm trusting not to be broken within the system of the game. In my mind, I should be able to take the Paladin mechanic and make him a gruff old soldier who happens to be very good at protecting allies. He follows a code, but it might be the oath of service he took to join the guards rather than a religious oath.

This viewpoint comes from me seeing the CRB, and other rulebooks, as nothing more than tools to help me tell the story I want to tell as a player or GM. The golden rule is: discard any rule that gets in the way of the fun. In other words, the specific table you're at trumps the RAW if that's what's needed. So I don't mind houseruling stuff, and I'm probably just going to houserule in a more flexible "Paladin" chassis that allows all alignments and deities.

Your way of thinking is closer to a certification to practice a certain profession, like a doctor. Or like a video game where the classes are often recognized by NPCs as a feature of the world at large. In your worlds, the NPCs would have a conversation kind of like this:

"Do you think the Ambassador is lying to us?"

"Of course he is! He's a level 10 Rogue after all!"

"Nonsense, not all Rogues have to lie! Besides, he seems like a nice person."

With class being just as immutable as race or the country you are currently standing in, I can see why the restriction on Paladins matters to you so much. Your characters - and by extension you - go from being instantly recognized by all who see you as the highest paragons of virtue to being only one of many loyal followers of many different ideals. When people see your Paladin, they no longer know instantly who you are or what you stand for.

I suppose it's comparable to the whole Jedi-Sith thing in KOTOR. When people see your lightsaber, they knew you were a Jedi... but the Sith had so tainted "what it meant to be a Jedi" that the lightsaber no longer won you any respect. I can see how going from "Instant respect at every Inn" to "Are you one of those Chaotic Paladins? What's the difference anyways?" would be rather sad.

I think the following might fix this issue:
There is some kind of "Holy Warrior" class that has most of the Paladin mechanics but none of the Paladin flavor. We'll call it a Champion.

"Paladin" is an archetype that has the following features:
- It is LG-only
- When applied to Champions it looks exactly like the current Paladin, or something even better
- It comes with membership in some kind of in-character group that is also called "paladins." Members of this in-game group may not have all of the mechanical things that the "Paladin Champion" has, but all members of this in-character group have all of the flavor that makes Paladins special, including the Paladin Code.
- Narratively speaking, paladins are known and respected throughout Golarion in a way that Champions are not because this group of officially licenced paladins (like a guild) is known throughout Golarion and all its members are instantly recognizable
- All Paladins are LG, but not all LG Champions will be forced to be Paladins or to take the Paladin oath.
- To respect the long history of Paladins as a class, perhaps more space should be given to this archetype than would normally be given to an archetype. It could even be a sub-class. Shoot, I wouldn't even mind if the any-aligned "Champion" was a sub-class of Paladin.

I think that with constructive discussion we can have both a holy champion of each alignment/philosophy/deity that fills the same general mechanical niche as paladins do as well as a Paladin that doesn't feel watered down by the existence of other holy warriors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

I'm normally vegan, and I normally try to avoid fast food, but if one of these places would serve hamburger made with sacred cow, I could be persuaded to reconsider . . . .

Don't forget to ask them to put on some sacred cow cheese and a sacred cow milkshake on the side. Now is you could find a sacred pig for some sacred bacon... Mmmmmmmm..... Bacon....

All bacon is sacred. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
graystone wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

I'm normally vegan, and I normally try to avoid fast food, but if one of these places would serve hamburger made with sacred cow, I could be persuaded to reconsider . . . .

Don't forget to ask them to put on some sacred cow cheese and a sacred cow milkshake on the side. Now is you could find a sacred pig for some sacred bacon... Mmmmmmmm..... Bacon....
All bacon is sacred. ;)

I like the cut of your jib! :)

Liberty's Edge

Isn't it great that PF1 allows people to play in the two styles described above, even if they are incompatible at the same table ?

I expect PF2 will be even more inclusive of different playstyles and point of views


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
CactusUnicorn wrote:
Sort of agree with HWalsh. A paladin can kill a fighter easy (esp without advanced armor/weapon training) but a barbarian/bloodrager can keep up imo.
Barbarian/Bloodrager keep up..with damage. They don't keep up with survivability, ability to weather magical attack or ability to do all the non hp damage things adventuring entails.

You've never played with a good Barbarian, have you? Superstition solves any problems you may have with magical defense, and powers like Strength Surge, Spell Sunder, Elemental Blood, and many more give the Barbarian ample problem solving that go far beyond just damage.

It's a pretty close race but I'd personally say the Barbarian is better than the Paladin.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SilverliteSword wrote:
Ok, so this is the real hangup between the "Paladins should be any alignment" crowd and the "Paladins are LG only" crowd. You assume that when a rogue walks down the street people look at him and go "Oh, you're a rogue!" I expect that such metagame terms would never cross an NPC's mind or lips, and instead they would say "Good morning Ambassador, how are you doing today?" In none of my roleplaying games would anyone use an OOC term like class while in character. NPCs don't ask "What Class are you?" It's just not a thing. In other words, a "Cleric" character doesn't have to be a member of the in-world clergy.

Exactly. A character's race is an independent facet of their being within the game world. An elf is an elf is an elf and will not be a goblin. This is something that can be recognized in-universe. Class is (and can only ever be) a collection of abilities thematically associated with each other, organized as needs be to allow a player in said class to be able to contribute at all levels of the game. They should certainly be inspired by certain concepts, and ideally, they will also be inspiring certain concepts out of the players that read these classes and have their imagination sparked further. At no point is a forced marriage of the two warranted.

Classes being recognizable things in-universe just strikes me as horribly contrived and very poor writing. Who remembers the first Fantastic Four movie (well, first one in this millenium)? Do you remember the scene where they first use their powers to save a fire engine on a bridge (and a few other things)? After things calm down, they're separated by the police and we have one reporter calling out, "What do you call yourselves?".

No one would ask that. That character asked what he did because the writers wanted to set up an expectation that the Four would eventually be a superhero group, and somehow that character read ahead in the script and knew it would be a thing. But otherwise, no group of people, even a group of super-powered beings who all show up at the same time and all pitch in to save the day and who all seem to know each other, would be expected to have a special name that they'd call themselves. Contrived. The only character I could seriously see recognizing something like a class in-universe would be Deadpool.

If characters can recognize class, why does it end there? Shouldn't the people in-universe also know about the almighty d20? Or hit points? Or how the movement and placement of objects in their world seems to adhere to a 5-foot grid? Wouldn't they know just as much as the players sitting at the table that Talking is a Free Action? For that matter, wouldn't they know about their status as NPCs?

Like SilverliteSword, my goal for any RPG is "how can you best help me tell a story". Classes being things that can be knowable is as contrary to that as you can get.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:
Classes being recognizable things in-universe just strikes me as horribly contrived and very poor writing.

This really depends on the Class.

Wizards, for example, are basically the only spell casters who learn how to cast magic from books, and do so in a highly specific manner. They are thus, for the most part, a distinct in-universe entity and can be recognized as such. If Arcanists exist most people might not be able to tell the difference between the two, but another Wizard or Arcanist definitely could if they discussed the differences in how the cast spells, and people certainly wouldn't mistake a Wizard for anything else except an Arcanist (and vice versa).

The same is true of most spell casters, actually, though there are occasional bits of overlap (Warpriest and Cleric, for example, are hard to distinguish in-universe), most casters are actually pretty distinct from each other if you know what you're looking for.

Now, in terms of non spell casters (Slayers, Fighters, Rogues, Brawlers, spell-less Rangers, etc.) I tend to agree that nobody in-universe has any real way to tell the difference, but with magic a codified in-universe thing, spell casters and others with overtly supernatural abilities (like Paladins) can usually be distinguished from each other. There's definitely some bleeding around the edges (Warpriests with Smite Evil exist and are basically indistinguishable from Paladins, for example) but for the most part? A lot of Classes distinctly do exist as in-world things.


SilverliteSword wrote:

Ok, so this is the real hangup between the "Paladins should be any alignment" crowd and the "Paladins are LG only" crowd. You assume that when a rogue walks down the street people look at him and go "Oh, you're a rogue!" I expect that such metagame terms would never cross an NPC's mind or lips, and instead they would say "Good morning Ambassador, how are you doing today?" In none of my roleplaying games would anyone use an OOC term like class while in character. NPCs don't ask "What Class are you?" It's just not a thing. In other words, a "Cleric" character doesn't have to be a member of the in-world clergy.

Classes are just bundles of skills and abilities, sometimes with some cool lore attached. I don't mind house-ruling the narrative backing to the class, however, because at the end of the day all a "class" does is give me a bundle of abilities that I'm trusting not to be broken within the system of the game. In my mind, I should be able to take the Paladin mechanic and make him a gruff old soldier who happens to be very good at protecting allies. He follows a code, but it might be the oath of service he took to join the guards rather than a religious oath.

This is not at all the hangup for me. I don't really care how NPCs see my character. I don't care if no one (or everyone) realizes my paladin is holy knight. That's not the point. The hangup for me is your next paragraph. Classes are not just bundles of mechanics. They absolutely must have flavor, or there is no point. And the flavor of the Paladin is best described as Lawful Good. I don't actually care about the alignment restriction by itself. But when you take away the alignment restriction, you take away the flavor.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:
SilverliteSword wrote:

Ok, so this is the real hangup between the "Paladins should be any alignment" crowd and the "Paladins are LG only" crowd. You assume that when a rogue walks down the street people look at him and go "Oh, you're a rogue!" I expect that such metagame terms would never cross an NPC's mind or lips, and instead they would say "Good morning Ambassador, how are you doing today?" In none of my roleplaying games would anyone use an OOC term like class while in character. NPCs don't ask "What Class are you?" It's just not a thing. In other words, a "Cleric" character doesn't have to be a member of the in-world clergy.

Classes are just bundles of skills and abilities, sometimes with some cool lore attached. I don't mind house-ruling the narrative backing to the class, however, because at the end of the day all a "class" does is give me a bundle of abilities that I'm trusting not to be broken within the system of the game. In my mind, I should be able to take the Paladin mechanic and make him a gruff old soldier who happens to be very good at protecting allies. He follows a code, but it might be the oath of service he took to join the guards rather than a religious oath.

This is not at all the hangup for me. I don't really care how NPCs see my character. I don't care if no one (or everyone) realizes my paladin is holy knight. That's not the point. The hangup for me is your next paragraph. Classes are not just bundles of mechanics. They absolutely must have flavor, or there is no point. And the flavor of the Paladin is best described as Lawful Good. I don't actually care about the alignment restriction by itself. But when you take away the alignment restriction, you take away the flavor.

It's a subjective playstyle opinion, not an absolute.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I like how the Paladin blog from Monday supported my earliest guess of paladins being able to serve deities with LG Clerics.

I think in the end what I would like to see is the LG Paladin given a proper run on the playtest and then to have a paladin available for the 4 extreme alignments, LG Paladin, LE Tyrant, CE Conqurer(Anti-paladin), and the CG Liberator(?).


I want a ng paladin.... and im in the good only camp.

speaking of the paladin blog. I think it holds the record of being locked and unlocked the most here in the paizo forums.....

nothing to be proud of though

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Cleric Alignment Rules and the Paladin All Messageboards