| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
So despite not having a single ability tied to Law and Order, and in fact reading more like a NG champion even down to the priorities in its new code, the Paladin is tied to LG yet again. But it doesn't have to end the playtest that way. If we're stuck with core paladin instead of core warpriest or cavalier, it should be Any Good.
And then we can give the other deities their own champions. Similar to but not the same as the Paladin, but with the intent of roughly balancing and being just as strong in their own ways. What I am (re)proposing is champions of the four axis. Not the four corners, not LG CG LE and CE, but the four axis of Good Evil Law and Chaos. For the sake of discussion I'll name them as Paladin, Blackguard, Enforcer and Vindicator respectively, but ultimately the names aren't too important except that the Chaotic one not be named Liberator because that has a very specific and sometimes problematic flavor.
Again, this leaves the Good one as the Paladin, as seen in the blog. So what about the others? They shouldn't just be light reskins of the Paladin; they should have their own feel, and their own focus. They shouldn't necessarily get the same abilities under a different name, except for Smite, but should in many cases get abilities that are /thematically/ similar, or are mirrored in different ways.
Say the Enforcer, as a voice of authority and order, gets abilities similar to the 4E warlord. Instead of Lay on Hands, they shout inspiring commands to grant temporary hit points. Instead of Divine Grace, they can further extend this inspiration to, as a reaction, mitigate incoming damage dealt to themself and their allies. Their answer to mercies is to accumulate abilities to control the battlefield and move, buff and grant extra actions to their allies. If they get auras at all, it's more like bardic inspiration in how it is executed.
Say the Vindicator, as a champion of the alignment of individuality, freedom and contrarianism, is more of a lone wolf. They don't really get abilities which directly help their allies like a paladin or enforcer would. Instead they focus on counterattacks, endurance and mobility. They can challenge foes to draw focus. Like the 3.x Crusader, they can delay damage that would be done to them and use it to empower themselves against their foes. Their answer to mercies lets them delay paying the piper longer, add powerful effects to their reprisal attacks, and stave off conditions as well. Instead of Divine Grace, they can add to AC like the Goodadin does to saves, and proc into an opportunity attack if this causes the opponent to miss.
Say the Blackguard, as the antithesis to the Paladin, has more mirrored talents but not in quite the same lazy way as the original Antipaladin. Instead of Lay on Hands to heal or harm, they can Defile like a Dark Sun wizard to destroy their surroundings and inflict pain to heal themselves. Their answer to Mercies empowers and widens this effect. Instead of Divine Grace for a save bonus, as a reaction they can spend a spell point to add their Cha modifier to the attack roll of a confirmed hit and maybe turn it into a critical, getting the point refunded if it doesn't work. Auras of reversed flavor do work for them, though.
That gives pretty much every deity access to champions who can serve their cause. Some deities can even deploy several different kinds of champions, depending on the need.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds good, although I'd like to see these AND the 4 corner types AND Neutral (likely Druidically-inclined) Holy Warriors.
Although maybe even more of a rethink is in order. Maybe have them get Domain Powers from their deities (or deity-equivalents, like the Green Faith for the Druidic Holy Warriors), and then make sure that the Domains all have options attractive to martials in them.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the paladin class does not allow Saerenrae to be a paladin without an alignment change, the class is wrong IMHO
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
A holy warrior for every alignment sounds great. I would prefer they keep the label "paladin" for Lawful Good ones, though.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A holy warrior for every alignment sounds great. I would prefer they keep the label "paladin" for Lawful Good ones, though.
Seems fair to me!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a paladin should be 'any good', the antipaladin could be 'any evil' imo
but chaotic and lawful counterparts would be a nice addition
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds good, although I'd like to see these AND the 4 corner types AND Neutral (likely Druidically-inclined) Holy Warriors.
Although maybe even more of a rethink is in order. Maybe have them get Domain Powers from their deities (or deity-equivalents, like the Green Faith for the Druidic Holy Warriors), and then make sure that the Domains all have options attractive to martials in them.
You are not the only one. I also like the 4 Corner Paladins and the Druids can represent the Neutral alignments.
Everybody has their own preference...including the employees of Paizo. As they said, that's why they are focusing on the LG Paladin for the playtest...and others will probably follow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I could get behind the warpreist being the chassis, and pally, vindicator, blackguard, etc being archetypes that delve deeper into law/chaos good/evil themes. I like alignment mechanics and agree with you that the pally should have some more law in its makeup.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm concerned, here.
I feel there are many voices, and they're getting swept into two camps. Posts like these--and I like your posts, and have appreciated your thoughtfulness--can unintentionally feed into that perception.
I mean, in life it makes sense, right? We tend to divide things in two. Side A and Side B. The brain simplifies.
When we look at the individuality of people though, it seems as though this debate is much more solvable, in a nuanced way. :/ I suspect that forcing us into Side A and Side B is ultimately doing more harm than good. It's setting us against one another, so while I love the thoughtfulness you've put into things--I'm asking you here, can you please look at this again?
Just going through some of the posters' own words, here, we can pluck out different reasonings:
Group 1: Group one appreciates the legacy of the paladin, and other aspects of the game.
Group 2: Group 2 is tied to one, though they love the story of the paladin. To them, it's a specific thing, just as wizards tend to learn from dusty old tomes.
Group 3: Hates alignment.
Group 4: Wants the mechanics/a tanking class. They don't care about the story behind paladin that much.
Group 5: There's an alignments warrior group, but I'm a little unsure how this group fits with the others. It seems as though this is sort of a catch-all, when its underlying pieces are really more diverse. For example, I've seen posters who fly under this banner so to speak, come out, nearly burst out, with other reasoning.
Group 5 is tricky. See, I suspect that this group is a real reason for some, but it might also be a red herring for others, because it isn't their main interest--it's just a flag they're marching under, so to speak. Politics makes strange bedfellows. Worse, by flying under this banner, it actually makes the problem worse. Let me get into that.
But first, say we break these concerns down. So, let's break them down and go: how can we address them, as individuals?
For Groups 1 and 2, they love the story so much that: For this group, the story is the thing. Getting called arrogant or smug doesn't help anyone, and misses the point with this group, because it falls into "we're side A or B, and I don't like A, so I'm going to simplify their stance." This happens to other groups, and I'll get to that in a minute.
For many, these are folks who genuinely love the story. That includes certain tenents, such as LG, Lay on Hands, and so on. It may be doubtful that can be pushed into cavalier, but...maaaaybe? I don't know? They've shown willingness to explore the concept of multiple classes--so long as the paladin story is preserved.
I suspect this group would make strong, very strong, allies for war priest, or the expansion of cleric options. Engage them that way, you'll find an enthusiastic set of players who want to be on your side. Check this out.
The main point to take away is: So long as the paladin story is preserved, that is what is important to them.
For Group 3: Group 3 is an old, old debate and has probably existed since the birth of the game. I've been playing since what, ages ago? <coughs>. Since alignment exists in PF, about what we can do are:
* Possibly small edits like Law into Ordered
* Explore L&C similarly to how they did the Code, and import more Laws of Robotics?
* More nuanced explanations of L&C.
I would not mind removing L&C entirely. See, it isn't just hate for "Law" that we see embodied in these arguments. Remember the goblins? People don't like rampaging murder hobos, either, to repeat some phrases. Same concerns, different banners. Paizo addressed part of these concerns with the code update.
In the end, I'd suggest that Group 3 is a separate, but connected group to these debates. Their concerns are real ones, but may be better served addressed at a system level, rather than a class one. Paizo's helped out in part by addressing the Code--but that's class level. This is a system level concern.
For Group 4, they want certain mechanics. It doesn't help when this group is called the minmaxers--in a very odd way, the play out between Groups 1 and 2, and 4 is very much the old story versus numbers debate that's been here since the beginning.
It's possible though, to offer Group 4 many options.
* There's barbarian who absolutely needs tankiness.
If we look at the numbers for Unchained Barbarian versus Paladin at 11th level, it works out. Say that at the start of each combat, the barbarian gets 40 free hit points. The paladin needs to spend a swift action to get...let's see. 5d6, that's an average of 3.5 so...17.5 hit points. That works out to 1 rage per battle, or 2 LoH per battle. The barbarian just gets it up front. If we add some Samurai-like tossing-off of status effects due to the barbarian's innate toughness, that's amazing.
* With Nature at certain levels granting a mount, there's an argument for cavalier-like abilities or archetypes--for many classes. Fighter? Check. Barbarian? Check. That opens doors, not closes them.
* Paizo too, could come forward and say that war priest would be in the next book. Which addresses group 5, too, to some degree.
* There is a good possibility that Core Cleric could end up serving as either Casty Priest or Warpriest, depending on your individual choices. The revised action economy suggests this further.
* Paizo too, could come forward and say that war priest would be in the next book.
For Group 5 though, the end issue is that we just don't have the details.
Yet.
We're creative, though, and this may be an area that Paizo can speak up with, and engage in conversation. I suspect they've laid some great groundwork--but, hey, let's talk and explore?
These many updates to the core system may not in the end address the number of people who genuinely want paladins of x, but that group is so muddled with other groups that I'm not sure how big it is, in the end. Too, if we can address player concerns more directly, with nuance and care--
--isn't that a good thing, overall?
So...I love your posts, man. I feel like things are getting swept into "big, overarcing banners," though, when they're really a convocation of smaller, more individual issues. I mean, in the end--if someone's concern is they want a tanky class but don't care about the paladin theme--is it fair to Group 1 or 2, or even Group 4 if we're trying to shove them all under the same roof?
This just seems like it harms everyone, and turns us on eachother, when what we really need to be doing is rolling dice, together.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
After combing through a few more responses, I feel we need a Group 6.
Group 6: Group 6 is concerned for the viability of other martial classes. They aren't as interested in the paladin story. They've been used to fighter being limited outside of combat, and having some limitations in general. Paladin in 1e is a great class--they'd like other martials to be that, too, and have that chance to shine.
We need to give this group some <3 during the playtest, by giving that same <3 to other classes. That will not happen if we keep tearing eachother apart.
I could some help here, 'ratty. :3 Paizo?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Thoughtful concerns about the Paladin debate)
I appreciate your concerns, I really do. That's part of why this thread exists. I wanted to show that it is possible for the tradition camp to still have their Good Paladin without it being diluted by a soft "any alignment" lack of focus, and it is simultaneously possible for the other alignments to also have similarly flavored champions with their own flavorful and mechanical identity. They can be their own thing that thematically reflects their alignment, and be awesome at it, but still dip a few Paladin conceits like Smite and Armor Mastery without weakening the Paladin.
I wrote all that up out of my frustration with the idea that the majority of deities can't have a Core sacred champion, the idea that armor mastery is somehow locked to LG, the idea that only LG can embody a code, the idea that players who have suffered in real life because of religion and fanaticism can't have a champion to play who won't make them uncomfortable and who won't just be a weak watered down reskin. Because none of those ideas are satisfactory. And I tried to take that frustration and channel it positively or constructively into showing that everyone can have something awesome without breaking the back of the Good paladin.
Anyway, that's why I made the thread. ^^
(Thoughtful concerns about the Paladin debate)I appreciate your concerns, I really do. That's part of why this thread exists. I wanted to show that it is possible for the tradition camp to still have their Good Paladin without it being diluted by a soft "any alignment" lack of focus, and it is simultaneously possible for the other alignments to also have similarly flavored champions with their own flavorful and mechanical identity. They can be their own thing that thematically reflects their alignment, and be awesome at it, but still dip a few Paladin conceits like Smite and Armor Mastery without weakening the Paladin.
I wrote all that up out of my frustration with the idea that the majority of deities can't have a Core sacred champion, the idea that armor mastery is somehow locked to LG, the idea that only LG can embody a code, the idea that players who have suffered in real life because of religion and fanaticism can't have a champion to play who won't make them uncomfortable and who won't just be a weak watered down reskin. Because none of those ideas are satisfactory. And I tried to take that frustration and channel it positively or constructively into showing that everyone can have something awesome without breaking the back of the Good paladin.
Anyway, that's why I made the thread. ^^
Hey, there. I appreciate you coming out and talking about it. I like your ideas, as well. What strikes me about them is that they're different flavors--they aren't quite champions of good as they are embodiments of a concept. The Chaotic one doesn't really strike me as Good, but more Neutral with Options. Which, given a champion of Chaos, that fits.
That there answers concerns of many of the different groups. I mean, that is my takeaway, but it doesn't make it the right one.
When you mentioned:
"...can't have a Core sacred champion, the idea that armor mastery is somehow locked to LG, the idea that only LG can embody a code."
* These struck me as also tied to groups 3 and 4, at first. As I thought about it--what about 4? I mean, if an armor/tanking class had been presented--would it have addressed some of the concerns?
Would you have still made the post? I'm curious, here. I mean, I do like your ideas. I don't...quite...feel they jive with paladin, per se. I mean, paladin is a story. The Chaos Warrior is...well, they're a Chaos Warrior and they need to be flexible across the spectrum. And...I like that? I do.
I guess in the end, I like your ideas, but I'd rather see them bolted into Warpriest, or Cleric. I'd like to see a discussion about alignment getting an update, too, because you mentioned the ability to take oaths. Am I making sense, here? Like, we're /almost/ on the same page, here.
Anyway, I wanted to address this that you'd said too, because it struck a chord with me: "...the idea that players who have suffered in real life because of religion and fanaticism can't have a champion to play who won't make them uncomfortable and who won't just be a weak watered down reskin."
* ...I was reminded that I'd run across examples on the other side of the fence, as well, that had cut deeply. So, I guess we have some of that in common? What I'd experienced at tables with CG Liberators, for example. What's happened there is that they've become bastions of American Freedom, given divine cause and power. ...that is as uncomfortable as you might imagine and well... it was also used as reasons to not follow a code, which is part and parcel of the paladin story.
It also comes into conflict with interpretations of alignment, so...Group 3?
Thankfully, with your writeup--that wouldn't be a thing, exactly. The CG Liberator isn't a "Liberator" or a paladin. The...story of the paladin gets preserved, and Chaos has its own thing. That's kinda cool. It might be a thing though, if it's bolted into the same chassis as paladin.
...do you see my concern, there? I like the concept, but...if it shifted to being bolted into say, cleric, I'd be right there with you. Or something.
We actually have a lot in common, maybe?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is, having a NG paladin and LN paladin completely miss the flavor many of us attribute to the Paladin. Why do you feel like the four axes option is better than the four corners option?
I would be fine with doing warpriest/cavalier/inquisitor in Core, and saving paladin for later. And I'd be fine with a four corners paladin. A "any Good" paladin would be frustrating. I definitely think there should be a compromise though, I just don't think paladins can lose the L in LG. A NG paladin isn't really a paladin for me.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This discussion reminded me of the Incarnate class from 3.5's Magic of Incarnum and how they divvied the powers between alignments.
Good: Your body shines with silvery light. You gain a +1 bonus to AC; this bonus improves by 1 for every five levels gained (+2 at 5th level, +3 at 10th, +4 at 15th, and +5 at 20th level).
Evil: An ash-gray aura surrounds you. You gain a +2 bonus on melee damage rolls; this bonus improves by 2 for every five levels gained (+4 at 5th level, +6 at 10th, +8 at 15th, and +10 at 20th level).
Lawful: You glow with a blood-red corona. You gain a +1 bonus on melee attack rolls; this bonus improves by 1 for every five levels gained (+2 at 5th level, +3 at 10th, +4 at 15th, and +5 at 20th level).
Chaotic: A faint green nimbus surrounds your body. You gain a 10-foot increase to your base land speed. This is considered a bonus. This increase improves by 10 feet for every five levels gained (+20 at 5th level, +30 at 10th, +40 at 15th, and +50 at 20th level).
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is, having a NG paladin and LN paladin completely miss the flavor many of us attribute to the Paladin. Why do you feel like the four axes option is better than the four corners option?
I would be fine with doing warpriest/cavalier/inquisitor in Core, and saving paladin for later. And I'd be fine with a four corners paladin. A "any Good" paladin would be frustrating. I definitely think there should be a compromise though, I just don't think paladins can lose the L in LG. A NG paladin isn't really a paladin for me.
Yes I would prefer Warpriest core myself, but as for the Paladin... Look at what Paizo posted yesterday. Look at their code.
Paizo has ALREADY given you a NG paladin.
That's what they posted. It has no ties to LG at all except the bit at the (bottom, lowest priority) of their code to respect legitimate authority.
There is nothing in what they posted that would not suit an "any Good" Paladin.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a design perspective, and a marketing perspective, it makes sense to have the class "Paladin" be a collection of mechanics that is suitable for a majority of tables, and making a "Champion" class with a variety of options mechanically identical to the standard paladin makes the most sense. Don't get me wrong: I have no qualms with LG Paladins. Making the class more accessible to a wider audience can only help the game, even if a few people get annoyed. Basically, it should fall under the purview of GMs to remove options for canonical or story-related reasons. As game designers, more options is generally a good thing (before you reach too many options).
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is silly to relegate Lawful alignment to just laws of the land, laws of man. A paladin is Lawful because they have a code and oaths that they must keep to. They have divinely ordained rules, more than any cleric. That is their Law, and their Law is to be Good.
That the tenets of the Paladin Code are reminiscent of the Three Laws of Robotics is no coincidence. Paladins represent Order just as much as Good.
That's my biggest issue with paladins of other alignments. You don't have the same devotion to rules, code, oaths, and order with a chaotic alignment. Any CG character can manage "don't be evil", what sets apart a CG paladin as a divine warrior for their faith?
I'm really curious about chaotic paladin concepts, because I don't have any right now. I can imagine any-Lawful paladin concepts and that helps me think and reason about class options, but I don't have a Chaotic counterpart in mind to help me reason about how the Chaotic version of the class would look.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
don't quite see why people go after Divine grace to change.... beside I could not stand the 4e warlord so anything based off of it will not sit well with me...
that is just me and not you
Because they made Divine Grace a reaction ability instead of a passive buff, which makes it perfect fodder for reflavoring into other equally powerful abilities also based on Charisma but more in keeping with the theme of each variant.
Also tons of people love the Warlord and consider it one of the best aspects of 4E. To me, it is one of the things that could perfectly suit the space of a Lawful alternative to the Paladin. It could also fit the Cavalier, as I've mentioned in another thread, but I thought I'd bring it back here. There are also other ideas that would suit Lawful, but I do love me some battlefield control.
I think a paladin should be 'any good', the antipaladin could be 'any evil' imo
but chaotic and lawful counterparts would be a nice addition
My ideal setup would be four subclasses, each with a code that favors a particular axis alignment, but whose powers are more broadly applicable and allows for more alignment opinions. So for instance, keep our LG Paladin code as it is, but allow anyone to take it and try to live up to it. And if they fail, or it conflict with their personal morality or deities’s anathema, tough cookies. You knew the code when you swore to it.
Similar, a Hellknight code that favors LE, a blackguard “code” that favors CE, and, idk, Unfettered ideals that favor CG could be worked out.
I think a paladin should be 'any good', the antipaladin could be 'any evil' imo
but chaotic and lawful counterparts would be a nice additionMy ideal setup would be four subclasses, each with a code that favors a particular axis alignment, but whose powers are more broadly applicable and allows for more alignment opinions. So for instance, keep our LG Paladin code as it is, but allow anyone to take it and try to live up to it. And if they fail, or it conflict with their personal morality or deities’s anathema, tough cookies. You knew the code when you swore to it.
Similar, a Hellknight code that favors LE, a blackguard “code” that favors CE, and, idk, Unfettered ideals that favor CG could be worked out.
I went ahead and posed this, over this-a-way. I'd love for folks to weigh in, and bring up some ideas.
Instead of Divine Grace, I see Channel as a perfect fodder for Warlord-like abilities, as it's already an aura effect. There's also precedent for deific-themed channels in 1e that we could make awesome in 2e.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's my biggest issue with paladins of other alignments. You don't have the same devotion to rules, code, oaths, and order with a chaotic alignment. Any CG character can manage "don't be evil", what sets apart a CG paladin as a divine warrior for their faith?
I'm really curious about chaotic paladin concepts, because I don't have any right now. I can imagine any-Lawful paladin concepts and that helps me think and reason about class options, but I don't have a Chaotic counterpart in mind to help me reason about how the Chaotic version of the class would look.
Chaotic can be quite devoted to their cause. It springs from within and can be inspired by outside examples rather than coming from tradition and following outside strictures
A Chaotic counterpart to the Paladin will be devoted to questioning the status-quo, encouraging people to think for themselves and tearing down any legal structure that helps oppressing the innocent. All the while taking care not to hurt innocent people and not bully people into obedience
That's my biggest issue with paladins of other alignments. You don't have the same devotion to rules, code, oaths, and order with a chaotic alignment. Any CG character can manage "don't be evil", what sets apart a CG paladin as a divine warrior for their faith?
I'm really curious about chaotic paladin concepts, because I don't have any right now. I can imagine any-Lawful paladin concepts and that helps me think and reason about class options, but I don't have a Chaotic counterpart in mind to help me reason about how the Chaotic version of the class would look.
Chaotic can be quite devoted to their cause. It springs from within and can be inspired by outside examples rather than coming from tradition and following outside strictures
A Chaotic counterpart to the Paladin will be devoted to questioning the status-quo, encouraging people to think for themselves and tearing down any legal structure that helps oppressing the innocent. All the while taking care not to hurt innocent people and not bully people into obedience
See, I see this as an alignment issue. Remember the threads about goblins and murderhobos? To me, Law means Ordered. It doesn't mean that someone's alignment changes when they cross a border, you know? (I know that's a bit of a provocative description, but it's concise. I'm basing it off of Owen's work, iirc, too. My aim here isn't to offend folks; more express hey, this is an issue. What can we do?)
This sort of thing needs addressed at the system level, not the class. Paizo made steps when they addressed the Code--but that's a class issue. What we're covering here is at a higher level.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is, having a NG paladin and LN paladin completely miss the flavor many of us attribute to the Paladin. Why do you feel like the four axes option is better than the four corners option?
Because it does not miss the flavor many (other) of us attribute to the Paladin.
The thing is, if you allow both options, nothing forbids you to play only LG paladins (or the 4 corners, or 4 axis). But allows me to play a paladin of Saerenrae which actually matches Saerenrae in alignment.In 5e parlance: if you have the Oath of Devotion (classic paladin), and also the Oath of Ancients (a nature oriented, beauty loving paladin, closer to NG or CG), or Oath of Vengance (more like LN, although he can be LE or a zealot LG) then you can play Oath of Devotion as much as you want, and I can pick Oath of Devotion, Oath of Vengeance, or Oath of Ancients.
Having more options do not cut anyone's ability to play LG, christian-like crusaders in full plate.
Problem is, having a NG paladin and LN paladin completely miss the flavor many of us attribute to the Paladin. Why do you feel like the four axes option is better than the four corners option?
Because it does not miss the flavor many (other) of us attribute to the Paladin.
The thing is, if you allow both options, nothing forbids you to play only LG paladins (or the 4 corners, or 4 axis). But allows me to play a paladin of Saerenrae which actually matches Saerenrae in alignment.In 5e parlance: if you have the Oath of Devotion (classic paladin), and also the Oath of Ancients (a nature oriented, beauty loving paladin, closer to NG or CG), or Oath of Vengance (more like LN, although he can be LE or a zealot LG) then you can play Oath of Devotion as much as you want, and I can pick Oath of Devotion, Oath of Vengeance, or Oath of Ancients.
Having more options do not cut anyone's ability to play LG, christian-like crusaders in full plate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really curious about chaotic paladin concepts, because I don't have any right now. I can imagine any-Lawful paladin concepts and that helps me think and reason about class options, but I don't have a Chaotic counterpart in mind to help me reason about how the Chaotic version of the class would look.
I maintain that Captain America in MCU is CG. He pays lip service to following orders, but from the word go he constantly bucked against authority and made it clear he was only following them if he agreed with them. His ultimate moral compass was himself.
As to how it could be interpreted in PF, LOTS of people in stories take oaths and sign contracts for power. Even if they fully intend to betray their benefactor in the end, they’ll follow the letter of the agreement up until then. Keep most oaths the same, but some can be reflavored as supernatural contracts and strange, mysterious powers granted by those contracts. An Oath Against Authority could be the PF2 equivalent of the knock spell, combined with a bonus to checks to avoid and escape grapples, something Cap would have found quite useful any number of times in his movies.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
the idea that armor mastery is somehow locked to LG
In the beta alone, there is a way to be legendary with a heavy armor + shields that doesn't involve paladin in any way, and of course there's at least one class that is legendary with something else in the AC department.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really curious about chaotic paladin concepts, because I don't have any right now. I can imagine any-Lawful paladin concepts and that helps me think and reason about class options, but I don't have a Chaotic counterpart in mind to help me reason about how the Chaotic version of the class would look.I maintain that Captain America in MCU is CG. He pays lip service to following orders, but from the word go he constantly bucked against authority and made it clear he was only following them if he agreed with them. His ultimate moral compass was himself.
I agree. Not only MCU, in the comics too.
In Civil War, he opposes the LG option (Iron Man), because even if something good could come from the superhero census, the loss of individual freedom was not worth it.Thor is a great example of CG too, in Marvel and myth. He's Caydean Caylean, but with a hammer.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
the idea that armor mastery is somehow locked to LGIn the beta alone, there is a way to be legendary with a heavy armor + shields that doesn't involve paladin in any way, and of course there's at least one class that is legendary with something else in the AC department.
Monks have legendary unarmored proficiency, confirmed by Mark.
:P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is, having a NG paladin and LN paladin completely miss the flavor many of us attribute to the Paladin. Why do you feel like the four axes option is better than the four corners option?
Because it does not miss the flavor many (other) of us attribute to the Paladin.
The thing is, if you allow both options, nothing forbids you to play only LG paladins (or the 4 corners, or 4 axis). But allows me to play a paladin of Saerenrae which actually matches Saerenrae in alignment.In 5e parlance: if you have the Oath of Devotion (classic paladin), and also the Oath of Ancients (a nature oriented, beauty loving paladin, closer to NG or CG), or Oath of Vengance (more like LN, although he can be LE or a zealot LG) then you can play Oath of Devotion as much as you want, and I can pick Oath of Devotion, Oath of Vengeance, or Oath of Ancients.
Having more options do not cut anyone's ability to play LG, christian-like crusaders in full plate.
The thing is, making paladin entirely alignment-less makes it... no longer a paladin. At least with the 4 corners approach you get a true, Round Table style holy knight, a class entirely devoted to both Good and Order. It seems an obvious compromise to me. I don't think I've seen anyone from the LG-only crowd say this is too much. Is everyone else willing to compromise? Do we have to get rid of all of the flavor in the name of "I want this sack of mechanics for any alignment". And the four axes option means your example with Sarenrae is true of Iomedae, and much more of a problem. You mean to tell me that I can no longer be a paladin of Iomedae with an alignment that actually matches Iomedae?!?
Problem is, having a NG paladin and LN paladin completely miss the flavor many of us attribute to the Paladin. Why do you feel like the four axes option is better than the four corners option?
I would be fine with doing warpriest/cavalier/inquisitor in Core, and saving paladin for later. And I'd be fine with a four corners paladin. A "any Good" paladin would be frustrating. I definitely think there should be a compromise though, I just don't think paladins can lose the L in LG. A NG paladin isn't really a paladin for me.
Yes I would prefer Warpriest core myself, but as for the Paladin... Look at what Paizo posted yesterday. Look at their code.
Paizo has ALREADY given you a NG paladin.
That's what they posted. It has no ties to LG at all except the bit at the (bottom, lowest priority) of their code to respect legitimate authority.
There is nothing in what they posted that would not suit an "any Good" Paladin.
If you only mean the mechanics, everything you said is true of PF1 paladins as well. But I don't need my paladin to have Smite/Detect Chaos to make it LG. I don't really need any Lawful mechanics. I don't expect Paladins to force their lawfulness on anyone. I still think the four corners option is the ideal compromise though, and I kind of think a four axes option would be the worst of both worlds in that it would be absolutely awful for the LG-only crowd but still not open it up to all alignments.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you only mean the mechanics, everything you said is true of PF1 paladins as well. But I don't need my paladin to have Smite/Detect Chaos to make it LG. I don't really need any Lawful mechanics. I don't expect Paladins to force their lawfulness on anyone. I still think the four corners option is the ideal compromise though, and I kind of think a four axes option would be the worst of both worlds in that it would be absolutely awful for the LG-only crowd but still not open it up to all alignments.Problem is, having a NG paladin and LN paladin completely miss the flavor many of us attribute to the Paladin. Why do you feel like the four axes option is better than the four corners option?
I would be fine with doing warpriest/cavalier/inquisitor in Core, and saving paladin for later. And I'd be fine with a four corners paladin. A "any Good" paladin would be frustrating. I definitely think there should be a compromise though, I just don't think paladins can lose the L in LG. A NG paladin isn't really a paladin for me.
Yes I would prefer Warpriest core myself, but as for the Paladin... Look at what Paizo posted yesterday. Look at their code.
Paizo has ALREADY given you a NG paladin.
That's what they posted. It has no ties to LG at all except the bit at the (bottom, lowest priority) of their code to respect legitimate authority.
There is nothing in what they posted that would not suit an "any Good" Paladin.
"Worst of all worlds"? "Awful for the LG only crowd"? The LG crowd can still play the very same exact paladin they just posted yesterday. Nothing is taken away from them. Again, LITERALLY NOTHING in the class is mechanically tied to law, other than the least important aspects of the code - and NG characters generally respect legitimate authority as well, and even CG characters don't go around breaking the law just because they can. It would only take a minor tweak to the code to bring CG even more in line.
"Not open it up to all alignments"? Um, it does. Pretty much the only one left out in my post is True Neutral, and hell, if they want to add a Neutral Champion on top of those four I listed then they are welcome to.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
the idea that armor mastery is somehow locked to LGIn the beta alone, there is a way to be legendary with a heavy armor + shields that doesn't involve paladin in any way, and of course there's at least one class that is legendary with something else in the AC department.
That's good at least, but what about everything else? Why can't all deities have sacred champions? What makes LG unique in being able to exemplify an ideal?
And most importantly: what about those players (myself included) who have suffered real life harassment from real life "Christian" fundamentalists, and would feel much more comfortable with a more flexible and flavorful sacred warrior who wasn't joined at the hip to a "serial numbers filed off" version of what those people think they are?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having a paladin (holy warrior) being true neutral would allow Pharasma to have paladins. Given her hatred of undead that would not be an unreasonable addition.
"Worst of all worlds"? "Awful for the LG only crowd"? The LG crowd can still play the very same exact paladin they just posted yesterday. Nothing is taken away from them. Again, LITERALLY NOTHING in the class is mechanically tied to law, other than the least important aspects of the code - and NG characters generally respect legitimate authority as well, and even CG characters don't go around breaking the law just because they can. It would only take a minor tweak to the code to bring CG even more...If you only mean the mechanics, everything you said is true of PF1 paladins as well. But I don't need my paladin to have Smite/Detect Chaos to make it LG. I don't really need any Lawful mechanics. I don't expect Paladins to force their lawfulness on anyone. I still think the four corners option is the ideal compromise though, and I kind of think a four axes option would be the worst of both worlds in that it would be absolutely awful for the LG-only crowd but still not open it up to all alignments.Problem is, having a NG paladin and LN paladin completely miss the flavor many of us attribute to the Paladin. Why do you feel like the four axes option is better than the four corners option?
I would be fine with doing warpriest/cavalier/inquisitor in Core, and saving paladin for later. And I'd be fine with a four corners paladin. A "any Good" paladin would be frustrating. I definitely think there should be a compromise though, I just don't think paladins can lose the L in LG. A NG paladin isn't really a paladin for me.
Yes I would prefer Warpriest core myself, but as for the Paladin... Look at what Paizo posted yesterday. Look at their code.
Paizo has ALREADY given you a NG paladin.
That's what they posted. It has no ties to LG at all except the bit at the (bottom, lowest priority) of their code to respect legitimate authority.
There is nothing in what they posted that would not suit an "any Good" Paladin.
I might be misunderstanding, but your suggestion is that there be a base class (Champion?), with four sub-classes: NG, CN, NE, and LN. Is that correct?
If that's correct, now we can't play LG paladins. We can play NG or LN paladins of LG gods, but not actual LG paladins. I'm mostly uninterested in the mechanics. If they gave the same mechanics from PF1, but changed the alignment restriction to CG only, I'd be upset. Because now there is no holy knight class. I mean, if I were playing in PFS for PF2, I could have a NG Paladin and play them as though they were LG I guess... But that's going to be really frustrating.
So now, not only is the LG-only crowd upset that Paladin isn't LG-only, but they can't even play a LG Paladin. And everyone who wanted the class opened to all alignments didn't get what they wanted either.
That's all if I understand your option correctly. Am I completely off here?
|
|
Though I too prefer having Holy Warriors for many ethos, I understand why some players feel that this uniqueness should be LG only
And these people do not want to have a CG "Paladin" forced down their throat, whether as another PC or a NPC
I guess to appeal to as many people as possible, it is better to make the core Paladin LG only, and add equivalent Holy Warriors for other alignments in a second book
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, making paladin entirely alignment-less makes it... no longer a paladin. At least with the 4 corners approach you get a true, Round Table style holy knight, a class entirely devoted to both Good and Order. It seems an obvious compromise to me. I don't think I've seen anyone from the LG-only crowd say this is too much. Is everyone else willing to compromise? Do we have to get rid of all of the flavor in the name of "I want this sack of mechanics for any alignment". And the four axes option means your example with Sarenrae is true of Iomedae, and much more of a problem. You mean to tell me that I can no longer be a paladin of Iomedae with an alignment that actually matches Iomedae?!?Problem is, having a NG paladin and LN paladin completely miss the flavor many of us attribute to the Paladin. Why do you feel like the four axes option is better than the four corners option?
Because it does not miss the flavor many (other) of us attribute to the Paladin.
The thing is, if you allow both options, nothing forbids you to play only LG paladins (or the 4 corners, or 4 axis). But allows me to play a paladin of Saerenrae which actually matches Saerenrae in alignment.In 5e parlance: if you have the Oath of Devotion (classic paladin), and also the Oath of Ancients (a nature oriented, beauty loving paladin, closer to NG or CG), or Oath of Vengance (more like LN, although he can be LE or a zealot LG) then you can play Oath of Devotion as much as you want, and I can pick Oath of Devotion, Oath of Vengeance, or Oath of Ancients.
Having more options do not cut anyone's ability to play LG, christian-like crusaders in full plate.
I'm fairly sure that Fuzzypaws' suggestion of axisadins doesn't require specific alignments. The good axis requires "any good", the lawful axis requires "any lawful", etc. In this way, you can still have your lawful good paladins, in either the Lawful axis or the Good axis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monks have legendary unarmored proficiency, confirmed by Mark. :P
In the beta alone, there is a way to be legendary with a heavy armor + shields that doesn't involve paladin in any way, and of course there's at least one class that is legendary with something else in the AC department.
I came away with a different conclusion: Wizards being legendary in Mage Armor.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
the idea that armor mastery is somehow locked to LGIn the beta alone, there is a way to be legendary with a heavy armor + shields that doesn't involve paladin in any way, and of course there's at least one class that is legendary with something else in the AC department.That's good at least, but what about everything else? Why can't all deities have sacred champions? What makes LG unique in being able to exemplify an ideal?
Because we're testing LG first since that's what everyone could agree on. As I said in the blog, not even the design team is unanimous on this question, so the best thing that people could do who have ideas for the paladin is participate in the playtest and participate in the survey we'll put out about the paladin.
I've seen a lot of sentiment here on the forums from people who wanted to see a different iteration of paladins in the playtest that they think we made this decision based on the people who posted in threads that they did want to see this iteration of paladins. I assure you, we didn't, so please don't blame your fellow forum members. The decision was made well before the playtest forum even existed.
That whatever we did in the playtest with the paladin, people who wanted a different iteration were going to be upset and need to vent here was kind of a given; that's why we needed two warnings in the blog thread before it even started. Whoever aren't getting what they currently want are going to be loudest, not just in RPGs, but in all sorts of other venues, and we want you guys to have space to vent, but the most productive way to make your opinion heard is through the survey, where we can gather data and discover a more accurate distribution of opinions than in the forums.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fairly sure that Fuzzypaws' suggestion of axisadins doesn't require specific alignments. The good axis requires "any good", the lawful axis requires "any lawful", etc. In this way, you can still have your lawful good paladins, in either the Lawful axis or the Good axis.The thing is, making paladin entirely alignment-less makes it... no longer a paladin. At least with the 4 corners approach you get a true, Round Table style holy knight, a class entirely devoted to both Good and Order. It seems an obvious compromise to me. I don't think I've seen anyone from the LG-only crowd say this is too much. Is everyone else willing to compromise? Do we have to get rid of all of the flavor in the name of "I want this sack of mechanics for any alignment". And the four axes option means your example with Sarenrae is true of Iomedae, and much more of a problem. You mean to tell me that I can no longer be a paladin of Iomedae with an alignment that actually matches Iomedae?!?Problem is, having a NG paladin and LN paladin completely miss the flavor many of us attribute to the Paladin. Why do you feel like the four axes option is better than the four corners option?
Because it does not miss the flavor many (other) of us attribute to the Paladin.
The thing is, if you allow both options, nothing forbids you to play only LG paladins (or the 4 corners, or 4 axis). But allows me to play a paladin of Saerenrae which actually matches Saerenrae in alignment.In 5e parlance: if you have the Oath of Devotion (classic paladin), and also the Oath of Ancients (a nature oriented, beauty loving paladin, closer to NG or CG), or Oath of Vengance (more like LN, although he can be LE or a zealot LG) then you can play Oath of Devotion as much as you want, and I can pick Oath of Devotion, Oath of Vengeance, or Oath of Ancients.
Having more options do not cut anyone's ability to play LG, christian-like crusaders in full plate.
Exactly. It actually gives LG characters double the options, because they can pick from both, depending on what kind of character the player is looking for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the idea that armor mastery is somehow locked to LGIn the beta alone, there is a way to be legendary with a heavy armor + shields that doesn't involve paladin in any way, and of course there's at least one class that is legendary with something else in the AC department.That's good at least, but what about everything else? Why can't all deities have sacred champions? What makes LG unique in being able to exemplify an ideal?
Because we're testing LG first since that's what everyone could agree on. As I said in the blog, not even the design team is unanimous on this question, so the best thing that people could do who have ideas for the paladin is participate in the playtest and participate in the survey we'll put out about the paladin.
I've seen a lot of sentiment here on the forums from people who wanted to see a different iteration of paladins in the playtest that they think we made this decision based on the people who posted in threads that they did want to see this iteration of paladins. I assure you, we didn't, so please don't blame your fellow forum members. The decision was made well before the playtest forum even existed.
That whatever we did in the playtest with the paladin, people who wanted a different iteration were going to be upset and need to vent here was kind of a given; that's why we needed two warnings in the blog thread before it even started. Whoever aren't getting what they currently want are going to be loudest, not just in RPGs, but in all sorts of other venues, and we want you guys to have space to vent, but the most productive way to make your opinion heard is through the survey, where we can gather data and discover a more accurate distribution of opinions than in the forums.
Can you include alternate options in the survey? And block sub-account voting? Please?
Thank you. Also, I'm sorry y'all have to put up with all of this. A big thank you too, to the mods.
This has gone much more smoothly than the first playtest. Not that a lot wasn't done--but man, the vitriol was something. And hey, anyone out there in the midst of this--
--let's go get some coffee. I hear there's this great place with cake, too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I'm fairly sure that Fuzzypaws' suggestion of axisadins doesn't require specific alignments. The good axis requires "any good", the lawful axis requires "any lawful", etc. In this way, you can still have your lawful good paladins, in either the LawfulThe thing is, making paladin entirely alignment-less makes it... no longer a paladin. At least with the 4 corners approach you get a true, Round Table style holy knight, a class entirely devoted to both Good and Order. It seems an obvious compromise to me. I don't think I've seen anyone from the LG-only crowd say this is too much. Is everyone else willing to compromise? Do we have to get rid of all of the flavor in the name of "I want this sack of mechanics for any alignment". And the four axes option means your example with Sarenrae is true of Iomedae, and much more of a problem. You mean to tell me that I can no longer be a paladin of Iomedae with an alignment that actually matches Iomedae?!?Problem is, having a NG paladin and LN paladin completely miss the flavor many of us attribute to the Paladin. Why do you feel like the four axes option is better than the four corners option?
Because it does not miss the flavor many (other) of us attribute to the Paladin.
The thing is, if you allow both options, nothing forbids you to play only LG paladins (or the 4 corners, or 4 axis). But allows me to play a paladin of Saerenrae which actually matches Saerenrae in alignment.In 5e parlance: if you have the Oath of Devotion (classic paladin), and also the Oath of Ancients (a nature oriented, beauty loving paladin, closer to NG or CG), or Oath of Vengance (more like LN, although he can be LE or a zealot LG) then you can play Oath of Devotion as much as you want, and I can pick Oath of Devotion, Oath of Vengeance, or Oath of Ancients.
Having more options do not cut anyone's ability to play LG, christian-like crusaders in full plate.
Gotcha, so I was misunderstanding. Sorry about that, and please ignore most of what I wrote ;)
I guess in that case my problem is still that Paladins lose the flavor, because it's almost the same as paladins of any alignment. They're no longer paladins. It'd be like if the Monk section included: "Not all monks train hard for their abilities. Some just sit on the couch and watch martial arts movies, slowly gaining the benefits of monk training over time". I don't know if it's that way for other people, but that's what I hear when people advocate for paladins of any alignment. The four corners option fixes that for me. I'd even consider a "fifth corner", Neutral, although I wouldn't be excited about it.
Because we're testing LG first since that's what everyone could agree on. As I said in the blog, not even the design team is unanimous on this question, so the best thing that people could do who have ideas for the paladin is participate in the playtest and participate in the survey we'll put out about the paladin.
I've seen a lot of sentiment here on the forums from people who wanted to see a different iteration of paladins in the playtest that they think we made this decision based on the people who posted in threads that they did want to see this iteration of paladins. I assure you, we didn't, so please don't blame your fellow forum members. The decision was made well before the playtest forum even existed.
That whatever we did in the playtest with the paladin, people who wanted a different iteration were going to be upset and need to vent here was kind of a given; that's why we needed two warnings in the blog thread before it even started. Whoever aren't getting what they currently want are going to be loudest, not just in RPGs, but in all sorts of other venues, and we want you guys to have space to vent, but the most productive way to make your opinion heard is through the survey, where we can gather data and discover a more accurate distribution of opinions than in the forums.
It will be interesting to see what the feedback will be on such a thing as well other such arguments that come up in these forums.
Even more due to everything being open then and things like the whole armor/proficiency thing shouldnt happen as often.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why cant clerics be champions too?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The benefit of this is that you maximize the number of alignments available (8, sorry true neutral), include all deities, and only need the space for 4 sets of mechanics. I'm still on the fence as how meaningful the law/chaos split is, but that might just be because I haven't seen a decent take on it.
Like Fuzzypaws said, the playtest paladin only has one lawful component, and that's the lowest priority tenet. Remove that, and you've got the full "any good" package. Rely on anathemas for the lawful behaviour in the Good axis.
Why cant clerics be champions too?
I think folks just need the chance to vent for a while. Cleanse the system, I guess.
Also, without clear signaling from Paizo, folks aren't going to look at or consider the cleric. >.>
The "warriors of x" concept re-ties us back to alignment. I like the idea, I like some of the concepts, and yet...
...that could end up just blowing up on us down the road, couldn't it? I mean, warriors of alignment. Alignment. Each option would dig us further and further into "what alignment is." Thinking on it, couldn't it end up blowing up, or entrenching alignment more strongly into the system down the road? 2e was aiming to lessen its impact, overall, so this seems like a step backwards.
Also, from a production standpoint: it would mean four new pathways/classes that will each need their own options.
And support.
For the lifetime of 2e. That's four times the work of a single class.
Paizo had already intended to give clerics more domain-related powers. Adding "warriors of alignment" would add to that workload in multiplicity, not take advantage of it.
That potentially pushes out the production schedule for everyone.
tl;dr Maybe it's better to use a more flexible system that they'd intended to expand anyway (cleric feats and domain themes), instead of four to five new options that are each going to need their areas of support.