Can a Paladin follow its deity's code without being LG?

[Ryan Freire]

Tectorman wrote:

We have been leaving your Paladin alone. When we're not in your gaming group, forcing you to bear...

You don't HAVE paladins, you're lobbying hard under the guise that adding them doesn't change the paladin LG only advocates love but it does, it dilutes and ruins the class completely.

[Handy Haversack of Hillarity]

Have you guys tried jiggling the handle? I heard that might work.

[Gorbacz]

Hey, where did the OP go?

[Handy Haversack of Hillarity]

Heh first time I preempted the other bags comment!

[Iron_Matt17]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Iron_Matt17 wrote:

So are you saying they should give the CG a name, and the LE an Anti-<insert name here> to follow suit? Or a name that overarches all the 4 classes?

1 name that overarches the four Classes would be good (or going with Paladin for the Good ones and Antipaladin for the Evil ones...but a lot of people wouldn't like that). The issue is that if Paladin is 'demoted' to the name of one of the four versions (the LG one), I suspect people will be upset about that as well.

It's a tricky issue.

People are going to be upset regardless. ;^P

I myself don't mind the Paladin being 'demoted' to the LG name of one of the four versions. And I see it going down the way that Tholomyes suggests. Though I think it'll be 4 different classes, and the other three in the APG. That being said though, they at least have a full design concept for the Anti-Paladin (seen from the Crypt of the Everflame Podcast, and rumours of one showing up in Crimson Dawn) with at least a Retributive Strike ability. So will they make Core?... We'll see.

The Raven Black wrote:

I think the Paladin should embrace being a specific alignment rather than shy away from it

This. This is exactly how I feel. Other RPGs have shied away, let's embrace it. The four corner alignment warriors can hit most of the alignments, (save for N) with the design space of three other classes. That's it. This way others who want to play a "Paladin-like" PC but not be restricted to LG, can. I see it as a win/win for everyone.

[Deadmanwalking]

The Raven Black wrote:

I think the Paladin should embrace being a specific alignment rather than shy away from it

For the record, I too entirely agree with this. Some aspects of being a Paladin seem alignment agnostic (Divine Grace leaps to mind), but far more are tied to their Alignment in some fundamental way, at least thematically.

Being superb at Armor strikes me as very Lawful, for example, while the more Chaotic versions could favor Weapons instead, while healing is quintessentially part of the Good versions (Evil should get harm stuff ala Touch of Corruption). I'd also be cool with party-buffing stuff being Lawful affiliated, while the Chaotic version would get more self-buff powers (Chaotic being more associated with individualism, after all). Oath Feats also seem fundamentally Lawful to me, though I suspect the Chaotic versions would just get more non-Oath affiliated stuff rather than an equivalent category.

[Iron_Matt17]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

I think the Paladin should embrace being a specific alignment rather than shy away from it

For the record, I too entirely agree with this. Some aspects of being a Paladin seem alignment agnostic (Divine Grace leaps to mind), but far more are tied to their Alignment in some fundamental way, at least thematically.

Being superb at Armor strikes me as very Lawful, for example, while the more Chaotic versions could favor Weapons instead, while healing is quintessentially part of the Good versions (Evil should get harm stuff ala Touch of Corruption). I'd also be cool with party-buffing stuff being Lawful affiliated, while the Chaotic version would get more self-buff powers (Chaotic being more associated with individualism, after all). Oath Feats also seem fundamentally Lawful to me, though I suspect the Chaotic versions would just get more non-Oath affiliated stuff rather than an equivalent category.

Yeah, taking these sentiments over to the Anti-Paladin... I see the LE Tyrant as the more "Paladin like" of the two Evils. Armour, Party buffs, and Oaths, they are more related. But then again, do they want the exact opposite in the evil version of the Paladin? Armour to their weapons, Party buffs to their self buffs, Oaths to their Chaotic equivalents... Actually, come to think of it... Paizo is already going in this direction with the Paladin's Retributive Strike (hit an ally reaction) vs The Anti-Paladin's Wrathful Strike. (crit me reaction)

[Deadmanwalking]

Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Actually, come to think of it... Paizo is already going in this direction with the Paladin's Retributive Strike (hit an ally reaction) vs The Anti-Paladin's Wrathful Strike. (crit me reaction)

Yeah, I feel like that should maybe be more of a Good/Evil distinction, but I could see Law/Chaos instead.

[Malk_Content]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Tectorman wrote:

We have been leaving your Paladin alone. When we're not in your gaming group, forcing you to bear...

You don't HAVE paladins, you're lobbying hard under the guise that adding them doesn't change the paladin LG only advocates love but it does, it dilutes and ruins the class completely.

Yeah we do. I can make a perfectly legal non LG Paladin right now. Something that won't be doable in the playtest at least.

Even if we couldn't that just makes your argument "I got mine so shove off"

And I've never seen it adequately explained how the existence of different options, if your option remains exactly the same, dilutes or ruins your option. That someone somewhere can put Tabasco on their fried eggs doesn't mean my pepper and salt eggs are ruined.

[UnArcaneElection]

I wonder if the moderators would come out ahead if they banned Paladin threads in exchange for unbanning political threads . . . .

[Vidmaster7]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

I wonder if the moderators would come out ahead if they banned Paladin threads in exchange for unbanning political threads . . . .

They are really the same thing if you get down to it and really examine it.

[The Raven Black]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

UnArcaneElection wrote:

I wonder if the moderators would come out ahead if they banned Paladin threads in exchange for unbanning political threads . . . .

They are really the same thing if you get down to it and really examine it.

Top much of a slippery slope here IMO

I see nothing good coming out of pegging a poster's RL political leanings from a parsing of their posts on this topic

It will turn even more quickly into ad hominem attacks and "my way or the highway" posts

[Vidmaster7]

Ugh but I hate slippery slope arguments. I think the whole slippery slope thins is BS. It could be because I'm part mountain goat (notice the beard.)

[Slim Jim]

Player: "I want all the benefits of being an exemplar of virtue while also being a completely misanthropic murder-hobo who worships Rovagug! Why can't I have that? Why?"

GM: "Those are Anti-paladins. I'd otherwise help you make one, but the current campaign has a non-evil requirement of the PCs."

Player: "I want the Paladin, not the Anti-paladin, except not LG!"

GM: "Gray Paladins can be lawful-neutral or neutral-good."

Player: "I don't want to be lawful or good! I need Rovagug in this build!"

GM: "How about a chaotic-neutral Warpriest or Slayer or Cavalier or Inquisitor or--"

Player: "No! None of those!"

GM: "Well, you can't be true-neutral because that's two steps away from Rovagug's chaotic-evil."

Player: <wail of frustration>

GM: "Tell you what: I'll permit you to be a Catfolk on the sole condition that you always bark and never meow."

Player: "Hey! That's a race, not a class!"

GM: "I'm sorry, but I don't speak meow. Could you please bark?"

~ ~ ~

What GRuzom said in the 2nd post.

[Steelfiredragon]

politically speaking yes it is

and yes a paladin of any good alignment can follow its deity's code without being LG.

which means a NG paladin can do and a CG one can do it.

Stop looking through a keyhole already. What you want, what you would like to see. What I want and would like to see is not what any of us will get. We have no real say on the matter despite players stating that it will be LG as long as there are players like them to keep it that way.
playtests are there to see waht works and what is broken and will see things fixed if necessary at the journey's end.

failing all of it, just yoink the paladin out of the crb2.0.

so what the class was there since 3.x who cares. if one set of players has to wait, the other can wait too.

and stating to the contrary doesnt make you right either, just like it doesnt make me right.

[Elleth]

Honestly I kind of hope they just split the code into building blocks for Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil (with something else for Neutral), then applying baseline class abilities according to each choice (possibly allowing Neutral to choose in each case, much like how Neutral deities used to work with +/- energy channeling).

Then you could just gate swathes of class feats behind alignment prerequisites.

Like, I think it would be a shame if they didn't make good use of how modular PF2 is shaping up to be.

[YourNewShoe]

Iron_Matt17 wrote:

I really like this summation of a Paladin. That's exactly how I feel. But funny enough, I differ with most of you on the whole don't need a deity thing...
It has never made any sense to me for a Paladin to get his powers from an "Ideal" or from a generic Lawful Goodness domain. The Paladin needs a "sponsor" for his DIVINE powers in my mind. (I could see Angels doing it for the whole Lawful Goodness domain thing tho...) He needs to tap into some particular type of power source.

I take it you're also nod a fan of deity-less divine casters?

I personally prefer Paladins to be directly empowered by Good, but that may partly be colored by the fact that so many settings seem to go with the "oh but the Good deities have also done evil" or "the True Ancient Secrets You Should Not Know reveal that all divinities are or were actually evil" routes, making a divine-tied character then reliant on, effectively, a corrupt system.

Slim Jim wrote:

What GRuzom said in the 2nd post.

Backing up doomsaying about the thread going poorly by trying to drag it down away from good discussion is bad form.

[Unicore]

We just need someone to travel back in time and change the 2nd edition Paladin to the name "holy knight" or "holy champion" and then we could be looking at a champion (or knight) class with many different flavors and we wouldn't be stuck on people getting upset because the character that they played 20+ years ago now has a different name for their class then it had when they first made it.

[Malachandra]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Iron_Matt17 wrote:

So are you saying they should give the CG a name, and the LE an Anti-<insert name here> to follow suit? Or a name that overarches all the 4 classes?

1 name that overarches the four Classes would be good (or going with Paladin for the Good ones and Antipaladin for the Evil ones...but a lot of people wouldn't like that). The issue is that if Paladin is 'demoted' to the name of one of the four versions (the LG one), I suspect people will be upset about that as well.

It's a tricky issue.

I'd be up for an "Exemplar" class with four (equally powerful but thematically different) subclasses. I'd certainly prefer that to a Paladin class with four subclasses, but that's just me. It's definitely a tricky issue, and I think no matter what Paizo does there will be a lot of unhappy people.

Malk_Content wrote:

And I've never seen it adequately explained how the existence of different options, if your option remains exactly the same, dilutes or ruins your option. That someone somewhere can put Tabasco on their fried eggs doesn't mean my pepper and salt eggs are ruined.

I can try to answer this question. Let's say Paizo was making some changes to races. They came out and said "Dwarves will now have more options! They now come in regular skin tones, as well as green and pink. They no longer prefer living underground as a race, although some still do so. Some are still short and stocky, but from now on many will not be". Obviously an over the top example, but it illustrates how I feel. Yes, I could still play the more classic interpretation of dwarves. But that's no longer what dwarves are. They are now some generic, one-size-fits-all race. Now, when I play a dwarf, I'm not really playing a dwarf. I'm playing something else that can look like a dwarf.

I'm not really interested in how other people play their paladins, and I don't want to restrict peoples' options at their own table. But I associate a pretty specific flavor with paladins, and taking away the LG-only alignment kills that. Yes, it's nice to have universal, one-size-fits-all classes. But it's also nice to have flavorful, more niche classes.

[Malk_Content]

Malachandra wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Iron_Matt17 wrote:

So are you saying they should give the CG a name, and the LE an Anti-<insert name here> to follow suit? Or a name that overarches all the 4 classes?

1 name that overarches the four Classes would be good (or going with Paladin for the Good ones and Antipaladin for the Evil ones...but a lot of people wouldn't like that). The issue is that if Paladin is 'demoted' to the name of one of the four versions (the LG one), I suspect people will be upset about that as well.

It's a tricky issue.

I'd be up for an "Exemplar" class with four (equally powerful but thematically different) subclasses. I'd certainly prefer that to a Paladin class with four subclasses, but that's just me. It's definitely a tricky issue, and I think no matter what Paizo does there will be a lot of unhappy people.

Malk_Content wrote:

And I've never seen it adequately explained how the existence of different options, if your option remains exactly the same, dilutes or ruins your option. That someone somewhere can put Tabasco on their fried eggs doesn't mean my pepper and salt eggs are ruined.

I can try to answer this question. Let's say Paizo was making some changes to races. They came out and said "Dwarves will now have more options! They now come in regular skin tones, as well as green and pink. They no longer prefer living underground as a race, although some still do so. Some are still short and stocky, but from now on many will not be". Obviously an over the top example, but it illustrates how I feel. Yes, I could still play the more classic interpretation of dwarves. But that's no longer what dwarves are. They are now some generic, one-size-fits-all race. Now, when I play a dwarf, I'm not really playing a dwarf. I'm playing something else that can look like a dwarf.

I'm not really interested in how other people play their paladins, and I don't want to restrict peoples' options at their own table. But I associate a pretty specific...

I guess I still don't get it. So long as my table can still go "dwarves are like how they always were" without having to jump through mechanical hoops to get there I wouldn't mind at all. They also have done that a little in PF2E (and in 1 with alternate racial traits) what any two dwarves share is far reduced in favour of more customizable Ancestry Feats.

Although it is quite a different kettle of fish, given that the mechanical benefits of being a dwarf aren't tied to any roleplaying or character restrictions afterall.

[Amoral Catfolk Champion]

Bark

[Iron_Matt17]

Unicore wrote:

We just need someone to travel back in time and change the 2nd edition Paladin to the name "holy knight" or "holy champion" and then we could be looking at a champion (or knight) class with many different flavors and we wouldn't be stuck on people getting upset because the character that they played 20+ years ago now has a different name for their class then it had when they first made it.

Of course, the issue goes a lot deeper than that. But one can dream eh? ;^)

[Iron_Matt17]

YourNewShoe wrote:

Iron_Matt17 wrote:

I really like this summation of a Paladin. That's exactly how I feel. But funny enough, I differ with most of you on the whole don't need a deity thing...
It has never made any sense to me for a Paladin to get his powers from an "Ideal" or from a generic Lawful Goodness domain. The Paladin needs a "sponsor" for his DIVINE powers in my mind. (I could see Angels doing it for the whole Lawful Goodness domain thing tho...) He needs to tap into some particular type of power source.

I take it you're also nod a fan of deity-less divine casters?

I personally prefer Paladins to be directly empowered by Good, but that may partly be colored by the fact that so many settings seem to go with the "oh but the Good deities have also done evil" or "the True Ancient Secrets You Should Not Know reveal that all divinities are or were actually evil" routes, making a divine-tied character then reliant on, effectively, a corrupt system.

Yeah, I'm not a fan...

I haven't come across those "Good deities are actually Evil" settings myself. But yes, those are definitely not my cup of tea. The problem with placing the Deities as a corrupt system, is that it can be easily brought over to the "Good Ideal". Where did it come from? How did it become so Powerful? Does it need Evil to exist? If so, then Evil is actually its ally... I could go on. Deities are easier to pick on because they are basically like us. In the end, I chalk it up to cultures march to depravity. We have a fixation on Evil because it's fun, flashy, and tantalizing. (or whatever) If you hear about someone who is Good, our automatic reaction is disbelief and/or wanting to get "the dirt on him/her". I like to say that Good is good, and leave it at that. But c'est la vie...
And sorry for the Culture Soap Box moment...

[Evil Kjeldorn]

Short answer: Yes

Longer answer: Yes!!!

Detailed answer: For f$$~s sake Yes!!! Gods dammit!!!

Don't care about the name.
Don't care about the class' 'pedigree'.
Don't care about the traditions associated with it either!.

Once the play test comes out, I'll be taking a crowbar to the class! Beating it into a nice modular pulp, so I can re-assemble the pieces into a more pleasing image of a "Paladin"!
Why? Because I don't care about Alignment maybe?...
Listen, I just care about the story that any future 'paladin' players want me to help them tell, and as far as I can tell, there are more stories possible the less requirements we keep weighing down, that durned class with.

What's that I hear Mr. Player? You wanna do a witch-finder general type character, kicking down cellar-doors and dragging demon cultists to their fiery doom in the town square? Heck that could be done on the Paladin-chassis! Its a great fit! But oh no...there's all these requirements you have to operate under, oh and there's some questions about alignment too…
Phooey!
Why the heck shouldn't it be possible to modify that chassis to that idea fluently, simply and gracefully?
…
Orthodoxy!
That's why. No other reason is really needed.
Double Phooey!
…
No that's why the Paladin is getting the crow-bar. Because if we don't question him and his ilk, then all we have is orthodoxy.
Well, come playtest time, I'm nailing my theses to his fore-head! Orthodoxy be damned!

[PossibleCabbage]

Biggest change I'm going to make to the Paladin in my home games is strip away any and all requirements to worship a specific (or any) deity, so to each their own.

Most of the most memorable Paladins in games I've been in were somewhere on the atheist/agnostic spectrum, most commonly of the kind of "I tend not to think of the gods, as I have too much work to do in this world to worry about the next" or "I do honor the Gods for the good they do, but I acknowledge their failings and I must believe that we must strive to do better than even the Gods."

[ENHenry]

My response to the original question:

I think if you were actually following the Paladin's code as written in Mark Seifter's blog, then it wouldn't matter what you wrote in the "Alignment" blank on your character sheet, you'd be Lawful Good, anyway, no matter what you called yourself.

You could say you're as evil as heck, but if you are never willingly committing evil, avoiding harming innocents, acting honorably, never lying, never cheating, never taking advantage, and respecting authority (RESPECT MY AW-THOR-IT-TIE!) then you are lawful and good, even if your alignment on your sheet says "Scruffy McEdgeLord."

Personally speaking, I'd rather see an approach closer to D&D5's approach, but in its absence, a 2nd Edition Cleric or Warpriest that clung to the goal of, "Robust religious warrior who can take a beating, smite enemies, and stay upright" would be sufficient of a "Paladin" to me in-game.

[The Sideromancer]

ENHenry wrote:

My response to the original question:

I think if you were actually following the Paladin's code as written in Mark Seifter's blog, then it wouldn't matter what you wrote in the "Alignment" blank on your character sheet, you'd be Lawful Good, anyway, no matter what you called yourself.

You could say you're as evil as heck, but if you are never willingly committing evil, avoiding harming innocents, acting honorably, never lying, never cheating, never taking advantage, and respecting authority (RESPECT MY AW-THOR-IT-TIE!) then you are lawful and good, even if your alignment on your sheet says "Scruffy McEdgeLord."

Personally speaking, I'd rather see an approach closer to D&D5's approach, but in its absence, a 2nd Edition Cleric or Warpriest that clung to the goal of, "Robust religious warrior who can take a beating, smite enemies, and stay upright" would be sufficient of a "Paladin" to me in-game.

Good yes, but given "respect authority" is the last priority, how Lawful you would end up being seems like it would inversely correlate with how Good the establishment is. If near every authority you encounter is Evil, any Lawfulness of the code disappears.

A heavily Chaos-leaning Paladin could even state that no authority is legitimate enough to override the first three tenenants, and go on completely ignoring the fourth.

[The Raven Black]

Evil Kjeldorn wrote:

Short answer: Yes

Longer answer: Yes!!!

Detailed answer: For f~!&s sake Yes!!! Gods dammit!!!

Don't care about the name.
Don't care about the class' 'pedigree'.
Don't care about the traditions associated with it either!.

Once the play test comes out, I'll be taking a crowbar to the class! Beating it into a nice modular pulp, so I can re-assemble the pieces into a more pleasing image of a "Paladin"!
Why? Because I don't care about Alignment maybe?...
Listen, I just care about the story that any future 'paladin' players want me to help them tell, and as far as I can tell, there are more stories possible the less requirements we keep weighing down, that durned class with.

What's that I hear Mr. Player? You wanna do a witch-finder general type character, kicking down cellar-doors and dragging demon cultists to their fiery doom in the town square? Heck that could be done on the Paladin-chassis! Its a great fit! But oh no...there's all these requirements you have to operate under, oh and there's some questions about alignment too…
Phooey!
Why the heck shouldn't it be possible to modify that chassis to that idea fluently, simply and gracefully?
…
Orthodoxy!
That's why. No other reason is really needed.
Double Phooey!
…
No that's why the Paladin is getting the crow-bar. Because if we don't question him and his ilk, then all we have is orthodoxy.
Well, come playtest time, I'm nailing my theses to his fore-head! Orthodoxy be damned!

Some players actually want to play the LG Paladin as the knight in shining armor who strives to uphold his code even though he is a failible mortal. They love the class as it is in the PF1 CRB

How does your dismantling the class with the ardor you describe helps them telling the tale they want ?

[Malk_Content]

The Raven Black wrote:

Evil Kjeldorn wrote:

Short answer: Yes

Longer answer: Yes!!!

Detailed answer: For f~!&s sake Yes!!! Gods dammit!!!

Don't care about the name.
Don't care about the class' 'pedigree'.
Don't care about the traditions associated with it either!.

Once the play test comes out, I'll be taking a crowbar to the class! Beating it into a nice modular pulp, so I can re-assemble the pieces into a more pleasing image of a "Paladin"!
Why? Because I don't care about Alignment maybe?...
Listen, I just care about the story that any future 'paladin' players want me to help them tell, and as far as I can tell, there are more stories possible the less requirements we keep weighing down, that durned class with.

What's that I hear Mr. Player? You wanna do a witch-finder general type character, kicking down cellar-doors and dragging demon cultists to their fiery doom in the town square? Heck that could be done on the Paladin-chassis! Its a great fit! But oh no...there's all these requirements you have to operate under, oh and there's some questions about alignment too…
Phooey!
Why the heck shouldn't it be possible to modify that chassis to that idea fluently, simply and gracefully?
…
Orthodoxy!
That's why. No other reason is really needed.
Double Phooey!
…
No that's why the Paladin is getting the crow-bar. Because if we don't question him and his ilk, then all we have is orthodoxy.
Well, come playtest time, I'm nailing my theses to his fore-head! Orthodoxy be damned!

Some players actually want to play the LG Paladin as the knight in shining armor who strives to uphold his code even though he is a failible mortal. They love the class as it is in the PF1 CRB

How does your dismantling the class with the ardor you describe helps them telling the tale they want ?

Because they can write LG on their character sheet, play the character that way and literally nothing has changed. The Paladin class doesn't "help" you play that way, it punishes you for not. That is a big distinction.

If my vision of a Sorcerer is one whose connection to magic is inherently unstable and results in a Chaotic disposition it does not matter to me whether Sorcerer has Alignment: Any Chaotic, when it comes to actually playing that character. I wanted to play my character that way, so I did, the rules aren't helping me do that, they are just stopping anyone else who has a different vision from playing their character.

[Tectorman]

The Raven Black wrote:

Evil Kjeldorn wrote:

Short answer: Yes

Longer answer: Yes!!!

Detailed answer: For f~!&s sake Yes!!! Gods dammit!!!

Don't care about the name.
Don't care about the class' 'pedigree'.
Don't care about the traditions associated with it either!.

Once the play test comes out, I'll be taking a crowbar to the class! Beating it into a nice modular pulp, so I can re-assemble the pieces into a more pleasing image of a "Paladin"!
Why? Because I don't care about Alignment maybe?...
Listen, I just care about the story that any future 'paladin' players want me to help them tell, and as far as I can tell, there are more stories possible the less requirements we keep weighing down, that durned class with.

What's that I hear Mr. Player? You wanna do a witch-finder general type character, kicking down cellar-doors and dragging demon cultists to their fiery doom in the town square? Heck that could be done on the Paladin-chassis! Its a great fit! But oh no...there's all these requirements you have to operate under, oh and there's some questions about alignment too…
Phooey!
Why the heck shouldn't it be possible to modify that chassis to that idea fluently, simply and gracefully?
…
Orthodoxy!
That's why. No other reason is really needed.
Double Phooey!
…
No that's why the Paladin is getting the crow-bar. Because if we don't question him and his ilk, then all we have is orthodoxy.
Well, come playtest time, I'm nailing my theses to his fore-head! Orthodoxy be damned!

Some players actually want to play the LG Paladin as the knight in shining armor who strives to uphold his code even though he is a failible mortal. They love the class as it is in the PF1 CRB

How does your dismantling the class with the ardor you describe helps them telling the tale they want ?

Because his "dismantling" only goes so far as to take out the "your Paladin MUST behave this way or lose class features". Nothing about it takes away the "your Paladin CAN behave this way". The old edition requirement of "humans only" is dismantled in the same fashion. Are you prevented from playing a human Paladin due to said dismantling?

[The Raven Black]

Malk_Content wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Evil Kjeldorn wrote:

Short answer: Yes

Longer answer: Yes!!!

Detailed answer: For f~!&s sake Yes!!! Gods dammit!!!

Don't care about the name.
Don't care about the class' 'pedigree'.
Don't care about the traditions associated with it either!.

Once the play test comes out, I'll be taking a crowbar to the class! Beating it into a nice modular pulp, so I can re-assemble the pieces into a more pleasing image of a "Paladin"!
Why? Because I don't care about Alignment maybe?...
Listen, I just care about the story that any future 'paladin' players want me to help them tell, and as far as I can tell, there are more stories possible the less requirements we keep weighing down, that durned class with.

What's that I hear Mr. Player? You wanna do a witch-finder general type character, kicking down cellar-doors and dragging demon cultists to their fiery doom in the town square? Heck that could be done on the Paladin-chassis! Its a great fit! But oh no...there's all these requirements you have to operate under, oh and there's some questions about alignment too…
Phooey!
Why the heck shouldn't it be possible to modify that chassis to that idea fluently, simply and gracefully?
…
Orthodoxy!
That's why. No other reason is really needed.
Double Phooey!
…
No that's why the Paladin is getting the crow-bar. Because if we don't question him and his ilk, then all we have is orthodoxy.
Well, come playtest time, I'm nailing my theses to his fore-head! Orthodoxy be damned!

Some players actually want to play the LG Paladin as the knight in shining armor who strives to uphold his code even though he is a failible mortal. They love the class as it is in the PF1 CRB

How does your dismantling the class with the ardor you describe helps them telling the tale they want ?

Because they can write LG on their character sheet, play the character that way and literally nothing has changed. The Paladin class doesn't "help" you play that way, it...

I honestly think that if doing this did not change something fundamental for these players, we would not be having any debate

And I do not think that their wish to keep the CRB Paladin LG-only is just to hurt other players

[The Raven Black]

Tectorman wrote:

Because his "dismantling" only goes so far as to take out the "your Paladin MUST behave this way or lose class features". Nothing about it takes away the "your Paladin CAN behave this way". The old edition requirement of "humans only" is dismantled in the same fashion. Are you prevented from playing a human Paladin due to said dismantling

I think race has far less impact than alignment on how people play their character

[Malk_Content]

I don't think they are doing it out of spite or anything. But it is hurting other players and the fundamental nature of it is purely psychological.

At the end of the day if an LG Paladin works the same as it did, but others can play other things, all that matters to the game experience is what happens at the table. It doesn't matter what other things the book says can happen, only what does happen matters. So much of so many things is fundamental to me but I cannot fathom the idea of demanding roleplaying restrictions to impose those fundamental things on other players. It does not click.

[ENHenry]

The Sideromancer wrote:

Good yes, but given "respect authority" is the last priority, how Lawful you would end up being seems like it would inversely correlate with how Good the establishment is. If near every authority you encounter is Evil, any Lawfulness of the code disappears.

A heavily Chaos-leaning Paladin could even state that no authority is legitimate enough to override the first three tenenants, and go on completely ignoring the fourth.

Ultimately it comes down to DM adjudication, like everything else, and if a player who is playing a Chaotic Good character was blatantly abusing the fourth tenet you'd have to come to a consensus with the player for their behavior on whether they were actually trying to obey the code or not. "I stole from the shopkeeper because there were starving orphans in the street" for example, while there were several other options available (Paladin or Cleric buddy conjures some food, Paladin offers his own money, Paladin uses Persuasion to work out something with the shopkeeper to get the child's family some work, Paladin sends word to his nearest church to send aid, Paladin convinces local movers and shakers to invest in some sort of charity, etc.) is pretty obviously trying to stick it to the code rather than living by it. In other words, if the Deity's code is well-defined, then it should be obvious between DM and player how to live by it, and how to come to agreement on what the intent of the code is, alignment or no.

All those "moralquandry-moralquandry-moralquandry-YOU FALL!" threads during the Paladin and Cleric blogs really annoyed me because it so often comes off like a bunch of DMs and Players who collectively are both antagonistic towards one another and just cannot have mature conversations with one another, which is a problem a game CANNOT EVER be written to solve.

[Malachandra]

Malk_Content wrote:

Malachandra wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

And I've never seen it adequately explained how the existence of different options, if your option remains exactly the same, dilutes or ruins your option. That someone somewhere can put Tabasco on their fried eggs doesn't mean my pepper and salt eggs are ruined.

I can try to answer this question. Let's say Paizo was making some changes to races. They came out and said "Dwarves will now have more options! They now come in regular skin tones, as well as green and pink. They no longer prefer living underground as a race, although some still do so. Some are still short and stocky, but from now on many will not be". Obviously an over the top example, but it illustrates how I feel. Yes, I could still play the more classic interpretation of dwarves. But that's no longer what dwarves are. They are now some generic, one-size-fits-all race. Now, when I play a dwarf, I'm not really playing a dwarf. I'm playing something else that can look like a dwarf.

I'm not really interested in how other people play their paladins, and I don't want to restrict peoples' options at their own table. But I associate a pretty specific flavor with paladins, and taking away the LG-only alignment kills that. Yes, it's nice to have universal, one-size-fits-all classes. But it's also nice to have flavorful, more niche classes.

I guess I still don't get it. So long as my table can still go "dwarves are like how they always were" without having to jump through mechanical hoops to get there I wouldn't mind at all. They also have done that a little in PF2E (and in 1 with alternate racial traits) what any two dwarves share is far reduced in favour of more customizable Ancestry Feats.

Although it is quite a different kettle of fish, given that the mechanical benefits of being a dwarf aren't tied to any roleplaying or character restrictions afterall.

But even with alternate racial traits, a dwarf is still a dwarf.

I would be horrified if they did something like this to the dwarf. I like giving players more options, but I think that should be done by adding actual options, not just making everything universal. At that point it's all just a bland pile of meh. Which is what an any-good paladin would be for me.

Malk_Content wrote:

I don't think they are doing it out of spite or anything. But it is hurting other players and the fundamental nature of it is purely psychological.

At the end of the day if an LG Paladin works the same as it did, but others can play other things, all that matters to the game experience is what happens at the table. It doesn't matter what other things the book says can happen, only what does happen matters. So much of so many things is fundamental to me but I cannot fathom the idea of demanding roleplaying restrictions to impose those fundamental things on other players. It does not click.

I don't know about "hurting other players", but it does matter what's in the rulebook. Changing the rules changes my game experience. Taking away flavor changes my game experience. I'm not saying everything has to be tied to flavor, but some stuff should be. And as it stands now (in PF1), the any alignment "divine champion" character is very doable. So why take away flavor from something else? Especially something that is going to make about half your fan base upset?

There are games out there that are entirely modular, where there are no classess and everyone "purchases" abilities from a single pool. Pathfinder is not one of them, and I like it that way. Sometimes, flavor and mechanics should go together.

[Malk_Content]

Malachandra wrote:

And as it stands now (in PF1), the any alignment "divine champion" character is very doable.

I think this is the big problem a lot of people are having. Yes it can be done already in PF1, with many of those options being a Paladin so your flavour is already diluted, but that shouldn't have any bearing in PF2E. How long do other players wait to get to play what they want in PF2E? 1 year, 2 years, maybe never because it hasn't been promised? How long do you think they should wait for something to come out that for all intents and purposes just removes LG from the Paladin page. This is why it hurts them.

And the flavour can still be 100% there. The LG Paladin can have the exact same restrictions and code as it does now while still letting others play with it.

[PossibleCabbage]

I feel like a second pass at the Warpriest would make it a reasonable "divine champion" workable for any alignment. Since mostly people were annoyed at the WP was not full BAB (no longer an issue), inherited a lot of the fighter's problems (no longer an issue), and lacked the Paladin's tremendous defenses (which are somewhat muted in PF2 seemingly.)

Like in PF1 the Paladin was an incredibly strong mechanical chassis, and the WP really wasn't. We can fix that with new versions of these classes.

I mean, I don't want the Paladin to be a *divine* champion, I want it to be a champion of goodness and law. Let's make another class for divine champions, and have it be a good class.

[Tectorman]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like a second pass at the Warpriest would make it a reasonable "divine champion" workable for any alignment. Since mostly people were annoyed at the WP was not full BAB (no longer an issue), inherited a lot of the fighter's problems (no longer an issue), and lacked the Paladin's tremendous defenses (which are somewhat muted in PF2 seemingly.)

Like in PF1 the Paladin was an incredibly strong mechanical chassis, and the WP really wasn't. We can fix that with new versions of these classes.

I mean, I don't want the Paladin to be a *divine* champion, I want it to be a champion of goodness and law. Let's make another class for divine champions, and have it be a good class.

See, this is completely reasonable. I see the Paladin as just one hyper-specific take on what that base chassis can represent amongst many, many, many uses for that same chassis, but that would have been chump change had almost the entirety of P1E not been so against ANY passable *divine* champion. The Warpriest, conceptually, was EXACTLY what we were taking the Paladin for, and amazingly, neither the game nor the setting imploded in a puff of logic when it was right there alongside the Paladin, not infringing on the Paladin's conceptual space. But it had the mechanical issues you described and that, combined with the Anti-Paladin being released in the APG as the CE version of the Paladin (and it not being the first of many such not-LG versions) and the Gray Paladin being the lackluster token appeasement, puts A LOT of distrust in Paizo's willingness to do right by the *divine* champion class.

So I can get behind this willingness for a *divine* champion class. My objection to this not being the same chassis as the Paladin is a logistical one. I feel the *divine* champion, being able to cover the Paladin and other concepts (just as the P1E Cleric covered both deities AND concepts, including being a Cleric of Goodness and Law), should have AS HIGH or HIGHER a priority for a CRB class (that is to say, one with that level of refinement, that level of continued support as supplements come out, and that level of respect as a class that players should never have had to fight for for multiple editions but should have naturally and obviously been a part of the roster from the getgo) than the Paladin's more limited take. And since we know the CRB class lineup is going to be the eleven original plus the Alchemist, I cannot pick anything but the hyper-specific Paladin to get the boot in favor of a *divine* champion perfectly capable of covering said hyper-specific Paladin (again, as capable as the P1E Cleric was).

[Emeric Tusan]

IF the Warpriest worked at all like it did in 1e it wouldn't fill the role that the paladin could in 2e for a couple of reasons.

1. It is to heavy of a spell caster for what I want to play.

2. This is more important the warpriest is not a good leader. I want a class that buffs my allies not just myself.

That said I would be fine with different named classes for some other alignments i don't really want to just see chaotic paladins. I would like to see paladins only available to LG, NG, and LN alignments. I would even be fine with only LG paladins not needing to warship a deity.

not sure how much design space there is for multiple war-leaders that are charisma based in the game without so much overlap that there is no point in making a new class.

[Shinigami02]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

I think the Paladin should embrace being a specific alignment rather than shy away from it

For the record, I too entirely agree with this. Some aspects of being a Paladin seem alignment agnostic (Divine Grace leaps to mind), but far more are tied to their Alignment in some fundamental way, at least thematically.

Being superb at Armor strikes me as very Lawful, for example, while the more Chaotic versions could favor Weapons instead, while healing is quintessentially part of the Good versions (Evil should get harm stuff ala Touch of Corruption). I'd also be cool with party-buffing stuff being Lawful affiliated, while the Chaotic version would get more self-buff powers (Chaotic being more associated with individualism, after all). Oath Feats also seem fundamentally Lawful to me, though I suspect the Chaotic versions would just get more non-Oath affiliated stuff rather than an equivalent category.

I see this come up not irregularly, and I've got to ask: Why is Armor the domain of Lawful? I can see literally nothing about being able to defend yourself that is the domain of the Lawful axis. Party Buffing, that I could see (Good of the Group and all that) but I just don't see Defense being strictly the domain of Law.

[Tectorman]

Shinigami02 wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

I think the Paladin should embrace being a specific alignment rather than shy away from it

For the record, I too entirely agree with this. Some aspects of being a Paladin seem alignment agnostic (Divine Grace leaps to mind), but far more are tied to their Alignment in some fundamental way, at least thematically.

Being superb at Armor strikes me as very Lawful, for example, while the more Chaotic versions could favor Weapons instead, while healing is quintessentially part of the Good versions (Evil should get harm stuff ala Touch of Corruption). I'd also be cool with party-buffing stuff being Lawful affiliated, while the Chaotic version would get more self-buff powers (Chaotic being more associated with individualism, after all). Oath Feats also seem fundamentally Lawful to me, though I suspect the Chaotic versions would just get more non-Oath affiliated stuff rather than an equivalent category.

I see this come up not irregularly, and I've got to ask: Why is Armor the domain of Lawful? I can see literally nothing about being able to defend yourself that is the domain of the Lawful axis. Party Buffing, that I could see (Good of the Group and all that) but I just don't see Defense being strictly the domain of Law.

Ironically, I thought the Vindictive Bastard's alternative class features and how party-centric they were in comparison to the base Paladin's class features made for a better case for the VB being lawful than the base Paladin.

[Star Dragon Caith]

Steelfiredragon wrote:

and the warpriest sucks both as a class name and a class

Huh? I don't understand this at all. Warpriests are awesome, and allow for exactly what the Paladin purists want - Paladins as Paladins, and other types of divinely-powered warriors in their own category. They also happen to be very effective as a class. The Warpriest is the shining jewel of the Ultimate Class guide, whose classes were uneven in quality and power.

[The Raven Black]

Shinigami02 wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

I think the Paladin should embrace being a specific alignment rather than shy away from it

For the record, I too entirely agree with this. Some aspects of being a Paladin seem alignment agnostic (Divine Grace leaps to mind), but far more are tied to their Alignment in some fundamental way, at least thematically.

Being superb at Armor strikes me as very Lawful, for example, while the more Chaotic versions could favor Weapons instead, while healing is quintessentially part of the Good versions (Evil should get harm stuff ala Touch of Corruption). I'd also be cool with party-buffing stuff being Lawful affiliated, while the Chaotic version would get more self-buff powers (Chaotic being more associated with individualism, after all). Oath Feats also seem fundamentally Lawful to me, though I suspect the Chaotic versions would just get more non-Oath affiliated stuff rather than an equivalent category.

I see this come up not irregularly, and I've got to ask: Why is Armor the domain of Lawful? I can see literally nothing about being able to defend yourself that is the domain of the Lawful axis. Party Buffing, that I could see (Good of the Group and all that) but I just don't see Defense being strictly the domain of Law.

Because of the knight in shining armor being the archetype for LG Paladin while CG exemplars are Zorro and Robin Hood : no armor

[willuwontu]

I hate coming into these threads, but I feel the need. People keep pointing out warpriest as a perfectly fine alternative to the paladin chassis.

Let me ask you this, if paladin as a class didn't exist but LG warpriest did, would you be satisfied?

[Ryan Freire]

willuwontu wrote:

I hate coming into these threads, but I feel the need. People keep pointing out warpriest as a perfectly fine alternative to the paladin chassis.

Let me ask you this, if paladin as a class didn't exist but LG warpriest did, would you be satisfied?

Nope but thats because paladin has a decades long history with small changes but remaining roughly the same.

You aren't going to logic me into enjoying or accepting a change that at its fundamental level is opinion on game metaphysics based. I just wont pay for it and will let my FLGS they can order fewer books.

[The Raven Black]

Malk_Content wrote:

I don't think they are doing it out of spite or anything. But it is hurting other players and the fundamental nature of it is purely psychological.

At the end of the day if an LG Paladin works the same as it did, but others can play other things, all that matters to the game experience is what happens at the table. It doesn't matter what other things the book says can happen, only what does happen matters. So much of so many things is fundamental to me but I cannot fathom the idea of demanding roleplaying restrictions to impose those fundamental things on other players. It does not click.

I guess because they in fact demand it for themselves : the Paladin is a mortal trying to get beyond themselves by following the restrictions imposed by the code as well as the alignment. If the alignment is free, I think it does not hold the same value as a perfect goal to strive for

I think this would explain why they agree with Divine Warriors exemplifying non-LG alignments but vehemently wish for the Paladin to stay the same old LG class that inspires them

[willuwontu]

Ryan Freire wrote:

willuwontu wrote:

I hate coming into these threads, but I feel the need. People keep pointing out warpriest as a perfectly fine alternative to the paladin chassis.

Let me ask you this, if paladin as a class didn't exist but LG warpriest did, would you be satisfied?

Nope but thats because paladin has a decades long history with small changes but remaining roughly the same.

You aren't going to logic me into enjoying or accepting a change that at its fundamental level is opinion on game metaphysics based. I just wont pay for it and will let my FLGS they can order fewer books.

If by small changes, you mean changes to every ability and the removal of a bunch of restrictions, then you'd be correct.

Thanks for your insightful response.

[Deadmanwalking]

Shinigami02 wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

I think the Paladin should embrace being a specific alignment rather than shy away from it

For the record, I too entirely agree with this. Some aspects of being a Paladin seem alignment agnostic (Divine Grace leaps to mind), but far more are tied to their Alignment in some fundamental way, at least thematically.

Being superb at Armor strikes me as very Lawful, for example, while the more Chaotic versions could favor Weapons instead, while healing is quintessentially part of the Good versions (Evil should get harm stuff ala Touch of Corruption). I'd also be cool with party-buffing stuff being Lawful affiliated, while the Chaotic version would get more self-buff powers (Chaotic being more associated with individualism, after all). Oath Feats also seem fundamentally Lawful to me, though I suspect the Chaotic versions would just get more non-Oath affiliated stuff rather than an equivalent category.

I see this come up not irregularly, and I've got to ask: Why is Armor the domain of Lawful? I can see literally nothing about being able to defend yourself that is the domain of the Lawful axis. Party Buffing, that I could see (Good of the Group and all that) but I just don't see Defense being strictly the domain of Law.

Well, I'm not suggesting forsaking armor entirely, just going from Master Weapons/Legendary Armor to Legendary Weapons/Master Armor.

As for why, it's just a thematic thing. Lawful characters stand strong and resist temptation, they're inherently conservative in the technical sense, preferring to maintain tradition rather than pushing for change. Chaotic characters, meanwhile, tend to be a tad more proactive, actively striving to change things.

Those are tendencies rather than absolute rules, but they're common enough that having the Lawful version be better at standing firm while the Chaotic version is a tad better at the proactive stuff has some thematic resonance.

[Steelfiredragon]

Star Dragon Caith wrote:

Steelfiredragon wrote:

and the warpriest sucks both as a class name and a class

Huh? I don't understand this at all. Warpriests are awesome, and allow for exactly what the Paladin purists want - Paladins as Paladins, and other types of divinely-powered warriors in their own category. They also happen to be very effective as a class. The Warpriest is the shining jewel of the Ultimate Class guide, whose classes were uneven in quality and power.

I disagree, the Class did not do anything for me, thus it sucks.

its defense abilities stunk, its offensive ones were not nearly as bad. I did not like 99% of its archtypes. So you think it shined, thats good for you, but not for me and anyone else who have issues with it. IT does NOT shine for me.

And I am NO paladin purist and to say I should bend backwards for them is down right insulting. it is to me as well to heavily focused on spell casting for my taste.

Edit: its offense and defense abilities would be 2 things I'd forget to use and would still be playing a cleric.

The Hunter was a better Class than the Warpriest.

oh and on a different post:
Robin Hood wore one of the following leather, Hide or ring mail.( not too likely on the latter though)

note: I should not have posted my opinion on this after it gets me worked up.. should have waited... oh well....

[Rob Godfrey]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like we just need a different word since I can't see "Paladin" applying to anything that's not LG, since the word is almost definitionally "the hero who always does the right thing in the right way."

It's fine to have a deific champion of any alignment, but that isn't (to me) a Paladin, even the champions of LG deities. Personally, I think of a Paladin as someone who values fundamental goodness and order more than any particular deity. A "you are the chosen warrior for whatever god" should be a totally different class, just don't call it a Paladin.

I would rather see "Warpriest" become a core class and have the Paladin go away entirely than see non-LG Paladins.

i have explained this before, but War Priests do not feel like blessed warriors, far to much casting far to little blessings, a Blessed Champion should have little or no spells, for they are not clerics, but have resistances, immunities, passive abilities basically as the deity empowers and protects them, smite thematically fits, the deity needs its champion to be a killer, as does a weapon or mount, being a hybrid caster really does not. Sorry pet peeve 'just play war priest' is like telling someone who wants to play a rogue to play a mage, completely the wrong feel and abilities.