[Paladin] Alternative Class : Crusader (please read and comment)


Classes


Hi guys,

All I ask is that you keep an open mind while reading this post and to leave a comment if you think this idea holds merit.

My suggestion is the Paladin needs to be reskinned and retooled into something neutral like the Cleric.

Playing a cleric is great because you can be a cleric of any god. Their disposition and domain define what powers you get given, but for whatever reason the Paladin is trapped as a GOOD character.

What I propose is the Paladin class should be renamed to "The Crusader" and be a class that can go between good or evil based on who they pledge their allegiance to. The Crusader would function identically to the current paladin, however the Anathema would change to follow the Cleric's. In addition some opposed class features should be included to accomodate the evil and neutral members of the new class.

By doing this the Crusader will offer a wider variety of character options and lay the foundations for expansions and archetypes into any kind of Divine Champion. An Aesmodean Crusader corrupting the living with contracts and tyranny or an Iomedan Crusader who fights for righteousness, both now have their feet firmly planted on a solid class foundation.

---------------------------------------------------

I believe the changes required to bring this idea to fruition would be a very minor, but would offer a very substantial benefit later on down the track for Pathfinder 2nd Edition.

If you've read this thread and like the idea please let me know in the comments below. I know everyone loves the idea of paladins and the thought of losing something so familiar is a terrifying prospect, but I honestly believe this would be such a strong move and I hope there are many others that believe it would be as well.

Much Love Gang! Happy Playtesting


So I'm going to preface this with I understand what you're trying to do. I have a few questions for you first, as I do with my players when they ask for class modifications.

1) Why exactly do you want a Paladins of other alignments? Does not, especially in this edition, a martial cleric work? A fighter or fighter/cleric even.

2) How much booking do you believe this will save? Because the way I'm seeing it you would have to entirely gate the evil/neutral/good options to keep them separate.

Please don't misunderstand me - if I come across as condescending that is not my intention at all. It's just... paladin and blackguards/ deathknights/ antipaladins have always been near and dear to me and broadening them out, I feel, deprives them of the gravitas associated with them. (Part of why never do I ever describe any draconic encounter of less than CR10 as a 6 limb dragon. Below CR 10 it's a drake)


We've had this thread a dozen times in the lead up to the playtest. Paizo is keeping the CRB Paladin as LG only, and is relegating similar classes of different alignments to splatbooks.


I agree with some kind of change in this direction. The problem is that good is subjective and changes from person to person. I have played paladins in games where the DM had vastly different opinions on some of my actions being good or not and at times like that I did not have much fun having to defend my actions for 20 minutes. I once killed an innocent child because he had an illness that would have wiped out a town and we didn't have the time to find the cure. In my character's eyes this was the clear choice for good. Save as many as possible. I lost all my paladin abilities for a month of sessions before I finally just rolled a new character.

I don't want to make a comparison to 5e but I'm going to. The 5E oath of vengence is an excellent example of this. That oath boils down to hunting down injustice and stamping it out. I like to think of it like a batman vigilante. Is he good? Is he neutral? A bit of both?

The idea of a paladin being stuck to 1 alignment is a relic of the 3.x era that should be changed with this edition.


@Long John

Much like a Cleric serves their god, so should the Crusader. In this edition with multi-classing the way it currently is, the Paladin seems very lack luster. As a whole it would simply be a martial class with a knights code that affords them faith based supernatural and spell-like powers.

1)I would like for Crusaders to be Lawful in alignment and gain their powers from following their oath rather than just being good. While a martial cleric or even a fighter could work, it's still lacking the whole idea of the "Knight's Code" where they swore their lives and blades to their kingdom, church or cause and gaining supernatural/spell-like powers.

2)You would only need a Good and an Evil option, with Neutral being free to decide between the two the same way that Clerics currently do. I believe it's less about saving booking but creating a better launching platform for other character options than the Paladin currently does.

------------

Don't worry man I love being challenged cause it means I forge my ideas better and explain it for those who take the time to read it.

I don't see it as depriving the other classes from being unique. To the contrary it would be about a base form (that being the Crusader or Knight) shaping into the various types of Knight.

A Crusader that takes on a necromantic style = Death Knight, Crusader that becomes a recruiter = Herald, a Crusader who serves a Daimyo = Samurai. This is for me a stronger method of designing your paladin/anti-paladin/grey guard etc than simply having the paladin and archetyping it later.

----------------

@Athaleon - Yes it has and I've brought it up before but it doesn't make it less of a good idea. It's not about making the Paladin LG, but changing the paladin all together and having the Crusader become the staple in it's stead.

Think like the Cavalier who has the option of becoming a Paladin or Blackguard and later a whole score of other things based on the archetypes.


I think this ship has sailed.

The outcry and blood fueds that would follow the removal of the Paladin class would turn these forums into a smoldering wasteland and do tremendous damage to Pathfinder as a whole.

It isn't worth it.


@ HWalsh,

If we all band together we can move mountains! <epic pose>


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The stated reasons for keeping the Paladin as a one-trick class were pretty weak. Essentially, they felt they needed to keep the Paladin as is for tradition - which is a horrible method of game design.

There is absolutely no justifiable reason to waste an entire class to devote to a singular trope/concept. It goes against pretty much every other game design decision in this otherwise versatile and modular system.

Silver Crusade

“When I think of Paladins I think of Heroes” isn’t a bad tradition I would say.


Deadaussiegamer wrote:

@ HWalsh,

If we all band together we can move mountains! <epic pose>

While I accept ypur chutzpah, I wouldn't band together on this with you.

I'd be on the other side banding together with others to oppose you.

To me if it doesn't have a proper Paladin, then it's not D&D or any variant thereof. Its why I don't play 5e and don't consider it a successor to the line.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
“When I think of Paladins I think of Heroes” isn’t a bad tradition I would say.

Having a narrow vision for what makes a person "a hero" is though.

Not that you're advocating that, but that is what having only LG paladins comes across as saying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Rysky, I completely agree which is why I think the change in name is something needed. Crusaders can be good or evil and their fate is often tied with who they devote themselves to.

This is a much more versatile use of the precious core class slot than the very restricted but traditional "Paladin".

@HWalsh <heartbreak> though I'm sure people said the same thing when people were told Dwarves can now be Wizards.

@AnimatedPaper, I think there are a tons of ways to play heroes but tying it to just the one alignment and archetype seems like it'll end up creating more work for what is effectively already available. Clerics have the right idea and paladins should follow suit.


I made the point in the playtest, that only slightly bulking up the Anathema would have it basically as restrictive as the code. Having seen the Anathema for other deities, I think some might need a little more than "slightly" to work, but I still stand by that. Honestly the paladin probably shouldn't be a base class, but instead a prestige archetype. But if they're keeping it as a base class, then I think something needs to be done. (Though honestly I don't expect anything to be done, since not including it in the playtest is basically saying it won't happen, where as if they did include it in the playtest, they'd have the data to say whether it really is as much of a minefield as the, probably not very representative, forums suggest it to be)

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / [Paladin] Alternative Class : Crusader (please read and comment) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Classes