| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
This might be an unpopular opinion, but i think restricting Paladins to Lawful Good is outdated, unnecessary, and makes them far less interesting.
One of my favourite books in D&D 3.5 was the Unearthed Arcana, which introduced the Paladins of Slaughter, Freedom and Tyranny, of alignments CE, CB and LE respectively. Just like the LG paladin, they are living embodiments of their respective alignments carried pretty much to the extreme, and, to me, that's what being a paladin means.
I do not see a reason we can't have that as part of the base class of the Paladin, all Paizo would need to do is remove the restriction for the base class (or change so it can be LG, CG, CE or LE), change some powers and feats to work differently depending on the alignment of the character (like we have for clerics) and maybe create alignment restricted feats (for instance, maybe they can have feats like "Aura of Fear" which would require you to be Evil, while others like "Oath of Freedom" need you to be specifically CG).
Sure, this means revisiting and tweaking the whole class, but it makes for much more interesting paladins, and, therefore, much more interesting characters, as we can now explore how those characters with extreme unfaltering alignments interact with the world.
Adittionally, given the current archetype system, implementing it at a later date would be pretty much impossible unless they are released as separate base classes. For all those reasons, Paizo, please consider allowing paladins of different alingments.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Note how the Playtest book calls the paladin powers "Champion" powers.
Note how several feats include Lay on Hands as a prerequisite even if it's automatically given.
Note how your playtest GM smiles when you tell them you want multiple alignment paladins.
You'll be fine.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm opposed to allowing paladins of other alignments for reasons that have been exhaustively discussed and also:
The origin of the word paladin comes from Palatinus which means "officer of the palace".
The word itself is steeped in lawfulness.
If you want to have unholy or chaotic champions, that's fine, but don't try to change the meaning of the language.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paladin
Definition of paladin
1 : a trusted military leader (as for a medieval prince)
2 : a leading champion of a cause
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm opposed to allowing paladins of other alignments for reasons that have been exhaustively discussed and also:
The origin of the word paladin comes from Palatinus which means "officer of the palace".
The word itself is steeped in lawfulness.
If you want to have unholy or chaotic champions, that's fine, but don't try to change the meaning of the language.
Officer of the palace isn't steeped in lawfulness. It just means you answer to a king/queen, which... has nothing to do with D&D paladins, and certainly isn't an indicator of law or good.
Sounds more like paladins are free to go off on race and religious based murder sprees like their titular predecessors.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what I want is-
-Paladins to be exemplars of alignment, not martial champions of deities.
-Other alignments get their own "exemplar of this alignment" class, which can share feats between them but should have their own mechanics and flavor.
-Paladin-analogues for other alignments are not called "Paladin."
-"Martial representative of a church or deity" becomes its own class which is open to all the alignments clerics are.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This might be an unpopular opinion, but i think restricting Paladins to Lawful Good is outdated, unnecessary, and makes them far less interesting.
One of my favourite books in D&D 3.5 was the Unearthed Arcana, which introduced the Paladins of Slaughter, Freedom and Tyranny, of alignments CE, CB and LE respectively. Just like the LG paladin, they are living embodiments of their respective alignments carried pretty much to the extreme, and, to me, that's what being a paladin means.
I do not see a reason we can't have that as part of the base class of the Paladin, all Paizo would need to do is remove the restriction for the base class (or change so it can be LG, CG, CE or LE), change some powers and feats to work differently depending on the alignment of the character (like we have for clerics) and maybe create alignment restricted feats (for instance, maybe they can have feats like "Aura of Fear" which would require you to be Evil, while others like "Oath of Freedom" need you to be specifically CG).
Sure, this means revisiting and tweaking the whole class, but it makes for much more interesting paladins, and, therefore, much more interesting characters, as we can now explore how those characters with extreme unfaltering alignments interact with the world.
Adittionally, given the current archetype system, implementing it at a later date would be pretty much impossible unless they are released as separate base classes. For all those reasons, Paizo, please consider allowing paladins of different alingments.
No, No and No. First Paladins are LG. This is their Right and Proper alignment.
Second, if you must have non LG paladins for the love of all that you love about gaming don't just "change some powers and feats to work differently". Just changing smite evil to smite good and lay on hands to touch of corruption is just terrible game design - do them properly and make the abilities different.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note how the Playtest book calls the paladin powers "Champion" powers.
Note how several feats include Lay on Hands as a prerequisite even if it's automatically given.
Note how your playtest GM smiles when you tell them you want multiple alignment paladins.You'll be fine.
Yeah. In my crystal ball here I am seeing the name of the class as a whole changed to 'Champion' with 'Paladin' being the LG variant. That would be nice.
And no arguments about the historical meaning of the word 'paladin' required.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want a generic knight class that can take different 'oaths' to gain their status.
Different oaths can have different alignments and abilities, like the clerics deity list.
Hellknight, Samurai, Tyrant, Antipaladin, and whatever you get when you have a CG knight could come from this. Of course, paladin would remain an option, with the shiny toys.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I AM OPPOSED to having Paladins of any alignment outside of GOOD.
just like I AM OPPOSED to have Blackguards/ Anti-paladins outside EVIL.
I AM ALSO OPPOSED to have Grey Machines of Your Doom outside of Neutral.
But Paladins and anti-paladins are two sides of the same coin: warriors with unfaltering devotion to their ideals and deity, for which they are rewarded with divine powers, including the ability to channel their deity's energy through their hands and enhancing their presence to the point it becomes a supernatural aura. Both lore-wise and mechanic-wise, they're one and the same, there's no difference that stems from anything other than the deity and ideal they choose to pursue, so it makes sense for them to be under the same base class.
Now, as other people are saying, that class could be called "Champion", a divine martial class which forces you to choose a code of conduct upon taking it, and those who chose the Paladin code of conduct are considered Paladins, and same with Anti-Paladins, Liberatots, Tyrants, or whatever you wanna call the rest. To me Paladin is just fine, but I don't really care about the nomenclature, this discussion was never about that. What this was about is opening the mechanics and lore of the divine warrior to more than just LG, which most people seem to agree with, so please, let's stop discussing about naming.
No, No and No. First Paladins are LG. This is their Right and Proper alignment.
Second, if you must have non LG paladins for the love of all that you love about gaming don't just "change some powers and feats to work differently". Just changing smite evil to smite good and lay on hands to touch of corruption is just terrible game design - do them properly and make the abilities different.
First, yes, yes and yes, any religion and alingment can have divine champions to fight for them, and those champions can be called paladins if they so choose. Aditionally, paladins of other alingments have been done in D&D 3.5, D&D 4, D&D 5 and Pathfinder 1 (in 3.5 and Pathfinder, outside of the Core book, but it's been done). The concept of this class and it's mechanics being tied to just LG is, as i said in my first post, outdated, just like restricting classes by race. Also also, "I don't like this it shouldn't be like this" doesn't really make for a good argument.
Second, just changing feats and powers (and codes of conduct, of course) is the way to go, because that remarks how similar yet different they can be. The example you made about the antipaladin is perfect, because their powers are equal but oposite you can tell they're two sides of the same coin, as i said earlier, and it makes sense they'd gain equivalent powers, as their source is the same: their code and their faith.
and those champions can be called paladins if they so chooseSeeing as how to a bunch of us Paladin means "hero", not "champion of [whatever]" that's a sticking point.
I'm sure a CE orc chieftain can be considered a hero by his subordinates, or even other orcs in other clans.
But anyway, ignoring the definition of paladin and inventing your own seems like a you problem.
EDIT: Also, I said this isn't about the Paladin name, change the class to "Champion" and let the Paladin be the LG version. Can we please stop discussing the word paladin?
"I don't like this it shouldn't be like this" doesn't really make for a good argument.
um, isn't that the entire basis for wanting it opened to all alignments, I mean at its core that's the sum of your position, really. Or is there more than "I don't like LG only paladins, please change it"?
|
Not the definition of Hero I was using. I truly meant Hero, not just someone someone else look up to for a certain reason. Someone who is truly heroic, that is what I and a whole bunch of other people think of when we see the word "Paladin".I'm sure a CE orc chieftain can be considered a hero by his subordinates, or even other orcs in other clans.and those champions can be called paladins if they so chooseSeeing as how to a bunch of us Paladin means "hero", not "champion of [whatever]" that's a sticking point.
But anyway, ignoring the definition of paladin and inventing your own seems like a you problem.
1) What?
2) Dial back the aggression a bit.
EDIT: Also, I said this isn't about the Paladin name, change the class to "Champion" and let the Paladin be the LG version. Can we please stop discussing the word paladin?
Since we're talking about Paladins, not really?
EDIT: Also, I said this isn't about the Paladin name, change the class to "Champion" and let the Paladin be the LG version. Can we please stop discussing the word paladin?Since we're talking about Paladins, not really?
Now, as other people are saying, that class could be called "Champion", a divine martial class which forces you to choose a code of conduct upon taking it, and those who chose the Paladin code of conduct are considered Paladins, and same with Anti-Paladins, Liberatots, Tyrants, or whatever you wanna call the rest. To me Paladin is just fine, but I don't really care about the nomenclature, this discussion was never about that. What this was about is opening the mechanics and lore of the divine warrior to more than just LG, which most people seem to agree with, so please, let's stop discussing about naming.
It's not about the paladin name, it's about the lore and mechanics of the class, so i don't care if the class is called "Champion" and Paladins are Champions with a Paladin Code of Conduct (which would require LG) while the other champions are called different things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some players want a "Holy Champion" but are very specific that it isn't a Cleric. They see the Paladin as a chassis of powers and abilities. They don't want to be Lawful Good, or they prefer deities that aren't. They don't think it is fair that the Paladin is special and think it should not be.
Some players, myself among them, see the Paladin as a special class, a unique historical and romantic artifact from the earliest days of gaming. It is special. It is unique. It is bursting with flavor in a way that more homogenized and generic classes simply are not. Any attempt to make them more generic (IE just being a subtype of another class that shares their abilities) will be met with swift, aggressive, resistance.
Except Anti-Paladins already exist in D&D and PF, and they always have the same kind of powers, so using the Champion class as an umbrella under which both fit in adds or substracts nothing at all and just simplifies things. Also, in PF there are Grey Paladins and Tyrant Anti-Paladins, so it's already pretty open.
For many of us, this is the last piece of original D&D that still exists. Nothing else is even recognizable. So radically changed that side-by-side you couldn't tell they were the same thing without the name.
But that's a good thing, or else we'd be playing AD&D. You don't really need to keep something just for the sake of keeping it, you always try to change and improve things, that is precisely the reason new versions are made. If what you want is the elements of the original, you can go back to play that, a new version is never gonna keep you from that, (as a matter of fact, i'm probably gonna keep playing PF1 for a looong time) but don't let nostalgia rule over what can and can't be done in the new version.
|
|
From Merriam Webster,Not the definition of Hero I was using. I truly meant Hero, not just someone someone else look up to for a certain reason. Someone who is truly heroic, that is what I and a whole bunch of other people think of when we see the word "Paladin".I'm sure a CE orc chieftain can be considered a hero by his subordinates, or even other orcs in other clans.and those champions can be called paladins if they so chooseSeeing as how to a bunch of us Paladin means "hero", not "champion of [whatever]" that's a sticking point.>Someone who is trully heroic
If your larger than life feats inspire others to your cause, that makes you trully heroic to them. Good, bad, you're the guy with the divine gun.
1 a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability
b : an illustrious warrior
c : a person admired for achievements and noble qualities
d : one who shows great courage2 a : the principal character in a literary or dramatic work —used specifically of a principal male character especially when contrasted with heroine
b : the central figure in an event, period, or movement3 plural usually heros : submarine 2
4 : an object of extreme admiration and devotion : idol
The definition I use is the 1st, the one you're trying is much later down at 4. When I say Hero, I do mean Hero, not just an idol.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm starting to grow tired of these arguements. Particularly because other problems where you can present fact, you can't with this one because it's purely opinion and belief. I've made my case before, I am for opening Paladin, but most of that comes from believing that alignment is an enormously outdated system. It means nothing in Starfinder, D&D 5e, and even the Playtest book sweeps it away with the exception of Paladins (and to a lesser extent Clerics). I prefer the idea Paladins play to Anathema. The code can be the same, but let the person they are following those rules be whoever.
That aside, I'll present something new which occurred to me.
I've played as far back as Palladium and AD&D. While I was young at the time, I did play. I've been running games for 15+ years. Back in AD&D, the restrictions for being a Paladin were so extreme your character was basically superhuman. It made sense that with that great power came restriction and responsibilities. As editions and years went on, that power level waned, and a bit of the restriction did as well, allowing non-humans and removing the ability score requirements for example. What they kept though was... Meh. You had characters with the moral rigidity of Superman but the powers of Batman.
I looked back on those 15 years of tables and realized the number of Paladins (or facsimiles like Antipaladins or Hellknights) at my tables, whether I was playing or running was 0. Nobody between long term 3.5 games, 4e, Pathfinder, all of it... Nobody wanted to play a Paladin. The closest anyone got at one of my tables was playing a LG Samurai. Paladin was the only core class that not a single player over 15 years and countless tables between Encounters, PFS, and other events wanted to play.
5e changed this. I have played 2 5e Paladins myself, and the main reason for this has been the concept of doubt. I made a LG Paladin chosen by the deities who doubted herself whether her deity's methods were right, as well as whether she was right for the position. I also made a LN Paladin who's devotion was not to any deity, but to serving a particular noble family, acting as their sheild (though more accurately she was a sword). She had to struggle with the idea nobility may not always be right.
You can whine or complain they were not your vision of a Paladin, and that's fine. But they were my characters, and I very much liked them both. Neither required homebrewing rules or other nonsense. They followed their codes and that was that.
From a mechanical standpoint, as a game, a class needs to fill a role or no one will play it. Defending the Paladins restrictions when those restrictions effectively offer nothing new as compared to other choices mean that they have no niche. The only unique feature they have right now is Legendary Heavy Armor Proficiency, anything else they can do right now another class does better. Clerics still wear armor and heal better, Barbarians arguably have better smite-like damage, and Fighters AoO is more versatile than Retributive Strike. Having strong character restrictions in order to do those three thing mediocre is not fun, and for most tables will just result in wasted book space.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In contrast you dont change things just to change them. You don't need to expand the Paladin. You say we shouldn't keep traditions. I say we don't need to change the game just because some people don't like how things are.For many of us, this is the last piece of original D&D that still exists. Nothing else is even recognizable. So radically changed that side-by-side you couldn't tell they were the same thing without the name.But that's a good thing, or else we'd be playing AD&D. You don't really need to keep something just for the sake of keeping it, you always try to change and improve things, that is precisely the reason new versions are made. If what you want is the elements of the original, you can go back to play that, a new version is never gonna keep you from that, (as a matter of fact, i'm probably gonna keep playing PF1 for a looong time) but don't let nostalgia rule over what can and can't be done in the new version.
What? i didn't say anything about changing it just to change it, or just because some people don't like the way it is, and to imply that i said that is dishonest at best. I have given my reasons on why i think doing so will improve the game without taking anything away, what i said in your quote is just me explaining why i don't think "we should keep it because it's the last piece of the original" is a valid argument against what i'm saying
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As it stands the alignment issues with the paladin are like .. the seventh thing currently wrong with them. I was concerned about the LG issue prior to the play test and now I just cannot bring myself to work up the energy to argue about it.
#notmypaladin
I’m wondering at this point if Paladins should be scrapped as a base class and made into a prestige archetype instead.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People can argue about word meanings and the rest till the end of time when the question that needs to be asked is easy, is it fun?.
Because at every table I sit at 80% of the time paladin is banned because players either
A) don’t want to deal with the restrictions.
B) don’t want to deal with a Lawful Stupid character who always shoves THEIR self imposed tenants on the party.
C) the final reason comes back to the code and how strict it is with some GM’s taking your powers if you so much as blink at them with others letting you get away with almost anything as long as you say you’re following your gods tenants.
In short a lot of people want LG as a restriction gone so that people can play the characters they want, it also reduces that immediate recoil of someone showing up with a paladin causing your rogue to scrunch up his character sheet because he now knows 80% of the abilities unique to him aren’t allowed because ‘The greater Good’ turned up.
Paladins of...
... moderately unhelpful clickbait titles? I'm down. I'd guess there are some paladin fans that are very much opposed though, since moderately unhelpful clickbait titles aren't really in any other edition, and might open paladin up to concepts which run contrary to their core concept.
moderately unhelpful clickbait titles?
Yeah, years on the internet has taught me that if you put enough information in the title, a lot of people will chime in without ever reading the post... kinda how you just did, but being completely serious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
is there a reason people want to corrupt the paladin. it's a holy warrior of righteousness. if you don't want to be a holy warrior of righteousness don't play a paladin.
is there a reason people want to corrupt the paladin. it's a holy warrior of righteousness. if you don't want to be a holy warrior of righteousness don't play a paladin.
Mostly to avoid bloat later in the form of multiple classes that attempt to be a paladin/knight like Cavaliers, Samurai, and Hellknights.
Giving a choice of order and including paladins in them seems to enable more concepts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
is there a reason people want to corrupt the paladin. it's a holy warrior of righteousness. if you don't want to be a holy warrior of righteousness don't play a paladin.
I want the holy warrior of righteousness to be freely and genuinely chosen (and therefore, honest and authentic (I thought these were good qualities)), rather than imposed simply because that's the only way to experience the class mechanical design space the Paladin mechanics currently occupy. That's not corrupting the Paladin; it's uncorrupting him.