Paladin Class Preview

Monday, May 7, 2018

All it takes is a cursory browse of the Paizo forums to see that paladins are not just the most contentious class in Pathfinder, they are the most contentious conversation topic. Weeks before we previewed the class, multiple threads with thousands of posts arose in advance, filled with passionate fans with many different opinions and plenty of good ideas. Turns out, the Paizo office isn't too different.

The Quest for the Holy Grail

Early last year, I went on a sacred quest through the office and surveyed all the different opinions out there about paladins. Turns out, almost everyone had slightly different thoughts. But there was one element in common: whether they wanted paladins of all alignments, paladins of the four extreme alignments, lawful good paladins and chaotic evil antipaladins, lawful evil tyrant antipaladins, or even just lawful good paladins alone, everyone was interested in robust support for the idea that paladins should be champions of their deity and alignment. That is to say, whatever alignments paladins have, they should have an array of abilities deeply tied into that alignment.

Since that was the aspect of the paladin that everyone agreed upon, that's what we wanted to make sure we got right in the playtest. But given the limited space for the playtest, we chose to focus on getting that aspect fine-tuned for one alignment, and so in this book we're presenting only lawful good paladins. That doesn't mean antipaladins and tyrants are gone (there's even an antipaladin foe in one of the adventures!) or that the door is closed to other sorts of paladins down the road. We'll have a playtest survey on the matter, we're open to more opinions, and even among the four designers we have different ideas. But we want to focus the playtest on getting lawful good paladins right, first and foremost. If or when we do make more paladins and antipaladins, having constructed a solid foundation for how an alignment-driven champion functions will be a crucial step to making all of them engaging and different in play.

Illustration by Wayne Reynolds

The Code

Tell me if you've heard this one before: My paladin was brought to a court where she was forced to testify under oath to tell the whole truth, by a legitimate authority, about the whereabouts of certain innocent witnesses, but she knows that if she answers the questions, a villain is going to use that information to track down and harm the innocents. It's the "Inquiring Murderer" quandary from moral philosophy set in a way that manages to pin you between not just two but three different restrictions in the old paladin code. Sure, I can beg and plead with the judge that the information, if released, would harm innocents, but ultimately if the judge persists, I'm in trouble. These sorts of situations are some of the most common paladin threads on the forums, and they're never easy.

With the playtest presenting the opportunity, I wanted to analyze the paladin's code down to basic principles and keep all the important roleplaying aspects that make paladins the trustworthy champions of law and good we've come to expect while drastically reducing, and hopefully eliminating, the no-win situations. Here's what it looks like at the moment.

Code of Conduct

Paladins are divine champions of a deity. You must be lawful good and worship a deity that allows lawful good clerics. Actions fundamentally opposed to your deity's alignment or ideals are anathema to your faith. A few examples of acts that would be considered anathema appear in each deity's entry. You and your GM will determine whether other acts count as anathema.

In addition, you must follow the paladin's code below. Deities often add additional strictures for their own paladins (for instance, Shelyn's paladins never attack first except to protect an innocent, and they choose and perfect an art).

If you stray from lawful good, perform acts anathema to your deity, or violate your code of conduct, you lose your Spell Point pool and righteous ally class feature (which we talk more about below) until you demonstrate your repentance by conducting an atone ritual, but you keep any other paladin abilities that don't require those class features.

The Paladin's Code

The following is the fundamental code all paladins follow. The tenets are listed in order of importance, starting with the most important. If a situation places two tenets in conflict, you aren't in a no-win situation; instead, follow the most important tenet. For instance, if an evil king asked you if innocent lawbreakers were hiding in your church so he could execute them, you could lie to him, since the tenet forbidding you to lie is less important than the tenet prohibiting the harm of an innocent. An attempt to subvert the paladin code by engineering a situation allowing you to use a higher tenet to ignore a lower tenet (telling someone that you won't respect lawful authorities so that the tenet of not lying supersedes the tenet of respecting lawful authorities, for example) is a violation of the paladin code.

  • You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.
  • You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.
  • You must act with honor, never cheating, lying, or taking advantage of others.
  • You must respect the lawful authority of the legitimate ruler or leadership in whichever land you may be, following their laws unless they violate a higher tenet.

So let's break down what's the same and what's different. We still have all the basic tenets of the paladin from Pathfinder First Edition, with one exception: we've removed poison from the tenet of acting with honor. While there are certainly dishonorable ways to use poison, poisoning a weapon and using it in an honorable combat that allows enhanced weaponry doesn't seem much different than lighting the weapon on fire. However, by ordering the tenets and allowing the paladin to prioritize the most important tenets in the event of a conflict, we've cut down on the no-win situations. And of course, this opens a design space to play around with the tenets themselves, something we've done by incorporating one of the most popular non-core aspects for paladins...

Oaths

Oaths allow you to play around with the tenets of your code while also gaining mechanical advantages. For instance, the Fiendsbane Oath allows you to dish out near-constant retribution against fiends and eventually block their dimensional travel with an Anchoring Aura. Unlike in Pathfinder First Edition, oaths are feats, and you don't need an archetype to gain one.

Paladin Features

As many of you guessed when Jason mentioned it, paladin was the mystery class that gains the highest heavy armor proficiency, eventually reaching legendary proficiency in armor and master proficiency in weapons, as opposed to fighters, who gain the reverse. At 1st level, you also gain the Retributive Strike reaction, allowing you to counterattack and enfeeble any foe that hits one of your allies (Shelyn save those who strike your storm druid ally). You also get lay on hands, a single-action healing spell that not only heals the target but also raises their AC for a round to help prevent future damage. Combine that effect used on yourself with a raised shield, and you can make it pretty hard for a foe to hit you, and it helps recovering allies avoid another beating.

Lay on hands is the first of a paladin's champion powers, which include a whole bunch of elective options via feats. One of my favorites, gained automatically at 19th level, is hero's defiance, which makes a paladin incredibly difficult to take down. It lets you keep standing when you fall to 0 HP, gives you a big boost of Hit Points, and doesn't even use up your reaction! Leading up to that, you gain a bunch of fun smite-related boosts, including the righteous ally class feature that you saw mentioned in the code. This is a 3rd-level ability that lets you house a holy spirit in a weapon or a steed, much like before, but also in a shield, like the fan-favorite sacred shield archetype!

Paladin Feats

In addition to the oath feats I mentioned when talking about the code, paladins have feats customized to work with the various righteous ally options, like Second Ally, a level 8 feat that lets you gain a second righteous ally. There are also a variety of auras that you can gain to improve yourself and your allies, from the humble 4th-level Aura of Courage, which reduces the frightened condition for you when you gain it and at the end of your turn for you and your allies, to the mighty 14th-level Aura of Righteousness, which gives you and your allies resistance to evil damage. Feats that improve or alter your lay on hands include mercy feats, which allow you to remove harmful conditions and afflictions with lay on hands, up to and including death itself with Ultimate Mercy. And we can't forget potent additional reactions like Divine Grace, granting you a saving throw boost at 2nd level, and Attack of Opportunity at 6th level.

To close out, I'll tell you about one more popular non-core paladin ability we brought in, a special type of power called...

Litanies

Following their mold from Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Combat, litanies are single-action Verbal Casting spells that last 1 round and create various effects. For instance, litany of righteousness makes an enemy weak to your allies' attacks, and litany against sloth slows down an enemy, costing it reactions and potentially actions as well. One of the coolest story features of the litanies against sins is that they now explicitly work better against creatures strongly aligned with their sin, so a dretch (a.k.a. a sloth demon) or a sloth sinspawn treats its saving throw outcome for litany against sloth as one degree worse!

Just as a reminder to everyone, please be respectful to each other. Many of us have strong opinions about the paladin, and that's OK, even if we each have different feelings.

Mark Seifter
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Paladins Pathfinder Playtest Seelah Wayne Reynolds
801 to 850 of 1,735 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>

Arachnofiend wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:

So, if the decision with Paladin was to go specific, with the possibility of broadening that out later, why was that NOT the decision for other classes? Why is the 'Fighter' class not limited to sword and board with medium armor, and the ability to use a two-handed sword or dual wield promised in a later book? The reason? Because classes SHOULD be versatile in their base form. That is the case for all classes presented so far, EXCEPT the Paladin. The stated reason for this difference is 'tradition' and fear of upsetting a vocal minority.

I genuinely can't see how this is even close to a wise GAME DESIGN decision.

The Paladin is unique. It isn't "just a class" like many others. It is special. Singular. Unique.
If it's "special", it shouldn't be a core class, and it definitely shouldn't be the only way to play a very common mechanical playstyle.

Each class plays the game in a different, unique way.

And probably the Cleric will have some options to be better at combat, too.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:

So, if the decision with Paladin was to go specific, with the possibility of broadening that out later, why was that NOT the decision for other classes? Why is the 'Fighter' class not limited to sword and board with medium armor, and the ability to use a two-handed sword or dual wield promised in a later book? The reason? Because classes SHOULD be versatile in their base form. That is the case for all classes presented so far, EXCEPT the Paladin. The stated reason for this difference is 'tradition' and fear of upsetting a vocal minority.

I genuinely can't see how this is even close to a wise GAME DESIGN decision.

The Paladin is unique. It isn't "just a class" like many others. It is special. Singular. Unique.

All of those words are perfectly appropriate to an archetype or prestige class type mechanic - not a base/core/whatever common 'class' as presented as the fundamental building blocks of YOUR character in the core rulebook. What they are doing here is saying that you can make a fighter yours, and make a rogue yours, and a cleric yours - but Paladin? No - you have to play Gygax's paladin.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:

I keep hearing that and I wonder .. why? I've been around for a while and I still haven't heard what makes it so special, singular and unique.

What makes it more than a class, what puts it on a pedestal that keeps it from ever being changed?

If this class wasn't special, we wouldn't be here ;)

This class has a lot of story, history, themes and speaks to its fans in an unique way.

If you hate a class, don't try to destroy it. Just play another one, or advocate for a new class that better suits your purpose.
Fight by love, not hate :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:


All of those words are perfectly appropriate to an archetype or prestige class type mechanic - not a base/core/whatever common 'class' as presented as the fundamental building blocks of YOUR character in the core rulebook. What they are doing here is saying that you can make a fighter yours, and make a rogue yours, and a cleric yours - but Paladin? No - you have to play Gygax's paladin.

Gygax's Paladin was actually a sub-path / archetype of the Fighter anyways. With more limitations and unique characteristics than what this and 3e shadows essentially turned out to be

Shadow Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
knightnday wrote:

I keep hearing that and I wonder .. why? I've been around for a while and I still haven't heard what makes it so special, singular and unique.

What makes it more than a class, what puts it on a pedestal that keeps it from ever being changed?

If this class wasn't special, we wouldn't be here ;)

This class has a lot of story, history, themes and speaks to its fans in an unique way.

If you hate a class, don't try to destroy it. Just play another one, or advocate for a new class that better suits your purpose.
Fight by love, not hate :)

We're only "destroying" it by being inclusive, by combining your ideal and ours.

Grand Lodge

16 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

At this point, I can't see anything other than a LG Paladin and only the LG paladin ending up in the PF2 core book.

If that's the case, I'd rather see it dropped as a core class and presented in its own book with all 9 alignments presented. If you haven't got room to do it properly here, then don't do it at all.

I really hate alignment restrictions on class entry, in my opinion, they're all rubbish and should be left in the previous edition (where they don't really belong either).


Serum wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
knightnday wrote:

I keep hearing that and I wonder .. why? I've been around for a while and I still haven't heard what makes it so special, singular and unique.

What makes it more than a class, what puts it on a pedestal that keeps it from ever being changed?

If this class wasn't special, we wouldn't be here ;)

This class has a lot of story, history, themes and speaks to its fans in an unique way.

If you hate a class, don't try to destroy it. Just play another one, or advocate for a new class that better suits your purpose.
Fight by love, not hate :)

We're only "destroying" it by being inclusive, by combining your ideal and ours.

To change the fundamental aspect of a class is to destroy it, and worse, to put a doppelganger in its place.

It's insult upon injury!
New concepts may better be served by new classes. By the way, the Cleric is a warrior-priest already, and the new edition can have many options for it to turn more warrior-like.
No need to destroy pre-existing classes :)

Silver Crusade

Rob, there are not going to be Paladins of Asmodeus, James Jacobs does not like them and he is on of the bosses at Paizo and he does not like them. Besides if you want to play a lawful evil knight play a Hell Knight. BTW I have the shortest hell knight on record a dwarf. Gnomes and halflings have not been let into the hell knights as far as I know they a somewhat of a bigoted human centric group.

If you want a pseudo historical example, Sir Galahad and Sir Gawyn. One fell by lust and the other remained pure to his goal.

As far as a Paladins smite goes I think it should affect Chaos and Evil both are antithesis to Law and Good. I would be fine with losing casting if spell points could effect channeling and Lay on the hands and the smite ability.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
knightnday wrote:

I keep hearing that and I wonder .. why? I've been around for a while and I still haven't heard what makes it so special, singular and unique.

What makes it more than a class, what puts it on a pedestal that keeps it from ever being changed?

If this class wasn't special, we wouldn't be here ;)

This class has a lot of story, history, themes and speaks to its fans in an unique way.

If you hate a class, don't try to destroy it. Just play another one, or advocate for a new class that better suits your purpose.
Fight by love, not hate :)

I don't hate the class. I've been playing the class since the beginning. I have no problem with its existance and have modified it myself over the years when the various companies were unwilling to.

I'd advocated for a modified class and spent time trying to persuade. My question is still what makes the paladin more special, more unique, and more singular than any other class.

They are ALL steeped in tradition and history. One can like a class so much it hurts, but that doesn't make it more better than any other, any more than liking one author or one band makes it somehow better than another.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
Serum wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
knightnday wrote:

I keep hearing that and I wonder .. why? I've been around for a while and I still haven't heard what makes it so special, singular and unique.

What makes it more than a class, what puts it on a pedestal that keeps it from ever being changed?

If this class wasn't special, we wouldn't be here ;)

This class has a lot of story, history, themes and speaks to its fans in an unique way.

If you hate a class, don't try to destroy it. Just play another one, or advocate for a new class that better suits your purpose.
Fight by love, not hate :)

We're only "destroying" it by being inclusive, by combining your ideal and ours.

To change the fundamental aspect of a class is to destroy it, and worse, to put a doppelganger in its place.

It's insult upon injury!
New concepts may better be served by new classes. By the way, the Cleric is a warrior-priest already, and the new edition can have many options for it to turn more warrior-like.
No need to destroy pre-existing classes :)

We just disagree on what the fundamental aspect of a paladin is.


knightnday wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
knightnday wrote:

I keep hearing that and I wonder .. why? I've been around for a while and I still haven't heard what makes it so special, singular and unique.

What makes it more than a class, what puts it on a pedestal that keeps it from ever being changed?

If this class wasn't special, we wouldn't be here ;)

This class has a lot of story, history, themes and speaks to its fans in an unique way.

If you hate a class, don't try to destroy it. Just play another one, or advocate for a new class that better suits your purpose.
Fight by love, not hate :)

I don't hate the class. I've been playing the class since the beginning. I have no problem with its existance and have modified it myself over the years when the various companies were unwilling to.

I'd advocated for a modified class and spent time trying to persuade. My question is still what makes the paladin more special, more unique, and more singular than any other class.

They are ALL steeped in tradition and history. One can like a class so much it hurts, but that doesn't make it more better than any other, any more than liking one author or one band makes it somehow better than another.

The thing, no one asks for wizards who don't gain their powers by study, or clerics who don't cast spells, or bard who don't sing or perform, or barbarian who aren't barbarians.

That's the exact same thing as asking for the Paladin to "change" so much that it becomes another thing ^^


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
knightnday wrote:

I keep hearing that and I wonder .. why? I've been around for a while and I still haven't heard what makes it so special, singular and unique.

What makes it more than a class, what puts it on a pedestal that keeps it from ever being changed?

If this class wasn't special, we wouldn't be here ;)

This class has a lot of story, history, themes and speaks to its fans in an unique way.

If you hate a class, don't try to destroy it. Just play another one, or advocate for a new class that better suits your purpose.
Fight by love, not hate :)

I don't hate the class. I've been playing the class since the beginning. I have no problem with its existance and have modified it myself over the years when the various companies were unwilling to.

I'd advocated for a modified class and spent time trying to persuade. My question is still what makes the paladin more special, more unique, and more singular than any other class.

They are ALL steeped in tradition and history. One can like a class so much it hurts, but that doesn't make it more better than any other, any more than liking one author or one band makes it somehow better than another.

The thing, no one asks for wizards who don't gain their powers by study, or clerics who don't cast spells, or bard who don't sing or perform, or barbarian who aren't barbarians.

That's the exact same thing as asking for the Paladin to "change" so much that it becomes another thing ^^

Well, people have asked for those classes to change. For barbarians to become berserkers instead, for more or less martial clerics, for non-thiefy rogues and non-Eastern type monks. For bards that don't have to wander around with a lute and flute. For wizards to have more restrictions. For druids to work with metal.

So there are always those looking to change things around. Paladins just get a lot of attention because of the idea that they aren't able to be changed because of "tradition."

Shadow Lodge

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
The thing, no one asks for wizards who don't gain their powers by study, or clerics who don't cast spells, or bard who don't sing or perform, or barbarian who aren't barbarians.

The hell they don't!

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
knightnday wrote:

I keep hearing that and I wonder .. why? I've been around for a while and I still haven't heard what makes it so special, singular and unique.

What makes it more than a class, what puts it on a pedestal that keeps it from ever being changed?

If this class wasn't special, we wouldn't be here ;)

This class has a lot of story, history, themes and speaks to its fans in an unique way.

If you hate a class, don't try to destroy it. Just play another one, or advocate for a new class that better suits your purpose.
Fight by love, not hate :)

I don't hate the class. I've been playing the class since the beginning. I have no problem with its existance and have modified it myself over the years when the various companies were unwilling to.

I'd advocated for a modified class and spent time trying to persuade. My question is still what makes the paladin more special, more unique, and more singular than any other class.

They are ALL steeped in tradition and history. One can like a class so much it hurts, but that doesn't make it more better than any other, any more than liking one author or one band makes it somehow better than another.

The thing, no one asks for wizards who don't gain their powers by study, or clerics who don't cast spells, or bard who don't sing or perform, or barbarian who aren't barbarians.

That's the exact same thing as asking for the Paladin to "change" so much that it becomes another thing ^^

We aren't asking the paladin to become something other than a heavy armor user who heals, smites and protects others. People have asked for barbarians who can be lawful, because it increases the number of concepts available. Bards did lose their alignment restrictions, nor do they need to sing or play an instrument in order to use all their class abilities.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

SO the playtest will only have the option for Lawful Good Paladins? Whelp guess that means my players and I won't be testing the Paladin...


knightnday wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
knightnday wrote:

I keep hearing that and I wonder .. why? I've been around for a while and I still haven't heard what makes it so special, singular and unique.

What makes it more than a class, what puts it on a pedestal that keeps it from ever being changed?

If this class wasn't special, we wouldn't be here ;)

This class has a lot of story, history, themes and speaks to its fans in an unique way.

If you hate a class, don't try to destroy it. Just play another one, or advocate for a new class that better suits your purpose.
Fight by love, not hate :)

I don't hate the class. I've been playing the class since the beginning. I have no problem with its existance and have modified it myself over the years when the various companies were unwilling to.

I'd advocated for a modified class and spent time trying to persuade. My question is still what makes the paladin more special, more unique, and more singular than any other class.

They are ALL steeped in tradition and history. One can like a class so much it hurts, but that doesn't make it more better than any other, any more than liking one author or one band makes it somehow better than another.

The thing, no one asks for wizards who don't gain their powers by study, or clerics who don't cast spells, or bard who don't sing or perform, or barbarian who aren't barbarians.

That's the exact same thing as asking for the Paladin to "change" so much that it becomes another thing ^^

Well, people have asked for those classes to change. For barbarians to become berserkers instead, for more or less martial clerics, for non-thiefy rogues and non-Eastern type monks. For bards that don't have to wander around with a lute and flute. For wizards to have more restrictions. For druids to work with metal.

So there are always those looking to change things around. Paladins just get a lot of attention because of the idea that they aren't able to be...

The thing is, the barbarian still is a barbarian. The wizard stills gains its power by study of the arcane. The bard and the monk were a mess in their whole history, changing from one edition to next. The cleric still is this warrior-priest to priest we all know.

But this proposed change isn't a change at all. By changing the essence of a class, that class isn't there anymore. We don't want that.
Oh, and old-school Barbarians and Thieves are much better than post-3e ones ^^

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I have removed some posts and the replies to them. Do not make personal attacks on other posters. You can express your thoughts without attacking others. If you are having trouble articulating a post in a way that doesn't make a personal attack, step away from the the thread and cool off until you can.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

In part I feel that the critique of Paladin's has been lost in this thread and is instead morphed into a critique of class and alignment roles. If I could be frank, I feel those in the camp of "less binary, more choice" regarding alignment or class restrictions don't particularly want this play style of game, and would rather see every class be custom built by the players. It's a fantastic goal, and plenty of games (Valor, Mutants and Masterminds to name a few) have this system with those player sets in mind.

Frankly if we are going to be so brutal on the Paladin, and ask that all alignments are considered or have it be removed, we might as well strike the Barbarian, Druid and Monk out of core and do the same with them, with all 9 alignments explored and each one given a different name for their alignments and play styles. Of course that would be silly, but that's the point. These classes are beyond binary, but they also don't need to be changed or lose their base identities for faux "diversity". Really it comes down to this; Do you want a game with solid, pre-defined class roles or a custom class builder? I think that's the question more people are discussing right now.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:

The thing is, the barbarian still is a barbarian. The wizard stills gains its power by study of the arcane. The bard and the monk were a mess in their whole history, changing from one edition to next. The cleric still is this warrior-priest to priest we all know.

But this proposed change isn't a change at all. By changing the essence of a class, that class isn't there anymore. We don't want that.
Oh, and old-school Barbarians and Thieves are much better than post-3e ones ^^

Changing what essence? The Lawful Good part does not make them a paladin. The idea of defending the faith is one that can be represented across the board -- I know, I've done it!

If the only thing a paladin has going for it is the LG designation then there is a serious problem with the class as a whole.


Jodokai wrote:
MusicAddict wrote:
I'm actually a little dissapointed but the original matter of the articles, because I want paladins moved AWAY from deities , and I think having them have to stick to a deity when that wasn't a real requirement before detracts from the class imo.

I've never really thought about his before. All of my groups have required Paladins and Clerics to follow a specific deity, and I wonder if this is where most of the paladin problems come from.

We never had a "does the paladin fall" issue because we took each situation and compared it to the paladin's god(dess)' tenets. Does law trump good? Who's your deity? Abadar, yes, law trumps good. Sarenrae, not so much.

In Golarion paladins are required to have a deity, and PF2 will not be setting neutral. That is why the deity is a requirement now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
Igwilly wrote:

The thing is, the barbarian still is a barbarian. The wizard stills gains its power by study of the arcane. The bard and the monk were a mess in their whole history, changing from one edition to next. The cleric still is this warrior-priest to priest we all know.

But this proposed change isn't a change at all. By changing the essence of a class, that class isn't there anymore. We don't want that.
Oh, and old-school Barbarians and Thieves are much better than post-3e ones ^^

Changing what essence? The Lawful Good part does not make them a paladin. The idea of defending the faith is one that can be represented across the board -- I know, I've done it!

And there is the fundamental disconnect. The Lawful Good part is essential to the Paladin: the class isn't just a defender of faith. Lawful Good-ness is as much part of the paladin as is its divine power. Take that out, and we don't have it anymore.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

So what about Lawful Good is so central to the Paladin? What about it has anything to do with Lawful? It's not the Code, we've had Code of Conduct classes that were non-Lawful for years now.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

I like what I see. Personally I would not have chosen to tie the paladin to a deity but it's just a minor complaint.

I applaud the choice to keep the CRB Paladin LG and the idea of creating different types of classes representing an alignment in the future. What I want to stress is the need for these future classes to be their own thing not just "reskinned paladins". As the alignments are fundamentally different so should the powers characters gain from them and hopefully those different powers should be as useful as well.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Igwilly wrote:

The thing is, the barbarian still is a barbarian. The wizard stills gains its power by study of the arcane. The bard and the monk were a mess in their whole history, changing from one edition to next. The cleric still is this warrior-priest to priest we all know.

But this proposed change isn't a change at all. By changing the essence of a class, that class isn't there anymore. We don't want that.
Oh, and old-school Barbarians and Thieves are much better than post-3e ones ^^

Changing what essence? The Lawful Good part does not make them a paladin. The idea of defending the faith is one that can be represented across the board -- I know, I've done it!

And there is the fundamental disconnect. The Lawful Good part is essential to the Paladin: the class isn't just a defender of faith. Lawful Good-ness is as much part of the paladin as is its divine power. Take that out, and we don't have it anymore.

That is indeed a disconnect. The LG part isn't something that I find so integral it cannot be altered.

I've run across characters of many Good alignments -- and a few Lawful and Neutral -- that were as much if not more heroic, self-sacrificing and noble than a Lawful Good paladin.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:

I keep hearing that and I wonder .. why? I've been around for a while and I still haven't heard what makes it so special, singular and unique.

What makes it more than a class, what puts it on a pedestal that keeps it from ever being changed?

I'll try to explain what the Paladin class is to me... Going on the lore of the role in the world that they fill...

Note:
This is going to be long, and this is going to be passionate. I have a special kinship with this class and a deep love and attachment to it. From a romantic ideal, to my interest in the archetype that it portrays.

-----

Anyone can be a hero. A selfish rogue can see the error of his ways and choose to help the downtrodden. A fighter can come from humble beginnings and raise through the ranks and become a leader of men to stymie the forces of evil. A wizard can buy his way into an apprenticeship through study and dedication. A cleric can find faith and learn to perform rituals that draw power from the gods themselves.

Those are some heroes. They are great and deserve respect. All of them can become famous, with their names and their deeds told to all across the land.

Then... There are people who are chosen by destiny.

They are the few, chosen by the Universe itself, and given a responsibility that few others could, or would, choose to bear. These few are filled with the purest virtue and their faith in justice and righteousness is nearly unshakable. These heroes do not compromise, they stand with their honor against all things.

Where others may face moral quandaries and may bend, or break, their faith in order to solve them these men and women will not. They may succeed, they may fail, but they do things with honor. They don't just follow the code for power, no, they believe that the code is right. In their hearts they feel those words and they resonate with their souls.

These men and women are the quintessential hero. The knight in shining armor that arrives on a white steed when the darkness closes in and they carry with them a brilliant light that shines for miles. They are not mere soldiers, they are not just holy men, they are something more. Something pure. A divine conduit for hope, justice, courage, love, and chivalry.

Yes, some may see them and call them stupid. They may scoff at their honor and think that it is foolishness. Laughing at them, mocking them, and calling them idiots who have yet to learn how the world works. These men and women are mocked, called stories for children.

Yet in the world of Golarion these "childish heroes" exist. They stand against the darkness and they do not flinch. They know no fear. They have no regrets. They do not compromise their core, they do not abandon the code, they are wandering heroes who will gladly do the right thing even if it means that they die.

These men and women do not believe that the ends justify the means. They do not believe that you have to fight fire with fire. They do not believe that you have to make sacrifices. They believe that justice will prevail, that good will triumph over evil, and even if they fall then someone else will rise.

They are there to ignite the minds of the young. They are there to protect the weak and the innocent. They are there to push back the tide of evil in the world and show everyone a better way.

They are Paladins. Heroes of legend. Larger than life.

-----

The class fills that specific archetypal role. The chosen hero rather than the common hero.

This doesn't mean that the common hero can't be just as heroic, they can, they totally can. It is a different KIND of hero. However for the hero to work properly, without them actually being foolish for fighting fairly and with honor for the verisimilitude to work, they have to have special mechanics to support it.

That is why you can't just play a Paladin as a Fighter.

Because the code, the weakness, is kind of foolish from a logical standpoint when you think about it if they get nothing for it. That isn't a bad idea for a character, but it is kind of a tragic character, the kind that is turned into the butt of the joke in traditional media.

However, once you add the powers in, once those are in place... Once they have the power to fight evil, and win, with honor... However they must have that honor, keep that honor, to do it... Then it makes sense.

Paladins are the D&D equivalent to the superhero.

They are not a class for everyone, but they are a class that is intrinsic to the genre that D&D and Pathfinder emulate.

They have to remain unique because that uniqueness is what makes them what they are. It is specific to them. If anyone can do what they do... Has the same powers they do... Then it no longer works... They become silly.

You have seen it yourself... People in the forums here, talk about how the ideas of the shining hero are stupid and childish. They don't want to be that kind of naive character. Even the most cynical Paladin still believes in the code.

That is the type of fictional hero the Paladin represents.

I don't want to see that go away. They need to be unique, or it defeats the point.

Now, some people may say that this class doesn't need to be in the core.

I beg to differ. The type of character the Paladin represents is intrinsic to the genre thus, in order to tell stories featuring that kind of hero, you have to have them in the core.

Now, I could go on and on and on about all of the specific history and lore, but I am painting in broad strokes here. You can't just play a Fighter as a Paladin because that *is* silly and naive. You have to have something special, for their actions to work properly, unless you want them to be Don Quixote levels of delusional.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
I'm Golarion paladins are required to have a deity, and PF2 will not be setting neutral. That is why the deity is a requirement now.

This is actually untrue, at least in PF1. Clerics have to have a deity in Golarion, but Paladins (and Inquisitors) do not (though most have one anyway). James Jacobs has said as much and his opinions are controlling on such issues.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To expand on it, because I know someone is going to say: "But a neutral good can be..."

Not really.

The hero type the Paladin represents is a bit naive.

They are the kind of hero who actually believes that the law is just and good. They are the type of hero that believes in the law and the people. They are the kind of person who will work with the law, not try to circumvent it. They are... Not just a person.

The Paladin represents the romanticized ideal of the Knight in Shining Armor.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Deadmanwalking/wraithstrike: Perhaps constructive to note that PFS rules are not identical with Golarion.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post. Do not accuse our staff of malicious intent. Our staff puts a lot of time and work into making the things we make, whether it is a hardcover, a scenario, or a blog post. We are all very passionate about what we do and all reading the forums looking for feedback. That something you wanted or suggested isn't in the current playtest rules doesn't mean you weren't heard.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all,

We knew the Paladin was going to be a bit contentious. The class has provoked strong emotions and discussion since the earliest days of gaming. In designing this class, we really had two routes we could take. Traditional, but very flavorful, or Reimagined, but ultimately more generic. I chose the former.

Now.. I know this is a playtest, and the point is to try out new things, but stripping that Paladin of this core piece of identity felt like changing what it was, making something else. I am fine with doing that through rules alterations and modifications, like archetypes, but it seems like we would lose something special if the class went away from its roots.

We knew this would not be popular with some. We knew the opposite would not be popular with others. Once this game is released, I would implore you to give it a closer look. We pushed for a paladin that best expresses its ideal form. If we can get that nailed down, the roadmap to champions of all flavors becomes a lot more clear.

Until then.. be kind to each other folks. We are all hear to tell stories and go on thrilling adventures. Nobody wants to fight their companions along the way.

Jason,

One of the stated goals of the playtest was to test out Bold New Things, and then if they were too Bold, they could then be 'dialed back' to 'not as extreme'.

NOT opening up the alignment on Paladin is not a Bold New Thing. There's nothing to 'dial back' or 'walk back from', and when it's offered that 'maybe, just maybe perhaps possibly we might consider the chance that there will be non-LG Paladin in the future' is about as Not Bold New Thing as could be read.

The fact that the development team is invested in this, and focused on this means that I am going to give it a whirl on my playtest goblin.

If I'm forced to fall in my first game session because I'm trying to have fun and make the game 'work' for my character, I'll document it.

If the Lawful component of the alignment has no bearing on my character's status, I'll document it.

That is what a Playtest is about.

But please, please, please do not encourage this thought that this is the 'best direction' when there are many here who would feel that this was not nearly a Bold Enough Move.

...admittedly, there are equally many who feel that Tradition Is Important and that It Must Be Obeyed At All Costs, and those voices must likewise be factored into any equations of playstyle.

So the question that is now lingering heavily in my mind as a future playtester of PF2:

Is PF2 a bold adventurous retelling of the stories we love on Golarion, or is it just a bland boring rehash of the same traps and failures that PF1 had for ten years and could have been addressed in a better fashion?

My hope is for the former, and I suspect everyone that is honest with the playtest is hoping for the former, but fearing the latter.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Igwilly wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
knightnday wrote:

I keep hearing that and I wonder .. why? I've been around for a while and I still haven't heard what makes it so special, singular and unique.

What makes it more than a class, what puts it on a pedestal that keeps it from ever being changed?

If this class wasn't special, we wouldn't be here ;)

This class has a lot of story, history, themes and speaks to its fans in an unique way.

If you hate a class, don't try to destroy it. Just play another one, or advocate for a new class that better suits your purpose.
Fight by love, not hate :)

I don't hate the class. I've been playing the class since the beginning. I have no problem with its existance and have modified it myself over the years when the various companies were unwilling to.

I'd advocated for a modified class and spent time trying to persuade. My question is still what makes the paladin more special, more unique, and more singular than any other class.

They are ALL steeped in tradition and history. One can like a class so much it hurts, but that doesn't make it more better than any other, any more than liking one author or one band makes it somehow better than another.

The thing, no one asks for wizards who don't gain their powers by study, or clerics who don't cast spells, or bard who don't sing or perform, or barbarian who aren't barbarians.

That's the exact same thing as asking for the Paladin to "change" so much that it becomes another thing ^^

A) We absolutely *have* barbarians who aren't tribal, and Bards who don't know a note of music as it stands.

B) The idea of being a 'cleric who doesn't cast spells'--or at least is much, much more martially focused--is among the reasons people want to unshackle Paladin alignments in the first place.
C) We may not want a wizard who doesn't study, but I'd wager there are those who want a wizard whose study is more personal, self-taught, and esoteric than specifically having had a school curriculum. Perhaps a meditative, monastic background, or a tribal shaman passing on knowledge to an apprentice, or even someone who was simply able to study it on their own.
D) No one has suggested taking away a Paladin's dedication to an ideal or the idea that they live by a code of conduct, particular oaths, duties, and taboos. Just that there's room within that concept for *other* ideals, *other* codes of conduct.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
But also, plain-old CN "Paladins" of Gorum need to be a thing. So cool.
What would their code look like, what ideals would they uphold, what sort of things would they avenge/punish? Would they be beings of pure Chaos, bent on destroying all Law? Hang out with Slaadi on Limbo?

I dunno, be born with a heart full of Chaos?

But seriously, a Chaotic Neutral code is far from impossible. A CN code should focus on preserving the character's freedom without needlessly infringing on the rights of others, refusing to blindly accept tradition, and refusing to accept or submit to authority that has not earned it. The CN-aligned Paladin would fight against broad-reaching authority and would be against anyone who tries to infringe on the personal liberty of individuals. Slavers, oligarchies, monarchies, etc would be their enemy. That said, as they are CN and not CG they are not willing to make self-sacrifice or compromise their own freedom for others.

For a CN "Paladin" of Gorum specifically, they would add the following Anathema:
Cowardice - You must always be willing to fight. Seek out conflict and participate when possible. You are not required to enter conflicts you cannot possibly survive, and you are not forbidden from retreating when needed.
Non-metal weapons and armor - Never wear or wield non-metal armor or weapons, and properly maintain your gear.

That seems decent enough. I'm no professional designer, so there's likely bits that could be improved, but it makes sense. The corner alignments are certainly easier to devise codes for, though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
I disagree with the idea that using drow potion to make the enmy sleep (alive) is somewhat more evil than using oil to set your sword on fire and make his flesh burn.

1) You're comparing apples to oranges. In the first, you're talking about taking someone alive and in the second, you're talking about killing them. Is it honorable for a Paladin to use drow poison, put their enemy to sleep, and then kill them?

No, it is not honorable. But not for the drow poison, but for killing a sleeping prisoner. It would be dishonorable if he did that against a prisoner that went asleep just because it was late and he got tired too. The poison itself did nothing dishonorable.

Quote:
2) There is no "flesh burn" mechanic other than you take more damage. The PC/NPC is not considered to be suffering some horrible psychological pain that scars them mentally and physically for life. So presenting it as such is disingenuous. It's "set your sword on fire and make them suffer another 1d6."

Same with poison, it just do more damage (hit points or ability damage, let's see).

Quote:

3) All of this is about the subjective treatment of concepts and it's one of the reasons this class is so problematic. We all draw that bright line in a different spot.

Yes.


16 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

To expand on it, because I know someone is going to say: "But a neutral good can be..."

Not really.

The hero type the Paladin represents is a bit naive.

They are the kind of hero who actually believes that the law is just and good. They are the type of hero that believes in the law and the people. They are the kind of person who will work with the law, not try to circumvent it. They are... Not just a person.

The Paladin represents the romanticized ideal of the Knight in Shining Armor.

If Saerenrae can't be a "naive paladin" without changing her personality, the paladin class is wrong.

Her ethos, morality, and alignment, is everything a classic paladin should be.
She is NG.


19 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all,

We knew the Paladin was going to be a bit contentious. The class has provoked strong emotions and discussion since the earliest days of gaming. In designing this class, we really had two routes we could take. Traditional, but very flavorful, or Reimagined, but ultimately more generic. I chose the former.

And I think you made the wrong choice.

On a very personal reasoning, I don’t think the flavor of the Paladin as it has been is worth preserving. I tend to go out of my way to snub tradition as much as possible, but the traditional Paladin is especially offensive to me. I don’t think it adds anything to the game, I have never had a desire to play one, none of my players or players at other tables I have played at had any desire to play them (I know that I am an anomaly in that regard, guess it’s just the circles I hang out with. Don’t know if it has an correlation to the number of piercings and tattoos on the people present.), so keeping it that flavor has, as I said before, ensured my group will give absolutely no helpful feedback during the playtest other than “Ew, change this please.” I also hate the argument that they get extra power because they are harder to role play. It’s not a good argument, LG is not difficult to role play, it’s boring and monotonous. I actually remove alignment entirely from my games, because to me it is stupid and nobody, real or fictional, can actually be boiled down to where they land on a simplistic axis. It’s extremely limiting and Paladins are the poster child for everything wrong with it.

On a lesser but still personal reasoning, I think that the game suffers for having a class that flies so hard in the face of the overall design goal of the game. everything else revealed up to this point has shown that the game overall is aiming towards having as many options for as many character concepts as possible. Having an entire class that limits all of it’s options to one alignment and then having one code that they must follow does not accomplish that. Dedicating one class to a finite pool of concepts is poor game design in my opinion, that is what archetypes and prestige classes are for. Base classes should be flexible and support a variety of ideas, and having just one code to follow with one alignment is not that. Especially when that restriction is gating potentially the best Tank in the game.

I like EVERYTHING else revealed about the class so far. I think you can keep it very flavorful while breaking from tradition. Them being martial paragons of their god’s ideals should be more important than them being paragons of honorable goodness. Have Lay on hands and a Draining touch attack, and have each deity determine which one their Paladin does or give them a choice. Have them be under the same alignment restrictions for each god as clerics as well. Have a code for Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic axis, and combine that with their God’s Anathema to determine what actions cause them to lose their powers. It’s not hard to see how the class can be done while preserving the idea of a holy warrior who sets the standard for their deities followers and be of any alignment.

If that is not acceptable to do to Paladins, I think they should be removed from core entirely, then added later on as an Archetype or PRC. Take what we have so far, use my suggestion above, and slap the name Crusader on it, and let people play LG Crusaders take an Oath or archetype that makes them Paladins. But as is, I think the Paladin is a huge mistake to move forward with such extreme character limitations.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all,

We knew the Paladin was going to be a bit contentious. The class has provoked strong emotions and discussion since the earliest days of gaming. In designing this class, we really had two routes we could take. Traditional, but very flavorful, or Reimagined, but ultimately more generic. I chose the former.

Now.. I know this is a playtest, and the point is to try out new things, but stripping that Paladin of this core piece of identity felt like changing what it was, making something else. I am fine with doing that through rules alterations and modifications, like archetypes, but it seems like we would lose something special if the class went away from its roots.

We knew this would not be popular with some. We knew the opposite would not be popular with others. Once this game is released, I would implore you to give it a closer look. We pushed for a paladin that best expresses its ideal form. If we can get that nailed down, the roadmap to champions of all flavors becomes a lot more clear.

Until then.. be kind to each other folks. We are all hear to tell stories and go on thrilling adventures. Nobody wants to fight their companions along the way.

Jason,

One of the stated goals of the playtest was to test out Bold New Things, and then if they were too Bold, they could then be 'dialed back' to 'not as extreme'.

NOT opening up the alignment on Paladin is not a Bold New Thing. There's nothing to 'dial back' or 'walk back from', and when it's offered that 'maybe, just maybe perhaps possibly we might consider the chance that there will be non-LG Paladin in the future' is about as Not Bold New Thing as could be read.

The fact that the development team is invested in this, and focused on this means that I am going to give it a whirl on my playtest goblin.

If I'm forced to fall in my first game session because I'm trying to have fun and make the game 'work' for my character, I'll document...

I don't think it is fair to try to label the "traditionalists" by saying:

"Is PF2 a bold adventurous retelling of the stories we love on Golarion, or is it just a bland boring rehash of the same traps and failures that PF1 had for ten years and could have been addressed in a better fashion?"

Do I want the Paladin to change in the core and tone of the class? No. Not just no, heck no.

That doesn't mean I want the game to be bland and boring either.

I also don't want it to be a completely different game with nothing that resembles the original game save for a few names.

I liked PF1, I want PF2 to be a second edition of PF, I don't want it to be a completely different game with the same name.

This reminds me of the controversy with the Kamalah Khan version of Ms. Marvel.

I was an avid reader of Ms. Marvel, I cancelled my subscription after 3 issues of the Kamalah version.

Why? Was it because the book wasn't bold enough? Was it because she was Muslim? Was it because I was a die hard who hates all forms of change?

No, no, and no.

It was because I liked Carol Danvers and was invested in Carol Danvers and wasn't a fan of a character with the exact same name but a different origin, powers, and tone. It didn't have any of the elements I liked about the Ms. Marvel title.

Does that mean all change is bad?

Not at all. You know why? I love the current Action comics stuff. Superman is back to form as Clark Kent, he's got the tights on, I like those things. Those things stayed the same. What changed? He has a son, he is now in the role of father, it is a new dynamic with the same feel that it always had.

Change isn't always bad. Change for the sake of change? Changing what works? That is bad.

The Paladin, as the core concept, works.

If it ain't broke, then you ain't gotta fix it.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Cuttlefist wrote:


And I think you made the wrong choice.

Even though I am on the complete opposition side from you, I will say this. You have a right to that opinion. It is not one I, or many others, share.

I don't want another fantasy game with the name Pathfinder slapped onto it. I want a better version of the game we already have. A 2nd Edition of Pathfinder.

I mean... Okay...

I hate Wolverine. I hate the Punisher. I think they are two of the stupidest characters ever made. I hate Lobo, I hate Deadpool (I mean the original version, he's funny now, but originally he was stupid). I hate all of those grim darkity dark characters. I think antiheroes are the most unrealistic and downright boneheaded things ever that stretch plausibility to a breaking point in a world where people have super powers and can fly at the speed of light. Batman should be in jail, he makes no sense, and he should have been caught decades ago and put into a loony bin.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to play those characters in a comic book RPG... Why? They are part of the genre. No matter how idiotic I find most of them I wouldn't ever suggest a company not put that kind of character into a comic book rpg because it is part of the genre.

In Pathfinder?

Dude I hate gunslingers. Hate with a burning passion. I hate Alchemists, they are dumb, they (and 'slingers) belong in a weird pirate-esque setting, along with the swashbuckler. They are too far ahead time-line wise to be around. While it is true, Gunslingers and Alchemists are banned at my non-PFS tables (as are Goblin PCs no matter what Paizo says) I'm not telling Paizo to take them out of the core.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
knightnday wrote:

I keep hearing that and I wonder .. why? I've been around for a while and I still haven't heard what makes it so special, singular and unique.

What makes it more than a class, what puts it on a pedestal that keeps it from ever being changed?

I'll try to explain what the Paladin class is to me... Going on the lore of the role in the world that they fill...

Note:
This is going to be long, and this is going to be passionate. I have a special kinship with this class and a deep love and attachment to it. From a romantic ideal, to my interest in the archetype that it portrays.

-----

Anyone can be a hero. A selfish rogue can see the error of his ways and choose to help the downtrodden. A fighter can come from humble beginnings and raise through the ranks and become a leader of men to stymie the forces of evil. A wizard can buy his way into an apprenticeship through study and dedication. A cleric can find faith and learn to perform rituals that draw power from the gods themselves.

Those are some heroes. They are great and deserve respect. All of them can become famous, with their names and their deeds told to all across the land.

Then... There are people who are chosen by destiny.

They are the few, chosen by the Universe itself, and given a responsibility that few others could, or would, choose to bear. These few are filled with the purest virtue and their faith in justice and righteousness is nearly unshakable. These heroes do not compromise, they stand with their honor against all things.

Where others may face moral quandaries and may bend, or break, their faith in order to solve them these men and women will not. They may succeed, they may fail, but they do things with honor. They don't just follow the code for power, no, they believe that the code is right. In their hearts they feel those words and they resonate with their souls.

These men and women are the quintessential hero. The knight in shining armor that arrives on a white steed when the darkness...

And why can there not be people who are chosen by destiny/the Universe itself to bear the responsibility of bringing freedom to all and opposing tyrants at every turn? The quintessential heroes who sweep in to smash the shackles of the slaves, to inspire the peasants to rise up against their wicked overlord, to tear apart infernal contracts, to bring justice where it has been perverted?


12 people marked this as a favorite.

If it wasn't broke or at least perceived as lacking, there may not be such a call to fix it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
If it wasn't broke or at least perceived as lacking, there may not be such a call to fix it.

Some people perceive them as broke.

Though since they have been around for over 40 years... Obviously they aren't broken.

Some people just don't like them. They are welcome to not like them. That doesn't make them broken. There is nothing wrong with the class. It has survived the test of time quite well.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Cuttlefist wrote:


And I think you made the wrong choice.

Even though I am on the complete opposition side from you, I will say this. You have a right to that opinion. It is not one I, or many others, share.

I don't want another fantasy game with the name Pathfinder slapped onto it. I want a better version of the game we already have. A 2nd Edition of Pathfinder.

I respect your right to your opinion, as fantastically different from mine as it is. I don’t think that the way Paladins currently are is even remotely integral to what makes Pathfinder Pathfinder. It can still be just as much a better version of 1E while changing the flavor of one class, in my opinion that will make it every bit better in this particular case.

In contrast to your lengthier post, I don’t think the Paladin as a concept really works. I do think it needs to be fixed. And with how wildly they are changing so many of the base mechanics of the game I don’t see how making a change to the Paladin flavor would be the big thing that makes this not Pathfinder anymore.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

To expand on it, because I know someone is going to say: "But a neutral good can be..."

Not really.

The hero type the Paladin represents is a bit naive.

They are the kind of hero who actually believes that the law is just and good. They are the type of hero that believes in the law and the people. They are the kind of person who will work with the law, not try to circumvent it. They are... Not just a person.

The Paladin represents the romanticized ideal of the Knight in Shining Armor.

That and your previous post illustrate one, albeit popular, way to portray a paladin. But there are so many more ways to be a paladin, even a lawful good one, and it is frustrating to see a class that can be so much more limited to a tiny niche.

I get why you like the paladin. Your words show that you've really thought about this and are passionate about the class. But passion alone doesn't convince and doesn't prevent the class from flowering so that your idea of the paladin can coexist with other ideas of the class in order to make the game better for everyone.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
knightnday wrote:
If it wasn't broke or at least perceived as lacking, there may not be such a call to fix it.

Some people perceive them as broke.

Though since they have been around for over 40 years... Obviously they aren't broken.

Some people just don't like them. They are welcome to not like them. That doesn't make them broken. There is nothing wrong with the class. It has survived the test of time quite well.

Some people do not like them, that is true. Others want to modify them just as they have been modified over the years. What we have today as the paladin -- not unlike the barbarian, druid, demihumans, bard, cavalier and so on -- have been tinkered with, modified, and allowed to grow and change.

Paladins aren't the same as they were when they started and that is a good thing.

The class should have more to it than simply surviving the test of time. Lots of things do and that doesn't make them good or special. It just means they have been around a while. Heck, I've survived longer than the paladin and I am not sure I am all that special. :)


9 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
If it ain't broke, then you ain't gotta fix it.

For something that ain't broke, it certainly produces more heated debates than anything else in the game.

If the bar of "ain't broke" is this high, then there is no need to "fix" anything at all in PF1.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:


There is nothing wrong with the class. It has survived the test of time quite well.

So did clerics, fighters, rogues and wizards. Also monks, barbarians, druids and bards.

No need to change anything at all, in any class, ever, because all of them have survived the past of time.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would have no issue if they removed the 'lawful' part of LG for the paladin. None whatsoever. That said, I am fine with the choice Paizo made. I do not think that simply mirroring it to other alignments would work well.

I want to see other aligned champions of the various gods, don't get me wrong. But I'm willing to wait on it and be patient.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe I missed this but I have a question.

Where does your gods anathema fit on the codes of conduct? It seems like they would have to be included somehow. For example, what if a paladin of Shelyn where put in a situation where they had to lie to save a great historical piece of art? What takes priority? How about if an innocent would come to harm, what if the lawful authorities have decided it must be destroyed, etc.

Unless your gods anathema is included on the chart I’m still seeing plenty of “paladin falling” threads in the future.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Revel wrote:

what if a paladin of Shelyn where put in a situation where they had to lie to save a great historical piece of art? What takes priority? How about if an innocent would come to harm, what if the lawful authorities have decided it must be destroyed, etc.

Great question

801 to 850 of 1,735 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Paladin Class Preview All Messageboards