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
1,051 to 1,100 of 1,735 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>

Vidmaster7 wrote:
So I guess my answer would be if it were up to me they wouldn't have a code. I like the idea of them having a different sort of ingrain cost like sacrifice. I feel like making them do sacrifices to keep their power seems very Anti-paladin to me. Paladin keep their power by following a code while AP keeps theirs by sacrificing to their patron I actually REALLY like that idea.

Well ideally to me these classes wouldnt just be exactly the same, but one is good and one is evil, alas that is what they went with in PF1. Archetypes are what adds changes to them.

I dont know if it must be sacrifices, but i got that idea in 5 seconds, im sure paizo devs better than i ever could even after thinking for a long time.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Revan wrote:


Let me ask you this--would you be OK with 'Paths of the Righteous 2.0' presenting these special Holy Warriors as base classes available from level 1, rather than Prestige Classes that can only start giving us the flavor we want well into our adventuring career?
Certainly.

Well, then, hey, so far as it goes, that's at least potentially a reasonable compromise for me. I think it's inefficient and lacks parsimony, and there could still be design concerns--e.g., as much as people like to hold up the Champion of the Faith Warpriest as a substitute for a CG Paladin type, I really think it needs a few more defensive and inspirational abilities to hit the right 'fantasy points' for, say, divinely empowered revolutionary of Milani. But in principle, that could work for me.


Nox Aeterna wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
So I guess my answer would be if it were up to me they wouldn't have a code. I like the idea of them having a different sort of ingrain cost like sacrifice. I feel like making them do sacrifices to keep their power seems very Anti-paladin to me. Paladin keep their power by following a code while AP keeps theirs by sacrificing to their patron I actually REALLY like that idea.

Well ideally to me these classes wouldnt just be exactly the same, but one is good and one is evil, alas that is what they went with in PF1. Archetypes are what adds changes to them.

I dont know if it must be sacrifices, but i got that idea in 5 seconds, im sure paizo devs better than i ever could even after thinking for a long time.

Yeah I would definitely want differences between axis. I like the whole aura gives bonuss to allis for good and penalties to enemies for evil thing. I feel like the neutral paladin would be more loner-ish almost liek an inquisitor. Also what would be a good neutral oath/sacrifice for N pallys?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
So here Is why I think the paladin is generally lawful. It is because of the code. Its been very traditional that anyone with a code in D&D and PF is lawful. Monks for example usually (and more so in the past) had a code or some rules they would follow so they would be lawful. Now i"m not opposed to CG paladins however chaotic would imply your getting rid of the code so it would be a substantial change to the fluff and even the mechanics since the code is built in to the mechanics.

So to the idea that Chaotic or Neutral alignments can't follow a code...

Rush, probably... wrote:

If your code is to have no code,

you still follow a code!

Ponder to the tune of Freewill. ;)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
So I guess my answer would be if it were up to me they wouldn't have a code. I like the idea of them having a different sort of ingrain cost like sacrifice. I feel like making them do sacrifices to keep their power seems very Anti-paladin to me. Paladin keep their power by following a code while AP keeps theirs by sacrificing to their patron I actually REALLY like that idea.

Well ideally to me these classes wouldnt just be exactly the same, but one is good and one is evil, alas that is what they went with in PF1. Archetypes are what adds changes to them.

I dont know if it must be sacrifices, but i got that idea in 5 seconds, im sure paizo devs better than i ever could even after thinking for a long time.

Yeah I would definitely want differences between axis. I like the whole aura gives bonuss to allis for good and penalties to enemies for evil thing. I feel like the neutral paladin would be more loner-ish almost liek an inquisitor. Also what would be a good neutral oath/sacrifice for N pallys?

NG paladins would be the embodyment of good, untainted by law or chaos, mercy, restraint and wrath in balance, the mediators and fair judges, upholding justice rather than law, and self restraint rather than freedom.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
So I guess my answer would be if it were up to me they wouldn't have a code. I like the idea of them having a different sort of ingrain cost like sacrifice. I feel like making them do sacrifices to keep their power seems very Anti-paladin to me. Paladin keep their power by following a code while AP keeps theirs by sacrificing to their patron I actually REALLY like that idea.

Well ideally to me these classes wouldnt just be exactly the same, but one is good and one is evil, alas that is what they went with in PF1. Archetypes are what adds changes to them.

I dont know if it must be sacrifices, but i got that idea in 5 seconds, im sure paizo devs better than i ever could even after thinking for a long time.

I actually don't want the "paladins" of different alignments to feel the same either. If we only get one sacred champion in core and anything else we get much later is going to be treated as an unsupported bastard runty stepchild, then yeah, I want that one class to be open to all, albeit with different codes and mechanical differences like choosing between Soldier paths in Starfinder. But I'd actually rather have a few different separate but equal classes riffing off some of the same core mechanics and conceits, sharing the spotlight in core.

That's why I've been pushing the four axis. I actually would be entirely happy with a nine-class spread for the nine alignments, but I know that's not going to happen ever. There isn't the page count for it, the developers would run into "design fatigue", they'd blur out to readers, and none of them would get much support in the future. But I feel that four is manageable. And that there's enough space there for the Good paladin to represent LG, NG, and CG; for the Lawful alternative to represent LG, LN, and LE; and so on.

It may be a fool's dream but I think something like this would really satisfy virtually everyone, except the few hardliners who won't be happy unless they get LG only and no one else gets anything.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
So I guess my answer would be if it were up to me they wouldn't have a code. I like the idea of them having a different sort of ingrain cost like sacrifice. I feel like making them do sacrifices to keep their power seems very Anti-paladin to me. Paladin keep their power by following a code while AP keeps theirs by sacrificing to their patron I actually REALLY like that idea.

Well ideally to me these classes wouldnt just be exactly the same, but one is good and one is evil, alas that is what they went with in PF1. Archetypes are what adds changes to them.

I dont know if it must be sacrifices, but i got that idea in 5 seconds, im sure paizo devs better than i ever could even after thinking for a long time.

Yeah I would definitely want differences between axis. I like the whole aura gives bonuss to allis for good and penalties to enemies for evil thing. I feel like the neutral paladin would be more loner-ish almost liek an inquisitor. Also what would be a good neutral oath/sacrifice for N pallys?

NG paladins would be the embodyment of good, untainted by law or chaos, mercy, restraint and wrath in balance, the mediators and fair judges, upholding justice rather than law, and self restraint rather than freedom.

But what would they have instead of a strict code or having to make sacrifices for their powers? If we are going to make other paladin alignment types work I feel they should have some cost for their deific powers like the paladin does. the sacrifice for power fits real well with the evil ones. Codes work for lawful what about say a CN paladin what would he have to do to keep his powers?


Fuzzypaws wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
So I guess my answer would be if it were up to me they wouldn't have a code. I like the idea of them having a different sort of ingrain cost like sacrifice. I feel like making them do sacrifices to keep their power seems very Anti-paladin to me. Paladin keep their power by following a code while AP keeps theirs by sacrificing to their patron I actually REALLY like that idea.

Well ideally to me these classes wouldnt just be exactly the same, but one is good and one is evil, alas that is what they went with in PF1. Archetypes are what adds changes to them.

I dont know if it must be sacrifices, but i got that idea in 5 seconds, im sure paizo devs better than i ever could even after thinking for a long time.

I actually don't want the "paladins" of different alignments to feel the same either. If we only get one sacred champion in core and anything else we get much later is going to be treated as an unsupported bastard runty stepchild, then yeah, I want that one class to be open to all, albeit with different codes and mechanical differences like choosing between Soldier paths in Starfinder. But I'd actually rather have a few different separate but equal classes riffing off some of the same core mechanics and conceits, sharing the spotlight in core.

That's why I've been pushing the four axis. I actually would be entirely happy with a nine-class spread for the nine alignments, but I know that's not going to happen ever. There isn't the page count for it, the developers would run into "design fatigue", they'd blur out to readers, and none of them would get much support in the future. But I feel that four is manageable. And that there's enough space there for the Good paladin to represent LG, NG, and CG; for the Lawful alternative to represent LG, LN, and LE; and so on.

It may be a fool's dream but I think something like this would really satisfy virtually everyone, except the...

So maybe a full write up like how PF1 did with the AP so basically alternate classes of the core paladin? I would be down with that.

I feel like that would be a book until itself almost.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
So I guess my answer would be if it were up to me they wouldn't have a code. I like the idea of them having a different sort of ingrain cost like sacrifice. I feel like making them do sacrifices to keep their power seems very Anti-paladin to me. Paladin keep their power by following a code while AP keeps theirs by sacrificing to their patron I actually REALLY like that idea.

Well ideally to me these classes wouldnt just be exactly the same, but one is good and one is evil, alas that is what they went with in PF1. Archetypes are what adds changes to them.

I dont know if it must be sacrifices, but i got that idea in 5 seconds, im sure paizo devs better than i ever could even after thinking for a long time.

Yeah I would definitely want differences between axis. I like the whole aura gives bonuss to allis for good and penalties to enemies for evil thing. I feel like the neutral paladin would be more loner-ish almost liek an inquisitor. Also what would be a good neutral oath/sacrifice for N pallys?

NG paladins would be the embodyment of good, untainted by law or chaos, mercy, restraint and wrath in balance, the mediators and fair judges, upholding justice rather than law, and self restraint rather than freedom.
But what would they have instead of a strict code or having to make sacrifices for their powers? If we are going to make other paladin alignment types work I feel they should have some cost for their deific powers like the paladin does. the sacrifice for power fits real well with the evil ones. Codes work for lawful what about say a CN paladin what would he have to do to keep his powers?

Chaotic Neutral woukd be freedom above all, even if it costs them, for example a paladin of Gorum woukd train anyone who asked, even a potential enemy, for true freedom comes from strength of arms, they would fight to protect even those that deserve to be chained because everyone deserves to die on their feet in combat, not be chained like an animal. I think that would be a decent starting point.


Ok I had to think about it and I now realize you are trying to answer my question just in a flowery way.

So your saying the neutral paladin would have to be extremely neutral to the point where he was willing to help allies and enemies at the same time.

Its a start but not as cut and dry as lawful follows lawful codes and evil sacrifices to evil entities.

Designer

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I've removed several posts. Friends, please don't turn this thread into a debate on the alignment of real-world religions. I was going to point to the previous moderator post after this same tangent was removed on page 12 or so, but I realized it was a little more general and didn't specifically ask to avoid this topic, so I'm specifically asking now to avoid those references.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
So I guess my answer would be if it were up to me they wouldn't have a code. I like the idea of them having a different sort of ingrain cost like sacrifice. I feel like making them do sacrifices to keep their power seems very Anti-paladin to me. Paladin keep their power by following a code while AP keeps theirs by sacrificing to their patron I actually REALLY like that idea.

Well ideally to me these classes wouldnt just be exactly the same, but one is good and one is evil, alas that is what they went with in PF1. Archetypes are what adds changes to them.

I dont know if it must be sacrifices, but i got that idea in 5 seconds, im sure paizo devs better than i ever could even after thinking for a long time.

I actually don't want the "paladins" of different alignments to feel the same either. If we only get one sacred champion in core and anything else we get much later is going to be treated as an unsupported bastard runty stepchild, then yeah, I want that one class to be open to all, albeit with different codes and mechanical differences like choosing between Soldier paths in Starfinder. But I'd actually rather have a few different separate but equal classes riffing off some of the same core mechanics and conceits, sharing the spotlight in core.

That's why I've been pushing the four axis. I actually would be entirely happy with a nine-class spread for the nine alignments, but I know that's not going to happen ever. There isn't the page count for it, the developers would run into "design fatigue", they'd blur out to readers, and none of them would get much support in the future. But I feel that four is manageable. And that there's enough space there for the Good paladin to represent LG, NG, and CG; for the Lawful alternative to represent LG, LN, and LE; and so on.

It may be a fool's dream but I think something like this would really satisfy

...

So maybe a full write up like how PF1 did with the AP so basically alternate classes of the core paladin? I would be down with that.
I feel like that would be a book until itself almost.

In my head the "Champion" (my headcanon name for the any-aligned holy warrior) should follow a code, but I'd be down for allowing other playstyles. Could we by chance start a thread specifically devoted to a houseruleset of this guy? We can go with flavor now and then work on mechanics once more is revealed.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
I've removed several posts. Friends, please don't turn this thread into a debate on the alignment of real-world religions. I was going to point to the previous moderator post after this same tangent was removed on page 12 or so, but I realized it was a little more general and didn't specifically ask to avoid this topic, so I'm specifically asking now to avoid those references.

Yeah... things get really messy when religion is involved. Not that religion is bad, just that it deals with issues so close to the self that one can hardly help but take religious disagreements personally.

Which... is likely the reason that Pallys are such an issue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

sounds reasonable lets see if we have a place we can all agree on. from the idea's so far I don't think I've had anyone say they hated the idea of having arch-types/alternate classes for the base paladin changing the name to fit the new theme and changing abilities to go with that theme.

I can see wanting to keep the core paladin in its core form. I think however we can agree that pushing for later options to have more alternate classes for the paladin would also be a positive.

We would also want those options to be substantial not just like the grey paladin but I think what they did with the anti-paladin is a lot more in line with what people seem to want.


Steve Geddes wrote:

I wonder if part of the reason “other aligned paladins” aren’t being included is in part due to the timeframe/resource scarcity during the playtest.

I’d hazard a guess that no topic requires more moderator presence/action (barring perhaps edition warring). I daresay Paizo are in the position of wanting to review everything as it stands in Pathfinder but recognising that having just four months and only handful of moderators and designers means they can’t.

Faced with the need to excise some of the more drastic rules changes they are contemplating, I can see some logic in excluding the emotive-and-contentious changes as opposed to the just radical.

Exactly. To do them full justice, it'd be basically making nine classes (or four if you go for the corner alignments) instead of one (or two, since there seems to be an anti-paladin already, but that might be more of a placeholder than a full version of the class). That's a heck of a lot more work. And if they don't get them just right, it'd be just as contentious as if they didn't do them at all. I could potentially see making paladins any good and anti-paladins any evil, which would be less work than nine classes. But it would also seem to cut off the possibility of more customized classes for each alignment in the future. And there is the risk of genericizing what so many love about the class if you just have one class trying to fit multiple alignments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
Also, with regards to Gorum and Antipaladins, I haven't seen any support for antipaladins of specific deities - I even went and looked just to be sure.

Uh...Inner Sea Gods has Antipaladin Codes for both Gorum and Calistria. They are in fact a very explicit thing.

That doesn't mean there shouldn't be non-CE options for a Champion of Gorum (there should), but Antipaladins of Gorum explicitly exist.

There is no antipaladin code for Gorum in Inner Sea Gods. I just checked.

It's in Faiths of Corruption, page 26. Might also be elsewhere.


Vidmaster7 wrote:

Ok I had to think about it and I now realize you are trying to answer my question just in a flowery way.

So your saying the neutral paladin would have to be extremely neutral to the point where he was willing to help allies and enemies at the same time.

Its a start but not as cut and dry as lawful follows lawful codes and evil sacrifices to evil entities.

not enemies, its not a suicide pact, but be just as likely to aid good as evil, as required by the faith, so a paldin of Nethys would be equally as likely to guard Mythos law as a book on Excorcism, the sacrifice is being unyielding, even at personal cos, knowledge, or freedom, or strength being the entitlement of all, regardless of the downside for the paladin or indeed the world, if its not hard its not a paladin, and 'I smite evil' being so easy most of the time is actually an issue.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Ok I had to think about it and I now realize you are trying to answer my question just in a flowery way.

So your saying the neutral paladin would have to be extremely neutral to the point where he was willing to help allies and enemies at the same time.

Its a start but not as cut and dry as lawful follows lawful codes and evil sacrifices to evil entities.

not enemies, its not a suicide pact, but be just as likely to aid good as evil, as required by the faith, so a paldin of Nethys would be equally as likely to guard Mythos law as a book on Excorcism, the sacrifice is being unyielding, even at personal cos, knowledge, or freedom, or strength being the entitlement of all, regardless of the downside for the paladin or indeed the world, if its not hard its not a paladin, and 'I smite evil' being so easy most of the time is actually an issue.

So like balance keeper. (TM! :P) Hmm I'll have to think on it.


Vidmaster7 wrote:

sounds reasonable lets see if we have a place we can all agree on. from the idea's so far I don't think I've had anyone say they hated the idea of having arch-types/alternate classes for the base paladin changing the name to fit the new theme and changing abilities to go with that theme.

I can see wanting to keep the core paladin in its core form. I think however we can agree that pushing for later options to have more alternate classes for the paladin would also be a positive.

We would also want those options to be substantial not just like the grey paladin but I think what they did with the anti-paladin is a lot more in line with what people seem to want.

my problem is with later, and more specifically the 'splat rot' that haunts most game systems regardless of company, in pf the Shifter is the go to example, as is the Grey Paladin, as splats get less playtests (if any), so yea, being the afterthought, even if unintentionally is not ideal. Hell we can do it now: how many paladin archtypes (including those perfect for say, Cayden are their, locked behind Lg is best Good alignment walls) and how many for APs?

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

I’m down for new alternative classes. I’ve been basing my themes for other alignments on the Incarnum classes, but I’d like to hear other ideas for the concepts.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

sounds reasonable lets see if we have a place we can all agree on. from the idea's so far I don't think I've had anyone say they hated the idea of having arch-types/alternate classes for the base paladin changing the name to fit the new theme and changing abilities to go with that theme.

I can see wanting to keep the core paladin in its core form. I think however we can agree that pushing for later options to have more alternate classes for the paladin would also be a positive.

We would also want those options to be substantial not just like the grey paladin but I think what they did with the anti-paladin is a lot more in line with what people seem to want.

my problem is with later, and more specifically the 'splat rot' that haunts most game systems regardless of company, in pf the Shifter is the go to example, as is the Grey Paladin, as splats get less playtests (if any), so yea, being the afterthought, even if unintentionally is not ideal.

Well I feel like this Splat rot would be the real problem, and maybe that is the thing that we should push against if it happens? Instead of trying to avoid the problem by pushing the class (which actually would be like 9 classes) to fit so many ideas instead of risking it being in a less quality book why don't we instead keep pushing for quality so that we don't end up with a grey paladin or shifter situation.

TL/DR lets instead fight the "splat rot" instead.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Can we can some clarification on what you are asking us to play test with with paladin? Are you asking us to help make a lawful good paladin with exclusive abilities Are you asking for what we would like in a lawful good champion that could potential share abilities with other champions of different alignments? Depending on the answer to that I will give you completely different feedback.
I have reservations about building one champion first as they potentially get first choice of abilities that I would want shared between champions. The paladin I would give you for a lawful good only exclusive abilities would strip half of the things a paladin now has out because I don't believe they would be things that only a lawful good should have.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

sounds reasonable lets see if we have a place we can all agree on. from the idea's so far I don't think I've had anyone say they hated the idea of having arch-types/alternate classes for the base paladin changing the name to fit the new theme and changing abilities to go with that theme.

I can see wanting to keep the core paladin in its core form. I think however we can agree that pushing for later options to have more alternate classes for the paladin would also be a positive.

We would also want those options to be substantial not just like the grey paladin but I think what they did with the anti-paladin is a lot more in line with what people seem to want.

my problem is with later, and more specifically the 'splat rot' that haunts most game systems regardless of company, in pf the Shifter is the go to example, as is the Grey Paladin, as splats get less playtests (if any), so yea, being the afterthought, even if unintentionally is not ideal.

Well I feel like this Splat rot would be the real problem, and maybe that is the thing that we should push against if it happens? Instead of trying to avoid the problem by pushing the class (which actually would be like 9 classes) to fit so many ideas instead of risking it being in a less quality book why don't we instead keep pushing for quality so that we don't end up with a grey paladin or shifter situation.

TL/DR lets instead fight the "splat rot" instead.

because I cannot see a way for a splat boom to get the year of playtest core is getting. Reality and publishing schedules will not allow it, no ones fault, just simple financial reality.

Lantern Lodge Customer Service & Community Manager

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Folks, I think we’re going to take a break overnight (PST). We’ll open up the thread in the morning. If you’ve got some burning commentary, I recommend typing it up and saving it in a word processor so you can come back in about 9 ish hours and post it.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

41 people marked this as a favorite.

Alright everybody,

It's late (for some of us) and the sniping and accusations are wearing a bit thin.

The paladin, as it is currently designed, is a class the leans heavily on its thematic concept, with abilities that exemplify that idea. I am genuinely interested exploring this concept for classes with a different focus. The problem is that it is not as simple as just swapping out the word "good" for the word "evil" or "neutral". Many of the abilities, the features depend on a lot more than those simple tags. In some cases, entire structural components no longer work and would need to be entirely replaced.

I tried this before.. in the APG, and I had to scrap it then because it was not leading to satisfactory results. To create a truly evil unholy warrior, he has to be more than just the opposite of good. Worse still was the slices that were neutral. Its hard to be opposed when you are in the middle of the spectrum. They require a different structure, different choices, and ultimately have different goals in the play space.

So.. where does that leave us?

We built the Paladin to be the best holy warrior we could make. This does not preclude us doing other champions, but they will likely need more than just a few swapped out feats. To do anything less would be a disservice to what could be a great part of the game. We dont want that, and despite all the differences in this thread, I dont think any of you do either.

I know that many of you want it now. You want it to be part of the core. I have to debate with people in the office every day about putting more content out, faster. My job, is to make sure we take the time to do things right. Especially here.. especially with a class like the Paladin.

Take it a little easy everybody.. I've seen enough flagged posts for one thread. Be good to each other.


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

Alright everybody,

It's late (for some of us) and the sniping and accusations are wearing a bit thin.

The paladin, as it is currently designed, is a class the leans heavily on its thematic concept, with abilities that exemplify that idea. I am genuinely interested exploring this concept for classes with a different focus. The problem is that it is not as simple as just swapping out the word "good" for the word "evil" or "neutral". Many of the abilities, the features depend on a lot more than those simple tags. In some cases, entire structural components no longer work and would need to be entirely replaced.

I tried this before.. in the APG, and I had to scrap it then because it was not leading to satisfactory results. To create a truly evil unholy warrior, he has to be more than just the opposite of good. Worse still was the slices that were neutral. Its hard to be opposed when you are in the middle of the spectrum. They require a different structure, different choices, and ultimately have different goals in the play space.

So.. where does that leave us?

We built the Paladin to be the best holy warrior we could make. This does not preclude us doing other champions, but they will likely need more than just a few swapped out feats. To do anything less would be a disservice to what could be a great part of the game. We dont want that, and despite all the differences in this thread, I dont think any of you do either.

I know that many of you want it now. You want it to be part of the core. I have to debate with people in the office every day about putting more content out, faster. My job, is to make sure we take the time to do things right. Especially here.. especially with a class like the Paladin.

Take it a little easy everybody.. I've seen enough flagged posts for one thread. Be good to each other.

If there are mechanical stipulations that truly mandate for a sole LG alignment policy, then can we get some more detailed previews on those ideas so we have a better idea of what your vision is for this iteration of the class?

To be fair, (I'm almost certain it came as a derivative of the planned Templar) I felt the cavalier in the APG was done incredibly well, and getting a different version of that which traded the teamwork and dedicated mounted stuff for the divine paladin stuff would suffice, but I can't say that if there really is some hidden feature that we're not privy to.

Are there more details available for the features we have listed here in this blog? We don't even know if the paladin is charisma based, off this blog at least. I think we would be better served to have more features and mechanics to discuss and theorize about to get away from the toxicity of alignment debates.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hmm wrote:

At this point, I’ve expressed the view that Chaotics can have a code and moral dilemmas every bit as intense and the Lawful Good folks. For me, the code is the most fascinating aspect of the paladin. I don’t want to ditch it. I wouldn’t want chaotic holy warriors to be without a code, either.

I think I might even come to accept that Paladins would stay an LG-only class if there were a way in this game that an LG-Paladin could be the holy Warrior of Pharasma, Desna, Gozreh or Cayden.

BRAINSTORM

@ Mark — Have you folks ever considered adding a NG deity (let’s call it Jemti the Intermediary) who accepts worshippers on behalf of other deities? They’re modest enough to be willing to share their followers, and so they ask that all their followers not only follow their rules, but also take another god whose tenets and codes they fully follow. So you can worship the Intermediary, but serve Cayden, or some other non-evil deity.

If this sounds far-fetched to you, consider the case of Ganesh (a deity that you could never do in Pathfinder, because he’s actively worshipped here in the real world.) One of the aspects of Ganesh that I loved was that although he had his own followers, he also interceded between other deities and their followers. He was willing to speak for others, and clear obstacles between them. So if you got in trouble with your own god, you would talk to Ganesh, and he would help you find your way back.

The Paladins of Jemti all serve Jemti’s rules, but also have a bridge in order to serve as a holy warrior of another deity who calls to their hearts. If we did this, I’d want Jemti to be fully fleshed out, and have some pretty hefty service requirements. I would not want it to be merely a mechanical loophole... I’d want Jemti to be truly interesting in their own right.

(It’s late, so I don’t know how dumb an idea this is... But I’d be curious to see what you think of it.)

Hmm

Their Name would be:

Metagod

and their followers would be called zillas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I have trouble envisioning what the hypothetical CG-adin would even be. Putting aside "the champion of a deity which happens to be CG" since that's the Warpriest's provenance not the Paladin's, I think I might have an idea.

So the LG Paladin is someone who always does good, but in a Lawful way. Whereas the LE Tyrant is someone who establishes order over everything, but does so in as evil a way as possible. A normal CE Antipaladin is someone who always does evil, in the most chaotic way possible.

So similar to how the Paladin and Antipaladin are inverses, I feel like the CG-adin should be the inversion of the Tyrant, someone who always pursues Chaos- but not willing to stoop to evil means to tear down whatever their target is.

Just, please don't call it a Paladin.

My personal preference would be for the Champion of Chaos class to be a spellcaster, not a warrior, but that's neither here nor there.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

"We built the Paladin to be the best holy warrior we could make."

I think this is what a lot of people don't like and is probably a conflict over semantics. When you say Holy Warrior, you mean LG embodiment of the holy warrior (correct me if I'm wrong!) While lots of people see Holy Warrior as meaning "divinely inspired champion of x god/ideal." For those of us who want to make a Holy Warrior for 3/4 of the diety roster than Paladin just flat doesn't work and thus doesn't even fill the basic requirements of a holy warrior, let alone being the best version of one.

But hey ho thats the way it goes. Thankfully none of my players know my forum handle here, so I'll keep my feeling on the Paladin to myself so as not to poison the well during character creation. Hopefully if one of them wants to play a Paladin it'll be with a follower of the right god in mind.


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

Alright everybody,

It's late (for some of us) and the sniping and accusations are wearing a bit thin.

The paladin, as it is currently designed, is a class the leans heavily on its thematic concept, with abilities that exemplify that idea. I am genuinely interested exploring this concept for classes with a different focus. The problem is that it is not as simple as just swapping out the word "good" for the word "evil" or "neutral". Many of the abilities, the features depend on a lot more than those simple tags. In some cases, entire structural components no longer work and would need to be entirely replaced.

I tried this before.. in the APG, and I had to scrap it then because it was not leading to satisfactory results. To create a truly evil unholy warrior, he has to be more than just the opposite of good. Worse still was the slices that were neutral. Its hard to be opposed when you are in the middle of the spectrum. They require a different structure, different choices, and ultimately have different goals in the play space.

So.. where does that leave us?

We built the Paladin to be the best holy warrior we could make. This does not preclude us doing other champions, but they will likely need more than just a few swapped out feats. To do anything less would be a disservice to what could be a great part of the game. We dont want that, and despite all the differences in this thread, I dont think any of you do either.

I see this as a very different situation from APG as you had a paladin already set in place by pathfinder's backwards compatibility to 3.5. In effect you had to reinvent the wheel.

This time around, you could have built a framework from scratch that would allow the character to take aligned oaths, talents, feats, ect. in a way you couldn't before. Making "entire structural components" that are only ever compatible with LG as baked in parts of the base class just means that you are forced to 'reinvent the wheel' to shift focuses instead of just having to create elements for those different focuses that just bolt on to the basic framework. In essence, instead of a modular replacement, you've opted for an enforced total rebuilt every time.

So IMO, even if you wanted to focus on LG only for the playtest [to get it right], it seems like a missed opportunity to save yourself [and our own] time in the future if you are truly interested in exploring other alignment options. Having to do something like alternate classes seems like far more work than should be needed but that sounds to me like what you're heading towards...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
We built the Paladin to be the best holy warrior we could make. This does not preclude us doing other champions, but they will likely need more than just a few swapped out feats. To do anything less would be a disservice to what could be a great part of the game. We dont want that, and despite all the differences in this thread, I dont think any of you do either.

I see this as a very different situation from APG as you had a paladin already set in place by pathfinder's backwards compatibility to 3.5. In effect you had to reinvent the wheel.

This time around, you could have built a framework from scratch that would allow the character to take aligned oaths, talents, feats, ect. in a way you couldn't before. Making "entire structural components" that are only ever compatible with LG as baked in parts of the base class just means that you are forced to 'reinvent the wheel' to shift focuses instead of just having to create elements for those different focuses that just bolt on to the basic framework. In essence, instead of a modular replacement, you've opted for an enforced total rebuilt every time.

So IMO, even if you wanted to focus on LG only for the playtest [to get it right], it seems like a missed opportunity to save yourself [and our own] time in the future if you are truly interested in exploring other alignment options. Having to do something like alternate classes seems like far more work than should be needed but that sounds to me like what you're heading towards...

Sure they could have, but I strongly suspect the result would have been much more bland. The paladin corresponds to a clearly identified ideal archetype. One may want it expanded or changed, but it starts from a solid baseline identity. The design is built from that identity up, so it stands to reason that the result is not very flexible. Trying to accommodate a great number of identities with the same chassis would not only be much harder, but the outcome would probably have to be watered down.

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,735 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Paladin Class Preview All Messageboards