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
1,201 to 1,250 of 1,735 << first < prev | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | next > last >>

One thing I’m curious about: if paladins are Indeed no longer spellcasters, how will their spell point abilities scale? I assume there will be a method, I’m just curious what it’ll look like.


master_marshmallow wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Oh we're still on about alignment.
To be fair, the blog post offered basically nothing else to talk about since it gives almost zero mechanical details.

Given the length of the thread, please note I'm not being condescending when I say that I've been trying to point this out for a few pages. Totally cool if you didn't see them, they get drowned out easily.

I'm trying to get at the mechanics that got name dropped but not explained like we got in the other class blogs.

Like this Righteous Ally they talked but didn't talk about.
What does it actually do? Why should I be excited about it?

Looks to be the Divine Bond special ability for Paladins, except it comes earlier at 3rd level rather then 5th, and also can be used with your shield rather then a weapon or a holy steed. Mechanically it looks like Paladin's are getting a lot of their offensive power earlier (Reactive striking and earlier Divine Bond/Righteous Ally + Multiple Righteous Allies) then before.

It also looks like being a supportive Paladin will now require Feat investment, since mercies are now tied with the Paladin's class feats instead of their level. Finally Paladin's seem reaction heavy, since Divine Grace is now a reaction instead of a flat bonus to your saves. Not sure if I care for that or not.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
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.

Because it'll be easier to make Clerics and Wizards good at combat, the Warpriest's role (a divine caster who spends some of his 'customization budget', as it were, on combat rather than spellcasting) may be subsumed into the Cleric class. Just as we may not need a Magus class if it's doable with a Wizard, we may not need a Warpriest class if it's doable with a Cleric.

Quote:
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.

Sure, and as I've said the Chaotic Good champion—whatever you want to call him—doesn't have fewer rules than the traditional LG Paladin, he has different ones. For example, the Liberator's code may be:

- You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell. (Good)
- 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. (Good)
- You must act with honor, never cheating, lying, or taking advantage of others. (Good)
- You must uphold the autonomy of the individual over the will of the tyrant, the state, or the collective. (Chaotic)

I think it's informative in itself that the only part of the code that needs to be changed is one tenet, and the lowest-priority one at that.

Quote:
Just, please don't call it a Paladin.

I wonder just how much of this intractable debate boils down to squabbling over the name, and the status of Core versus Splat.

Quote:
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.

The spellcaster space is already occupied by the Cleric. There ought to be a martial counterpart, which would be the Liberator (CG) and Antipaladin (CE).

The thing is, none of what the Paladin does mechanically is restricted to Lawful alignments aside from [Law] spells, and it sounds like the PF2 Paladin won't have conventional spellcasting. Maybe the LG Paladin can have a Litany of Order while his CG counterpart has a Litany of Freedom. Yes, Lay on Hands / Mercy doesn't belong on the Paladin's evil counterparts. But Aura of Good, Detect Evil, and Smite Evil belong to the whole Good row and have nothing to do with the Lawful column. More generally, being good at wearing armor and hitting things with a weapon doesn't depend on alignment at all.

And I hate to keep pounding on it but it keeps having to be mentioned: It's not going to destroy the setting to have a Paladin-like class of non-LG alignments because we have three of the four corners already.


Here's my 2 cents on the subject of Paladin alignment coming from a few different perspectives that I hope will bring some balance to this discussion and hopefully build some bridges. Sorry in advance for having far too many parenthetical notations. It's a really bad habit but I can never quite break it.

My perspective(s) as a player/GM:
I started role playing with a mix of 3.5 and Mutants & Masterminds 1e (more so M&M) which, I think, gave me an interesting perspective on this. I want to play a unique and interesting character and usually have some interesting dilemma or conflict that I want to explore when making that character. As such I've always seen class in games that have it as purely mechanical with fluff for inspiration but my tables (both GMing and as player) are rarely set in the Forgotten Realms or Golarian or whatever other baked in setting is apropos. Usually it serves as inspiration but not much more. As such, I really do not care for alignment restrictions. I tend to think that they're needlessly constraining on character concepts and aren't really useful. I get that they've been around for a long time and were used as a weird balancing tool back in the day since the class was just better than the classes it blended but that's just bad design. Nothing against Gygax and co... what they did was legendary but when they were designing games there was no such thing as studying game design. They made great leaps forward in the field but there've been 40+ years of advancement. I very much want to easily be able to refluff characters to fit the concepts I want to play and as such I'll definitely house rule alignment restrictions away and likely write my own sets of oaths for different kinds of champions.

All that being said, I do understand the traditionalist perspective on this and their view of the paladin as the knight in shining armor. The incorruptible force of good and order (and I'll get my issues with that in the Voluntaryist/Anarcho-Capitalist perspective). It's an inspiring and deeply meaningful image. One that I share wholeheartedly even though I reject lawful good as being good at all (depending on how you view what it means to be lawful).

I think that last part is the biggest issue. Law/Chaos is kind of ambiguous and different people have very different perspectives on what that means and, in fact, traditionally it means very different things depending on if they're paired with neutrality, evil, or good. That's the core problem as I see it.

My perspective as an amateur game designer:
What we all have to keep in mind is that this is material for a public play test and not the final product. I have yet to publish any of my work. I have a couple games in various levels of completion that I've been working on over the last several years. I started with a setting agnostic system designed for gradual, natural character growth in a structured but very open and free form way with a very unique attribute/resolution system. That was probably a mistake since it's also by far the most ambitious project and probably not the wisest place to start but it's the system that I'm by far the most passionate about. The reason I bring that up is because I have absolutely learned that when play testing it is extremely crucial (vitally so) to be as focused as is possible for the stage of development that you're at. It is so indescribably important to focus on getting the core pieces right and get as many kinks worked out as possible before adding more complexity. So as such I completely understand why, for the play test, they want a very specific and narrow narrative and mechanical theme for the class. I absolutely hope that we get other kinds of Champions in core rule book because, as I'm about to get into, I think that Lawful Good is either the truest good alignment or one of the most inherently evil depending on what exactly lawful means.

I also understand and sympathize with the reluctance to simply slap different alignments on the exact same chassis when there are specific mechanics tied to the alignment system (as stated by one of the designers but we don't really know those mechanics. Those mechanics are clearly not the falling system as that can be handled by a chosen god's specific codes). It's certainly a rough place to be in. I can definitely empathize with that.

Preface to this section:
I am quite aware that my philosophical/politcal views are well outside the mainstream and the specifics of them, as much as I enjoy talking about them, aren't really the point here. Seeing as that they are uncommon positions I do feel the need to define my terms and meaning for clarity but over all my point is to discuss the issues of what alignment really mean.

My perspective as a Voluntaryist/Anarcho-Capitalist:

I am, among other things, philosophically a Voluntaryist. That is to say that I have very strict moral code in the Non-Aggression Principle (No one has the right to initiate [be the first to use] coercion [narrowly defined as force, threats of force, or fraud] against another person. This allows for defensive force but not initiatory force.) that I hold myself to and, as I believe it to be a logically consistent, objective (unbiased), and universalizable primary moral system (I believe in other moral ideals but the NAP is primary), judge others by as well.

Belief in the NAP (and interest in the Austrian school of economic thought) has led me to be an Anarcho-Capitalist politically. In the most basic terms (and a bit of an oversimplification but it should do for the purposes of this discussion) I want the governments of the world to be trust busted, broken up into specific pieces, and forced to compete on the open market. That is to say that they would lose the coercive power of taxation and their monopoly status over law (favoring systems such as common law), security, and the like.

I am absolutely a law and order kind of person at my core but I have been convinced that non-voluntary power is inherently and universally corrupting. So as such I would argue that monopoly law and monetary systems are inherently chaotic. They create disorder in society and individuals. See the deleterious effects of Alcohol Prohibition in the United States or it's new form in the Drug War or the role of central banks and fractional reserve banking in creating the business cycle (See Austrian Business Cycle Theory).

But I have great respect for what I believe to be legitimate authority, that is authority that I have voluntarily sided with. I have great respect and obedience towards my bosses because I have voluntarily chosen to submit myself for the sake of the employment relationship. I have great respect for security at private establishments and the rules of private establishments and property owners. But I don't see government agents as legitimate authority because as Mao quite correctly stated. "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun." In fact, to be perfectly frank, I see them as terrorist despots one and all (With some possible exceptions like the prince of Lichtenstein but that's a very odd situation where he's trying to abdicate as much power as he can. I believe he does in fact describe himself as an Anarcho-Capitalist.).

TL;DR here's where term clarification ends and the real discussion begins.

So am I chaotic because I'm openly hostile to traditional authority (going so far as moving 3,200 miles to be a part of a political migration of like minded people) or am I lawful because of my devout devotion to morality? I respect legitimate authority wholeheartedly but that's defined very differently from how most people would define it.

This is, I think, the core of the issue. There is no objective definition for "Lawful". A lawful good character is often described as obeying the law of the land as is codified in the Paladin Code though thankfully lower than goodness. But again that's still an issue. By the moral code I present taxation is theft and is thus immoral because it's collected with threat of gun and cage and not by proper contract and consent and that taints every other action since every other action is then funded by immorality. But a Lawful Neutral character may be described as a legal positivist or a pure traditionalist. And then there's Lawful Evil... Often the view is based on what station they see themselves in. If they're an official they're usually depicted as following rules and laws to a "t" (having a lot of overlap with some views of lawful good in my opinion) but if they're not part of a government then they're evil and selfish but have a strict personal code that they follow.

Conclusion and possible compromising solution:
I think if you're going to keep alignment then it really needs to be tightened up definitionally and perhaps expanded a bit. My suggestion would be to double the categories by having a priority system. So lawful good may be split up to look something like...

Lawful Good: Law comes first for this character. They are concerned primarily with establishing order and rules and good secondarily.

Good Lawful: Is for good characters who are good first and live their lives by a tight code. Their primary concern is with goodness.

This does put true neutral in a bit of an odd situation since it's inherently double balanced but you could split it up as "Unaligned" for those who have never put much thought into it and "Neutral" where they have a different kind of concern such as the ever popular "maintaining cosmic balance".


AnimatedPaper wrote:
One thing I’m curious about: if paladins are Indeed no longer spellcasters, how will their spell point abilities scale? I assume there will be a method, I’m just curious what it’ll look like.

I am also very curious about this. Perhaps Paladins get 6 levels of spells? I could also see there being wording like: “treat your max spell level as...”

Maybe all characters get an effective caster level if they are trained in casting? That would kind of make sense along with the skill and attack system. We will see.


Dr_Ugly wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

I'm sorry... For *you* if you were me, that would be good enough. I'm not you though and that *isn't* good enough.

I'm telling you... I *feel* like, if the Paladin isn't LG as a setting rule, that the Paladin is lesser. It damages my enjoyment of the class to the point that *I will no longer enjoy the class* because part of it, to me, will feel gone.

You're focused on what you can personally do, and that is all you care about. I'm not I don't draw my enjoyment of the class from what I can personally do with it.

If you can play a CG FULL Paladin of Milani, then it doesn't matter that I can play a LG Paladin of Iomedae because the class isn't the same anymore. Something is different and it doesn't feel like a Paladin anymore. It is just a generic holy warrior at that point and that has little to no draw for me.

I'm really excited to make a CG Paladin of Cayden Cailean in Pathfinder 2. The concept appeals to me and I am going to play it. It may be against the rules, but Cayden Cailean has never been big on the rules anyway. I'm sorry if that will ruin your fun, but I imagine you will find a way to enjoy playing a Paladin anyway.

Again, no one really cares what people do in home games with house rules. What concerns them is what the core ruleset involves, as the core ruleset is the guideline people who are restricted to PFS play have to deal with and what the flavor of the base setting is. Have fun with your paladin of caiden but i still think he'd be better represented by an archetype of swashbuckler that gives abilities more in line with the god than trying to shoehorn drunken swashbuckler hero into a shining holy knight on the hill base chassis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

holy wall of text pallyman. I dont think alignment needs a priority order especially since the pally code now has a tiered code that does what you want.

Liberty's Edge

3 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.

I am going to disagree with this decision from a business standpoint. There is a malignant effect created by having this class be the primary defender upon the whole PF 2.0 system. Many people have had bad experiences with self-righteous, demeaning, and / or condescending behavior from Paladin players due to the way the class and code creates entitlement in the “one true path”. Those experiences cannot be changed. These same / more people will have to possibly suffer through this behavior more often due to this class and code being the primary defender. I disagree with making this happen because of class fantasy. Having this behavior occur more often is not how you grow markets but rather shrink them. Also, you typically grow markets by being more inclusive not less.

Please note, I do not care about the name but rather the mechanics around the primary defender in this system. I actually am not a fan of the name. I would suggest the class name being changed to knight \ warpriest \ etc. with Paladin being a special archetype or alternate class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alceste008 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.

I am going to disagree with this decision from a business standpoint. There is a malignant effect created by having this class be the primary defender upon the whole PF 2.0 system. Many people have had bad experiences with self-righteous, demeaning, and / or condescending behavior from Paladin players due to the way the class and code creates entitlement in the “one true path”. Those experiences cannot be changed. These same / more people will have to possibly suffer through this behavior more often due to this class and code being the primary defender. I disagree with making this happen because of class fantasy. Having this behavior occur more often is not how you grow markets but rather shrink them. Also, you typically grow markets by being more inclusive not less.

Please note, I do not care about the name but rather the mechanics around the primary defender in this system. I actually am not a fan of the name. I would suggest the class name being changed to knight \ warpriest \ etc. with Paladin being a special archetype or alternate class.

Fortunately for them there is an option in playtest by which other classes (Fighter perhaps?) can gain legendary armor proficiency and therefore fill the role of defender.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Alceste008 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.

I am going to disagree with this decision from a business standpoint. There is a malignant effect created by having this class be the primary defender upon the whole PF 2.0 system. Many people have had bad experiences with self-righteous, demeaning, and / or condescending behavior from Paladin players due to the way the class and code creates entitlement in the “one true path”. Those experiences cannot be changed. These same / more people will have to possibly suffer through this behavior more often due to this class and code being the primary defender. I disagree with making this happen because of class fantasy. Having this behavior occur more often is not how you grow markets but rather shrink them. Also, you typically grow markets by being more inclusive not less.

Please note, I do not care about the name but rather the mechanics around the primary defender in this system. I actually am not a fan of the name. I would suggest the class name being changed to knight \ warpriest \ etc. with Paladin being a special archetype or alternate class.

Fortunately for them there is an option in playtest by which other classes (Fighter perhaps?) can gain legendary armor proficiency and therefore fill the role of defender.

Unless the other abilities to defend aren't also included.

Then again, we have no idea what those actually do, so I can't say you're wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Alceste008 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.

I am going to disagree with this decision from a business standpoint. There is a malignant effect created by having this class be the primary defender upon the whole PF 2.0 system. Many people have had bad experiences with self-righteous, demeaning, and / or condescending behavior from Paladin players due to the way the class and code creates entitlement in the “one true path”. Those experiences cannot be changed. These same / more people will have to possibly suffer through this behavior more often due to this class and code being the primary defender. I disagree with making this happen because of class fantasy. Having this behavior occur more often is not how you grow markets but rather shrink them. Also, you typically grow markets by being more inclusive not less.

Please note, I do not care about the name but rather the mechanics around the primary defender in this system. I actually am not a fan of the name. I would suggest the class name being changed to knight \ warpriest \ etc. with Paladin being a special archetype or alternate class.

Fortunately for them there is an option in playtest by which other classes (Fighter perhaps?) can gain legendary armor proficiency and therefore fill the role of defender.

Unless the other abilities to defend aren't also included.

Then again, we have no idea what those actually do, so I can't say you're wrong.

AFAIK they haven't actually said "paladin = defender" just Fighter = leggo weapon master armor and paladin = leggo armor master weapon. We already know fighter gets attack of opportunity earlier and gets extra reactions for things like that, which frankly seems far more relevant to being a "defender" than armor choice ever has.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Alceste008 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.

I am going to disagree with this decision from a business standpoint. There is a malignant effect created by having this class be the primary defender upon the whole PF 2.0 system. Many people have had bad experiences with self-righteous, demeaning, and / or condescending behavior from Paladin players due to the way the class and code creates entitlement in the “one true path”. Those experiences cannot be changed. These same / more people will have to possibly suffer through this behavior more often due to this class and code being the primary defender. I disagree with making this happen because of class fantasy. Having this behavior occur more often is not how you grow markets but rather shrink them. Also, you typically grow markets by being more inclusive not less.

Please note, I do not care about the name but rather the mechanics around the primary defender in this system. I actually am not a fan of the name. I would suggest the class name being changed to knight \ warpriest \ etc. with Paladin being a special archetype or alternate class.

Fortunately for them there is an option in playtest by which other classes (Fighter perhaps?) can gain legendary armor proficiency and therefore fill the role of defender.

Unless the other abilities to defend aren't also included.

Then again, we have no idea what those actually do, so I can't say you're wrong.

AFAIK they haven't actually said "paladin = defender" just Fighter = leggo weapon master armor and paladin = leggo armor master weapon. We...

But also the Retributive Strike thing that essentially gives you an AOO against an enemy that hits your ally, or the fact that lay on hands now adds to the recipient's AC.

We just don't have details on how they work.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Alceste008 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.

I am going to disagree with this decision from a business standpoint. There is a malignant effect created by having this class be the primary defender upon the whole PF 2.0 system. Many people have had bad experiences with self-righteous, demeaning, and / or condescending behavior from Paladin players due to the way the class and code creates entitlement in the “one true path”. Those experiences cannot be changed. These same / more people will have to possibly suffer through this behavior more often due to this class and code being the primary defender. I disagree with making this happen because of class fantasy. Having this behavior occur more often is not how you grow markets but rather shrink them. Also, you typically grow markets by being more inclusive not less.

Please note, I do not care about the name but rather the mechanics around the primary defender in this system. I actually am not a fan of the name. I would suggest the class name being changed to knight \ warpriest \ etc. with Paladin being a special archetype or alternate class.

Fortunately for them there is an option in playtest by which other classes (Fighter perhaps?) can gain legendary armor proficiency and therefore fill the role of defender.

I am not actually hopeful at this point in time. If the system does not have a way for the other martials to be as good of a defender as a paladin then the whole of pathfinder 2.0 fails for me. If there is a way then I can simply ban paladins from any home games I run. For PFS, I may look into playing or running something else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
holy wall of text pallyman. I dont think alignment needs a priority order especially since the pally code now has a tiered code that does what you want.

That's largely fair. My biggest issue is with the fast and loose definition of what law means since there's no internally consistent, objective definition in the system it leads to confusion and very different ideas about what lawful good means. Some think that it's the purest form of good while others think of it as another version of evil because of the inherently corrupt nature of man made monopoly law systems.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Alceste008 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.

I am going to disagree with this decision from a business standpoint. There is a malignant effect created by having this class be the primary defender upon the whole PF 2.0 system. Many people have had bad experiences with self-righteous, demeaning, and / or condescending behavior from Paladin players due to the way the class and code creates entitlement in the “one true path”. Those experiences cannot be changed. These same / more people will have to possibly suffer through this behavior more often due to this class and code being the primary defender. I disagree with making this happen because of class fantasy. Having this behavior occur more often is not how you grow markets but rather shrink them. Also, you typically grow markets by being more inclusive not less.

Please note, I do not care about the name but rather the mechanics around the primary defender in this system. I actually am not a fan of the name. I would suggest the class name being changed to knight \ warpriest \ etc. with Paladin being a special archetype or alternate class.

Fortunately for them there is an option in playtest by which other classes (Fighter perhaps?) can gain legendary armor proficiency and therefore fill the role of defender.

Unless the other abilities to defend aren't also included.

Then again, we have no idea what those actually do, so I can't say you're wrong.

Did you read the fighter preview? A fighter with a shield can block a lot of damage to both himself and allies.

Designer

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Alceste008 wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Alceste008 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.

I am going to disagree with this decision from a business standpoint. There is a malignant effect created by having this class be the primary defender upon the whole PF 2.0 system. Many people have had bad experiences with self-righteous, demeaning, and / or condescending behavior from Paladin players due to the way the class and code creates entitlement in the “one true path”. Those experiences cannot be changed. These same / more people will have to possibly suffer through this behavior more often due to this class and code being the primary defender. I disagree with making this happen because of class fantasy. Having this behavior occur more often is not how you grow markets but rather shrink them. Also, you typically grow markets by being more inclusive not less.

Please note, I do not care about the name but rather the mechanics around the primary defender in this system. I actually am not a fan of the name. I would suggest the class name being changed to knight \ warpriest \ etc. with Paladin being a special archetype or alternate class.

Fortunately for them there is an option in playtest by which other classes (Fighter perhaps?) can gain legendary armor proficiency and therefore fill the role of defender.
I am not actually hopeful at this point in time. If the system does not have a way for the other martials to be as good of a defender as a paladin then the whole of pathfinder 2.0 fails for me. If there is a way then I can simply ban paladins from any home games I run. For PFS, I may look into playing or running something else.

If my playtest group is any indication, there is no way that a well-built shield-focused fighter character (even one that didn't choose to go after the other route to go legendary in a heavy armor and shields) isn't going to be defensive enough to serve as an amazing defensive character for your group with some serious offense (and possibly debuff) potential too. That it doesn't use the same toys to get there as a paladin might be relevant in a game that includes both paladins and fighters, I suppose, but if you want to cut the class (which you can easily do; in fact surely some groups that don't do that won't have time to play all the classes and thus won't test a paladin just by chance), then there isn't even the question of comparing them any more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
Yes, Lay on Hands / Mercy doesn't belong on the Paladin's evil counterparts.

Even that's not true anymore, since now alignment is no longer connected to positive or negative energy with evil gods now being able to providing healing powers to their clerics instead of harm powers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Yes, Lay on Hands / Mercy doesn't belong on the Paladin's evil counterparts.
Even that's not true anymore, since now alignment is no longer connected to positive or negative energy with evil gods now being able to providing healing powers to their clerics instead of harm powers.

I don't think the ability to heal the injured and the sick is particularly well aligned with the themes of evil and evil gods in general, though.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I don't think the ability to heal the injured and the sick is particularly well aligned with the themes of evil and evil gods in general, though.

I find healthy minions slaughter villages much more effectively.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:


- You must act with honor, never cheating, lying, or taking advantage of others. (Good)

This is a 100% lawful tenet - honor is one that is on a solid amount of LG deities, and a few LN or LE ones...while not at all on any NG or CG ones.


Milo v3 wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I don't think the ability to heal the injured and the sick is particularly well aligned with the themes of evil and evil gods in general, though.
I find healthy minions slaughter villages much more effectively.

They also slaughter more efficiently if you coat their blades with unholy unguents and steal from them their fear of death!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:


They also slaughter more efficiently if you coat their blades with unholy unguents and steal from them their fear of death!

You say that as if it's mutually exclusive from what I'm saying so I'm abit confused as what your point with this statement is meant to be.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Yes, Lay on Hands / Mercy doesn't belong on the Paladin's evil counterparts.
Even that's not true anymore, since now alignment is no longer connected to positive or negative energy with evil gods now being able to providing healing powers to their clerics instead of harm powers.
I don't think the ability to heal the injured and the sick is particularly well aligned with the themes of evil and evil gods in general, though.

The Insinuator archetype got selfish versions of all of the Paladin's abilities, like Lay On Hands that only works for himself.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Paladins should be Warpriests. Or « Knightly Order of X God ». And they should have the same restrictions than the Clerics. But only LG... It is 2018 already.

And Paizo lost the right to call on traditions when they introduced the Goblins as Core. Because in a world where you have Goblins as your normal adventurers, you also have Paladins of Cayden Cailean or Asmodeus.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Alceste008 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.

I am going to disagree with this decision from a business standpoint. There is a malignant effect created by having this class be the primary defender upon the whole PF 2.0 system. Many people have had bad experiences with self-righteous, demeaning, and / or condescending behavior from Paladin players due to the way the class and code creates entitlement in the “one true path”. Those experiences cannot be changed. These same / more people will have to possibly suffer through this behavior more often due to this class and code being the primary defender. I disagree with making this happen because of class fantasy. Having this behavior occur more often is not how you grow markets but rather shrink them. Also, you typically grow markets by being more inclusive not less.

Please note, I do not care about the name but rather the mechanics around the primary defender in this system. I actually am not a fan of the name. I would suggest the class name being changed to knight \ warpriest \ etc. with Paladin being a special archetype or alternate class.

This has way more to do with players, then any class


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Yes, Lay on Hands / Mercy doesn't belong on the Paladin's evil counterparts.
Even that's not true anymore, since now alignment is no longer connected to positive or negative energy with evil gods now being able to providing healing powers to their clerics instead of harm powers.
I don't think the ability to heal the injured and the sick is particularly well aligned with the themes of evil and evil gods in general, though.

Injuries are often consequences. Evil dieties love avoiding consequences, and will even help others do the same if it means they can then extract payment for that.

Curing disease is a bit more altruistic, but as Milo said, a healthy murdererous minion is an efficient murderous minion. Plus they can introduce an insurance scheme, and what could be more evil?

Edit: dialing back my word choice a little. I was joking, but this is not the thread for that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Yes, Lay on Hands / Mercy doesn't belong on the Paladin's evil counterparts.
Even that's not true anymore, since now alignment is no longer connected to positive or negative energy with evil gods now being able to providing healing powers to their clerics instead of harm powers.
I don't think the ability to heal the injured and the sick is particularly well aligned with the themes of evil and evil gods in general, though.

Nonsense. Injuries are often consequences. Evil dieties love avoiding consequences, and will even help others do the same if it means they can then extract payment for that.

Curing disease is a bit more altruistic, but as Milo said, a healthy murdererous minion is an efficient murderous minion. Plus they can introduce an insurance scheme, and what could be more evil?

A pyramid scheme based on recruiting sacrifices?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

It's also abit weird if you're the paladin of a LG deity who channels negative energy but they apparently give you tonnes of healing powers if your a paladin of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SteelGuts wrote:

Paladins should be Warpriests. Or « Knightly Order of X God ». And they should have the same restrictions than the Clerics. But only LG... It is 2018 already.

And Paizo lost the right to call on traditions when they introduced the Goblins as Core. Because in a world where you have Goblins as your normal adventurers, you also have Paladins of Cayden Cailean or Asmodeus.

By that logic, they should just decouple the paladin shell from alignment. If nothing else, just let them be "Any Good" and don't force a god onto them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Yes, Lay on Hands / Mercy doesn't belong on the Paladin's evil counterparts.
Even that's not true anymore, since now alignment is no longer connected to positive or negative energy with evil gods now being able to providing healing powers to their clerics instead of harm powers.
I don't think the ability to heal the injured and the sick is particularly well aligned with the themes of evil and evil gods in general, though.

Now that Positive & Negative Energy no longer have alignment connotations, I can see an Antipaladin learning to channel positive energy purely to heal himself, but then how does one learn to use it only on himself without learning in the process how to use it on others? One can easily imagine a Blackguard using it to heal minions and useful allies, or to show the crowd he's a benevolent miracle worker, etc.

Likewise, a Paladin might learn to channel negative energy in order to Smite Evil all the harder, but I think most would opt for the healing ability. Aside from anything else, Paladins fight undead a lot, whereas Antipaladins don't actually have much ability to raise or control undead (being weak or non-spellcasters), and most Antis are much more closely bound up in theme and mechanics with evil outsiders than undead.

Cyouni wrote:
Athaleon wrote:


- You must act with honor, never cheating, lying, or taking advantage of others. (Good)
This is a 100% lawful tenet - honor is one that is on a solid amount of LG deities, and a few LN or LE ones...while not at all on any NG or CG ones.

Fair enough, though I would argue fairness (i.e. not cheating or taking advantage) is a Good trait rather than a Lawful one, and Chaotic Good must therefore uphold fairness in all things—except when it's overruled by a higher tenet in the Code. When lives are at stake, neither Chaotic nor Lawful Good are forced to "fight fair" against Evil, but likewise neither are allowed to employ Evil means (murder, torture, etc.) even in the name of the greater good.

And I'm not sure whether, under Pathfinder's cosmology, lying is an Evil act or "merely" a Chaotic one.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Curing disease is a bit more altruistic

It is? Seems like a pretty good incentive for plenty of evil plots.

"I'll remove your disease, but i'll need you to do me a favor first. Just leave the side door open tomorrow night..."


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm pleased by just about everything I see in this. Lots of flavor and mechanics and still lawful good.

I like it!


Neurophage wrote:
SteelGuts wrote:

Paladins should be Warpriests. Or « Knightly Order of X God ». And they should have the same restrictions than the Clerics. But only LG... It is 2018 already.

And Paizo lost the right to call on traditions when they introduced the Goblins as Core. Because in a world where you have Goblins as your normal adventurers, you also have Paladins of Cayden Cailean or Asmodeus.

By that logic, they should just decouple the paladin shell from alignment. If nothing else, just let them be "Any Good" and don't force a god onto them.

Why can't it be about choice, like every other pf2e class preview seems to have been about?

Using the same chassis, you can play it devoted to a deity (any deity), or you can use it devoted to an alignment (any alignment). Later on, in more books, make it able to be devoted to a specific cause via special oaths or something similar. This is the type of thing the game SHOULD be evolving towards, like they have with every other class. This Paladin preview is almost an insult to the game itself when compared to the progress revealed in all the other previews.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:


They also slaughter more efficiently if you coat their blades with unholy unguents and steal from them their fear of death!

You say that as if it's mutually exclusive from what I'm saying so I'm abit confused as what your point with this statement is meant to be.

My point is that there are better mechanics to give to an evil-themed class than healing. Healing the sick and helping others in generally are things that we commonly associate with being “good” even if there are at times reasons to do those things selfishly.

Your “evil” champion should have mechanics that are more evocative of evil. Having healing is confusing and takes up design space from things that make more sense.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Does anyone else feel a bit insulted or slighted by the assumption of the developers that we wouldn't be able to deal with an evolved 'Paladin-like' class that actually offered choices (one of which would of course still be the traditional Paladin)?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:

Why can't it be about choice, like every other pf2e class preview seems to have been about?

Using the same chassis, you can play it devoted to a deity (any deity), or you can use it devoted to an alignment (any alignment). Later on, in more books, make it able to be devoted to a specific cause via special oaths or something similar. This is the type of thing the game SHOULD be evolving towards, like they have with every other class. This Paladin preview is almost an insult to the game itself when compared to the progress revealed in all the other previews.

Clearly you and me saw very, very diferent things comming from the other previews. The cleric one with the anathemas, which added restrictions and concepts to the cleric binding them further with the world, instead of making them further appart, gave me a huge hope the paladin would be LG right there.

Honestly, it is about choice, the choice of playing or not the class. The class has its flavor, has its concept... If it fits what you want to play, pick the class, if it doesnt, pick something else.

It just isnt as a huge sandbox as some would have wanted, every class isnt a shell of powers decoupled from any lore or meaning which you can then fill with your own story.

They already come bound the world, same way the cleric does. If you pick a cleric of X, then it has concepts already there.

Only diference is that the cleric was meant from the base to serve any god and thus more flexibe than the paladin, which has a smaller niche to fill as a class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:

My point is that there are better mechanics to give to an evil-themed class than healing. Healing the sick and helping others in generally are things that we commonly associate with being “good” even if there are at times reasons to do those things selfishly.

Your “evil” champion should have mechanics that are more evocative of evil. Having healing is confusing and takes up design space from things that make more sense.

Having healing on a paladin who gets their power from a deity that channels negative energy is much worse in my opinion when it comes to whether or not it fits the themes.

Healing in of itself is not good and it is not evil.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
Does anyone else feel a bit insulted or slighted by the assumption of the developers that we wouldn't be able to deal with an evolved 'Paladin-like' class that actually offered choices (one of which would of course still be the traditional Paladin)?

Uh im sorry, i dont understand what you mean by we wont be able to deal with it.

I think the choice was simply revolving around what we felt like the class should represent, not so much about how we can deal with any of them ingame.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
My point is that there are better mechanics to give to an evil-themed class than healing.

I question this: what's more selfish than having healing and NOT passing it out to use on yourself?

Excaliburproxy wrote:
Healing the sick and helping others in generally are things that we commonly associate with being “good” even if there are at times reasons to do those things selfishly.

Who's forcing you to help others? Healing can be used for many things. Healing someone so you can continue to torture a conscious victim isn't very "good".

Excaliburproxy wrote:
Your “evil” champion should have mechanics that are more evocative of evil.

IMO, the class doesn't NEED everything to scream one alignment or another. It's fine for something to JUST be a tool to use for either alignment. IMO, it would be more appropriate to see feats to use lay of hands in different ways depending on your god's domains. For instance, I think a paladin [either alignment] of a fire god would be more in 'theme' with a flame touch option.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Does anyone else feel a bit insulted or slighted by the assumption of the developers that we wouldn't be able to deal with an evolved 'Paladin-like' class that actually offered choices (one of which would of course still be the traditional Paladin)?

I haven't seen the developers suggest such a thing.


Nox Aeterna wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Does anyone else feel a bit insulted or slighted by the assumption of the developers that we wouldn't be able to deal with an evolved 'Paladin-like' class that actually offered choices (one of which would of course still be the traditional Paladin)?

Uh im sorry, i dont understand what you mean by we wont be able to deal with it.

I think the choice was simply revolving around what we felt like the class should represent, not so much about how we can deal with any of them ingame.

I wasn't talking about how we deal with it in game - the developers seemed afraid to move the class away from the 'traditional' Paladin, because they felt we as a community couldn't deal with that.


Pandora's wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Flavor infused mechanics is the right thing to do.

It's the option you prefer, certainly. You'll find people are more receptive to opinions that are willing to portray themselves as such. It is no way a morally right thing to do, nor an obviously correct one from say, a business standpoint.

Some of us couldn't be more different. Why would we want to play every campaign in the same world? Why would be want to buy and learn a whole new RPG system for each world we play in? When you imply that supporting my playstyle is the wrong thing to do, I don't feel you're interested in a good faith discussion or in anyone else having their desires met if they deviate from yours.

Okay, here's the situation...

While I don't want you to not have fun, it seems our definitions of what makes the game fun are diametrically opposed.

I find fun a flavor rich world that blends mechanics and lore. I find fun having unique classes that are mechanically unique.

I don't want non-LG Paladins. Ever.

I don't mind (and in fact want) other classes that are lore heavy with their own alignment requirements and such.

So I'm 100% on board with Paizo making say a CG Champion that isn't a Paladin, with totally different abilities. I'm never likely to play it, but I want you to have it.

Do I want to have a good faith discussion with you with an end goal being a non-LG Paladin?

No. I can't do that, because I don't want there to be a non-LG Paladin.

So if you want a non-LG Paladin, and I don't want non-LG Paladins to even exist in PF2 I can't support an end goal that, if achieved, would destroy my fun and chase me out of the game.

Your response to me, saying we can't have a good faith discussion was me supporting the track the devs have taken so far.

I'm not supporting them to hurt you. I'm supporting them because they're taking actions which heighten my enjoyment of the game.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I saw some talk a few pages back about the alternative champions being in a splat book. Please don't do that. If I have to wait for a separate book for my CG Champion so be it, but please let it be at least a hard cover. The splats have this very distinct tendency to not see support (admittedly with legitimate reasons, such as not having it be an expectation that you have a separate splat book for this splat book to be relevant. Certain exceptions exist but, well, they're the exception not the rule.) And one of the things that would really hurt (as others have said) is if we get our alternative Champions... and then never see any support for them while the LG Paladin gets heaped with new features.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Does anyone else feel a bit insulted or slighted by the assumption of the developers that we wouldn't be able to deal with an evolved 'Paladin-like' class that actually offered choices (one of which would of course still be the traditional Paladin)?

Uh im sorry, i dont understand what you mean by we wont be able to deal with it.

I think the choice was simply revolving around what we felt like the class should represent, not so much about how we can deal with any of them ingame.

I wasn't talking about how we deal with it in game - the developers seemed afraid to move the class away from the 'traditional' Paladin, because they felt we as a community couldn't deal with that.

Couldnt "deal with that"?

Again, im sorry but i dont understand what you mean. We as community arent discussing if we could or do such a thing i believe, neither did any devs suggest that we couldnt react to the change.

It didnt change, as far as i could see, exactly because the flavor that many of us, me included, want from the class remains tailored for what it was in PF1.

It isnt so much as we coudlnt deal with the change if it happened, but more along of the lines of this is a change many dont want to happen at all.

Some people, again like me, prefer that the paladin remain tailored for the experience it gives in PF1, but if possible, be even more flavorful at that one thing. What i got from Jason post is that they understand this side and right now the paladin is made in order to offer this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Does anyone else feel a bit insulted or slighted by the assumption of the developers that we wouldn't be able to deal with an evolved 'Paladin-like' class that actually offered choices (one of which would of course still be the traditional Paladin)?

Since I don't feel like that's what is happening here, nope.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SteelGuts wrote:

Paladins should be Warpriests. Or « Knightly Order of X God ». And they should have the same restrictions than the Clerics. But only LG... It is 2018 already.

And Paizo lost the right to call on traditions when they introduced the Goblins as Core. Because in a world where you have Goblins as your normal adventurers, you also have Paladins of Cayden Cailean or Asmodeus.

I have a sudden need for a goblin Paladin of Shelyn. Perhaps that will be my official playtest character....

Cyouni wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
- You must act with honor, never cheating, lying, or taking advantage of others. (Good)
This is a 100% lawful tenet - honor is one that is on a solid amount of LG deities, and a few LN or LE ones...while not at all on any NG or CG ones.

This is 100% a mixed bag. Honor as an abstraction is more lawful versus anything else, but not lying nor taking advantage of others? That's good, not lawful.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Does anyone else feel a bit insulted or slighted by the assumption of the developers that we wouldn't be able to deal with an evolved 'Paladin-like' class that actually offered choices (one of which would of course still be the traditional Paladin)?

Uh im sorry, i dont understand what you mean by we wont be able to deal with it.

I think the choice was simply revolving around what we felt like the class should represent, not so much about how we can deal with any of them ingame.

I wasn't talking about how we deal with it in game - the developers seemed afraid to move the class away from the 'traditional' Paladin, because they felt we as a community couldn't deal with that.

Its possible the devs like the traditional pally and are afraid to say so without being accused of "objective badwrongfun"


Milo v3 wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:

My point is that there are better mechanics to give to an evil-themed class than healing. Healing the sick and helping others in generally are things that we commonly associate with being “good” even if there are at times reasons to do those things selfishly.

Your “evil” champion should have mechanics that are more evocative of evil. Having healing is confusing and takes up design space from things that make more sense.

Having healing on a paladin who gets their power from a deity that channels negative energy is much worse in my opinion when it comes to whether or not it fits the themes.

Healing in of itself is not good and it is not evil.

Healing is more good than evil and hurting is more evil than good.

Do you want to be healed?
Yes.

Do you want to be hurt?
No

Heal good
Hurt bad

1 to 50 of 1,735 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Paladin Class Preview All Messageboards