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
1,601 to 1,650 of 1,735 << first < prev | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Man, tomorrow is going to be a long ass day...

Wayfinders

1 person marked this as a favorite.

HWalsh, what is the place of the paladin in the world? What have they done that is inherently part of Golarion and need them to be LG? Can you provide the reference?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
The thing is, the vindictive bastard still HAS paladin powers. Spells, arua, smite. SO a paladin can do an evil act and still have powers afterwards which was the point. What tells the random person on the street that it's a paladin [normal] or a paladin [vindictive bastard]?

Actually nope, his powers dont work like a paladin, like really, they dont, his smite is different, no lay on hands..., the entire archetype can only ever be picked if you are an ex-paladin so you need to drop from effectively being a true paladin at that point.

We can play with words here and talk about since "Ex-Paladins" arent their own class and is inside the paladin descrption, they are still paladins anyway, but that is just ignoring what the word "Ex" before the word "Paladin" means.


Tectorman wrote:

Okay, this thing about the Paladin somehow having narrative power. How? Short of the NPCs literally being able to see the Paladin's character sheet, how would they know? How is the fact of a Paladin being a Paladin such an unerringly recognizable thing? Especially when being a deity would have to be even more unerringly recognizable (hello, the nation of Razmiran).

Show me the observable difference between these two.

LG Wizard 19. He has no levels in Paladin, not now and he didn't retrain out of them prior. He nevertheless follows the code and keeps that behavior as though he was one.

LG Paladin 1 Wizard 19. Because he is primarily a Wizard, he does his Paladin-y things through the lens of his Wizard abilities. That is how he best contributes to the fight against evil. So much so that he has never smited a person, nor used Detect Evil. So if he fell but stayed LG, no one would notice. Heck, his 19 levels of LG Wizard provide a Moderate Aura of Good that would actually drown out his Faint Aura of Good from his 1 level of Paladin, and similarly disguise its absence.

Plus, there's the Vindictive Bastard. And don't say it's an Ex-Paladin. That's just how you qualify to go VB in the first place. For the purpose of how the game works, he's a Paladin. Based on how archetypes work, you trade your existing abilities for the new ones the archetype gives you. Ex-Paladins have nothing to trade, but the VB gets his abilities as replacements for all those Paladin class features. Ergo, he's a Paladin and counts as one.

There are tons of ways to know:

In the case of the non-Paladin Wizard:

1. Detect Good - A Wizard likely will not ping as good unless they are higher level. Even if they are higher level they won't ping the same way a Paladin or Cleric would.

2. Sense Motive - Ask the person if they are a Paladin. Paladins aren't just a class. They are an order that exists in the game. More than that, (of course we can only use the lore in PF for this) those that aren't trained in the traditional manner to be Paladins are told they are Paladins by angelic spirits in the form of animal companions.

3. Can the Wizard demonstrate the Paladin's powers? Can they Lay on Hands? Can they use Detect Evil in the way a Paladin can? A Paladin can cast Detect evil at will. A Wizard cannot because it is not a Wizard spell. Even if a Wizard somehow could cast it, the spell is V, S, DF - Which the Paladin does not use. The Wizard would have to somehow concentrate for 3 rounds on a target, the Paladin can know instantly as a move action. Also Spellcraft could reveal the spell for what it is.

4. Can the Wizard smite evil? No.

-----

The Vindictive Bastard is... Different.

First off - The Vindictive Bastard is NOT a Paladin. It is an Ex-Class specifically. Meaning it is *NOT* a Paladin. That is a requirement for the Archetype.

I quote:
"The following archetype can be taken by an ex-paladin immediately upon becoming an ex-paladin,"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

An interesting view, but i wonder how many people "on the fence" even are for anyone to influence, cause i check this thread often and honestly by this point it is pretty much the same folk, with the same views, playing in a circle where one side says A, the others says B and it just keeps going and going.

I personally doubt even more the devs making the calls are on the fence about anything when creating such a project, but then again, cant and wont speak for the devs here.

Probably, but the circle serves its purpose of keeping the fact that its hotly contested front and center. If Pro-Other Alignment Paladinners just quieted down when it was announced "They're Lawful Good still." then there would absolutely be arguments along the lines "Well, they accepted it or moved on, not a big deal anymore. Lets have a pizza party for Lawful Good Paladinners! Hooray!"

If it were the other way around, if the Paladin had been announced as 'Any Good', then I really doubt that Walsh would have said "Argh! I am vanquished! Go ahead and do what you want with the Paladin then, I have been defeated." I expect he'd argue until he figured the chance to change it was totally lost, then go do the whatever else like he's said.

I have little hope in getting what I see as fair treatment for other alignments, but I'll still argue about it and suggest things. Otherwise, there's no chance at all, and Pro Lawful Paladinners win. Do you have any idea what it means if Pro Lawful Paladinners win? The world will be exactly the same, but I'll be slightly upset at having technically lost something on the internet!

I can't allow such a horrible timeline. I'm sorry.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Man, tomorrow is going to be a long ass day...

Yeah, maybe we'll get something a little less controversial like always CE drow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Spiral_Ninja wrote:


Second: A question for those of you wanting multiple alignment 'paladins'.

Do you actually want the full package? Do you want to find your character tied to tenets so important that you can lose everything by violating them? Because, to me, that potential sacrifice is part and parcel of a Paladin.

Also (and slightly tongue in cheek) do you really want to be responsible for multiplying the should my Paladin have fallen threads by 9?

Yes and absolutely. With the exception of having to be and stay Lawful Good, I have absolutely no qualms with any of the tenets of the Code of Conduct, especially now that the tenets are listed in order of importance. The other Goods can follow a Code of Conduct just as well as LG. When I say I want the paladin open, I mean with all the good and bad that comes with it.

I would also personally open a Paladin Confessional thread encouraging people to question if they should've fallen. Might as well consolidate all of the misdeed-confessing into one place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xerres wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

An interesting view, but i wonder how many people "on the fence" even are for anyone to influence, cause i check this thread often and honestly by this point it is pretty much the same folk, with the same views, playing in a circle where one side says A, the others says B and it just keeps going and going.

I personally doubt even more the devs making the calls are on the fence about anything when creating such a project, but then again, cant and wont speak for the devs here.

Probably, but the circle serves its purpose of keeping the fact that its hotly contested front and center. If Pro-Other Alignment Paladinners just quieted down when it was announced "They're Lawful Good still." then there would absolutely be arguments along the lines "Well, they accepted it or moved on, not a big deal anymore. Lets have a pizza party for Lawful Good Paladinners! Hooray!"

If it were the other way around, if the Paladin had been announced as 'Any Good', then I really doubt that Walsh would have said "Argh! I am vanquished! Go ahead and do what you want with the Paladin then, I have been defeated." I expect he'd argue until he figured the chance to change it was totally lost, then go do the whatever else like he's said.

I have little hope in getting what I see as fair treatment for other alignments, but I'll still argue about it and suggest things. Otherwise, there's no chance at all, and Pro Lawful Paladinners win. Do you have any idea what it means if Pro Lawful Paladinners win? The world will be exactly the same, but I'll be slightly upset at having technically lost something on the internet!

I can't allow such a horrible timeline. I'm sorry.

Disclaimer: This my opinion, this doesnt reflect the devs at all.

But overall, quite honestly, we here can reach a consensus by a miracle, it will matter NOTHING, if when the class gets released tons of people give another feedback, that is it.

Based on what i saw the devs say, mind you again this isnt what they said word for word, the feedback they are more interested in anyway is the one during the playtest by whatever means they will create for said feedback to be given.

The book is already actually out for printing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This actually somehow doesn't look terrible. Two things that concern me:

1) CE Antipaladins was a dumb idea in 1e. They always should have been LE.

2) Strictly defining the order of tenets smacks of rules legislating RP. Yes, paladin's rules abilities have always been tied to their RP (except in D&D 4th and 5th because WotC is run by morons), but also because it can and will lead to stupid corner cases where the rules as written shouldn't apply. Paladin code of conduct traps are, nearly 100% of the time, the result of bad GMing. It's perfectly acceptable to make unpaladin-y paladins fall, but the traps everyone uses to "prove" that paladins are a flawed concept only prove that bad GMs exist. A paladin's conduct is overseen by their deity, any deity who would make an LG person their champion has enough compassion and understanding to know when a compromise to the code was necessary to do the least possible evil (from the paladin's knowledge at the time) in the given situation.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
The thing is, the vindictive bastard still HAS paladin powers. Spells, arua, smite. SO a paladin can do an evil act and still have powers afterwards which was the point. What tells the random person on the street that it's a paladin [normal] or a paladin [vindictive bastard]?

Uh no he doesn't.

1. He loses every aura but the Aura of Courage.

2. He can't detect evil.

3. He can't smite evil, he does have a smite that is similar to the Paladin.

4. He loses divine grace.

5. He loses lay on hands.

6. He loses divine health.

7. He has no mercies

8. He can't channel energy.

9. He has no divine bond.

That isn't really something people would confuse for a Paladin.


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

Point me to the singular and unified order that all Paladins belong to in Golarion's Lore, please. I'll wait.

Hell, name a Paladin Order in Golarion, period.


Grey Star wrote:
HWalsh, what is the place of the paladin in the world? What have they done that is inherently part of Golarion and need them to be LG? Can you provide the reference?

I'm not sure what you are asking.

The Paladin is part of the lore of Golarion from the base description to the famous Paladins of Golarion.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Man, tomorrow is going to be a long ass day...
Yeah, maybe we'll get something a little less controversial like always CE drow.

...in boobplate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Disclaimer: This my opinion, this doesnt reflect the devs at all.

But overall, quite honestly, we here can reach a consensus by a miracle, it will matter NOTHING, if when the class gets released tons of people give another feedback, that is it.

Based on what i saw the devs say, mind you again this isnt what they said word for word, the feedback they are more interested in anyway is the one during the playtest by whatever means they will create for said feedback to be given.

The book is already actually out for printing.

Which is possibly why they released the paladin relatively early, ahead of the wizard even. Letting us fight it out early, get it out of our systems, so that come August we're ready to address the playtest as it is, not how we wish (on this topic at least).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Disclaimer: This my opinion, this doesnt reflect the devs at all.

But overall, quite honestly, we here can reach a consensus by a miracle, it will matter NOTHING, if when the class gets released tons of people give another feedback, that is it.

Based on what i saw the devs say, mind you again this isnt what they said word for word, the feedback they are more interested in anyway is the one during the playtest by whatever means they will create for said feedback to be given.

The book is already actually out for printing.

Your point is articulate and thoughtful, but I offer this counter:

I am sort of bored and the news of the alignment was upsetting. Therefore, I took to the internet to make things worse by any means possible.

I am interested to see what the survey or whatever will reveal about the general opinion on the issue. I think Mark said his fear is that it will be split like the forums are.

My newest dilemma is that most Pro Lawful Paladinners have been modest and contrite about the 'victory', so now I will feel bad if I get what I want regardless. But I see this only as further evidence of their Evil, that even in 'victory' they will not allow me contentment. It only serves to fuel my impotent rage.

Edit: Also, about a possible survey or whatever, I really hope there's a "What are you talking about? Who cares!?! Make them whatever alignment and just fix the stuff with the class we mentioned!" option.

And it gets the vast majority of votes, proving fully that I wasted my time. I need that reassurance in the dark times. :)


Revan wrote:
Point me to the singular and unified order that all Paladins belong to in Golarion's Lore, please. I'll wait.

If we go by the lore of Golarion, and the game rules, all Paladins regardless of what God they serve follow the same base code. Even the deity specific codes are additive to the core code. Every single Paladin in Golarion, with the exception of the Gray Paladin follows the same base code.

EX-Paladins and Antipaladins, as established, aren't Paladins at all.

So while there are different groups Paladins belong to, all Paladins, at the core, must follow the same base code.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You didn't answer the question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
]Which is possibly why they released the paladin relatively early, ahead of the wizard even. Letting us fight it out early, get it out of our systems, so that come August we're ready to address the playtest as it is, not how we wish (on this topic at least).

Well if you stop to think about it, goblins and alchemist came quite early, but then again, that might just have been them wanting to show the new core toys :P.

By august if this is right we will be seeing weapon tables and other stuff, i imagine, most wouldnt fight about.

*Turns august*

*Huge outcry* "How could they make the great sword only do this much damage! It makes no sense!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neurophage wrote:
You didn't answer the question.

Uh, yes I did? Which question?

I'll be honest, I do sort of feel like I am under attack here. While I don't think this is intentional, it is how I am starting to feel. Like I know, for a fact, that I am not the only person on this side of the debate, because I am the most vocal figure in it perhaps, but there become times when I start to feel overwhelmed especially if I am answering the same exact questions as I have been doing for several days. I may have to take a break for a few hours.

I'll admit, I don't do much, I literally sit at my computer all day, but even I can get fatigue.


So Lay on Hands works off Spell points derived from Charisma, no? How does it scale? What dice does it use, if any? How does it add to AC, is it something like we had in PF1 where you add a deflection bonus, but replace deflection with whatever, and understand that it might not stack with something?

Does it add CHA to AC? Are there feats that extend the duration of the AC buff? Is there a way to do Lay on Hands at a distance to provide this buff to allies far away?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xerres wrote:

Your point is articulate and thoughtful, but I offer this counter:

I am sort of bored and the news of the alignment was upsetting. Therefore, I took to the internet to make things worse by any means possible.

I am interested to see what the survey or whatever will reveal about the general opinion on the issue. I think Mark said his fear is that it will be split like the forums are.

My newest dilemma is that most Pro Lawful Paladinners have been modest and contrite about the 'victory', so now I will feel bad if I get what I want regardless. But I see this only as further evidence of their Evil, that even in 'victory' they will not allow me contentment. It only serves to fuel my impotent rage.

Edit: Also, about a possible survey or whatever, I really hope there's a "What are you talking about? Who cares!?! Make them whatever alignment and just fix the stuff with the class we mentioned!" option.

And it gets the vast majority of votes, proving fully that I wasted my time. I need that reassurance in the dark times. :)

hahaha who knows, but yeah, im sure by now, there will be some reference about alignment on the paladin.

I honestly believe then, the major part of the answer will be "whatever", cause i imagine the middle team that will be fine eitherway is the actually larger portion :P.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

*Turns august*

*Huge outcry* "How could they make the great sword only do this much damage! It makes no sense!

You joke, but imagine what'll happen when greatsword damage is widely known to be 1d12 instead of 2d6, and all the other 2d- weapons are discovered to be converted to single dice.


HWalsh wrote:
Xerres wrote:
Quote:
HWalsh wrote:
]His lack of planning and forethought, willingness to fight by instinct and improvisation, and general thoughts putting his own desires ahead of others point him to Chaotic.
Again, that isn't chaotic. That is him having poor Int and Wis scores. Instinct and improvisation isn't Lawful or Chaotic. If anything instinct is Neutral.

If Improvisation/Instinct isn't Chaotic, Determination/Discipline are hardly Lawful. I'll concede that Goku's sense of honor is a trait that would support him being Lawful. Refusing to let Kami or Tien fight Piccolo, because then he'd lose the match. But that's as much because of Goku's pride as it is about specific rules. He wants to win because he's better, not because he took advantage of weakness or numbers.

HWalsh wrote:
I was just saying, it strikes me as weird when I see though that people won't try the Paladin because they can't play lawful only because there is such a massive and wide way to play lawful and I have never met anyone who had at least one character that they didn't like who could easily be classified as lawful.

In all honesty, not to sound mean, it seems like you give Chaotic a much smaller number of traits than you do Lawful. While I tend to agree with you that Lawful is a very flexible and broad alignment, I bump up against your interpretation of Chaotic often.

Maybe I should make a different thread, but I'd like to know what people think the positive aspects of Chaos are. It comes across to me that Pro-Lawful Paladinners do not attribute very many positive traits to Chaotic characters. I'd certainly prefer to be mistaken on that part, but it contributes to me thinking that Chaos is getting intentionally short changed. But there's definitely the personal bias that I think I noticed it, so now I look for it.

Just a straight comparison "These are the positives of Lawful, these are the positives of Chaotic." might straighten me out, or reveal other unintentional

...

Except chaotic clerics already lock themselves into a code (the Anathema of their deity) they make that sacrifice either for the greater good or for power, as do witches, chaotic doesn't mean no rules, it means selecting rules for yourslef, not because they are given by an organisation you agree with but because you consider them right, Batman is chaotic and he definitely follows a code, to his own detriment, because to not follow it would (he thinks) make him a monster, having a code isn't lawful only, lawful is accepting a code because authority says so.


master_marshmallow wrote:

So Lay on Hands works off Spell points derived from Charisma, no? How does it scale? What dice does it use, if any? How does it add to AC, is it something like we had in PF1 where you add a deflection bonus, but replace deflection with whatever, and understand that it might not stack with something?

Does it add CHA to AC? Are there feats that extend the duration of the AC buff? Is there a way to do Lay on Hands at a distance to provide this buff to allies far away?

We do not know.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

cut paladin fro core. if we have to wait for a year for a non llg paladin,then the paladin cant wait too


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Except chaotic clerics already lock themselves into a code (the Anathema of their deity) they make that sacrifice either for the greater good or for power, as do witches, chaotic doesn't mean no rules, it means selecting rules for yourslef, not because they are given by an organisation you agree with but because you consider them right, Batman is chaotic and he definitely follows a code, to his own detriment, because to not follow it would (he thinks) make him a monster, having a code isn't lawful only, lawful is accepting a code because authority says so.

Anathema are nowhere near as structured as the Paladin code is. The Paladin code isn't just an Anathema (which we are lead to believe that you have to take as well) it is Anathema plus. Batman - as another poster yesterday pointed out - Is lawful, chaotic, or neutral as the writer makes him.

I do not lump Batman in the realm of Chaotic. I'd put him as Neutral Good most of the time. He is not Chaotic though, because while he does work outside of the law, he ultimately does believe that the law is best for society.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
So like, if we just had swappable codes then we could both play the characters we like?

No. Because "swapping the code" would make the class you were playing not a Paladin.

Not only that, the fact that it could happen would make the Paladin no longer a Paladin as they belong to an order than can even do that.

There is no way to get the black ops Paladin and retain Paladins as a thing.

Edit to add:

This is why this debate exists. I, personally, can never consent to, and must oppose, any initiative to get non-Lawful Good Paladins, or even Paladins that can perform evil actions without falling. I can't even apologize for that, because I feel it is right to do so and I can't compromise on something if I feel it is right.

so LG is best good all others are wrong and all other faiths to weak and stupid to have champions wirtworthyhy of the name? It's a weird kind of supremacist attitude, but it is a supremacist attitude....


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

*Turns august*

*Huge outcry* "How could they make the great sword only do this much damage! It makes no sense!

You joke, but imagine what'll happen when greatsword damage is widely known to be 1d12 instead of 2d6, and all the other 2d- weapons are discovered to be converted to single dice.

The funny part to think about it goes beyond the damage, into the game philosophy for PF2.

They clearly tunned the numbers down, BUT, they also want people to clearly just roll more dices.

So now what will win out, dimishing the damage of the weapon or trying to make each roll as many dice as possible.


Steelfiredragon wrote:
cut paladin fro core. if we have to wait for a year for a non llg paladin,then the paladin cant wait too

I disagree with that. The Paladin has been around forever and there is no guarantee that you will ever get a non-LG Paladin. You are more likely to get some other kind of Exemplar class later. Though there is no reason to toss them out of the core. It is legacy and tradition. They have already written the class and put it into the playtest, which has already gone to print, to toss it now makes no sense.


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

You said that Paladins were an in-game order. They aren't. There are a multitude of knightly orders in Golarion's, all of whom have a multitude of classes in their ranks, and none of whom any Paladin has to belong to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
so LG is best good all others are wrong and all other faiths to weak and stupid to have champions wirtworthyhy of the name? It's a weird kind of supremacist attitude, but it is a supremacist attitude....

I don't think any member of the LG side, and I know I haven't, has said that LG is the "best good" that seems to be been an assertion usually made by the posters who are against LG only Paladins.

As such, this isn't an attitude that actually exists among the pro-LG only side in the debate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The game existed before paladins. The game can exist without them for a few months or even year if it is that special so they can get it right. After all, isn't that what Jason Bulmahn suggested in his post upthread?

A lot of the classes and archetypes that we won't see for a while are equally important to the game and the genre. If they can wait, certainly the paladin could as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Except chaotic clerics already lock themselves into a code (the Anathema of their deity) they make that sacrifice either for the greater good or for power, as do witches, chaotic doesn't mean no rules, it means selecting rules for yourslef, not because they are given by an organisation you agree with but because you consider them right, Batman is chaotic and he definitely follows a code, to his own detriment, because to not follow it would (he thinks) make him a monster, having a code isn't lawful only, lawful is accepting a code because authority says so.

Anathema are nowhere near as structured as the Paladin code is. The Paladin code isn't just an Anathema (which we are lead to believe that you have to take as well) it is Anathema plus. Batman - as another poster yesterday pointed out - Is lawful, chaotic, or neutral as the writer makes him.

I do not lump Batman in the realm of Chaotic. I'd put him as Neutral Good most of the time. He is not Chaotic though, because while he does work outside of the law, he ultimately does believe that the law is best for society.

I think we will never agree on that, I see a guy using terror tactics and what amounts to black ops tactics and by the lights you have set, I see chaotic, which is why the Joked is his nemesis, he's the 'if I slip, that's where I land' character, a mirror darkly, if he was NG the mirror darkly would be Bane, but it's not, (also AzBats is a different argument entirely he is chaotic 90s....yea) it's the Joker, because they use the same tactics, all the holds Bats back is the code he chose, not the law, but what he uses to free people, the sacrifice he makes for freedom and good, that is CG to me.


Revan wrote:
You said that Paladins were an in-game order. They aren't. There are a multitude of knightly orders in Golarion's, all of whom have a multitude of classes in their ranks, and none of whom any Paladin has to belong to.

Paladins are an in-game thing, perhaps order is the wrong word.

They are an accepted in-game group.

CRB:
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil.

Familiar Folio:
Most paladins train for years at a temple to attain a holy status, but rarely, an emissary of the divine appears to one of humble origins and calls her directly to the charge. These chosen ones may lack experience, but their teamwork with their emissaries allows them to defeat any evil.

-----

Thus Paladin is a specific status.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
I think a Paladin would consider a million lives more important than his personal honor and powers, and would press the proverbial button even at the cost of falling.
I do not think a Paladin would, well they could, but they would fall. It is supposed to be part of what makes a Paladin a Paladin. The Paladin doesn't not do evil to keep his powers, a Paladin believes that not doing evil is right, that not doing evil is more important than those lives. That is what it takes to be a Paladin.

And that's a far more narrow and rigid view of how to play The One True Way than many people hold, even among the Paladin's fans. Of course Paladins don't refrain from doing evil in order to keep their powers, but for them the act must be a sort of spiritual martyrdom: Sacrificing one's soul, rather than one's life, for the greater good. And what kind of Paladin would realistically weigh the moral cost of one evil act against killing three Absaloms and an Oppara and decide the world's better off with the latter? Or that he, with his divine backing and martial prowess, would gamble on his ability to get the job done the hard way? What is that if not vanity?

Quote:
[Atonement] is a possibility, yes, though unlikely. There are a whole lot of reasons that wouldn't exactly work so well. It would require a high level Cleric to do the atonement, then the Paladin would have to be willing to lie about what happened. It opens a can of worms that makes it a very unlikely series of events.

Regardless, it supposes a lot of things that aren't immediately clear: One, that characters in-universe are as rigidly delineated by class as they are in the rules (and "RAW ≡ Lore" is dangerous territory that opens up some major cans of worms indeed). Two, that most people can actually tell if a Paladin's powers have disappeared or not. Three, the phrase "until you demonstrate your repentance by conducting an atone ritual" seems to imply that the Paladin can atone by himself, without the aid of a high-level Cleric.

HWalsh wrote:

A Paladin and an Antipaladin are literally the exact opposite. Their powers function completely differently.

The Anti detects evil, the pallie detects good.
The Anti causes damage with his touch, the pallie heals it.
The Anti makes people feel fear, the Pallie courage.

This is also a special case, like the Paladin, in that the Anti is intended to be a dark reflection.

So why is a Chaotic reflection of the Paladin not possible while a Lawful reflection of the Antipaladin is? Once again, most of what a Paladin is doesn't come from Law, it comes from Good. He radiates Good, not Law, and he detects and smites Evil, not Chaos.

Quote:
Save for, I do not believe that following a code that they didn't personally write is a chaotic thing to do. I do not feel, for a second, that a Chaotic Good would not violate the code if to do so meant saving someone. Period.

Under the PF2 Code's priority system—for Lawful Good—the only tenet that takes precedence over saving innocents is not doing evil. A champion of Chaotic Good still wouldn't do evil to save innocents unless, again, the stakes were so high that he'd be willing to sacrifice his very soul to save them. That doesn't depend on Law or Chaos, that comes from Good, at least in my book—I'm sure yours says differently. Isn't alignment fun?

On top of that, Clerics of Chaotic gods agree to a lot of rules as a condition to gain their power, and if they can do it, then more martially-oriented champions can as well.

Quote:
I do not believe that you are going to be able to convince me to come to your side on this, in this matter I have given enough thought that I cannot be moved. It would require you to change an outlook that I believe strongly in and have for my entire life about a class I have had a personal attachment to for 29 years. My first character ever in D&D was a Paladin. I was drawn to it then, I am drawn to it now.

Neither do I, which is why I made the other comment:

Nox Aeterna wrote:

An interesting view, but i wonder how many people "on the fence" even are for anyone to influence, cause i check this thread often and honestly by this point it is pretty much the same folk, with the same views, playing in a circle where one side says A, the others says B and it just keeps going and going.

I personally doubt even more the devs making the calls are on the fence about anything when creating such a project, but then again, cant and wont speak for the devs here.

Again, it's just a possibility. In just about any given group of people, many more will listen or read silently than will speak.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
so LG is best good all others are wrong and all other faiths to weak and stupid to have champions wirtworthyhy of the name? It's a weird kind of supremacist attitude, but it is a supremacist attitude....

I don't think any member of the LG side, and I know I haven't, has said that LG is the "best good" that seems to be been an assertion usually made by the posters who are against LG only Paladins.

As such, this isn't an attitude that actually exists among the pro-LG only side in the debate.

it is implicit in the assertion that the only good worthy of divinely empowered champions is LG all others are lesser, because they aren't good enough.


knightnday wrote:

The game existed before paladins. The game can exist without them for a few months or even year if it is that special so they can get it right. After all, isn't that what Jason Bulmahn suggested in his post upthread?

A lot of the classes and archetypes that we won't see for a while are equally important to the game and the genre. If they can wait, certainly the paladin could as well.

Hum... now i doubt you will convince many that any individual class is as important as the core ones, just saying.

Paizo does have a track of class popularity, core ones are all quite up there from what i understood.

Again, this is what i understood from their posts, do not take it for devs words.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelfiredragon wrote:
cut paladin fro core.

Does anyone seriously believe this will happen?


Nox Aeterna wrote:
knightnday wrote:

The game existed before paladins. The game can exist without them for a few months or even year if it is that special so they can get it right. After all, isn't that what Jason Bulmahn suggested in his post upthread?

A lot of the classes and archetypes that we won't see for a while are equally important to the game and the genre. If they can wait, certainly the paladin could as well.

Hum... now i doubt you will convince many that any individual class is as important as the core ones, just saying.

Paizo does have a track of class popularity, core ones are all quite up there from what i understood.

Again, this is what i understood from their posts, do not take it for devs words.

Perhaps. But then, people will be unhappy when they cannot play whatever they've been playing for the last however many years. Some of the classes do not require quite the glad handing that paladins and alignment battles do and could be introduced into the Core book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:
cut paladin fro core.
Does anyone seriously believe this will happen?

That it will? No. That it should? Probably, putting the tank character behind an alignment wall causes all kinds of problems, and having a character this focused in what is supposed to be the broadest book is also an issue, but legacy says paladins are core.


knightnday wrote:

The game existed before paladins. The game can exist without them for a few months or even year if it is that special so they can get it right. After all, isn't that what Jason Bulmahn suggested in his post upthread?

A lot of the classes and archetypes that we won't see for a while are equally important to the game and the genre. If they can wait, certainly the paladin could as well.

Pathfinder did not exist before Paladins. There is no reason for them to be delayed when they are already in the playtest.

I will be honest...

This statement does not feel like a legitimate response. It sounds, to me, like you are upset that the LG Only Paladin is going to be in the core and you don't want them to exist. I do not know if that is your actual intention or not. That is what I am seeing however. If that is not your intention maybe there is a way to word it that sounds less sarcastic?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been off in the other thread and have had no trouble putting together a meaty sketch of what a Chaos Knight would look like.

It has a strong suite of abilities that are both thematic and awesome. That look different from the paladin's.

I couldn't imagine the oath not being altered. They come from opposing ends of the spectrum. G v evil, order v chaos.

One is not the other. Opposite ends of the spectrum. Neutral is the middle and this isn't that.

... The other thing I've learned from this is, everyone has their real world analogy for order and chaos. ... And tends to associate the thing they hate with the alignment they don't like.

The war seems less about alignment ingame than it does about real world associations attached to an ingame mechanic. Since that happens on both ends of the spectrum, then maybe please drop order and chaos from the system.

Otherwise, we need to give each extreme their own class. Directing them into one box is just going to create more fights and pain in the long run. It would be like making good and evil share the same house.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

A Valid LG Paladin Deity

At least, that would appear to be the case.

Tell me I'm wrong, please?


knightnday wrote:
Perhaps. But then, people will be unhappy when they cannot play whatever they've been playing for the last however many years. Some of the classes do not require quite the glad handing that paladins and alignment battles do and could be introduced into the Core book.

Possible, but ultimately, what paizo did was KEEP the paladin, not change it.

People here might be annoyed by it, but again, this is how the paladin has worked in pathfinder alone 10 years and before that 3.5.

So it remains to be seen when released, how much the general public that already dealt with the paladin working this way to this point, will react to it... well doing exactly the same thing now in a new edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
so LG is best good all others are wrong and all other faiths to weak and stupid to have champions wirtworthyhy of the name? It's a weird kind of supremacist attitude, but it is a supremacist attitude....

I don't think any member of the LG side, and I know I haven't, has said that LG is the "best good" that seems to be been an assertion usually made by the posters who are against LG only Paladins.

As such, this isn't an attitude that actually exists among the pro-LG only side in the debate.

it is implicit in the assertion that the only good worthy of divinely empowered champions is LG all others are lesser, because they aren't good enough.

No it is not an implicit assertion. That is what you are reading into it only. I cannot convince you something does not exist if it only exists to you.

The Paladin isn't about being "good enough" or just a divinely powered champion. This has been explained at length. I understand that you are convinced though that other alignments aren't as good as Lawful Good because they don't have Paladins, but I only ask you to consider the idea that there is more to being a Paladin than just being good.

If it were just that then Paladins would be much more common.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
It's well-documented in studies that, in general, beliefs held emotionally will almost never be swayed by argument or evidence. For topics like this, I rarely hold any hope that the other side will be swayed by anything I say. The point is to influence people who are on the fence, who could very well be developers.

It’s true that we get committed to our opinions once we’ve invested in them. I believe that butting against people’s hard earned beliefs head-on will rarely change their minds. Nor will repeating the same stance over and over.

So I try not to do that. Instead, I like to ask questions, or reflect upon my personal experiences, or look for common ground. I do state my opinions, but I also like to listen to those who express the opposite view and see what I can learn from them.

While I’m disappointed about the decision not to include other alignments for the CRB’s holy warriors, I can also understand the views of those who want to make certain that Paladins remain people of their vows. I simply disagree with the idea that chaotic heroes cannot have codes that are unbreakable, and lie at the heart of everything they do. Maybe we have a different understanding of what alignment means; or maybe we see different possibilities arising from the same seeds.

I will say that while I want holy warriors for chaotic gods, I don’t want them to be codeless. One area where HWalsh and I have views that intersect is that we both value the codes — we both want to have our characters have to make tough choices, and to have values that are sacred.

Will either of us convince anyone at this point? Maybe not. But maybe it’s not convincing others that is really important here. Maybe the true joy is sharing the things that we hold sacred, and asking the big questions.

Hmm

PS Edited to add that I just read Muddy Volcano’s most recent post, and it’s still bouncing around in my head:

Muddy Volcano wrote:
The other thing I've learned from this is, everyone has their real world analogy for order and chaos. ... And tends to associate the thing they hate with the alignment they don't like.

Thanks for giving me more to think upon.


MuddyVolcano wrote:

I've been off in the other thread and have had no trouble putting together a meaty sketch of what a Chaos Knight would look like.

It has a strong suite of abilities that are both thematic and awesome. That look different from the paladin's.

I couldn't imagine the oath not being altered. They come from opposing ends of the spectrum. G v evil, order v chaos.

One is not the other. Opposite ends of the spectrum. Neutral is the middle and this isn't that.

... The other thing I've learned from this is, everyone has their real world analogy for order and chaos. ... And tends to associate the thing they hate with the alignment they don't like.

The war seems less about alignment ingame than it does about real world associations attached to an ingame mechanic. Since that happens on both ends of the spectrum, then maybe please drop order and chaos from the system.

Otherwise, we need to give each extreme their own class. Directing them into one box is just going to create more fights and pain in the long run. It would be like making good and evil share the same house.

I've always held that there's very little difference between Lawful and Chaotic characters in practice. Partly because it's easier to come up with justifications for a given action being Lawful or Chaotic than Good or Evil, and partly because almost no one plays a committed anarchist or strictly legalistic character that doesn't look like a caricature (e.g. That Guy who didn't realize that Judge Dredd is an over-the-top self-parody).


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


A Valid LG Paladin Deity

At least, that would appear to be the case.

Tell me I'm wrong, please?

There is nothing within the code to prohibit the gathering of information.


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

The game existed before paladins. The game can exist without them for a few months or even year if it is that special so they can get it right. After all, isn't that what Jason Bulmahn suggested in his post upthread?

A lot of the classes and archetypes that we won't see for a while are equally important to the game and the genre. If they can wait, certainly the paladin could as well.

Pathfinder did not exist before Paladins. There is no reason for them to be delayed when they are already in the playtest.

I will be honest...

This statement does not feel like a legitimate response. It sounds, to me, like you are upset that the LG Only Paladin is going to be in the core and you don't want them to exist. I do not know if that is your actual intention or not. That is what I am seeing however. If that is not your intention maybe there is a way to word it that sounds less sarcastic?

The game -- and the lore, and the history -- predate Pathfinder.

As far as being upset? No, not at all. It doesn't affect my games because I don't tend to play PFS and can and will change things that I find disagreeable.

My suggestion that they be removed from the Core book and put into a resource that can fully explore what the class means is just that, a suggestion, one that would allow this class to exist with others that would delve into what others have been asking for.

I do not believe that the class is singular, or unique, or so steeped in lore that it cannot be removed, altered, folded, spindled, mutilated or called Sally. Although -- if we are being totally honest I abhor people calling it Pally, Pallie, and so forth. Not a fan of people calling barbarians Barbies either.

So. You may find it illegitimate and that is fine. I find an argument based around the theory of tradition and what comes down to "I really like this class" an insufficient reason to not look into the class more fully.

The second edition rules seem to be trying to push boundaries and change things a little more dramatically that one would have thought. Except for the paladin. I find that distasteful and it doesn't sit well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
so LG is best good all others are wrong and all other faiths to weak and stupid to have champions wirtworthyhy of the name? It's a weird kind of supremacist attitude, but it is a supremacist attitude....

I don't think any member of the LG side, and I know I haven't, has said that LG is the "best good" that seems to be been an assertion usually made by the posters who are against LG only Paladins.

As such, this isn't an attitude that actually exists among the pro-LG only side in the debate.

Its absolutely a strawman. In fact what my perspective is, is that it is the most restrictive alignment. In that your options for behavior are the most constrained by maintaining lawful good.

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