Commander Crisp's page

Life was so much simpler when champions were paladins and people complained about how stupidly players roleplayed them and how limiting the alignment system was. Good times.

As for how a neutral champion could look like. Simple. They are dispassionate towards the struggle of good and evil. They suffer not from compassion to the weak, but have no interest in the self serving or destructive tendencies of evil.

Either they subscribe to a rather ethereal view of the world, following a plan none but their patron gods and themselves can understand or they are deeply pragmatic people doing what must be done to further their cause. As likely to heal as they are to harm.

Their world is not black and white. Rather orange and blue.

Again my two cents:
Having abilities tied to specific alignment may make sense if we take the entire alignment spectrum into consideration.

For a cleric it makes thematic sense, that they gain powers from their deity and thus their respective corner on the alignment axis. But that is more a thematic choice, than a mechanical choice. There are lots and lots of divine patrons, that have overlapping domains. Sure there will be cases, where you can't have your cake and eat it, but you are not truly limited. Push come to shove agree with your DM to have a deity of your choice of flavor and your set for life.

For the paladin, who is dedicated to the idea of good (law and chaos are just semantics here really), it makes a rather poor argument to say, that there lawful paladins only care about defending peeps and the chaotic ones only care about respecting your personal space and freeing slaves. Why can't the paladin decide on their own, how to further the cause of good on their own? Regardless of their outlook in life. After all, they all are on the side of good.

Why dictate what a character feels passionately about with mechanical choices? It takes away players agency, limits role playing options and just shoehorns us into playing something that we may not have wanted.

I'd like to see the alignment restrictions on mechanical talents be removed entirely, and replace it with a modular system for the paladins code.

The paladin class should start with a very basic code (do good, fight evil) and gradually expand it as they level up with what I like to call oath talents. These add new passages to the code, while granting more powerful abilities. You don't necessarily have to take them, to keep your "moral" options flexible, but in turn you give up the chance on some neat goodies.

This way you can express what drives your paladin to do what they do, give them mechanical benefits and still adhere to the basic tenents of your alignment.

And also remove the link to deities. Paladins fight for the universal concept of good. Don't need a god for that. We have clerics for all our theological needs.

Before I get back to the actual topic, some thoughts on Gorum. He is the god of fighting, for the sake of fighting. Sure, they can fight to save innocents, but they do it because they want to smash somebody's face in. Not because of the kindness of their heart. In the same vein, the anathema to harm non-combatants doesn't stem from Gorum being a big softy, but because killing them doesn't pose a challenge aka its boring.

Back to the original posts. While there are canonical examples of non lawful characters strictly adhering to a code, I agree with your view, that the whole paladin package lends itself far easier to it than other alignment configurations.

I like the way that we have different flavors of paladin now, but it doesn't go far enough. Also I disagree with the designers, that lawful paladins can not also violently oppose slavery now as the chaotic good ones. it should be up to the players to decide what their character aims to achieve.

What I would have preferred to see in the class would have been that the code of conduct could be made more modular and divested from alignment.

I was thinking that paladins get a whole talent line focusing on them taking their oaths as paladins. That as the character levels up, their code of conduct changes, and in turn what they can and cannot do. Tied to the Oath talents are abilities, passives and what not.

For example:

Oath (Grand): Crusader
The paladin becomes a righteous crusader of his faith. They vow to seek out evil, wherever it may hide and to strike it down with all their might. Backing away from the opportunity to destroy a great evil is anathema to the crusader.
The crusader gains the "Holy Smite" power.

Oath (Grand): Guardian
The paladin becomes a sworn protector of this faith and community. They vow to prevent the innocent from coming to harm. Abandoning those that cannot help themselves to their fate is anathema to the guardian.
The guardian gains the "Retributive Strike" power.

Oath (Grand): Saint
The paladin follows the teachings of their faiths holy men and women. They vow to bring aid to those in need, cure the sick and heal the wounded. Disregarding the needs of the sick and the poor is anathema to the healer.
The saint gains the "Lay on Hands" power.

These are just examples. The nice thing about this, is that these are alignment agnostic. They define in broad terms, what the character is about, but does not limit him/her to any particular alignment, which seems to me to be one of the strongest point of contention so far.

The ACTUAL problem is what happens when people we would consider incapable of making their own decisions tries to do something that could harm themselves. 5 year old Timmy has snuck out of his house because he's gonna go slay the Dragon! The Liberator meets him a mile out from town. Can the Liberator actually stop him if he can't convince him to go back? Or does he just have to let the kids know try and go with him to try and keep him safe?

Most people...

Well you said it already. Certain people such as children, those below the generally accepted age of adulthood in the setting, people suffering from mental illness or disability and people under the influence can't make such decisions, because they cannot understand the ramifications of their actions. Stopping them and returning them home is generally the go to decision.

Protecting someone from harm can also mean preventing them from throwing themselves into harms way.

I would love for "Paladins" to embrace their alignment

One solution I would greatly enjoy would be "Paladins" getting powers akin to those of outsiders that share their alignment

Archon Knights, Devil Knights, Demon Knights ...

This way when designing a race of outsiders, you can pretty easily design a new variant of "Paladins"

Barring that, I prefer the 4 corners with relevant names and abilities for each corner

I like where you are coming from with this idea. I always thought that paladins were empowered more by their code, their believe structure, than any deity directly.

If I recall correctly back in 3 or 3.5 clerics could worship a general faith or ideological concept rather than a deity and still draw their divine powers.

This could be applied to paladins as well. It would also open up the class to any alignment (if people so wanted).

I'd find it to be a much more appealing character concept, than what we have now. Instead of being a generic holy warrior / zealot of a deity (that supports the alignment) we have a martial character that is so dedicated to a particular cause, that they transcend their mortal limits. Like barbarians getting so angry, they defy physics, paladins are so dedicated to their ideals that the universe itself empowers them.

Also there are already plenty other options available to build a martial character dedicated to a deity already. Cleric, Cleric/Any Martial Class Combo, Inquisitor, War priest to name a few. Going that direction the paladin would get a whole new class identity.

Going that direction, we obviously can't have all variants in the CRB. For me (cause I like them that way) I'd go with the classic paladin being dedicated to the concept of Justic (itself) and other variants coming later through supplementary books.

Just my two cents.

Well if you want to slaughter the holy cow, then go all the way. No reason to hold back.

Personally I like my paladins to be one alignment only, but that's just what they are to me. I see the appeal for them to be more varied.

If they really do go that direction, I'd hope they divest them from divine patrons all together. Paladins embody an ideals, dedicate themselves to a code. No deity required for that. Optional yes, but not required.

Would call them something else though. "Champions of" or "Paragon of".

Paragon of Justice
Paragon of Altruism
Paragon of Liberty

Paragon of Law
Paragon of Balance
Paragon of Chaos

Paragon of Tyranny
Paragon of Selfishness
Paragon of Injustice

You guess, which alignment they are.
Cheers!

Why is there so much salt about this?

The paladin is an artifact of ye olde times. It's a deliberately restricted class, that simply is not for everyone and it doesn't have to be.

Why should it be opened to other alignments? The system provides you (meaning no one in particular, just people in general) with options to play any flavor of holy warrior with an agenda, right now. No additional rule books needed. If you (same as before) want the paladin package, you have to commit to it. Same as clerics.

I find it's actually a good thing, that these two classes at least are bound to some sort of guideline. No, you can't be the champion of justice and goodness and eat a kitten for breakfast. No, you can't be a servant of the god of freedom and be in support of a slaving despot.

Also it is not like you can't play different characters with the same alignment. From obsessed vigilante, to wide eyed idealist to the cynic going through the motions. These all can be lawful good characters - to name a few.

I'm all in favor for more champions of alignment, but I don't think you can really merge them all in a single class. How would you cater to the differents needs of such a diverse group. A champion of Neutrality (aka Balance) will be very different from a Hellknight (Lawful Evil) to an Agent of Chaos (Chaotic Neutral).

The only mechanical reason for ethnicities in the book is what extra language the Humans can speak. My advice is to remove that section, and allow ALL characters to add a regional language, even if their race isn't traditionally from that region.

I like this. Makes perfect sense, and is easy to implement. There really is no reason to split up the language section in the book.

Also why shouldn't elves, dwarves, halflings and goblins pick up on the regional dialect? Unless the Inner Sea region consists only of heavily segregated communities, where different species are prohibited from intermingling by law. Sure there will be places like that, but that can hardly be the norm.

Besides it's only the language section. If there were mechanical differences to ethnicity, they'd be handled like ancestries. Which is bound to happen for the more fantastical races as soon the Inner Sea Guide MKII and the Race Guide comes around.

I don't usually chime in on this board, but I do feel compelled to add something to the ongoing discussion around paladins, as it is one of my favorite classes hands down. I'll try to write something legible, but I can't make any promises.

I personally believe the paladin class, as it is now, should be rebuilt from the ground up. The current iteration of the class locks us into a singular role (that of the party defender), but fails to provide the necessary tools to fill out that role.

The paladin has few to no true offensive options available (smite being locked on a reaction comes to mind), and the defensive options depend highly on the generosity or foolhardiness of your GM. While thematically nice, retributive strike can more often than not be easily circumvented by enemy NPCs, and it is ridiculous to assume, that all campaigns will take part in a 3x3 rooms or corridors, just so that the paladin gets the possibility to shine.

I find most of the available champion powers to be lackluster at best. There are too few, with half level they don't scale that well, and frankly you don't get to have too many spell points to spend if you don't exclusively focus on charisma. Which ties into another gripe. I don't really see, how charisma actually benefits this martial class in this version of pathfinder. It gives you spell points, which is nice but can be substituted by multi-classing (Cleradin) and it boosts our smite. Which is tied to a reaction.

Permanent damage is powerful, but just to boost charisma to be able to douse demons in holy acid. Kind of a one trick pony.

I would propose that the class should be structured similarly to the druid or bard, as in that we need to choose the major theme at the start. Class feats associated with that theme get boosted, giving you an incentive to stay with that role. Call them orders or oaths, or something thematically appropriate. With this we can open up the possibilities, where the paladin can go and give more class and role playing opportunities to the player, instead of a singular role.

For example

Oath of the Crusader

Theme: "The crusader seeks out evil, where ever it may hide and roots it out with extreme force. There can be no mercy for those that pray on the innocent."

The crusader is a "proactive" defender. They gain a number of offensive options, while forgoing some of the defensive options a paladin normally gets. This could go along the line of increasing weapon proficiency for either a single weapon group or deific weapons at the cost of lower proficiency in heavy armor.

Add a holy smite action to the paladins arsenal.

General (all paladins): Use 1 spell point / champion power. Make a strike against a (visible, targetable) enemy within range. Add your charisma modifier (min 0) to your attack and damage roll. This bonus damage is good/holy damage.

Oath specific: the crusader turns all damage to good/holy.

Holy smite gains additional damage dice and debuff options further down the line. Also a two action version with charge (so two strides and a strike)

Crusaders must take the weapon ally.

A crusader adds the following line to the paladin code of conduct:"You may never back down from a challenge against a truly evil foe."

Oath of the Defender

Theme: "The defender holds the line against the enemies of his faith. They are the rock against wave after wave of enemies shatter themselves".

The defender keeps most of the same mechanics and themes of the current iteration the same. They focus on protecting the party and themselves with, thus becoming the groups prime tank.

Retributive strikes gets the following changes.

General (all oaths): Add a stride action to retributive strike. If a friendly or allied creature is attacked you may take a stride action to move up to your speed and intercept. You take attacks of opportunity as normal. If you can't get in range to strike the enemy you can't take this action.

Oath specific: While wielding your deities favorite weapon you may add reach to the weapon properties, when making a retributive strike.

Retributive strike can later be upgraded to use a step action (same range) instead of a stride action, you may gain additional uses per round, you can add more and nastier debuffs or you can use it on yourself as well.

Defenders must take the shield ally. They gain the divine grace feat, which grants static bonuses (instead of a reaction).

A defender adds the following line to the paladin code of conduct: "You may never abandon a party member as long as there is a chance to save them".

Oath of Heroism (Champion Powers, Leadership)

I was thinking of questing knights, healing the sick, rallying the local populace to overthrow tyranny and generally being the party face. Less martially inclined (or at least less hands on) as the other two variants.

The heroic paladin could focus on buffing his allies with auras and some better champion powers. Additionally they get the mount. This one I'd need to think through some more, but I liked the idea of the paladin being the shiny beacon of hope.

Going in this direction we open up so many possibilities to play the class as people would like. And with this I ran out of steam and ideas. I may edit this later for form, grammar and spelling, but I do hope my point (if any) came across.