| Punkrock |
Me, personally, I think the Paladin can learn from 4th ED. No joke, I said it, 4th ed... I know the edition isn't popular, I didn't exactly like it myself, but... It did have some concepts that were actually worth looking into. The paladin alignment was one of them, (can ignore the fact they only have 5 alignments in 4ed instead of nine) The paladin there, was same alignment as deity. Which makes sense, I mean, this way, they can be of ANY deity instead of just certain ones. Which in turn, would open up character concepts for them, for not everyone has the same ideas and concepts. Which is good, otheriwse this would be a drab and boring world if everyone was the same... But yeah, it also answers paladin - anti paladin - even a nuetral paladin, as they could be any alignment now. Yeah, they can still be goodie goodies, I mean if it's an good only campaign, that's fine, players are simply relegated to using deities of good alignment for their paladin choices. But at same time, it opens windows of opportunities for players at home for own campaigns. Plus it makes sense, as a class that dependant on a deity, that they as a champion of said deity, would follow the deities alignment. Maybe champion wasn't the best name, but for lack of a better term atm, it fits. I mean hey, what are we talking about here? it's about players options. What do players want from the class. Right? so lets drop the "but company" bomb and just let players speak to decide what they want from the class. I myself don't play paladins anymore, but that's simply personal choice, especially in a game where there's 50+ classes (PF1) to choose from. (not including archtypes).