|
Is there any way we can make the Paladin more generalized? I've seen it done in Dragon and in some other company releases.
Basically, I'm asking: What about Gods that aren't so... so... lawful good? Don't they have Holy Warriors? Why do they get the shaft? Can't we give them something?
Ok, we have the Blackguard, but that's more of a corrupted Paladin thing instead of a true Holy Warrior for evil. What about the other 8 alignments?
I understand the concept behind the Paladin. It was TSR's original Knightly concept. But I guess I'm asking if we've progressed to the point yet where we can seperate this into it's to core ideas:
Knight
Holy Warrior
I say, make a Paladin/Holy Warrior whose abilities depend on alignment (where Lawful Good creates a typical paladin), and make the Knight a core class.
May the rude gestures commence...
Just keep the Paladin class as a base.
Change the few alignments elements to adapt it to other cults and orders, and call it Champion.
As practically long as there have been paladins, there have been non-core rules for paladins of other alignments. Why change things now?
I wouldn't object to a note saying "The DM can easily adapt this class to use with holy warriors of a different alignment by changing the code of conduct and some of the powers (e.g. an evil paladin's Aura of Faith would cause her weapons to be treated as evil aligned instead of good aligned)." But I don't know if that's even necessary; it seems pretty obvious to me.
|
|
As practically long as there have been paladins, there have been non-core rules for paladins of other alignments. Why change things now?
I wouldn't object to a note saying "The DM can easily adapt this class to use with holy warriors of a different alignment by changing the code of conduct and some of the powers (e.g. an evil paladin's Aura of Faith would cause her weapons to be treated as evil aligned instead of good aligned)." But I don't know if that's even necessary; it seems pretty obvious to me.
Wouldn't it make more sense to just write:
Aura of Faith: A Holy Champions Aura of Faith aligns her weapons with that of her own alignment. For example, a Lawful Good Champion's weapon is treatd as Lawful aligned and Good aligned.BtW, anytime someone writes "it seems obvious to me" when disagreeing with someone else, it comes off insulting. I'm sure you don't intend it that way, but it's something to be wary of.
"Why change things now?" Because unlike before, now someone with the capacity to change things is willing to listen. The writers and editors have opened their doors and said "give us your ideas".
This is an objection I've had since the paladin was first introduced. It's narrow structure has bothered me for almost 20 years. But now I no longer have to suck it up and suffer. Now I have a place to air my grivance and say "is there any way we can overhaul it without losing rule #1: backwards compatibility?"
Here's a question: If they have to keep coming up with non-core rules *every* edition to fix this oversight, why don't they just make that change at the base?
In the end, I'm not asking to remove anything or toss out any old-school ideas. I'm not asking to nullify all the Paladin PC's out there or make them obsolete. I'm merely making a suggestion to add to the complexity (not the complication, which is a different matter) of the game and give players new directions to go in...
...without having to hunt down out of print material or wait for someone else to tackle it two years after every new edition of a game I've loved dearly for twenty years.
BtW, anytime someone writes "it seems obvious to me" when disagreeing with someone else, it comes off insulting. I'm sure you don't intend it that way, but it's something to be wary of.
No offense intended, of course! Personally, I'd rather see the alignment restriction for the monk removed; not every martial arts master has to be lawful, IMO.
Note: I agree with you that paladins of different flavours are cool. I played in a 2nd edition D&D campaign where every god in the DM's world had a custom holy warrior and a custom specialty priest. It was great! I just don't think that rules for custom holy warriors need to go into the core book. Just my $0.02; your opinion is worth as much (or more!) than mine. :)
|
|
BtW, anytime someone writes "it seems obvious to me" when disagreeing with someone else, it comes off insulting. I'm sure you don't intend it that way, but it's something to be wary of.No offense intended, of course! Personally, I'd rather see the alignment restriction for the monk removed; not every martial arts master has to be lawful, IMO.
Note: I agree with you that paladins of different flavours are cool. I played in a 2nd edition D&D campaign where every god in the DM's world had a custom holy warrior and a custom specialty priest. It was great! I just don't think that rules for custom holy warriors need to go into the core book. Just my $0.02; your opinion is worth as much (or more!) than mine. :)
Ok, *now* we're on the same page.
Frankly, I think the age of alignment restrictions has come and gone all together. I can undserstand the focus of mind that a monk would need, but I don't feel that a lawful alignment and self-control are necessarily the same thing. Wouldn't that self-control be just as represented by High Will scores?
As for "custom" holy warriors, I think you've interpreted me as thinking along the lines of the specialty priest, where *every* god gets his own design. No, I can agree that something of that complexity is best relegated to a book that people can choose to overlook and save some $$. But I do think we can give the paladin at least as much text space to adapt this idea as Rogues have talents.
IF Paladins were opened for other alignements, I want ONLY NON-NEUTRAL ones.
As I said elsewhere: Only the extrems can burn or shine strong enough to bring forth a Paladin.
Unearthed Arcana did the same. And let's be honest. A neutral-evil Paladins ideal would be... what?
The core concept of the Pala is that he holds to an ideal that he thinks is bigger than himself and that must be defended and faught for even if this will take his life.
|
One of the comments on these boards (I think they were Jason Bulmahn's but I could be misremembering) was that while faithful champions of other religions make sense and are worthy of being detailed at some point, simply cutting and pasting different alignments onto paladin abilities is not the way to do it. Each flavor of champion deserves to be fully developed and stand on its own, not just have renamed powers. Unfortunately, due to space and other concerns, the Pathfinder RPG is not the book to do that.
IF Paladins were opened for other alignements, I want ONLY NON-NEUTRAL ones.
As I said elsewhere: Only the extrems can burn or shine strong enough to bring forth a Paladin.
Unearthed Arcana did the same. And let's be honest. A neutral-evil Paladins ideal would be... what?
The core concept of the Pala is that he holds to an ideal that he thinks is bigger than himself and that must be defended and faught for even if this will take his life.
I assume you mean non True Neutral ones...
Because a Justiciar (LN) or Champion of Chaos (CN) make sense.For NE... Herald of Death ? Think about an anti-paladin of Hel or Hades...
|
|
IF Paladins were opened for other alignements, I want ONLY NON-NEUTRAL ones.
As I said elsewhere: Only the extrems can burn or shine strong enough to bring forth a Paladin.
Unearthed Arcana did the same. And let's be honest. A neutral-evil Paladins ideal would be... what?
The core concept of the Pala is that he holds to an ideal that he thinks is bigger than himself and that must be defended and faught for even if this will take his life.
I think there's a distinction that needs to be made between "neutral" as it means for alignment, and "balance"
As far as I'm concerned, Neutral Evil is *extreme* evil. The other kinds of evil have limits:
Chaotic evil is wild and untamed in an almost selfish kind of way. The murderer who kills because it's fun. Maybe I'm letting them bleed into Chaotic neutral, but I see them as a sort of 1980's Anarchist.
Lawful evil is kind of an "honor among thieves" kind of attitude. The despot who thinks it's ok to whip the poor for not having enough money because hey, everyone's gotta pay taxes.
But Neutral Evil? No rules, no honor, no chaos. These are an evil version of true anarchy. This is an Ursula K. LeGuin dystopia. Just do whatever it takes to get it done. These are the guys who have an agenda and will be cold, calculated, and won't let anything get in their way. They have reason and purpose, but no limits of conscience. No... rules...
If EVIL had a Paladin, it would be neutral evil.
But that's just my own opinion.
|
I know non-LG paladins got a write up long ago in Dragon and there are UA versions as well.
I agree that that the 4 non-neutral alignments make the most sense. LG = champion of justice: paladin. CG = champion of freedom. LE = champion of might (I go with 'might' over 'tyranny' because LE is an acceptable philosophy in many societies and thus has to present itself as positive. No one is going to sign up for tyranny but some might willingly go along with might-makes-right). CE = champion of destruction.
Maybe paladins and champions of freedom could come out in the Pathfinder players handbook and LE and CE in the DMG.
I know non-LG paladins got a write up long ago in Dragon and there are UA versions as well.
According to my Google search, the Antipaladin was in Dragon #39, and paladins of various alignments were in Dragon #106. (I'm old enough to have a copy of the latter, but not the former.)
|
|
It is not hard for me to think of a LN paladin... This character might be devoted specifically to the slaying of undead, as they break a natural law. No respect given or distinction made between alignments of the unded (although the majority are of course evil). The intent here makes the difference. This character is not trying to be a champion and has a disregard for ethical nonsense that tends to blur the line of duty. The rule of law has been broken, and a champion needs to set it straight. No apologies, and no backing down!
|
|
One of the comments on these boards (I think they were Jason Bulmahn's but I could be misremembering) was that while faithful champions of other religions make sense and are worthy of being detailed at some point, simply cutting and pasting different alignments onto paladin abilities is not the way to do it. Each flavor of champion deserves to be fully developed and stand on its own, not just have renamed powers. Unfortunately, due to space and other concerns, the Pathfinder RPG is not the book to do that.
Then I would recommend moving the Paladin to that later book as well and replacing it's spot with the Knight.
But then again, I'm the argumentative sort that can't shut up...
Then I would recommend moving the Paladin to that later book as well and replacing it's spot with the Knight.
I agree with you completely, but because of backwards compatibility they pretty much need to support the 3.5 paladin (so there's not much chance of that happening).
|
|
Ya, but that wouldn't be backwards compatible, now would it :)Then I would recommend moving the Paladin to that later book as well and replacing it's spot with the Knight.
But then again, I'm the argumentative sort that can't shut up...
Sure it would. It doesn't make the Paladin disappear or make it obsolete, it just wouldn't update it right away.
But I'm sure that if Jason actually took that idea to heart, he would be dragged out into the street by people who aren't me and hurt... a lot... in the face.
But at least I got it off my chest.
:)