Paladin Alignment Restrictions??


Alpha Playtest Feedback General Discussion

1 to 50 of 96 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

I started talking with James about how a Paladin shouldn't have an alignment restriction other than that they should be the same alignment as their God in another Thread (reposted here, so I don't have to retype my arguments).

What does everyone else think? I for one would really like to see Pathfinder address this issue.

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Original Posts from This Thread:

James Jacobs wrote:
flash_cxxi wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
In any event... this is one of the reasons I dislike paladin PCs so much, to be honest. They're a lot more disruptive and restrictive on total party makeup than pretty much any other class.

I agree. I like paladins, but have seen players almost come to blows because of the way someone plays their Paladin.

I've always said the Paladin should be of any alignment, as long as it matches their God. No reason other alignments should miss out.
Then again, I always said the same about Rangers as well, there was no reason they should have an alignment restriction and lo and behold in 3.5 it was done for all. Hopefully *crosses fingers* PFRPG can do the same to Paladins.
James Jacobs wrote:
The problem is... a D&D paladin isn't a paladin if her alignment can be anything. The best way to fix it, I suspect, is to include more text about how to remember "Lawful Good" doesn't mean "Disruptive Jerk."
flash_cxxi wrote:

Sure they are.

Up until 3.5 a D&D Ranger was a Good Warrior. Now they're any alignment (which is what they should have been, 3.5 got that right IMHO).
To my mind a Paladin isn't just Mr(s) Highandmighty, they are a Holy Warrior protecting the, and fighting for, the interests of their God. What is to say that a Deity of any alignment can't have their own Holy Warrior? I know that back in the AD&D (2E) Trading Card Series there was a Chaotic Good Paladin of Horus on one (I could pull out the number of the card, but I'd have to go digging). I was stoked when I saw that, but never saw any rules for it. A Paladin should be the same alignment as their God, I think that should be the only alignment restriction.
At the very least there should be some leeway over the alignment. Any Lawful would be my suggestion for this (and it would actually fit in quite well with Cheliax). It also does away with the need for the Blackguard PrC (why should an Evil player be penalized and have to wait X amount of levels to get almost exactly the same benefits as a good player can get from word go?).
Also in my experience there is a wide gulf between Normal PC Lawful Good and Paladin Lawful Good, at least in how players tend to play their characters.
This is a Threadjack though, but this is something that I am quite passionate about as I really do like the Paladin Class (I am playing a Rogue/Paladin atm in a PbP here and I am not playing him as Paladin LG, but Normal PC LG) and would love to hear yours and others thoughts on the matter James.

The Exchange

flash_cxxi wrote:

I started talking with James about how a Paladin shouldn't have an alignment restriction other than that they should be the same alignment as their God in another Thread (reposted here, so I don't have to retype my arguments).

What does everyone else think? I for one would really like to see Pathfinder address this issue.

It has been. Paladins are lawful good.

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Crimson Jester wrote:
flash_cxxi wrote:

I started talking with James about how a Paladin shouldn't have an alignment restriction other than that they should be the same alignment as their God in another Thread (reposted here, so I don't have to retype my arguments).

What does everyone else think? I for one would really like to see Pathfinder address this issue.

It has been. Paladins are lawful good.

That's not really much of an answer.

Why should Paladins be Lawful Good only? You need to convince me.

The Exchange

No I don't actually you need to convince the makers of the pathfinder Rpg to make the change and so far you are not doing a good job of it.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Any diety (at least with a martial bent) could have their own "Holy Champions," which is in effect what the Paladin is for Lawful & Good dieties. (And the Blackguard is for Chaotic & Evil deities.)

Why not then replace the Paladin (yes, that would harm backwards compatability) with a "Holy Champions" class, of which the the Paladin and the Blackguard are simply the most widely known?

The Exchange

Lord Fyre wrote:

Any diety (at least with a martial bent) could have their own "Holy Champions," which is in effect what the Paladin is for Lawful & Good dieties. (And the Blackguard is for Chaotic & Evil deities.)

Why not then replace the Paladin (yes, that would harm backwards compatability) with a "Holy Champions" class, of which the the Paladin and the Blackguard are simply the most widely known?

And (no I am not trying to be a troll) I would counter with why do we need to do this?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Crimson Jester wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:

Any diety (at least with a martial bent) could have their own "Holy Champions," which is in effect what the Paladin is for Lawful & Good dieties. (And the Blackguard is for Chaotic & Evil deities.)

Why not then replace the Paladin (yes, that would harm backwards compatability) with a "Holy Champions" class, of which the the Paladin and the Blackguard are simply the most widely known?

And (no I am not trying to be a troll) I would counter with why do we need to do this?

Well. I just think that it would be more balanced between alignments.

Liberty's Edge

Evil has enough advantages. Besides, this is a bit of a sacred cow for a lot of us.

The Exchange

Lord Fyre wrote:

Well. I just think that it would be more balanced between alignments.

And you are not the only one, that is why in unearthed arcana they came out with 3 other versions of the Paladin. That being said I personally still don't see a need. Item one this is a game about heroes and the paladin (if played right) is a Paragon of a Virtuous hero. It has been this way since 1st edition honestly and the only time it was not this way was a couple of source books in 2nd ed. and well the optional classes from unearthed. Most people seem to agree that this should be left the way it is. But like you mentioned you disagree, thats fine thats what house rules are for.

Edit: Plus why do the alignments have to be equal??


For me a Paladin is Lawful Good and nothing else.

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Crimson Jester wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:

Well. I just think that it would be more balanced between alignments.

And you are not the only one, that is why in unearthed arcana they came out with 3 other versions of the Paladin. That being said I personally still don't see a need. Item one this is a game about heroes and the paladin (if played right) is a Paragon of a Virtuous hero. It has been this way since 1st edition honestly and the only time it was not this way was a couple of source books in 2nd ed. and well the optional classes from unearthed. Most people seem to agree that this should be left the way it is. But like you mentioned you disagree, thats fine thats what house rules are for.

Edit: Plus why do the alignments have to be equal??

Why did they need to change the alignment restrictions for Rangers then? They always had a "Good" alignment resriction as well.

Why shouldn't the alignments be ay least semi-equal?

The Barbarian has to be Non-Lawful.
The Bard has to be Non-Lawful.
Monk has to be Lawful.
Druid has to be Neutral.

There are restrictions and there are restrictions. Paladin is just too restricting. As I've said above, at the very least they should be the same as Monks and have to be Lawful. That's still in keeping with the "Knight-like" image of the Paladin, but allows for some variation (and also as I've said above it would also fit in well for some Pathfinder flavour with the idea of the Hellknights from Cheliax).


This is so easy to house-rule. I don't think it's screaming to be made official in print.

Besides, I think neutral paladins might be kind of silly.

"I smite thee in the name of It Seems Like a Good Idea at This Time!"

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

toyrobots wrote:

This is so easy to house-rule. I don't think it's screaming to be made official in print.

Besides, I think neutral paladins might be kind of silly.

"I smite thee in the name of It Seems Like a Good Idea at This Time!"

How about "I smite thee in the name of Nature!"

Neutral, like all alignments can have multiple meanings.


I'm all for getting rid of alignment restrictions. However, given that paladins are such a sacred cow (suddenly I have the image of a cow in platemail), how about an easy compromise - a sidebar on how to adapt the paladin to the other alignments and names for the variations. That'd leave the default paladin, but give an "official" holy warrior for other alignments as well.

As for the UA variants...yes, they're there, yes, they're nice...but there's a problem. To my knowledge (and I may be very wrong) there's no Pathfinder equivalent for UA in the works...

EDIT: Oh, and neutral paladins would be proponents of balance, I imagine, since they'd be embodiments of neutrality. Either that or they'd be like the Neutral Planet people from Futurama: "I have no strong feelings toward you one way or another!" *smite* ^_-

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

toyrobots wrote:

This is so easy to house-rule. I don't think it's screaming to be made official in print.

Besides, I think neutral paladins might be kind of silly.

"I smite thee in the name of It Seems Like a Good Idea at This Time!"

True it is, but when you play in an environment that doesn't allow house rules, only "Official" that makes it alot harder. I literally had to convince my DM that Dragon was in fact fully Offical Authorised Content before I could use anything from it (and even then alot gets shot down). I likewise had to beg to be allowed to play Paragon Classes because he doesn't like UA.

As I said, I think it should be open to all alignments, but at least a Lawful restrictions make sense.


I like how a few people here make it seem like the OP is in the vast minority. Many people i know see no reason for alignment restrictions at all, be they the Monk''s, Paladin's or other, at least not for a base class.

In an issue of Dragon(by i believe the lovely Paizo people) introduced a
"Paladin" esque class for every alignment, so obviously this isn't as big a scared cow as some claim. However, if it is such a big deal to keep it thus, then explain why.

The Exchange

flash_cxxi wrote:


True it is, but when you play in an environment that doesn't allow house rules, only "Official" that makes it alot harder. I literally had to convince my DM that Dragon was in fact fully Offical Authorised Content before I could use anything from it (and even then alot gets shot down). I likewise had to beg to be allowed to play Paragon Classes because he doesn't like UA.

As I said, I think it should be open to all alignments, but at least a Lawful restrictions make sense.

i disagree but I do have an option for you if your GM doesn't allow it why don't you run a game or two.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

flash_cxxi wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
flash_cxxi wrote:

I started talking with James about how a Paladin shouldn't have an alignment restriction other than that they should be the same alignment as their God in another Thread (reposted here, so I don't have to retype my arguments).

What does everyone else think? I for one would really like to see Pathfinder address this issue.

It has been. Paladins are lawful good.

That's not really much of an answer.

Why should Paladins be Lawful Good only? You need to convince me.

Paladins are lawful good only because they have been for decades in D&D. Pathfinder is not trying to chart new ground and redefine the game to that level. I'm not personally interested in opening up the paladin class to other alignments, since it should play to the existing fans of the class. Redefining it into something it hasn't been is guaranteed to estrange paladin fans, but not guaranteed to attract new fans.

Paladins will remain lawful good in Pathfinder RPG.

This does not mean that we won't eventually come up with exemplar classes for other alignments, of course; variant paladins, basically. But the paladin herself won't be turning into something she hasn't been.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Monkeygod wrote:

I like how a few people here make it seem like the OP is in the vast minority. Many people i know see no reason for alignment restrictions at all, be they the Monk''s, Paladin's or other, at least not for a base class.

In an issue of Dragon(by i believe the lovely Paizo people) introduced a
"Paladin" esque class for every alignment, so obviously this isn't as big a scared cow as some claim. However, if it is such a big deal to keep it thus, then explain why.

Yup! I wrote that article, actually, back in issue #310 and #312, If I Remember Correctly. Based loosely, of course, on the "A Plethora of Paladins" article back in Dragon #106.

That's probably the route we'd take if we were going to address the need for differently aligned holy warriors.

Alternately... not doing that helps to keep the paladin "special." If other "holy warriors" are just clerics or fighters, that's maybe okay with me.

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Crimson Jester wrote:
i disagree but I do have an option for you if your GM doesn't allow it why don't you run a game or two.

err... that means I don't get to play the Paladin of a differing alignment because I am running the game.


Flash,
just wondering if the Paladin WERE to be changed to only require Lawful alignment, how would it need to be updated?

Smite Evil could become Smite Good and Smite Chaos (for LN)

Laying on Hands is like Channel Positive Energy, so LE could channel Negative Energy, and LN would choose when they become a Paladin...

Remove Disease-> Cause Disease, Remove Curse-> Bestow Curse, Neutralize Poison-> Inflict Poison, with the LN Paladin having their choice of these dependent on +/- Energy choice.

Aura of Faith LG = Good, LE = Evil, LN = Lawful

Break Enchantment could become.... Some Compulsion spell appropriate to 15th level...? And the LN Paladin could again choose based on +/- energy.

It's seem pretty straight forward, although for the Spell List, the LN Paladin might need a little bit more thought, since they can't just replace the 'Good' spells with 'Evil' spells...

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Quandary wrote:

Flash,

just wondering if the Paladin WERE to be changed to only require Lawful alignment, how would it need to be updated?

Smite Evil could become Smite Good and Smite Chaos (for LN)

Laying on Hands is like Channel Positive Energy, so LE could channel Negative Energy, and LN would choose when they become a Paladin...

Remove Disease-> Cause Disease, Remove Curse-> Bestow Curse, Neutralize Poison-> Inflict Poison, with the LN Paladin having their choice of these dependent on +/- Energy choice.

Aura of Faith LG = Good, LE = Evil, LN = Lawful

Break Enchantment could become.... Some Compulsion spell appropriate to 15th level...? And the LN Paladin could again choose based on +/- energy.

It's seem pretty straight forward, although for the Spell List, the LN Paladin might need a little bit more thought, since they can't just replace the 'Good' spells with 'Evil' spells...

Those kinds of changes are pretty much spot on what could be done. It's not hard, but as I've said no House Rules. =(


Well, I would guess that a LN Paladin would probably be even more of a pain in the ass than a LG one for the rest of the party, since there wouldn't even be the appeal to Good to get around their rigidity, you're just facing the Word of God, as interpreted by the Paladin... :-)

Liberty's Edge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

IF and this is only IF I were to redesign the paladin, I'd build the paladin off cleric or ranger model.

A Paladin is either Lawful Good or Lawful Evil.

This would be like being a cleric of a good god or a ranger that chooses archery. Your powers and abilities would be based on whether you chose the light or the darkness.

Why can't a Paladin always be evil from day one if Blackguards are supposed to be "evil Paladins?" Further, an evil PC Paladin starts off gimped compared to everyone else with no abilities at all if he plans to become a Blackguard.

I'd enhance the Blackguard to make it a proper prestige class for evil paladins and something Divine Champion-esque to give Blackguard a rival. The powers and abilities of a Blackguard/Champion would be different then a level 1-20 Paladin though.

That said, I don't think the other alignments are appropriate.


DrowVampyre wrote:
EDIT: Oh, and neutral paladins would be proponents of balance, I imagine, since they'd be embodiments of neutrality. Either that or they'd be like the Neutral Planet people from Futurama: "I have no strong feelings toward you one way or another!" *smite* ^_-

That's precisely what I was going for, thanks.


toyrobots wrote:
That's precisely what I was going for, thanks.

Heh, well, you're welcome, though I think a neutral paladin would be just fine as a concept. Especially LN. It'd be...Judge Dredd, basically.


The whole point of a paladin is that he's LG. Making them of other alignments has always struck me as rather silly. Why would the CE guys have basically the same training as the LG guys? Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with wanting to play a "champion of evil," so to speak, but the concept needs its own class with its own special abilities.


BTW James, I would like to let you know that those 3 revision issues have seen more use than any other issues of Dragon, so thank you for any and all the work you did on them!!


This is one sacred cow I've always wanted to slaughter. ;-)

I *like* the idea of 'exemplars' of multiple deitys/philosophys/alignments. I agree that the concept can be a simple houserule...but it isn't that simple given the adjustment to the spell list necessary to adapt the class.

As to the [in world] justification? Well, given the degree to which most folk react to the LG Paladin...I can see a chaotic group sending out an opponent in the name of chaos. Same for the evil alignments. Why let the good guys run the whole show?


James Jacobs wrote:
This does not mean that we won't eventually come up with exemplar classes for other alignments, of course; variant paladins, basically. But the paladin herself won't be turning into something she hasn't been.

I think this is one of the most rational reasons for LG Paladins.

People shouldn't look at the class so much a being a "Paladin, restricted to LG" so much as they should a "The LG version of a Holy Warrior class, this LG version is called the Paladin."

Keep the Paladin LG, and if it is felt necessary, create other alignment-restricted "Holy Warrior" classes. Just don't call them "Paladins".


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
modus0 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
This does not mean that we won't eventually come up with exemplar classes for other alignments, of course; variant paladins, basically. But the paladin herself won't be turning into something she hasn't been.

I think this is one of the most rational reasons for LG Paladins.

People shouldn't look at the class so much a being a "Paladin, restricted to LG" so much as they should a "The LG version of a Holy Warrior class, this LG version is called the Paladin."

Keep the Paladin LG, and if it is felt necessary, create other alignment-restricted "Holy Warrior" classes. Just don't call them "Paladins".

sometimes its all just about the name ......

i'm all for opening up the paladin to other alignments, but i've no problem with renaming the others into exemplars or holy warriors to keep the 'paladin' special

Since their is an OGL version here of paladin / holy warrior variants its be simple to convert to PF either officially or house ruled


modus0 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
This does not mean that we won't eventually come up with exemplar classes for other alignments, of course; variant paladins, basically. But the paladin herself won't be turning into something she hasn't been.

I think this is one of the most rational reasons for LG Paladins.

People shouldn't look at the class so much a being a "Paladin, restricted to LG" so much as they should a "The LG version of a Holy Warrior class, this LG version is called the Paladin."

Keep the Paladin LG, and if it is felt necessary, create other alignment-restricted "Holy Warrior" classes. Just don't call them "Paladins".

Thanks Mr. Jacobs & modus0, that's actually what I meant. I've posted before on one of the numerous threads on this subject. Here's what I've thought of calling the 'Holy Warrior' class and it's subdivisions [with some options for the names]:

Class: Paragon/Zealot

Subdivisions: Paladin [LG], Cavalier [NG], Paragon/Liberator [CG], Justicar [LN], Watcher [N], Anarchist [CN], Dominator/Tyrant [LE], Malefactor [NE], Destroyer/Conqueror [CE]

And if you adapt any of those titles to Pathfinder I'd be truely flattered.

Edit: Neat, Phlebas posted with the same ideas while I was writing mine. GMTA!

Liberty's Edge

Yea, I'm firmly in the Lawful Good Paladin camp. It's what the class has always been and for me, it has to stay that way.

I'm not, however, adverse to some variant versions that use different alignments and corresponding abilities to better match those alignments. They just shouldn't be the default, core class. There, problem solved, everyone happy.

Just kidding. I know ... with this kind of thing, you can never have everyone happy. In all seriousness though, I think this is probably the best way to go.


I support Paladins as Lawful Good. I've got both Unearthed Arcana and Dragon 310 & 312, and aside from the evil paladin variants in 312 (I <3 the Corruptor and Despot, who both exist in my campaigns), I have yet to see any logical and inspired variants that change alignment. The variant non-evil paladins in UA and Dragon all felt very word-swap-ish or had completely illogical abilities (like the CN paladin who could not EVAR keep his word, thereby creating a rigid code that goes against the whole idea).

If you really want some Paladin goodness but don't want to play that class, there's a plethora of other, more or less appropriate classes for your consumption - Pious Templars, Clerics, Crusaders... There are plenty of ways to become LIKE a paladin of some other alignment, but the Paladin is just special. I like it. It gets shinies and encourages people to not just play neutral aligned jerks.

Liberty's Edge

You know, you guys could always petition Green Ronin to make Pathfinder versions of The Holy Warrior's Handbook and Book of Fiends (which contains the Unholy Warrior class).

Those allow you to make holy warriors of different alignments with abilities that match their god's portfolio. (Including, by the way, the traditional paladin, who has the Champion and Guardian domains) I have both, and they are excellent.

Scarab Sages

I for one am glad that the Paladin remains LG.

The concept of the class is rooted in Western tradition of crusaders and the notion of chivalry and martial prowess combined with religious piety and zeal. There is a specific flavour to that which is captured only by the LG alignment.

I'm not saying all crusaders were LG (in fact, probably most weren't) but the concept of what a crusader was supposed to be (especially the romanticised version of crusaders) is very restrictive.

You can't be part of a strict order and be dutiful, measured, and regimented, following strict codes of conduct, without being lawful.

You can't serve a deity (in the way a holy warrior does) who wants you to constantly help others less fortunate than you if you are not good.

Changing the alignment of the Paladin is not a fix. To make a "variant" paladin requires at the very least a compelte overhaul of the class features (the Unearthed Arcana versions are a good start). It would be better to just have 3-5 different classes, NOT called Paladins (to steal your example, kill the Blackguard PrC and make it a core class for one or all of the E deities).

I agree that all deities would have servants of their cause, but the powers should often be radically different (except for Smite Y and aura of X).

I would also like to suggest that some N deities have servants, being druids. That doesn't cover all cases, but it is a better solution than having N characters with a smite attack (Smite with a random chance to affect the target?)


James Jacobs wrote:


Paladins are lawful good only because they have been for decades in D&D. Pathfinder is not trying to chart new ground and redefine the game to that level. I'm not personally interested in opening up the paladin class to other alignments, since it should play to the existing fans of the class. Redefining it into something it hasn't been is guaranteed to estrange paladin fans, but not guaranteed to attract new fans.

Paladins will remain lawful good in Pathfinder RPG.

This does not mean that we won't eventually come up with exemplar classes for other alignments, of course; variant paladins, basically. But the paladin herself won't be turning into something she hasn't been.

As someone whose first character 25 years ago was a paladin, (I can still rememeber the othe kids saying "You got a 17! You should play a paladin.") I thank you for this sir.

I'm actually playing a paladin in $E right now (I know, I know). The group wanted me to be "unaligned" because that's what the rest of the party is. I just couldn't do it.
To me a paladin live and dies by his code (lawful), to protect those who are unable to protect themselves and uphold justice (good).
I may not have to tithe, and I may be able to have more than 10 magic items, but the core of the class, a person who serves not only his diety, but all of the goodly races by opposing evil in any form, has not changed. Well, except in $E, but then the whole $E is garbage anyway.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Paladins are Lawful Good. They always have been. They always should be. That's what Paladin means.

True, the Paladin is MUCH more concerned with Good vs. Evil than Law vs. Chaos. A Paladin is a champion of Good who relies on Law to make sure than they stay that way. Also, a Paladin is a 'knight', which is sort of a lawful archetype.

I am not opposed to creating paladin-like classes for tehe other 'Exemplar' alignments (CE, LE, CG.) However, they should not be the same class. A CG 'Paladin' should not have a warhorse, for example.

Personally, I'd love to see the LE 'Paladin of Tyranny' appear as a base class (if not one intended for PCs (i.e. not core)), because its the simplest reflection to perform. Blackguard wrks great for CE as is, and a Holy Liberator-type prestige class for CG.

Yes, I do think that the Chaotic exemplars should have PrCs. Two reasons: The powers of Chaos are less likely to accept Oaths of service, so you have to prove your worth first (so no starting at first level), and that it's hard to define a 'Code of Conduct' for a Chaotic character.

Scarab Sages

Ross Byers wrote:
The powers of Chaos are less likely to accept Oaths of service, so you have to prove your worth first (so no starting at first level), and that it's hard to define a 'Code of Conduct' for a Chaotic character.

The first rule of Chaos is there are no rules.


I liked the Judge Dredd analogy of a LN Paladin...

In the Pathfinder/Golarion world, it'd be interesting to see a
Holy Warrior of Nethys, the N God of Magic associated with Ancient Osirion...
Probably more of an ARCANE flavor than 'Holy'/Divine... and probably Bad-Ass

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Quandary wrote:
I liked the Judge Dredd analogy of a LN Paladin...

Hellknight.


Quandary wrote:

I liked the Judge Dredd analogy of a LN Paladin...

In the Pathfinder/Golarion world, it'd be interesting to see a
Holy Warrior of Nethys, the N God of Magic associated with Ancient Osirion...
Probably more of an ARCANE flavor than 'Holy'/Divine... and probably Bad-Ass

That could very easily be replicated with either the Duskblade or one of the many gish PrCs out there (Suel Arcanamach, perhaps?). Then it's just in how you play it.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

James Jacobs wrote:
This does not mean that we won't eventually come up with exemplar classes for other alignments, of course; variant paladins, basically. But the paladin herself won't be turning into something she hasn't been.

Ooh! Pathfinder Splatbooks . . .

Of course, we have seen where that dark road can lead.

The Exchange

From a Judge Dredd Fan I must say..... Dredd might be LN he is in no way shape or form a Paladin. Not even a little bit. If this is your idea of what a Paladin is or should be take another look at the class. Oh wait a minute I get it your thinking of the movie!


I have to chime in on this in the sense that the Paladin is a champion of good much like the vision of a Judge from Judge Dredd (sp?) taking the long walk into the cursed earth. He is a light in the darkness kinda thing, trying to bring justice and goodness to those who don't have it. At least, that's my take on the Paladin.

HOWEVER, this concept doesn't work for all deities. I for example, am really trying to think of what a "Holy Warrior" class would be for the god of suffering, Ilmater, in the Forgotten Realms. Their whole point is to take on the suffering of their followers. What would a Paladin do for that religion?

Anyway, I don't agree or disagree on the subject. I just think that it needs some thought about aligning it with specific deities before doing so.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
veector wrote:

I have to chime in on this in the sense that the Paladin is a champion of good much like the vision of a Judge from Judge Dredd (sp?) taking the long walk into the cursed earth. He is a light in the darkness kinda thing, trying to bring justice and goodness to those who don't have it. At least, that's my take on the Paladin.

HOWEVER, this concept doesn't work for all deities. I for example, am really trying to think of what a "Holy Warrior" class would be for the god of suffering, Ilmater, in the Forgotten Realms. Their whole point is to take on the suffering of their followers. What would a Paladin do for that religion?

Anyway, I don't agree or disagree on the subject. I just think that it needs some thought about aligning it with specific deities before doing so.

the paladin as written doesn't have to serve any deity, just an ideal (though he might honour god(s)). To me thats what distinguishes a paladin from a LG cleric/fighter.

tying paladin variants into deity's is treading on the clerics toes a little too much for me to be entirely comfortable with....


veector wrote:

I have to chime in on this in the sense that the Paladin is a champion of good much like the vision of a Judge from Judge Dredd (sp?) taking the long walk into the cursed earth. He is a light in the darkness kinda thing, trying to bring justice and goodness to those who don't have it. At least, that's my take on the Paladin.

HOWEVER, this concept doesn't work for all deities. I for example, am really trying to think of what a "Holy Warrior" class would be for the god of suffering, Ilmater, in the Forgotten Realms. Their whole point is to take on the suffering of their followers. What would a Paladin do for that religion?

Anyway, I don't agree or disagree on the subject. I just think that it needs some thought about aligning it with specific deities before doing so.

Paladins of the broken god guard the weak and use there healing powers on any that need them.They are not shy about fighting evil, however they would rather pause to heal someone that is dieing then scarific that life in order to pursue evil-doers.

All in all there are 11 gods in the realms with paladins each order has it's own outlook and feel. All LG but a paladin of Iimater,sune, and Kelemvor are all LG But very different in feel, outlook and play.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lord Fyre wrote:
Any (deity) (at least with a martial bent) could have their own "Holy Champions,"

No.

Some deities would not, by their nature, want a "Holy" Champion. Follower/ Defenders, yes, "Holy" -- Certainly not.

LG and LE should both have Paladin, Anti-Paladin.
LN -- it depends on the game, DM & Player -- how they see the PC and the alignment.

A "champion-acolyte" (or whatever) of Lamashtu or Pazuzu perhaps should have it's own Class (see BoVD for Diabolists & Thrall PrCs) but should not be called "Paladins" or "Anti-Paladins."

-W. E. Ray

1 to 50 of 96 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / General Discussion / Paladin Alignment Restrictions?? All Messageboards