Getting into the bluff/lie thing always makes me think of Captain Carrot from Discworld. It's in one of the early books, I think Men At Arms, and he's trying to get into a building. All of the following is paraphrased, I have no hope of remembering the exact dialogue.
That's Carrot Ironfoundersson in Guards! Guards!, where he makes a good (mock) illustration of many paladin traits. I don't remember what you're quoting/paraphrasing, but he appears in subsequent books, like Men at Arms, that I haven't read.
|
See that's the point a few of you are missing. Being LG is so infused in what a paladin
No it is not. You can have a holy relgious champion who still can do all the things a Paladin can just not limited to one alignment. It's funny to read some of the responses to this. It's as if by having the Paladin any other aligment besides LG your asking a poster to redefine his whole existence. All the reasons given for only LG alignments are not even based on gameplay but opinion.
is it is like taking armor away from clerics or allowing a druids to use any weapon and wear plate mail.
This type of reasonong is as bad as the poster who wanted Wizards to wear armor and fighters to cast spells. It is no compariosn imo. What your saying is redefing all of a class. Some on this board like myself just want an extra option in terms of alignment.
1. Do you think players of arcane casters should have the option to memorize divine spells instead?That's what the Archivist from Heroes of Horror did. Quite a well-balanced class with much in the way of setting-flavor,
but it was not a mere substitution: ok, "divine spellbooks", but no channeling or domains. Instead, advantages from creature lore, whic fits an expert in the divine (and demonic).The Paladin class is definitely setting-flavored. I would not see Paladins of the 9 alignments without any heavy class-feature substitution. Effectively you're creating a new class or turning the existing one into a sketchy template: New spell lists, alternatives to Lay powers, different auras would all have to be personalized. That's doable (and has been done in different SRD books), but then, the only element left of the paladin is the basic math progression and an alignment-personalized Smite.
|
|
I AGREE WITH YOU. Now if only you even read my posts you would see we're on the same track. A LG Crusader would be called a Paladin, and would be IDENTICAL to what it is. A CN Crusader would be called, I dunno, Blackguard/Anti-Paladin, whatever. Your Paladin would not change. A Crusader by a different color would be named appropriately. Your sacred title is intact.Saying that I should use a variant to do this sort of thing is like saying I need a variant cleric to control rather than turn. Yes, I understand that as it is now Cleric has that flexibility and Paladin does not, but I see no reason why that flexibility could not be written into the base rules. Paladins are still extremely inflexible as a class, in alignment in his personal code in spells and in class abilities. In the right fight or adventure or campaign they shine as bright as a thousand suns, but in the wrong one or even a slightly different one they flop like a flounder.
Much as the rules on sneak attack are being accomodated so the rogue feels utterly useless less often, so should the paladin.
To the person who made absurd suggestions as to wizards casting cleric spells or fighters casting spells etc for the sake of options, again, please read my posts. I said [b] when it can be balanced over levels and between...
Agreed and seconded on all points.
|
For non LG Paladin Variants I use the Holy Warrior Class from Green Ronin (you can buy the PDF at RPGNOW and DRIVETHRU).
This is a 3.5 product but as soon as I hold the PFRPG in my hands and have familiarized myself with the rules I will try to pthfinderize the Holy Warrior.
I want to have a Holy Warrior for every God in Golarion. With Abilities that fit to the theme of his deity.
What your saying is redefining all of a class. Some on this board like myself just want an extra option in terms of alignment.
But you still are not getting it...
Lawful Good = Paladin
Paladin = Lawful Good
Doing something as *minor* as "adding an alignment option" COMPLETELY changes what a Paladin is. If you don't get that then there's no point in continuing this conversation. I'm out!
|
|
The new Paladin looks great and I look forward to playing one.
I would also tell people to "wait and see" as far as what they do to the Paladin code and who they are allowed to associate with. As it's already been stated elsewhere, the Paladin is no longer under the restriction of not being able to join someone who is evil.
I think basically you might be given just a BIT more leniency. Maybe not a lot but a little. I always saw Lawful Good as having the possibility of being more than a person, but an ideal. You weren't just a man/woman but something to look up to.
You were hope.
I see Lawful Good as a possibility to have honor and kindness in your heart. The belief that just because the world seems to be a place where sometimes you have to do evil to do good that MAYBE that's not how it SHOULD be.
The world deserves better and you want to do your best to give the world that better option.
I, like others, have often seen the Paladin portrayed as a jerk and such for being so holier than thou that it makes you sick. However I think it's just a really bad image instilled from past experiences/additions. The potential is there to make a very memorable and heroic character that isn't full of themselves. The group rogue has a love for gambling and women? It's his life to live and it's not your place to tell him how to live. He may be happier that way because that's just how he is. But it doesn't affect your OWN sense of honor and heart.
With Pathfinder getting rid of the rule to group with evil characters you also have to look at ways to roleplay it. The sorceress is evil and out for her own twisted gains but at least in your presence she is doing good and working towards positive goals, even if you have a feeling they have not changed their ways. Also, without you in their life, would they ever have ANY chance to change? Would they do WORSE evil when you're not there. If they haven't done anything truly horrid or vile (at least in front of you) than what right do you have to smite them just because their hearts are filled with so much hate and malice? Do they not deserve a chance to change?
... can you help?
To me a paladin is many things but not a jerk. They are kind and compassionate. They want to see the good in people even if everyone else in the world refuses to believe in them. If a repenting villain screws up, you're there to help them stand up and never quit trying.
So I guess as I said ... a paladin is hope in something better.
(Sorry for the long winded response, I just wanted to portray my view of the paladin not as the hard ass but the protector and helpful type)
|
See that's the point a few of you are missing. Being LG is so infused in what a paladin
No it is not. You can have a holy relgious champion who still can do all the things a Paladin can just not limited to one alignment. It's funny to read some of the responses to this. It's as if by having the Paladin any other aligment besides LG your asking a poster to redefine his whole existence. All the reasons given for only LG alignments are not even based on gameplay but opinion.
is it is like taking armor away from clerics or allowing a druids to use any weapon and wear plate mail.
This type of reasonong is as bad as the poster who wanted Wizards to wear armor and fighters to cast spells. It is no compariosn imo. What your saying is redefing all of a class. Some on this board like myself just want an extra option in terms of alignment.
Thank you, that last bit(AL options) is what I want to happen.
|
|
What your saying is redefining all of a class. Some on this board like myself just want an extra option in terms of alignment.But you still are not getting it...
Lawful Good = Paladin
Paladin = Lawful GoodDoing something as *minor* as "adding an alignment option" COMPLETELY changes what a Paladin is. If you don't get that then there's no point in continuing this conversation. I'm out!
Why not call all those martial types who fight for their god or belief "Holy Warriors".
If we call the LG Holy Warrior "Paladin", there is no issue to fight over.Paladin is still LG and will saty LG.
But there are others who are not LG and might have different abilities.
|
|
Exactly, which is what I am saying. A PrC that gives you exactly what you want IS NOT THE SAME as changing the druid so it can wear heavy armor and use all weapons.
Never said it was.
A paladin IS a martial defender of the weak and a seeker of truth and justice. A paladin IS a paragon of good and a shining example of all that is good and righteous in the world.
And you can't be Chaotic while being all those things why?
Chaos is one of the things that are good and righteous in the world.
|
To me a paladin is many things but not a jerk. They are kind and compassionate. They want to see the good in people even if everyone else in the world refuses to believe in them. If a repenting villain screws up, you're there to help them stand up and never quit trying.
I think that point would fit very well with a paladin of Sarenae.
|
|
Doing something as *minor* as "adding an alignment option" COMPLETELY changes what a Paladin is. If you don't get that then there's no point in continuing this conversation. I'm out!
Well that's one less closed-minded person to deal with, though I didn't want people to leave this part of the pally discussion.
It does not change what the paladin is at all!
Paladin=Holy Warrior
Holy Warrior= N/C/LG
Paladins want to fight tyranny right? Protect the innocent and bring justice to the unjust? Sound like Robin Hood a little bit doesn't it? And we all know he wasn't Lawful.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
Thank you, that last bit(extra opptions in terms of AL) is what I want to happen.
Then do the work yourself and Pathfinderise the variants in Unearthed Arcana. You could even publish it as a PDF, and try to make money like everyone else in the industry, since all the components are OGL.
Or you could play a game that allows paladins of every alignment.
Or you could actually respect the history of the class in the game and accept that the Paladin is a very simple concept, it's the knight on the white charger who comes in to save the day. It's King Arthur. It is not "generic holy champion". The Cleric, especially with the variant in the Campaign Setting, covers that quite nicely.
I don't know why I'm arguing this. You'll always want a watered down Paladin for some reason because the Paladin doesn't fit your playstyle. In which case, DON'T PLAY A PALADIN. It really is like complaining that Bards have to have a perform skill and aren't just rogues that can cast spells. If you don't like the concept of the class, don't play it.
|
|
Doing something as *minor* as "adding an alignment option" COMPLETELY changes what a Paladin is. If you don't get that then there's no point in continuing this conversation. I'm out!Well that's one less closed-minded person to deal with, though I didn't want people to leave this part of the pally discussion.
Mr Pot, I have a Mr Kettle on line two for you.
|
|
Right, I see a Cayden Cailean "Holy Warrior" (to avoid the Word Paladin that is so strongly associated with LG) with a CG alignment rather than LG.And you can't be Chaotic while being all those things why?
Chaos is one of the things that are good and righteous in the world.
See everyone? Options fit the paladin perfectly.
|
|
Mr Pot, I have a Mr Kettle on line two for you.Doing something as *minor* as "adding an alignment option" COMPLETELY changes what a Paladin is. If you don't get that then there's no point in continuing this conversation. I'm out!Well that's one less closed-minded person to deal with, though I didn't want people to leave this part of the pally discussion.
Look I found another closed-mind.
I am not a closed-mind. I can see many possiblities.
Add another vote for Paladin = LG only. However, I will now make a vain attempt to get the discussion back on track.
I love the "lock on" version of Smite Evil (I read it as multiple "old smites" until the BBEG is dead). I am a bit concerned that it might be a bit too powerful in a lot of adventures where the BBEG wants to take the party on solo. I haven't read a ton of adventures, but at least in the APs, this happens quite frequently.
Do you think this is going to be unbalancing, or will it just be the Paladin's time to shine? I guess you can toss in some more Neutral BBEG (BBNG?) if the Paladin starts to steal the spotlight.
Add another vote for Paladin = LG only. However, I will now make a vain attempt to get the discussion back on track.
I love the "lock on" version of Smite Evil (I read it as multiple "old smites" until the BBEG is dead). I am a bit concerned that it might be a bit too powerful in a lot of adventures where the BBEG wants to take the party on solo. I haven't read a ton of adventures, but at least in the APs, this happens quite frequently.
Do you think this is going to be unbalancing, or will it just be the Paladin's time to shine? I guess you can toss in some more Neutral BBEG (BBNG?) if the Paladin starts to steal the spotlight.
Applause for attempting to redirect back to a review of the new class instead of constantly rehashing what people want a paladin to be etc. I've said all I can say on the subject, some people disagree on what they imagine a Paladin to be etc. I am consoled that the class retains its LG requirement (and assume it always will) and will now respond to your query.
I too like the lock-on ability of smite. In previous editions we disparagingly referred to Smite Evil as Flick Evil because it was next to useless. It seems much cooler now. I am not 100% sure it isn't too strong now but I will reserve judgment until I see the final rules. In general though I am glad it got boosted.
|
|
Add another vote for Paladin = LG only. However, I will now make a vain attempt to get the discussion back on track.
I love the "lock on" version of Smite Evil (I read it as multiple "old smites" until the BBEG is dead). I am a bit concerned that it might be a bit too powerful in a lot of adventures where the BBEG wants to take the party on solo. I haven't read a ton of adventures, but at least in the APs, this happens quite frequently.
Do you think this is going to be unbalancing, or will it just be the Paladin's time to shine? I guess you can toss in some more Neutral BBEG (BBNG?) if the Paladin starts to steal the spotlight.
Minions and Summoned monsters are your friends with the new Paladin. It is VERY powerful against solo evil, especially the kind that has otherwise impenetrable damage reduction (Just playing through Escape from Old Korvosa, and without the Paladin's smites getting through the DR and SR is TOUGH), but it is not invincible. Ranged touch spells and Reflex saves are good options, especially if they don't deal damage. Paladin's can take a massive licking in pure damage terms with the swift channel ability. Staying out of melee is also good, and if the party bunches up to take account of his aura, AoEs are a must.
EDIT: However, the forum version (with the 1/2 level d6 smite) was also powerful. Our Paladin soloed a Rakshasa with that one in three rounds. (Ok, and the Holy ability of his Divine Bonded sword)
Paladins want to fight tyranny right? Protect the innocent and bring justice to the unjust? Sound like Robin Hood a little bit doesn't it? And we all know he wasn't Lawful.
Sorry to disappoint you, but Robin Hood was far from being a CG.
He was a loyal servant of King Richard - the legitimate ruler - and didn't want Prince John to rule in such a twisted manner in his absence.
Fighting an illegitimate ruler for the sake of the rightful one is not CG - it's LG.
In fact, the 'steal the riches to give to the poor' is an over-exemplification, or else he would have done even under the government of King Richard; no, he was the Baron of Loxley (at least, in some representations), and as such taxation was legitimate for him - the only fact was, he didn't want an usurper to take the money who was destined for the true king (plus, Prince John's taxation was vexatory, and the citizens were suffering, while under King Richard this was not the case).
This is an extract from Wikipedia (see the complete source here ):
'The early ballads are also quite clear on Robin Hood's social status: he is a yeoman. While the precise meaning of this term changed over time, including free retainers of an aristocrat and small landholders, it always referred to commoners. The essence of it in the present context was "neither a knight nor a peasant or 'husbonde' but something in between". We know that artisans (such as millers) were among those regarded as "yeomen" in the 14th century. From the 16th century on there were attempts to elevate Robin Hood to the nobility and in two extremely influential plays Anthony Munday presented him at the very end of the 16th century as the Earl of Huntingdon, as he is still commonly presented in modern times.'
Obviously, Robin was NOT a D&D/PF Paladin (this is assured) - but a LG Ranger, IMHO.
Of course, YMMV.
(I truly hope I didn't start another off-topic thread...)
Hey Greg, nice to meet another Jack Vance fan at this party :)
Ahem!
Sorry to disappoint you, but Robin Hood was far from being a CG.He was a loyal servant of King Richard - the legitimate ruler - and didn't want Prince John to rule in such a twisted manner in his absence.
Fighting an illegitimate ruler for the sake of the rightful one is not CG - it's LG.
Except that John was the legit ruler in Richard's absence. Rather than obey the appropriately-appointed authorities, he chose to follow his own conscience. Archetypal CG all that way, baby.
Hey Greg, nice to meet another Jack Vance fan at this party :)Ahem!
]
SO Kirth? How is retirement after finally finishing your lifes work so young? Find a new purpose? And would you mind printing me up a few SVU?
:P
wasgreg
|
You know, I think I'll drop the double damage from smites vs. specific types in my games. I don't like the paladin stepping on the rangers toes the way this feature allows them to, and just doesn't feel right to me, I said that multiple times on the design board, but oh well, not everyone will be pleased. Still I just don't like the notion and think I'm gonna not allow it. Everything else will work just like the class says it will, just no double damage vs. types. Their immunities are allready what make them shine when fighting creatures of those types which heavily rely on many of those things paladins are immune too. I said it once and I'll say it again. A paladin doesn't consider one type of evil "more important" than another, this ability suggests that demons/devils/dragons that are evil are somehow worse than evil clerics/mind flayers/etc. and it just hurts the image of the paladin to me.
I do love that he moved the ignore DR to all enemies instead of just against those of the type that it deals double damage against. I hated that and glad to see my campaign to get that just become a feature of smite was listened to :)
And would you mind printing me up a few SVU?
"I have swindled Kokor Hekkus! I have swindled Interchange!"
In the end, it was decided that smite evil really should last until your evil foe is vanquished, making this ability useful even if you miss with your first attack.What if this means.. you activate smite..but it stays active even if you continue to miss the first umm seven times and the fighter ends up killing the bad thing. So the foe is vanquished and the smite disapates. But each use of smite still requires an activation if it connects
I seem to remember a post earlier ( maybe around page seven? ) that said seemed to suggest this.
EDIT: But Were, why would you insist on dragging us back on topic :P
wasgreg
hang on have I misunderstood the smite mechanic?
so is it you activate it against a foe, and when you first hit (even if you miss a couple of times) then the smite is used; or
you activate it against a foe and everytime you swing against that foe you get the smite bonus whether that is 1 time or 8 times and it only uses up 1 smite?
does the deflection bonus last & last or run out after a while?
I would be much happier with the first scenario.
edit : sorry for focussing on the mechanical stuff : ) (and perhaps getting it all wrong)
Hmmmm, almost 500 posts since I asked this question. We now understand Law vs. Chaos, Good vs. Evil, Lie vs. Deceive, and even Charlemaigne vs. Gygax, but still no answer on this question.
I lurk. I wait. I hunger.
|
|
A crusader is pretty much a cleric, that is after all what they are based off of.The paladin is based off the crusaders. I.E. the knights templar, hospitaliers, etc (and I could go into a whole diatribe about how they weren't particularly good, ethical, or wholesome in their beliefs and practices but that discussion is best left elsewhere).
err no...
Cleric is based on Templas/Hospitalers/Teoutonsthe Paladin is based on the 12 Paladins of Charlemagne... their oaths and code of conduct believe me... make this paladin's code pale in comparison...
[snip]
you activate it against a foe and everytime you swing against that foe you get the smite bonus whether that is 1 time or 8 times and it only uses up 1 smite?
[snip]
does the deflection bonus last & last
[snip]
I don't have any more insight than you into this issue, but I read it as the above. That's what referred to as "lock on".
I would further guess that the paladin can only have one smite target at a time, which would prevent them from abusing it by just declaring everyone a smite target. It probably also means a sufficiently prepared monster could get a minion declared as a smite target, then have that minion hide in the back and let the paladin waste their smite.
I probably shouldn't have said anything, since I can neither confirm nor deny that I have seen the new rules.
I'll simply encourage one and all to read the preview again and see what it says, noting that the two statements (not wasted if you miss the first round + lasts until foe is vanquished) are not mutually exclusive categories.
Or one could read the reviews from PaizoCon of people playing Paladins or playing against Paladins (Scarlet Monastery game). The reports of the PC undead Rogue being smited into oblivion by the NPC Paladin were particularly enlightening.
"Smite lasts until foe is vanquished" - not hit, struck, beaten-down, stung, 'as long as you have smites to hit with', nor horribly-mutiliated-by-a-big-hunk-of-steel.
Vanquish (m-w.com):
1 : to overcome in battle : subdue completely
2 : to defeat in a conflict or contest
3 : to gain mastery over (an emotion, passion, or temptation) <vanquish your fear>
Previously you had one single swing, so mention of "miss on your first swing" makes complete sense in this context. It makes sense in additional contexts, yes, but this context is *Vanquished*.
It may not be a defined game term (yet), but it's pretty darn clear.
So we have reports from PaizoCon; consistent and rather clear language [April 1st D21 stuff (now in the FAQ); PaizoCon preview; and Blog Preview all use the same or similar language]; and some hints from other sources. All point to the "lock on and keep smashing" interpretation of smite.
It *IS* mind-bogglingly powerful, such that most of us are collectively saying "what? - they can't mean that!?!" That's how it looks to be though.
All that said, can anyone (Blake?) find an interpretation of what was actually written, as a whole, to mean something else? Surprises are always exciting :)
You know, I think I'll drop the double damage from smites vs. specific types in my games. I don't like the paladin stepping on the rangers toes the way this feature allows them to, and just doesn't feel right to me, I said that multiple times on the design board, but oh well, not everyone will be pleased. Still I just don't like the notion and think I'm gonna not allow it. Everything else will work just like the class says it will, just no double damage vs. types. Their immunities are allready what make them shine when fighting creatures of those types which heavily rely on many of those things paladins are immune too. I said it once and I'll say it again. A paladin doesn't consider one type of evil "more important" than another, this ability suggests that demons/devils/dragons that are evil are somehow worse than evil clerics/mind flayers/etc. and it just hurts the image of the paladin to me.
I do love that he moved the ignore DR to all enemies instead of just against those of the type that it deals double damage against. I hated that and glad to see my campaign to get that just become a feature of smite was listened to :)
Agree, see my last post. we agree it seams.
"Smite lasts until foe is vanquished" - not hit, struck, beaten-down, stung, 'as long as you have smites to hit with', nor horribly-mutiliated-by-a-big-hunk-of-steel.
Vanquish (m-w.com):
1 : to overcome in battle : subdue completely
2 : to defeat in a conflict or contest
3 : to gain mastery over (an emotion, passion, or temptation) <vanquish your fear>
Previously you had one single swing, so mention of "miss on your first swing" makes complete sense in this context. It makes sense in additional contexts, yes, but this context is *Vanquished*.
It may not be a defined game term (yet), but it's pretty darn clear.
Blah blah blah. Everyone knows what 'vanquished' means, and the definition of 'vanquished' is not in question here.
So we have reports from PaizoCon; consistent and rather clear language [April 1st D21 stuff (now in the FAQ); PaizoCon preview; and Blog Preview all use the same or similar language]; and some hints from other sources. All point to the "lock on and keep smashing" interpretation of smite.
It *IS* mind-bogglingly powerful, such that most of us are collectively saying "what? - they can't mean that!?!" That's how it looks to be though.
All that said, can anyone (Blake?) find an interpretation of what was actually written, as a whole, to mean something else? Surprises are always exciting :)
I already did. On the first page, the third reply to the OP.
This is definitely my favorite preview so far. One of the weakest classes can now stand on its own two feat again.
LOL, why is she a "shiny happy people" in mithral full plate when she has no DEX mod. She really outta upgrade to adamantium.
Hey, does anyone know if the new rule that Smite Evil lasts until the foe is dead means:
1. You pick the target and your next attack gets the smite bonus, but that uses it up - the part that says "making this ability useful even if you miss with your first attack" sounds a bit like holding the charge, which may or may not mean that the "charge" of Smite Evil is expended (gone) when you finally hit the first time.
--or--
2. You pick the target and every attack you make from now until he dies gets the damage bonus - the part that says "smite evil really should last until your evil foe is vanquished" sounds like you use the ability one time and every attack gets the bonus until the enemy dies.
The wording could be interpreted either way. I really hope it's #2. I like it better that way.
To simplify (read the spoiler):
This either means:
1. Lock the ability onto a foe. Sometime between now and when that foe is vanquished the paladin may smite the foe once, "making this ability useful even if you miss with your first attack".
2. Lock the ability onto a foe. From now on until the foe is vanquished, all attacks by the paladin get the Smite Evil bonuses, so "smite evil really should last until your evil foe is vanquished".
(note that both quotes come from the paladin preview blog).
I can read the blog either way, though the second case seems to be the way it works.
The first case requires the inference that "making this ability useful even if you miss with your first attack" implies that the entire benefit of the Smite Evil may have been squandered by missing the first attack, but now with the new rule, the entire benefit can be achieved on your second attack if you miss with your first attack. That's reading a lot into the statement that might not be there - or it could be a hint that something is there and we should be operating under this inference.
|
|
Well that's one less closed-minded person to deal with, though I didn't want people to leave this part of the pally discussion.
It does not change what the paladin is at all!
Paladin=Holy Warrior
Holy Warrior= N/C/LGPaladins want to fight tyranny right? Protect the innocent and bring justice to the unjust? Sound like Robin Hood a little bit doesn't it? And we all know he wasn't Lawful.
not in this edition
and a Paladin can fight opresion and tirany... just in a lawful wy, without hidding in the woods
All that said, can anyone (Blake?) find an interpretation of what was actually written, as a whole, to mean something else? Surprises are always exciting :)I already did. On the first page, the third reply to the OP.
Yes, I know - I called you out since I thought you'd be the best one to dissect the language.
1. Lock the ability onto a foe. Sometime between now and when that foe is vanquished the paladin may smite the foe once, "making this ability useful even if you miss with your first attack".
2. Lock the ability onto a foe. From now on until the foe is vanquished, all attacks by the paladin get the Smite Evil bonuses, so "smite evil really should last until your evil foe is vanquished".
(note that both quotes come from the paladin preview blog).
Alright, so your focus is essentially on the "last until" part, gotcha, makes sense. "Last until" could be the 'charge' and attack/defense bonuses lasting until you manage to land a blow, and not a change from an attack based effect to an opponent-condition timeline.
I think it's a stretch (as you of course noted it could be), but that makes it more interesting - thanks Blake!
|
|
Agree, see my last post. we agree it seams.
Oh my GOD I HATE THE F#~#ING POST EATING BUG I HAVE TRIED TO TYPE THIS STUPID F$+!ING MESSAGE THREE F#+!ING TIMES NOW!
Okay now that that's out of my system. Your post actually was the impetus for my post since you brought up something that was bothering me but I hadn't bothered to post about.
Anywho I will be making two changes to the paladin when the class is released. These changes aren't about balance so much as flavor. The first is not allowing the bonus damage to certain creature types, the second is that since they cast from charisma, they cast spontaneously from their whole list Ala the warmage, if they had stayed wisdom I would've kept them memorization based, but they were changed and I don't like the idea that cha casters have to memorize, it breaks what I see as the set up of casting stats.
Anywho regardless the Paladin has had many improvements over the suckfest that was the 3.5 paladin so a big kudos to Jason even if we don't see eye to eye on the paladins role or the break down of casting stats.
|
|
But you still are not getting it...
I'm getting it I'm just not agreeing with you.
Lawful Good = Paladin
Paladin = Lawful Good
In yopur opinion which not all of us share.
Doing something as *minor* as "adding an alignment option" COMPLETELY changes what a Paladin is. If you don't get that then there's no point in continuing this conversation. I'm out!
I agree there is no point in continuing this conversation. You have only one viewpoint, seem unable to understand that others viewpoints might differ and are not backing it up with any real facts or proof besides opinion.
|
|
It does not change what the paladin is at all!
Paladin=Holy Warrior
Holy Warrior= N/C/LG
We have that already in the core rules.
Holy Warrior = N/C/LG - they're called Clerics.
That paladin is it's own class.
To me it sounds like what you're suggesting is you want a class with all the kickass flashy great abilities of the Paladin - but don't want to have to bother with the restriction of the class that actually define the class.
Thats one of the failsafes of the class - if you want all that great ability to kick evil butt, you gotta have to "pay the price" in the way that your line you must walk is narrow.
To simply remove all these restrictions and allow a person free reign of acting however you'd like and keep the power of the class in tact - would be bad design. Thats having your cake and eating it for no better choice of metaphor.
I don't have a problem with other classes being created eventually allowing more range of alignment and devoted to a pantheon etc - but make them akin to the paladin in mechanics is not appropriate if you're not limiting their code.
And having the paladin as is - as a class on its own, with the restrictions as they are and the evil defeating power it possesses is what draws those people who enjoy the class (like myself) to it.
To dilute the water out there by providing those options would simply make that class less special. That is the crux of my opposition. And I stand that the restrictive nature of the paladin from a roleplaying perspective and theme, is not a great balancing factor - but it is there nonetheless to allow the paladin to be overly great in specific situations (against those evil creatures a few times per day) and still not allow them to be the 1st choice of a character for everyone - because the restrictive nature weeds out those who don't want to have to have "rules" on their behavior - which is true for many RPGamers.
Robert
I think when you bluff you're playing a game. I don't imagine paladins being so playful, even though the player of a paladin might be.And yet that's a very limiting stereotype. A paladin can be playful, have a sense of humor, not take himself too seriously, be good with kids, have copious amounts of (legal and appropriate) sex, etc. Hang out with the right priests at a wedding or whatever, and they can be hilarious people, particularly when they've got a few drinks in them (and I'm talking the Catholics here, the ones known for stuffiness!). And they can do all that and remain law-abiding decent folk with a deep wellspring of compassion and empathy.
While I've never played with a paladin who wasn't a self-righteous party-attacking game-disruptive jerk, they *don't have to be that way.*
Can a Paladin swing his sword one way at the hobgoblin warchief and then swing it back around to catch him off-guard? Are his fighting tactics going to be limited by not doing anything that might seem deceptive, such as a Bluff / Feint maneuver, or even standard sword-fighting tactics like turning sideways to make it harder to tell where the sword is aiming? Can a Paladin function at all in one of the many adventures where the party has to sneak into another community? Is he required to obey the laws if the laws are wicked?
(...and more stuff)
Read the entire thread, really liked this and just wanted to say that. And, as anyone who's ever had a kid might attest--you can't tell them the truth, all the time. Some truths have to wait until they're older, and sometimes a lie-at-the-moment is kinder and allows the kid to survive, or even maintain that sacred innocence which we so prize (Life is Beautiful comes to mind), and let that kid continue to live a meaningful life until they're at an age to handle it. It does not excuse all lies, and I'm not sure it even creates a shade of gray--it says, do what is good and just. Act with what is merciful, and if we see mercy as an inherit part of good, then that clarifies quite a bit on what could be allowed or not.
On the scale of "goodness" in DnD, LG is supposed to be the "highest ideal." If mercy is part of that ideal, it perhaps should be included...though a paladin individually may struggle with it, believing that strength comes through its lack. Props to them, though.
The above only works so long as they're /consistent/ towards their pursuit of good and attitude towards it. I suppose what I'm arguing for here is consistency, and yes, that personal code of honor that makes the paladin as an individual so reliable, and that mercy can be a part of it. That also, the same as many have said here, the paladin need not be roleplayed in only one way.
Chaos, on the other hand, is different because it is /inconsistent/. While I don't begrudge the concept of CG, I have to say, is a CG character as trustworthy? And then I have to ask myself, should a paladin be trustworthy? Should they 'feel' trustworthy? I would look for that in leadership, or the very concept of a paladin or knight errant. True, the CG is good, though, and that might be its saving grace.
So, perhaps look to the /setting/ to define if a CG paladin is viable or not, and be sure it's well-defined and fleshed out, that it adds to the game as a whole, that it has a purpose, flair, color, flavor. The Liberator as a concept, paladin-like class fits this to a degree. Their remove fatigue ability is consistent with their holy aims...though I often wonder if their smite shouldn't be reworked to aim at 'slavers' instead of evil. It would need to be a specific type of slavers (the kind who dominate a race and place it in chains), and worked into the setting--but I believe it could work.
Then again, a ranger could fill a similar role, couldn't they? And with a ranger's spells being divine in nature, it's easy to argue that there's a personal, deity-based tie there, too, if that's how you wanted to play it.
Also, props to all the comments of, assery isn't inherit to the paladin--it's often the players. Or, the players who insist on playing the CE as soon as someone announces...yeah. Munchkin-ness, but we hope to mitigate it. :) There've been great books published on handling these sorts of conflicts. I tend to believe these conflicts are OOC in nature, and stem from not having seen campaigns like the one Mikaze was part of.
The divine feat issue sounds as though it could be solved with a simple word/rephrasing, like Jason N. suggested.
Wonderful stuff, great paladin revision. I'm running off to place a pre-order, now, and Galerion, too.
I agree there is no point in continuing this conversation. You have only one viewpoint, seem unable to understand that others viewpoints might differ and are not backing it up with any real facts or proof besides opinion.
Doing something as *minor* as "adding an alignment option" COMPLETELY changes what a Paladin is. If you don't get that then there's no point in continuing this conversation. I'm out!
What facts are there on this topic that Paladins should or should not be lawful good? How about history of the class, well since the release of AD&D all Paladins were required to be LG. There is no reason for pathfinder to change that. If they did they would by default not be compatable with 3.5, and that is one of their stated goals. Further the paladin is a special case class, it was built stronger perhaps then it would have been had it not been so tightly restricted by it's code and alignment. If it had been open for any alignment, or even any good one, it would have had to be less powerful. The restrictions placed on it by it's alignment are not small, the lack of any flexiblity in this adds even more to it.
Why all the debate about a paladin's alignment. If you want to have a chaotic good paladin, it's just about the easiest house rule in the world.
|
|
I agree there is no point in continuing this conversation. You have only one viewpoint, seem unable to understand that others viewpoints might differ and are not backing it up with any real facts or proof besides opinion.
Well really that's all there is - discussion of opinions. Obviously there are differing viewpoints among people, that's what develops individuality. But calling a spade a spade - this is just a discussion of opinions.
If it's facts you're looking for on whether a paladin is lawful good - you need not look any further than every D&D core rule release since 1978 when the Players Handbook said plainly "A paladin must be Lawful Good Alignment"
Since - no deviation has occured.
It's still that way with the OGL compatible Paladin in Pathfinder.
That's the only fact mentionable. Whether history shows us that "paladin-like" organizations or sects or whatever, or fictional characters in novels and epic poems acted congruently to the mandated code of the paladin (as it pertains to the game of D&D) is not a hill to die on. It may be what helped inspire, it may be what the game drew ideas from - but it is not in its entirety the one and only is all that ends all "truth" to compare to.
so there are no facts that "paladins" are anything other then Lawful Good except for the 30+ years of D&D tradition that has always listed them as Lawful Good with a strict code of conduct of honor and chivlary mandated into their class description.
In fact in previous editions - the restrictions didn't end there - they were not allowed to have more than 10 magic items in their possession (1 armor, 1 shield, 4 weapons, and 4 Misc Magic), they were expected to tithe 10% of all wealth to the church, and they had the toughest prereq ability scores to qualify including a minimum of 17 Charisma (in a system where humans didn't get a +2 to a player-chosen stat), and had to be human only and be lawful good. (and I still enjoyed the played the class often!)
So for those wanting options....I think 3rd edition did an admirable job in providing more options to the class overall and still kept the flavor in tact. If I had my way - I'd add back the magical item and tithing restrictions.
Robert
But you still are not getting it...Lawful Good = Paladin
Paladin = Lawful Good
In your opinion which not all of us share.
Actually he is stating fact, you are stating opinion. The Paladin in D&D has always been LG, and in the new PF rules will still be LG.
For you to say that the defining concept of what a paladin is should be changed, is your opinion. I like the idea of some sort of "paladin like" class for each deity that goes beyond what the cleric class provides, but I won't agree that the Paladin's alignment restriction should or even could be removed. If that happened it would no longer be a paladin.
|
|
Actually he is stating fact, you are stating opinion. The Paladin in D&D has always been LG, and in the new PF rules will still be LG.
The individual above you made it clear that he was referring to the Paladin as of the 1978 PHB, and so, he was indeed stating fact.
You are going one step further and leaving the 'fact' behind, as the Paladin predates the existence of the good alignment in D&D. Back in the day, before hardcovers, Paladins only had to be Lawful.
Is it relevant to this discussion? No. But a less dismissive and snotty tone might have been a little less likely to encourage people like me to get all pedantic on you. :)
Director of Games
|
Ok.. I think we have seen just about enough of the paladin alignment banter in this preview thread.
This is not being changed, as a matter of fact, it cannot be changed at this point. Folks seem to be arguing back and forth about how this should go, but lets not forget that this is your game.. and by that, I mean each of you. If you want CG paladins in your game, with different powers, that is your perogative. No one on this board, including me can stop you (not that I would want to.. because its YOUR game.. not mine).
I have seen this exact argument flare up more than once on multiple boards.. and this preview thread, which previews things that are now set in stone, is not the place.
If folks want to continue the alignment debate.. start a new thread. Further posts will be suppressed.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing