I'm actually not sure how much of a hardline stance I'm gonna be taking on inquisitors. I THINK I'm okay with an inquisitor who doesn't have a deity, but instead is an inquisitor of a philosophy or a dead god or something like that. It's certainly an interesting idea to open it up to inquisitors of Razmiran, for example...Clerics are the ones (in fact, the ONLY ones) whom the deities actually invest powers in, and clerics can be of any alignment.(And inquisitors. Sorry to nitpick.)
In situations where Clerics can ´worship´ and derive their powers from an ideal (i.e. not PFS Organized Play), I`m fine with Inquisitors also doing so. Saying they can do so from `dead` Gods doesn`t fly so much with me (though if ideals are allowed, they could presumably switch to venerating the ideals of their dead God). If you are cutting off Clerics of Aroden (from their source of power), it just seems wierd to have a bunch of dudes running around who can heal, cast spells and use special powers all directly deriving from Mr. Dead Diety (i.e. most commoners could believe that such people are Clerics of Aroden). And if you can gain powers from a dead Diety, why can`t you worship a non-God, e.g. your pet hamster? Keeping Inquisitors on par with Clerics just seems alot better of an idea to me... [/my2c]
Allowing allegiance to non-divine individuals, like Razmir, to grant divine spells and abilities seems like a worse idea than ambiguously discussing Paladins of Asmodeus... just sayin´. (It also feels like it takes away some of the specialness of Oracles) I think Razmir would be better served by some specific Witch hexes / alt class powers / PrC (since Witches derive their power from un-named, but not specified to be Divine, sources and also have arcane healing spells to fill in for Clerics). Or just use Bards and Rangers (probably a signifigant class variant / PrC) to fill in for Clerics and Paladins/Inquisitors of Razmir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
RE non LG/CE ¨Paladins¨, I think between ¨Fighter¨/Cleric multiclasses, Holy Warrior (Full BAB/HD) Clerics, Inquisitors, and Battle Oracles (who worship and serve a God because they want to, not because they need to do so to gain their powers - so it doesn`t matter if their God holds the Battle/War domain), that there are plenty of mechanical ways to build a Holy Warrior dedicated to ideals that don`t fit LG/CE.
If anything, I think the ¨Para Paladins¨ (CG, NG, NE, LN, LE...) could best be done as a PrC which can be entered by ANY (or most) of those base class combinations. I think it`d be pretty easy to progress the power of abilities already gained, and add specific abilities evocative of the Alignment in question. Using Oracle as a base, rather than Cleric, actually seems great to me since Paladins themselves don`t actually receive their powers from a Diety - the Oracle would be choosing to focus their own divine powers by willingly adopting the code or whatever requirements of the Para-Paladin PrC. CHA is already an ability in play for either Cleric and Oracle based builds. It probably would be a 10 level max PrC, and recognize that alot of characters wouldn`t take all 10 levels in a 20 level build. ...I don`t know, if all of such PrC`s were written up together, maybe call it (Alignment) ¨Exemplar¨ or something, to make clear that nobody is going to mistake it for a Paladin (or Anti-Paladin).
There's also the question of "How much belief does it take to power a portfolio/spell/magic?" question, where any sufficient belief could "grant" spells (though not like there is any particular "conscious" decision to it)-- but that's a whole other book and whole other thread.
So in the end, we abandoned the templar concept because it's simply not worth doing.
The word "templar" is a good one though, and some day we might end up using it for something else entirely.
James, since you are still swinging though here, can I say a belated +1, but also: The word "Hospitaller" is equally as good (IMO) and one I'd love to see included if Templar comes back around. It's also been covered much less frequently.
Hospitaller (n.), One who Hospitals
:P
The game already supports a robin-hood style character—the ranger.
Good job dodging the issue.
Good job dodging the issue.
The game already supports a robin-hood style character—the ranger.
I don't think it's good form to take potshots at the Paizo staff when they're taking the time to get into these threads in the 1st place. It's fine if you don't agree w/ what they're saying, but no need to be antagonistic or snarky.
All that does is make them defensive and/or less inclined to speak up. Which is counterproductive, right? We post b/c at some point we DO want Paizo staff to pipe in on issues. Obviously we don't have to agree w/ whatever they're saying. But there's a way to express that a little more tactfully.
/soapbox
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
In the Cult of Razmir section I wrote up for the Faction Guide, part of their faction schtick is hunting down healing magic items and recruiting bards as "priests" that can heal. I think it's totally fair game in the APG age for them to recruit witches to do the same.
Allowing divine casters serving Razmir, though, that does seem pretty cheesy. Stinky-cheesy, like Limburger.
|
In the Cult of Razmir section I wrote up for the Faction Guide, part of their faction schtick is hunting down healing magic items and recruiting bards as "priests" that can heal. I think it's totally fair game in the APG age for them to recruit witches to do the same.
Allowing divine casters serving Razmir, though, that does seem pretty cheesy. Stinky-cheesy, like Limburger.
I remember in the Realms, even Rangers had to pick a god, but is that the case in Golarion?
Rangers, Adepts, Oracles, Inquisitors, possibly even Druids and Paladins, might not have any requirement to follow a specific diety, and provide sources of 'divine' magic that doesn't directly come from a god. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't let a Druid of Razmir fly, but if a Ranger can just be a bounty hunter or 'guy who *really* hates orcs' and gets divine spells anyway, then I don't really see any rationale for forbidden them to follow a fake god, since they seem to be able to follow no god at all...
But yeah, my own 'priests' of Razmir have been Bards. The Bard class is just flat-out good at that role (arguably better than the Cleric class, which isn't as good at the stuff we associate with priestly duties today and is a pretty much unskilled head-basher / walking field hospital).
They've also got access to the ability to use shadow conjuration spells to fake healing spells, although that's tucked away in Gods & Magic, and suggests that Razmir himself still has some loyalty to (and support from) his own diety.
|
Good job dodging the issue.
The game already supports a robin-hood style character—the ranger.
Otherwise known as accurately answering the criticism!
The poster was creating a false scenario to justify some weird attitude that: "The rules are messed up if I can't make Robin Hood a paladin."
They were doing that by infering/implying that only a paladin can defend the weak from the unjust. I thought that was what most good character did.
I find it absurd that anyone should suggest Robin Hood as a paladin. Robin Hood doesn't smite foes, calling on god to aid him in his endeavour - that's for Charlemagne, Arthur and co.
Robin Hood doesn't set out a clear code of behaviour to be followed at all times (you might infer a code of behaviour but he does not set one out and he is quite flexible).
Robin Hood doesn't have a loyal and trusty steed to fight at his side, or a blessed/magical weapon.
Robin Hood doesn't heal people by laying on hands.
However...
Robin Hood does have an animal companion, does survive in the woodland, does specialise in the longbow, does have skills in stealth and sneakiness...
To start with, I'm in full agreement with your post, Geraint, but I don't recall any of the ballads or novels (or latter-day media versions) mentioning a trusty animal companion. Unless you're being very rude to Much the Miller's son or Little John, that is.
Rangers do not have to have a animal companion, and Robin Hood could have been a fighter just as easy as a ranger.
|
Good job dodging the issue.
The game already supports a robin-hood style character—the ranger.Otherwise known as accurately answering the criticism!
The poster was creating a false scenario to justify some weird attitude that: "The rules are messed up if I can't make Robin Hood a paladin."
They were doing that by infering/implying that only a paladin can defend the weak from the unjust. I thought that was what most good character did.
I find it absurd that anyone should suggest Robin Hood as a paladin. Robin Hood doesn't smite foes, calling on god to aid him in his endeavour - that's for Charlemagne, Arthur and co.
Robin Hood doesn't set out a clear code of behaviour to be followed at all times (you might infer a code of behaviour but he does not set one out and he is quite flexible).
Robin Hood doesn't have a loyal and trusty steed to fight at his side, or a blessed/magical weapon.
Robin Hood doesn't heal people by laying on hands.However...
Robin Hood does have an animal companion, does survive in the woodland, does specialise in the longbow, does have skills in stealth and sneakiness...
actually it's seeing a tree when I'm talking about a FOREST. "Robin Hood" was a character archetype EXAMPLE, like say John Wayne's character from Tombstone or Kuwabatake Sanjuro from Yojimbo. I want to play a paladin who CAN lie, use guile, Trick his enemies, and when he has them exactly where he wants them, Smitetation will occur.
or as a friend opened up some home-brew with:
Fundamentally, I've never been happy with the modern conception of the paladin. I loved the sense of justice, the emphasis on mercy. I hated the fluff and the mechanical execution, the sense of deep constraint and a loss of most of what made them a strong class in previous editions. But more than that, Paladin felt to me like it had lost its soul, lost its shine. I didn't get excited about them. In fact, as a GM, I openly dreaded having one in my group. They caused conflict. Lagged, demanded special treatment without offering special benefits to the play-group. I really promote a sense of the players as a team. I'm old fashioned. Party conflict isn't my gig. So here's this hero, and what he does, is he squabbles and casts a bit, and burns through his healing reserves like a speed-freak on a unicycle. NO.I'm not really about big design goals. I'm not really into the huge archetyping. I believe in simple role-slicing, and maximizing player freedom. So where to go with paladins? First step, is simple. These are men who are direct, clever, and subtle all at the same time. So we seek elegance in mechanics, and a slow growth of complementary features. Our paladins are men of absolutes, tempered in the black and heady fury of reality. They know that the world doesn't work the way they do, and... They. Don't. Care.
instead; thanks to that damn "lawful" 90% of the DM's I have known, demand I be Miko from OoTS; with an extra helping of "honor before Reason" to boot.
|
James, since you are still swinging though here, can I say a belated +1, but also: The word "Hospitaller" is equally as good (IMO) and one I'd love to see included if Templar comes back around. It's also been covered much less frequently.
Hospitaller is an Archetype for Paladins (they already used the word).
Good job dodging the issue.
The game already supports a robin-hood style character—the ranger.Otherwise known as accurately answering the criticism!
The poster was creating a false scenario to justify some weird attitude that: "The rules are messed up if I can't make Robin Hood a paladin."
They were doing that by infering/implying that only a paladin can defend the weak from the unjust. I thought that was what most good character did.
I find it absurd that anyone should suggest Robin Hood as a paladin. Robin Hood doesn't smite foes, calling on god to aid him in his endeavour - that's for Charlemagne, Arthur and co.
Robin Hood doesn't set out a clear code of behaviour to be followed at all times (you might infer a code of behaviour but he does not set one out and he is quite flexible).
Robin Hood doesn't have a loyal and trusty steed to fight at his side, or a blessed/magical weapon.
Robin Hood doesn't heal people by laying on hands.However...
Robin Hood does have an animal companion, does survive in the woodland, does specialise in the longbow, does have skills in stealth and sneakiness...
The point, which obviously escaped you, is that you can't make a CG Paladin. For what reason? Because Jacobs thinks you only need the Paladin and the Paladin's Evil Twin? What Paladins are going to serve the CG gods or the LE gods?
They are called clerics, inquisitors also works
To start with, I'm in full agreement with your post, Geraint, but I don't recall any of the ballads or novels (or latter-day media versions) mentioning a trusty animal companion. Unless you're being very rude to Much the Miller's son or Little John, that is.Rangers can choose other options than animal companion.
That's bloody lovely and all but he SAID Robin Hood has an ANIMAL COMPANION.
How does everyone around here type with their head in the sand?
They are called clerics, inquisitors also works
Ok. Paladins and Antipaladins have no place in the game. They are immediately to be removed as redundant and useless.
Nope paladin is the champion of good, anti=paladin is the champion of evil
Clerics, star cavaliers and inquisitors are the champions of gods.
Nope paladin is the champion of good, anti=paladin is the champion of evil
What about Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil?
Clerics, star cavaliers and inquisitors are the champions of gods.
Not what the Paladin page says.
|
|
They are called clerics, inquisitors also works
So holy warriors of Gorum, the Lord of War, an animated suit of spiked plate armor, are explicitly going to be less skilled at fighting, less trained in the use of weapons, less rugged and limited to lighter armor, than holy warriors of Erastil, the longbow wielding animal-skin clad god of family, agriculture and the hunt, or Shelyn, patron of the arts, goddess of beauty, or Abadar, god of bankers?
If this were the design paradigm, then Golarion's dieties were not designed with it in mind.
No, I just don't bother to read every post.
How does everyone around here type with their head in the sand?
Your reply requires you to have either not read or not understood the post you replied to.
What about Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil?
Again, Clerics, star cavaliers and inquisitors
In pathFINDER LG is perfect good. It's good at its very best, not lying, acting with honor, boyscout, super man good.
CE however is evil at its worse, destructive, vengeful full of malice and hate just to hurt and because it can.
So the champion for all that is good and right strives toward perfect good and lives by a code even most LG folks can't. While the champion for all that is vile and evil does the same, he strives to spread evil and destruction as far as he can.
They are called clerics, inquisitors also worksSo holy warriors of Gorum, the Lord of War, an animated suit of spiked plate armor, are explicitly going to be less skilled at fighting, less trained in the use of weapons, less rugged and limited to lighter armor, than holy warriors of Erastil,
No, to his paladins yes but not his holy warroirs
Again, Clerics, star cavaliers and inquisitors
What about Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil?
Then why do Paladins (LAWFUL Good) or Anti-Paladins (CHAOTIC Evil) exist? They can't be paragons of the Good/Evil axis because they are LITERALLY bound to adhere to their assigned Law/Chaos axis. Not only that, but at least the Paladin is LITERALLY bound to serve a deity. It's a bloody Divine class granted spells and abilities by the deity he MUST SERVE. You don't get to be a Paladin of a damn ideal. Paladins are the martial servants of the gods. To insist there shouldn't be one of each superaxis is self-important ignorance and to embrace that decision is fanboyism.
No they are bound to be Lawful and good because of the code. Make your CG paladin as soon as he takes the code he starts being LG or falls, kinda that simple.
Paladins often are champions of a god, however they are not that gods holy warroirs, they are champions of good, who happen to agree with that gods ideas and worships him
In golarion only clerics must have a god, even paladins god does not grant him his power it seems. And under the core rules, yeah you do not need a god.
No battle paladins are LG, he can houserule it if he likes.
Paladins often are champions of a god, however they are not that gods holy warroirs,
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful. Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future.
Holy Champion (Su)
At 20th level, a paladin becomes a conduit for the power of her god.
Does the book say something different than the SRD?
they are champions of good, who happen to agree with that gods ideas and worships him
Asinine.
In golarion only clerics must have a god, even paladins god does not grant him his power it seems. And under the core rules, yeah you do not need a god.
So Paladins pull divine powers out of their ass and need atonement for breaking their code for no particular reason. This just goes both ways against Paizo however you cut it.
While I agree they should have a god as should all divine caster, by the rules they do not and they do, but paizo has come out and said they do not have to have a god.
While I do not agree, it is what it is.
So Paladins pull divine powers out of their ass and need atonement for breaking their code for no particular reason. This just goes both ways against Paizo however you cut it.
Well something grants it but yeah it was stated in the last paladin thread that paladins in Golarion, even those that have gods are not granted the power by those gods.
Again I don't agree with it, but that is how it works for now.
Obviously, as opposed to you, I do not intend to sit around and swallow some of Paizo's more bs statements or arbitrary rules.
If they don't have to have a god, then Paladins look like just another one of the cheap copy and paste from 3.5 jobs. "Hey, look at all this stuff about them having gods that they don't have to have!" Cheap and inconsistent.
When it comes to Golarion and whats official ya don't have any option but to swallow it. For home games ya can do what ya like.
As I said I agree, and In games I run they must have a god. But officially they do not.
Good job dodging the issue.
The game already supports a robin-hood style character—the ranger.I don't think it's good form to take potshots at the Paizo staff when they're taking the time to get into these threads in the 1st place. It's fine if you don't agree w/ what they're saying, but no need to be antagonistic or snarky.
All that does is make them defensive and/or less inclined to speak up. Which is counterproductive, right? We post b/c at some point we DO want Paizo staff to pipe in on issues. Obviously we don't have to agree w/ whatever they're saying. But there's a way to express that a little more tactfully.
/soapbox
First off... true. Cartigan, since emotion isn't perfectly conveyed by a pure text medium, I think people should try to give benefit of the doubt... but you are REALLY coming off as a jerk. Sure, it is an issue that should be discussed. And it is more likely that the Paizo staff will do so if they aren't being harassed.
Now, second - James never really answered my point. Sure, Clerics, Inquisitors, Holy Vindicators, etc. can serve as holy warriors of any alignment. By this, we can interpret (anti)paladins as NOT being the "holy warriors" of LG and CE deities, but as something more. James has said that a godless setting can have these, and that their power derives not from gods but from the strength of their convictions in good or evil.
But this actually kind of proves the point - someone can have the same strength of conviction a (anti)paladin has in other alignments. Possibly not those with a neutral component, but certainly in the other two extremes - CG and LE. So if (anti)paladins exist as exemplars of LG and CE, you would also expect CG and LE paladins, who might then go on to serve CG and LE deities.
The only way this would NOT be the case is if you are working from the 1st edition viewpoint, that LG is the highest good and CE is the vilest evil, with CG and LE being along that spectrum.
I don't particularly like the 1e/2e nostalgia floating around Pathfinder at every corner.
And it makes no sense for Paladins to be divine based if they have nothing at all to do with the divine. Nor does it make any sense for them to use and build on the connection the Paladins had to the gods in 3.5 if they DON'T have a connection to the gods in Pathfinder. The incongruities, never mind the just general errors, all over the place in this game without any attempt at any official errata for no good reason is grating on my nerves.
Seems he wants to play a paladin class, but not have to act like a paladin.
Seems he wants to play a paladin class, but not have to act like a paladin.
Way to miss the point. Or rather, way to obfuscate the point.
|
|
I don't particularly like the 1e/2e nostalgia floating around Pathfinder at every corner.
I like nods to the old days.
I don't like arbitrary setting-specific restrictions. If game-world A only has Clerics, Druids, Paladins and Rangers of gods, specifically, like the Forgotten Realms, and explicitly doesn't allow divine spellcasters who don't have a patron god, that's cool. But that's not the way the Core rules are set up.
If the game world declares that Lawful Good is 'even Gooder' than Neutral Good, like you can be not-as-Good (CG), generally Good (NG) and really super-Good (LG), then that's fine, too, but that's not the way the Core rules describe the alignments.
Or the setting is more like Midnight, and it's the evil path that's the quick and easy path to power, and the evil warriors who are more likely to be blessed by dark powers, while holy champions of light and goodness are rare and special people, who have to earn their status (a la the UA 'Prestige Paladin'), and not just 'be born that way' from 1st level, then that's cool too, as opposed to Paladins being blessed farmboys, fresh off the ranch, while Blackguards having to achieve all sorts of distinction and jump through all sorts of hoops to be given lesser rewards from the dark powers, because evil has higher standards and *isn't* the quick and easy path to power that good is, like in 3.0.
Either is cool, but the Core rules shouldn't be declaring that LG is gooder than NG, or has lower standards for holy champions than CG, or stuff like that, since that doesn't necessarily apply to all settings. A common perception is that the path to good should be *harder,* and that the 'quick and easy path' is generally the morally or ethically challenged path. But D&D, ever since 3rd edition removed the ridiculous stat requirements and higher XP costs of the Paladin class, and made it as easy to qualify for and advance as a Fighter, took that away, and made *Blackguards* an elite 'Prestige' promotion that one had to *impress a demon* to qualify for, while any fresh-faced punk with a song in his heart could become a Paladin, suggesting that the powers of good were utterly lacking in standards, and that the world would be *crawling* with Paladins, while only a rare and special elite would ever earn the coveted status of Blackguard (and, generally, not be as effective as if they'd just started out as a Paladin in the first place, since, mechanically, a 6th level Paladin is better than a 5th level Fighter / 1st level Blackguard...).
I doubt very much that was an intended consequence of the removal of attribute requirements for class entry, or the standardization of XP charts, but that's kinda the message that went out. Good is cheap and easy and commonplace. Evil has standards and you really have to work for it, making it less common.
Is there a reason this could not be easily simulated with a fighter/cleric? Or a cavalier? Or a cavalier/cleric?
Is there any reason the Paladin class can't be tossed out and replaced with a Fighter/Cleric or Cavalier/Cleric?
|
Guys, that's 3ed to you. Good is Good. Bad is Evil. Undead are Evil. Lying is Evil. Posion is Evil. Wearing leather clothes is Evil. Killing puppies for sport is Evil. Paladins bloom and blossom.
And when you shake your head at how black/white 3ed has become, somebody (likely Logue, Pett or Hitchock) writes a balls to walls blood and anal necromantic necrophilia adventure and suddenly you have 1-star reviews and long threads on how much light-hearted and goodly game D&D is and how bad and unfitting all those evil and gore things are.
Go figure.
You are quite welcome to do that, if you like.
I don't mean subjectively. I mean as an official standing. Just as your reasons there shouldn't be inclusions of LE or CG holy warriors.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Paladins however are the champion for all that is good, right and just. Not just a single god.This.
Paladins can exist in a world without deities.
Clerics are the ones (in fact, the ONLY ones) whom the deities actually invest powers in, and clerics can be of any alignment.
That's a bit of a departure from the one-step discussion you had on another thread. I for one agrees with your above statement (paladins are lawful good entities drawing holy power from their inner selves or celestial planes in general and don't need a deity tagged unto them or abide by the one-step rule when worshiping a god), but I find the one-step rule for paladins/rangers/druid a little too restrictive for Golarion (it was the source of many a headache back in my Forgotten Realms DMing days, and I am hoping Golarion retains a bit of that "fresh air" feel even though it is getting more and more developed by the day...)
|
You are quite welcome to do that, if you like.I don't mean subjectively. I mean as an official standing. Just as your reasons there shouldn't be inclusions of LE or CG holy warriors.
Because it's Paizo's game and they decided not to. I admit, it's something I wouldn't mind seeing, myself. But they've decided not to, so if it ever comes up in my games, I'm going to either make a fighter/cleric or just copy the paladin and change all the alignment-based stuff.
That's a bit of a departure from the one-step discussion you had on another thread.Paladins however are the champion for all that is good, right and just. Not just a single god.This.
Paladins can exist in a world without deities.
Clerics are the ones (in fact, the ONLY ones) whom the deities actually invest powers in, and clerics can be of any alignment.
No its not really. I would rule you must have a god, officially it has been ruled you do not. Which has nothing to do with the one step rule, you still must be one step, you do not worship a god who offends you with his actions. You can't stay aligned with a church when that churches very teachings come to clashes with your code.
If your devote to a god then you try to live as that god would, you try to follow his teachings. Which is why LN gods have few paladins as a whole it is a hard balancing act obeying your god and your code and when it comes to it sometimes one must over rule the other.
Past one step your having to make that call all the time, every day as your code is at cross purpose to your gods goals and aims and teachings.
So you got to ask yourself, Am I a devote follower of my god or am I a paladin, past one step you simply can not be both
This whole new Paladin thing is ridiculous on its face. The Paladin now gains divine power from the strength of a belief in his own holier-than-thouism; a change from righteous to self-righteous. Now that I think about it, I see that it fits perfectly in the newly created Pathfinder world.