As I recall, there was some mention about the templar class some time ago in a previous post by JJ.
I have scanned the APG and have seen no mention of any templars. Am I missing something?
That's sad I was looking forward to that one :/
|
Doesn't the Inquisitor fill the role of the 'holy warrior of any alignment'?
You can make them something like that, but they really lack the "Out of the Box" heaviness that a paladin carries. I used to allow Temple Rangers back in the days of 3.0/3.5 that had a modified spell list (more like a paladins) that very much fill the same roll as the current inquisitor (difference being inquisitor is a better caster).
Still, they weren't nearly as heavy as what some of my players wanted so I ended up allowing some of the modified paladins from Unearthed Arcana. Once I did, nobody played one. I was kind of disappointed.
Doesn't the Inquisitor fill the role of the 'holy warrior of any alignment'?
I was thinking "Order of the Star" Cavalier. (APG p. 37)
|
I'm glad they got cut. Paladins are powerful because they are unique. I would honestly be happier if the Anti-Paladin was gone as well, but they are something of a necessary evil, if you'll pardon the pun.
Between the Cavalier, Inquisitor and Oracle I think the non-LG Holy Warrior is pretty well covered.
|
Between the Cavalier, Inquisitor and Oracle I think the non-LG Holy Warrior is pretty well covered.
Hmmm... see I have to dispute this. Paladin is d10 HD, full BAB, 4 level divine caster.
Inquisitor and oracle are 3/4 BAB, 8 hd caster classes. Both are heavier on magic and much squishier in combat. The cavilier is a d10 hd, full BAB with no magic.
While you can certainly use these classes as decent substitutes for a paladin, none are an equal replacement. I honestly wish they had left out the antipaladin (which I like less than the old blackguard) and put in templar.
tsk tsk
the cavalier still screams mounted combat, and I disdain mounted combat.
I do my mounted warfare by flying carpet.
I would of been happier if the cavalier and the anti paladin were cut
You can get all of those mounted combat bonuses on your carpet, just have your horse stand on the carpet and ride the horse.
You can get all of those mounted combat bonuses on your carpet, just have your horse stand on the carpet and ride the horse.tsk tsk
the cavalier still screams mounted combat, and I disdain mounted combat.
I do my mounted warfare by flying carpet.
I would of been happier if the cavalier and the anti paladin were cut
I took the warhorse and ate it.
fine eating, very fine
Where did the templar go, James jacobs?
He crossed the road. (Thought the chicken was Pazuzu)
Ok while I do not have the quote, more it less it boils down to
1: Space
2: They felt having a paladin of every AL just made them water down and hard to justify and make them each unique
|
|
I think "Having a Paladin of every alignment" is only hard to justify when you think the Paladin is already justified. I think the Paladin is a waste of space. I don't play it, no one I game with has any interest in it. If the Paladin was broken down into a Holy Warrior like Green Ronin created, THAT would have been useful.
At least then you meet the desires of the people that play paladins, without putting off the people who want depth of religion in their game only to find the game system as written doesn't support it.
The core already has holy warriors however. They are called clerics.
The core already has holy warriors however. They are called clerics.No, The core has clerics, a half breed between fighter and priest. It doesn't have champions of the faith, except for those faiths that happen to be both lawful and good.
This has been debated to death. Many times. Repeatedly.
Bottom Line: there are not going to be 'Templars'.
Nothing to gain from soapboxing what is or is not 'needed' in this regard.
A cleric is indeed the champion of his faith. He is not a mere priest but the military arm of his faith, with training and a host of god given spells to back him up.
Creative Director
|
Templars were NOT removed for space. Jason spent quite a bit of time wrestling with the concept of a paladin that lived between LG and CE, and in the end came to the correct decision that there's really no such thing.
A paladin is a champion of law and good. An antipaladin is the exact opposite of that. There's no real way to build something that's "in between" really. More to the point, a sudden glut of "paladins for every alignment," in my opinion, makes the paladin (and the antipaladin) suddenly less special. Instead of having these two classes, we should instead just have ONE class that fits the role for every alignment, and in order to do that, we'd end up having to abandon all of the paladin's flavor and as a result the vast majority of his abilities.
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.
In the mean time, if you're looking for something that can serve as a champion of a faith, either the Cavalier (with the correct order) or a cleric fits the bill more than adequately.
|
Creative Director
|
One other thing:
Paizo is unusually open about sharing the contents of its rulebooks before they're into print, in the form of massive open playtests. One of the things that customers should ALWAYS keep in mind is that until a book is printed and legit between two covers, NOTHING is guaranteed to be in the final book. There's countless reasons why content might change between a playtest and the final book—months pass between the end of a playtest and the book being shipped to the printer.
The templar's an excellent example of something we'd planned to do but (for the reasons I outline above: it was just a bad idea) in the end one we abandoned. There's a LOT of other elements for ALL of our books that go through this same process of idea and then abandonment, but the vast majority of them go rightfully unseen by the public.
|
|
Templars were NOT removed for space. Jason spent quite a bit of time wrestling with the concept of a paladin that lived between LG and CE, and in the end came to the correct decision that there's really no such thing.
Ah, this is something of news to me. I had heard elsewhere it was space. Thanks for the update.
The templar's an excellent example of something we'd planned to do but (for the reasons I outline above: it was just a bad idea) in the end one we abandoned. There's a LOT of other elements for ALL of our books that go through this same process of idea and then abandonment, but the vast majority of them go rightfully unseen by the public.
Tengu Ninjas have been dispatched. Soon, your secrets shall be mine! Mwahahaha!
I don't mind that there was not a "paladin for every alignment" class. As it stands now, LG, LN and NG deities can have LG paladins, but who is the elite warrior of Good for the CG deities? I want that kind of holy warrior, with the fighter abilities and the limited spell casting, that can be NG or CG and not just LG.
I don't mind that there was not a "paladin for every alignment" class. As it stands now, LG, LN and NG deities can have LG paladins, but who is the elite warrior of Good for the CG deities? I want that kind of holy warrior, with the fighter abilities and the limited spell casting, that can be NG or CG and not just LG.
Y'know, that makes sense...if the paladin was NG and antipaladin was NE, those would be the truest representations of good and evil, not colored by a tendency toward structure or away from it.
See, this is why I've always had a problem with the Cleric and Paladin as written. Other faiths don't have Holy Warriors ? I just can't see that. I've always been of the opinion that Clerics should just be Spellcasters, with light or no armor. These are the Holy Men of the religion, much like the Cloistered Cleric. The Holy Warriors should be the military arm of a faith. As it stands now, LG and CE have military arms to their church. Everyone else has Clerics. Seems somewhat unbalanced to me, but hey, what do I know.
No the cleric was built on the idea of the military orders of the crusades. And they do fill that role. Clerics are the military arm of their faiths as the class is currently written.
Paladins however are the champion for all that is good, right and just. Not just a single god.
No the cleric was built on the idea of the military orders of the crusades. And they do fill that role. Clerics are the military arm of their faiths as the class is currently written.
Paladins however are the champion for all that is good, right and just. Not just a single god.
Seconded. The holy men of a religion are Adepts, not a PC class. They're the ones that stay cloistered, or tend to their flock in a safe town. Clerics go out and spread/defend the faith in the "Here there be Dragons" part of the map.
Paladins are supposed to be the champions of all that is right and good, but I don't see why they have to be LG to do that. Neither did my GM, so he allows NG and CG Paladins. It requires a little more defining of the Paladin's Code, but that wasn't a major issue.
I'm sure he plans on doing something similar with the Anti-Paladin, assuming he ever stats one as a BBEG (playing an evil character is verboten, mostly because we requested that he run a happy campaign for a change. But that's a different story).
I currently play a Paladin, and I enjoy it. The strict code gives a role play challenge, and it's fun. However, the fact of the matter is that there should be divine warriors on all extremes. After all, the Lawful-Chaotic, Good-Evil are different axis. The only thing that's actually between LG and CE is True Neutral (:O OMG a Druid!) All silliness aside, while a shift between alignments should at the very least require a traumatic experience and an atonement. While a shift from LG to LE (Seeing that which is supposedly good wreak chaos and disregard laws) or a shift from LG to CG (Being Lawful cannot accomplish all the goals I find necessary) is more believable and tempting, a shift straight from LG to CE short of brain-wash is a bit of a leap. The reason for keeping it at the extremes is to keep the code strict, all at the same while, it makes it so much easier to role play when you are only having a radical shift on one axis.
See, this is why I've always had a problem with the Cleric and Paladin as written. Other faiths don't have Holy Warriors ? I just can't see that. I've always been of the opinion that Clerics should just be Spellcasters, with light or no armor. These are the Holy Men of the religion, much like the Cloistered Cleric. The Holy Warriors should be the military arm of a faith. As it stands now, LG and CE have military arms to their church. Everyone else has Clerics. Seems somewhat unbalanced to me, but hey, what do I know.
The part I bolded is not exactly accurate, as, on Golarion at least, there are also NG and LN deities that have paladins. As for the anti-paladin, I can see a NE deity having them.
Paladins are supposed to be the champions of all that is right and good, but I don't see why they have to be LG to do that.
Because Neutral Good makes compromises, Your not bound by a strict code, your not bond by strict honor and your not bound by doing what is just and right at all times.
Paladins must be good, the devotion they bring to the oath they swear makes them lawful
You simply can not be NG and be a paladin as your not living up to his oath, the very code that binds him to all that is Right, just and good.
|
Paladins are supposed to be the champions of all that is right and good, but I don't see why they have to be LG to do that.
Because Neutral Good makes compromises, Your not bound by a strict code, your not bond by strict honor and your not bound by doing what is just and right at all times.
Paladins must be good, the devotion they bring to the oath they swear makes them lawful
You simply can not be NG and be a paladin as your not living up to his oath, the very code that binds him to all that is Right, just and good.
Good + Law does not equal Good x2, or even Good +1. If it did, then there wouldn't be Lawful *Evil* people. A LG character is not 'more good' than a NG or CG character.
Laws don't make someone 'gooder.' They don't make someone 'eviller' either. Indeed, being Lawful detracts from the *pure* good of a NG or *unfettered* evil of a NE character, as the Neutral Good character can concern herself only with matters of Compassion, Mercy, etc. and not worry about whether or not the law supports (or restricts) her desire to do good.
NG doesn't stop to think, 'Oh, can I free the slaves, or is it illegal?' Neutral Good is more good than a Paladin, who will function just fine in a society with unjust laws, because Laws does not equal Justice (or Fairness, or Equality, or Kindness, Compassion, Mercy, etc.).
Holding Paladins and their LG alignment up as some sort of shining ideal, when they are explicitly limited in their ability to perform certain good deeds by their code of conduct or their adherence to laws, seems kinda contrary.
And equating law with justice or honor is silly. Marines have honor coming out of their buttocks, and they are required to break the laws of many countries they operate within (and exempt from certain laws that apply to non-soldier citizens, regarding possession and use of things like grenades).
1st edition D&D was influenced by Moorcock's writings, with Law being shorthand for good and Chaos being shorthand for evil (indeed, the earliest writings didn't even have good and evil alignments, just law and chaos). These days, we watch shows like Babylon 5, where the lawful Vorlons turn out to be just as big of dicks as the chaotic Shadows, and that's where the game is, with entire Hells populated with Lawful Evil critters, and elven forests teeming with Chaotic Good tree-huggers.
The code and strict devotion makes them lawful. A paladin is Lawful and good. His code of strict conduct and devotion make him Lawful, but do not make him good A NG person who undertakes that oath would become Lawful or brake it.
It is that simple.
Templars were NOT removed for space. Jason spent quite a bit of time wrestling with the concept of a paladin that lived between LG and CE, and in the end came to the correct decision that there's really no such thing.
I just want to say thank you. Thank you for making the correct decision.
Paladins are lawful good, anti paladins are their counterparts and that's pretty much it. Holy warrior of any alignment can either be Cleric, Cavalier, Inquisitor or Oracle.|
|
Templars were NOT removed for space. Jason spent quite a bit of time wrestling with the concept of a paladin that lived between LG and CE, and in the end came to the correct decision that there's really no such thing.I just want to say thank you. Thank you for making the correct decision.
Paladins are lawful good, anti paladins are their counterparts and that's pretty much it. Holy warrior of any alignment can either be Cleric, Cavalier, Inquisitor or Oracle.
Don't forget fighter... :P
Don't forget fighter... :PTemplars were NOT removed for space. Jason spent quite a bit of time wrestling with the concept of a paladin that lived between LG and CE, and in the end came to the correct decision that there's really no such thing.I just want to say thank you. Thank you for making the correct decision.
Paladins are lawful good, anti paladins are their counterparts and that's pretty much it. Holy warrior of any alignment can either be Cleric, Cavalier, Inquisitor or Oracle.
What's a fighter?
=p
..A miserable pile of armaments.
The Chaotic Evil that is the Anti-Paladin just doesn't have the flavor that having a Lawful Evil Blackguard who must eliminate all those rascal elves to maintain a world of order or a Chaotic Good Crusader who cannot submit to, and might even feel inclined to fight laws he feels restricts one's freedom. And none of the other classes live up to what you would want or expect either. Really though, it's all up to the DM in the end to allow, but at the same time I would hate to be on the end of a "Paizo has opted against it, so I'm going with their ruling" argument. As with the Anti-Paladin, a new class is too much when a simple variant can make due. These variants don't fall in between others, rather they are in the other corners.
No problem, it costs a feat. Although if they want to not make them holy warriors they really should loose armor, and most weapons and the BAB.
tas a joke. Just thought I would kill two or 5 birds with one stone or catapult or something
NG doesn't stop to think, 'Oh, can I free the slaves, or is it illegal?'
Neither does a paladin. Lex iniusta non est lex.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
|
NG doesn't stop to think, 'Oh, can I free the slaves, or is it illegal?'Neither does a paladin. Lex injusta non est lex.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
I do subscribe to the "unjust law = not law" thought and the whole natural law idea of a supreme normative system (be it religious or ethical, whatever floats your boat) which stands above the man-made law, HOWEVER, I would like to point out that it isn't the dominant nor universally accepted point of view on nature of law.
The positivist school of thought ("follow the law no matter what you think of it, because ethics and law are separate concepts") is still very strong and reflcted in jurisprudence and judicary of many places around the world. And trust me, in the medieval society (which fantasy RPGs emulate) it was the dominant school.
Here's a short essay on the naturalist vs. positivist debate. Heck, I never thought that my education on theory of law will come in handy in RPGs :)
The positivist school of thought ("follow the law no matter what you think of it, because ethics and law are separate concepts") is still very strong and reflcted in jurisprudence and judicary of many places around the world. And trust me, in the medieval society (which fantasy RPGs emulate) it was the dominant school.
If categories such as "very strong" and "dominant" determined truth, I'd likely be more impressed.
That aside, legal positivism in its modern form is largely antithetical to the medieval mind, and it stands are antithetical to the American tradition, from which the very idea of the paladin arises.
And, some of what I've said above is not meant to be taken seriously, but, regardless, my original rejoinder to Set stands. For paladins, good has a higher priority than law-abiding.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games