Is he one of the 'stories' in that module? I can't speak for the circumstance because I don't own it.
And I can make a CE paladin up and if Paizo prints it, yahoo. Doesn't mean it's a paladin. It's some twit tweaking their nose at alignment restrictions.
Yes, he is one of the stories and first villains. @TheRedArmy, he is built exactly as a LG paladin is. Same mercies, same everything. He even channels positive energy, detects evil, and smites evil. But he's LE.
Yet is says "Alignment: Lawful good" and under Ex-Paladin mentions "A paladin who CEASES TO BE LAWFUL GOOD, who willfully commits an evil act, OR who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features" (so just need to do one of the three). But he's LE and still has everything.
Paizo, why must you make my brain hurt?
Maybe it's a typo?
I don't have the module so i am just guessing here.Can you give more info? For example what god gives this paladin his powers?
In my opinion the real problem with these discussions comes about when player and GM have differing views on what is "good" and what is "evil" (let alone "lawful" and "chaotic").
There is a good answer to this, and that is good communication between player and DM.
This isn't helped by the fact that people have been arguing about these definitions since the time of Aristotle, who postulated that no one ever knowingly commits an evil act - they just see good and evil differently.
Some people do things they know are evil, but they justify them to themselves ("it's the smart thing to do, in my shoes anyone clever enough would do this!") or else they have a sense of ethics and morals that makes it 'necessary' ("we have to destroy the conspiracy against us by exterminating them all, they are unbelievers and unworthy of living!").
Largely, such situations are where the the person doing the deeds has lost objectivity, and the right and wrong of the situation can be judged by taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture (clever people don't do that, and there's no evidence of any conspiracy).
Whats with alignment strait-jackets people? If Chaotic characters can't have conviction about anything they really would be unplayable in any story heavy campaign.
Just think if Frodo and the other Hobbits had no conviction. (And yes I firmly believe that 90% of Hobbits are CG)
con·vic·tion
[kuhn-vik-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a fixed or firm belief.
There is a difference between this and following a code that you will not break.
There is also a difference between following a code you will not break and having specific taboos you will not break.
I'll bring my own thoughts to this, though I'm sure I'm treading over territory others have touched;
My first broad comment is that I've always preferred the Paladin as a Prestige class; That just makes more sense to me. A 'starting character' shouldn't be a paragon of anything. Paragon to me suggest one has suffered temptations and rejected them. A Paladin should be something you strive to be and gain benefits for achieving(incidentally starting a thread in advice column on my own attempts to make a prestige paladin that isn't dependent on being a divine spellcaster prior to becoming one...)
That having been said, I think Paladins remaining LG only is good... in fact it's great. I dont' really like the antipaladin... I didn't really like the Blackguard. To me there is something cheap about making good and evil mirror images of each other. Sure there can be things in the 'good' or 'evil' team boxes that are 'dark' or 'light' reflections of one another, but there should be things unique to each side, things that are elements solely of that side.
To me the Paladin is the paragon of goodness, order and law. He is the shinign knight on the white horse. He is the one who takes the values of his society and actually lives them and dies by them and his devotion and purity of heart grant him abilities others don't gain access to. It's about not just 'goodness' but discipline.
Can other alignments possess 'discipline'... sure they can. Can they become exemplars of their alignment? Perhaps, but doing so doens't lead to the same route the Paladin does. An exemplary of Chaotic Good behavoir is not some-one who follows a rigid code of rules and sacrifices himself before others. Neither is a Lawful Evil paragon.
To me having a Lawful Evil Paladin is like having a Lawful Good Soul-Eater. It thematically makes no sense.
Whats with alignment strait-jackets people? If Chaotic characters can't have conviction about anything they really would be unplayable in any story heavy campaign.
Just think if Frodo and the other Hobbits had no conviction. (And yes I firmly believe that 90% of Hobbits are CG)
I agree with you here, Talonhawke. The trouble with playing a paladin is remembering that they are still "human" in nature and that they will have emotions outside of the general description of Lawful Good. A paladin can easily develop feelings of hatred, anxiety, jealousy, and more. The difference is the paladin needs to be careful not to act on those feelings and if they do then in a way that is careful and within the code of the Paladin. Additionally, many paladin players assume that all paladins are pious and sticks in the mud. Where does it say that a paladin can't be jovial, happy, humourous, or friendly?
I'll definitely admit that paladin is not your typical base class - being a chosen warrior of the gods doesn't sound like a first level dealio. However, really, it isn't the only one. Inquisitors come to mind foremost. Heck, clerics can be argued for.
But this is one of those things where enough support has gone in one direction and resulted in a change. I didn't play when it was, but I believe monks used to be prestige classes as well. While it may or may not have made the most sense or been the right direction, that's how it is now.
Holy Warriors (cleric archetype wannabe from Campaign Setting) make good for a martial/divine caster hybrid who fights for their god. They do not model paladins, but it works enough for me.
Paladins are not simply paragons of their gods, that's a common misconception. They are a paragon of justice and goodness, empowered by the gods whose portfolio fits. While there should maybe be some sort of class feature swap list (I dunno if it'd be listed as an archetype or an alternate class, given I think Paizo hasn't been clear on those terms) to allow for "paladins" of gods who don't have paladins currently, they don't exist currently, and they WOULD be different.
Paladins are not simply paragons of their gods, that's a common misconception. They are a paragon of justice and goodness, empowered by the gods whose portfolio fits. While there should maybe be some sort of class feature swap list (I dunno if it'd be listed as an archetype or an alternate class, given I think Paizo hasn't been clear on those terms) to allow for "paladins" of gods who don't have paladins currently, they don't exist currently, and they WOULD be different.
Gods have nothing to do with paladins. You don't have to worship one.
They only have to worship their code by the rules. They are Clerics of a Cause in warrior form.
|
Of course you'd love to play a Chaotic Good Paladin. Who wouldn't? All of those righteous smite powers, and none of the shackles of a Lawful Good alignment.
They're called Cavaliers -- go make one today!
(Note that a paladin is required to respect legitimate authority, and in his eyes no evil authority is legitimate. IOW a paladin is perfectly adept at leading resistance against a tyranny.)
Additionally, many paladin players assume that all paladins are pious and sticks in the mud. Where does it say that a paladin can't be jovial, happy, humourous, or friendly?Not only does it not say that anywhere, it shouldn't...
A paladin of Sune sounds like my kind of guy! Still, when it comes to players and paladins, and DM's and their acceptance of paladins, I think that the both of them have a tendency to completely forget that Charisma is a major ability score for the paladin. That means a person who is charismatic, well spoken, respectful, but also maybe charming, dashing, humerous, and loveable. Charisma has become such a standby dump stat that people forget when it actually is a part of their character.
I'll definitely admit that paladin is not your typical base class - being a chosen warrior of the gods doesn't sound like a first level dealio. However, really, it isn't the only one. Inquisitors come to mind foremost. Heck, clerics can be argued for.
I believe the best way to explain this is one stolen from 4e. A 1st level character is far above and beyond the average person in the world in regards to the class chosen. A paladin, I would assume, has undergone extensive training and learning to become as they are and as a result they venture into the world as a full fledged paladin. I would never assume that an adventurer just picked up Dad's sword and stepped out into the world ready to fight, and if a PC pitched that idea I would gladly show them the Warrior NPC class.
Paladins are not simply paragons of their gods, that's a common misconception. They are a paragon of justice and goodness, empowered by the gods whose portfolio fits.
I agree with you on this one, in a way. I have no problem with a Paladin being a champion of a kingdom, organization, or even a cult as well. There are no real "knights" like there were when I was younger and playing Dragonlance (Knights of Solamnia), and the Paladin can fill this role well. Sure, some flavor changes would be needed, but it is totally doable if the DM and Player are willing to do it.
(Note that a paladin is required to respect legitimate authority, and in his eyes no evil authority is legitimate. IOW a paladin is perfectly adept at leading resistance against a tyranny.)
Well, it says respect, not necessarily obey. Still, if the ruler of the country is evil, does that mean the paladin is exempt from paying taxes, tolls (i.e. bridge toll), or any other civic duties? I'd say no, in most cases.
There are no real "knights" like there were when I was younger and playing Dragonlance (Knights of Solamnia), and the Paladin can fill this role well. Sure, some flavor changes would be needed, but it is totally doable if the DM and Player are willing to do it.
Then what are Cavaliers?
There are no real "knights" like there were when I was younger and playing Dragonlance (Knights of Solamnia), and the Paladin can fill this role well. Sure, some flavor changes would be needed, but it is totally doable if the DM and Player are willing to do it.Then what are Cavaliers?
Huh, I thought that way back in the day, fighters were knights and got their keep and retinue at level... what was it, 7?
There are no real "knights" like there were when I was younger and playing Dragonlance (Knights of Solamnia), and the Paladin can fill this role well. Sure, some flavor changes would be needed, but it is totally doable if the DM and Player are willing to do it.Then what are Cavaliers?
They are close, but from their definition I would not say they are a Knight. A champion of a cause, but not a knight who is meant to protect his kingdom and king without fail. That is an interpretation, though, and should not be looked at as anything more.
They are close, but from their definition I would not say they are a Knight. A champion of a cause, but not a knight who is meant to protect his kingdom and king without fail. That is an interpretation, though, and should not be looked at as anything more.
But... but... Cavalier is a cognate of chevalier, which is where we get chivalry which is what pretty much defines a knight, right? O.o
I always saw paladins as a special breed of knight...
I find this thread humorous due to the fact that I'm currently playing a CG Paladin of Freedom of Cayden Cailean, and hes a stylin', profilin', limousine-riding, jet-flying, kiss-stealing, wheelin'-n'-dealin' son of a gun!.....crap, no that was Ric Flair...but he is a lying, cheating, stealing, rule breaking, ale swilling, damsel saving, wench bedding, freedom promoting, evil smiting son of a gun! ;)
I am all for homebrew stuff. I started this thread out of curiosity of RAW paladins, though.
Additionally, many paladin players assume that all paladins are pious and sticks in the mud. Where does it say that a paladin can't be jovial, happy, humourous, or friendly?Not only does it not say that anywhere, it shouldn't...A paladin of Sune sounds like my kind of guy! Still, when it comes to players and paladins, and DM's and their acceptance of paladins, I think that the both of them have a tendency to completely forget that Charisma is a major ability score for the paladin. That means a person who is charismatic, well spoken, respectful, but also maybe charming, dashing, humerous, and loveable. Charisma has become such a standby dump stat that people forget when it actually is a part of their character.
I'll definitely admit that paladin is not your typical base class - being a chosen warrior of the gods doesn't sound like a first level dealio. However, really, it isn't the only one. Inquisitors come to mind foremost. Heck, clerics can be argued for.I believe the best way to explain this is one stolen from 4e. A 1st level character is far above and beyond the average person in the world in regards to the class chosen. A paladin, I would assume, has undergone extensive training and learning to become as they are and as a result they venture into the world as a full fledged paladin. I would never assume that an adventurer just picked up Dad's sword and stepped out into the world ready to fight, and if a PC pitched that idea I would gladly show them the Warrior NPC class.
Paladins are not simply paragons of their gods, that's a common misconception. They are a paragon of justice and goodness, empowered by the gods whose portfolio fits.I agree with you on this one, in a way. I have no problem with a Paladin being a champion of a kingdom, organization, or even a cult as well. There are no real "knights" like there were when I was younger and playing Dragonlance (Knights of...
I actually don't consider paladins to need any training at all.
Just like their abilities are granted by the gods, so are the basic skills of the class inspired by their connection and devotion to their code. They are proficient with weapons and armor and skilled combatants because they are paladins, not because they trained from age Y.Training is for fighters. Paladins have work to do.
==Aelryinth
They are close, but from their definition I would not say they are a Knight. A champion of a cause, but not a knight who is meant to protect his kingdom and king without fail. That is an interpretation, though, and should not be looked at as anything more.But... but... Cavalier is a cognate of chevalier, which is where we get chivalry which is what pretty much defines a knight, right? O.o
I always saw paladins as a special breed of knight...
Chevalier is of the Vulgar Latin meaning "Horseman." It was Shakespeare that described the Cavalier as a swashbuckler, or swaggering gallant in Henry IV, Part 2. (Cavalier, Wikipedia)
From what I read in the text in the APG, and what I read on that Wiki entry, the Cavalier just does not meet my definition of a knight ("A knight is a member of the warrior class of the Middle Ages in Europe who followed a code of law called "chivalry.") (Knight, Wikipedia) Cavaliers uphold their beliefs, but I just don't get the feeling of them meeting this description.
Side note, in that Knight entry it mentions that cavalry through 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon was borrowed in Medieval Latin from the Middle French word chevalerie, meaning Knighthood. In that I can see where you are coming from.
But, for me a knight is much more than the swashbuckler types and the brash hero that I get from the Cavalier's description. In comparison, the RAW Paladin I see more as a Knight Templar than anything else. Devoted to the cause, willing to go to any means to protect his belief (within reason), and more than willing to die for his cause. I could easily see a group of Paladins trying to hide scrolls written by Christ to protect the "word of God" and Christianity.
("A knight is a member of the warrior class of the Middle Ages in Europe who followed a code of law called "chivalry.") (Knight, Wikipedia) Cavaliers uphold their beliefs, but I just don't get the feeling of them meeting this description.
So the wording is bad, but Barbarian is literally from a term to describe someone who doesn't speak latin. You're going by the etymology of the word and bringing up wikipedia description instead of referencing the class Cavalier. The actual class abilities of the Pathfinder's Cavalier are very knightly. They follow a code, that's the whole idea behind the order. They even have the mount that they take care of.
EDIT: the description of Pathfinder's Cavalier
While many warriors strive to perfect their art, spending all of their time honing their skill at martial arms, others spend as much effort dedicating themselves to a cause. These warriors, known as cavaliers, swear themselves to a purpose, serving it above all else. Cavaliers are skilled at fighting from horseback, and are often found charging across a battlefield, with the symbol of their order trailing on a long, fluttering banner. The cavalier's true power comes from the conviction of his ideals, the oaths that he swears, and the challenges he makes.
I am reminded of a quote from Saint Augustine:
"Lord, give me chastity and give me constancy. But, do not give them yet..."
He was a paladin? I learn something new every day.
Counter to the idea that paladins must all be lawful good (PS: smash alignment) I put up Tom Joad from The Grapes of Wrath.
"Wherever they's a fight so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Wherever they's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there."
Really, everyone in Steinbeck is either a religious figure or a knight of the round table or both.
So the wording is bad, but Barbarian is literally from a term to describe someone who doesn't speak latin. You're going by the etymology of the word and bringing up wikipedia description instead of referencing the class Cavalier. The actual class abilities of the Pathfinder's Cavalier are very knightly. They follow a code, that's the whole idea behind the order. They even have the mount that they take care of.
I agree with you... except that a barbarian is someone who does not speak Greek :)
|
|
(Note that a paladin is required to respect legitimate authority, and in his eyes no evil authority is legitimate. IOW a paladin is perfectly adept at leading resistance against a tyranny.)Well, it says respect, not necessarily obey. Still, if the ruler of the country is evil, does that mean the paladin is exempt from paying taxes, tolls (i.e. bridge toll), or any other civic duties? I'd say no, in most cases.
Legally exempt? No, because legalities are simply the tyrant's edicts. Morally exempt? Absolutely.
They are close, but from their definition I would not say they are a Knight. A champion of a cause, but not a knight who is meant to protect his kingdom and king without fail. That is an interpretation, though, and should not be looked at as anything more.But... but... Cavalier is a cognate of chevalier, which is where we get chivalry which is what pretty much defines a knight, right? O.o
I always saw paladins as a special breed of knight...
I agree - in fact back in 2nd Ed paladins were a sub-class of cavaliers. Words can have many meanings, but from the description of the cavalier:
He is a nobleman or leader of men
He is an exemplar of mounted combat
He has to ascribe to an order or code of conduct
All of these do not restrict the character to being a knight, but they certainly include knighthood within their definitions.
Regarding the meaning of words, around this neck of the woods 'cavalier' means 'Royalist soldier in the English Civil War'.
I agree - in fact back in 2nd Ed paladins were a sub-class of cavaliers. Words can have many meanings, but from the description of the cavalier:
He is a nobleman or leader of men
He is an exemplar of mounted combat
He has to ascribe to an order or code of conduct
Minor historical correction, it was actually 1st edition in which Paladins were a subclass of Cavalier, and that was only later after Unearthed Arcana came out, in the 1E PHB they were a subclass of Fighter. In 2nd edition they were back to being a subclass of Fighter.
Minor historical correction, it was actually 1st edition in which Paladins were a subclass of Cavalier, and that was only later after Unearthed Arcana came out, in the 1E PHB they were a subclass of Fighter. In 2nd edition they were back to being a subclass of Fighter.
I agree - in fact back in 2nd Ed paladins were a sub-class of cavaliers. Words can have many meanings, but from the description of the cavalier:
He is a nobleman or leader of men
He is an exemplar of mounted combat
He has to ascribe to an order or code of conduct
Trifling details. At least now we don't have to worry about classes and sub-classes.
So the wording is bad, but Barbarian is literally from a term to describe someone who doesn't speak latin. You're going by the etymology of the word and bringing up wikipedia description instead of referencing the class Cavalier. The actual class abilities of the Pathfinder's Cavalier are very knightly. They follow a code, that's the whole idea behind the order. They even have the mount that they take care of.
EDIT: the description of Pathfinder's Cavalier
While many warriors strive to perfect their art, spending all of their time honing their skill at martial arms, others spend as much effort dedicating themselves to a cause. These warriors, known as cavaliers, swear themselves to a purpose, serving it above all else. Cavaliers are skilled at fighting from horseback, and are often found charging across a battlefield, with the symbol of their order trailing on a long, fluttering banner. The cavalier's true power comes from the conviction of his ideals, the oaths that he swears, and the challenges he makes.
No, no, I read that description but I dunno, maybe I am stuck on what I expect in a knight compared to what the Cavalier describes themselves as. Right now, as I see it, Pathfinder is just absent of any true knight, but that is just as I am looking at things. The Cavalier and Paladin are the closest to that, but not quite there.
How are archetypes different from sub-classes?
Dunno. How are paladins and rangers different from fighters? Because that's what you got.
They tried crude archetypes with 'kits' in 2E, but those didn't work well.
basically, Fighter was the 'easy' melee class, fewest reqs to get into, the only one with Weapon Specialization. Armor,shield, weapon, go.
Paladins had LOTS of requirements, 17 Cha, Code of Conduct, LG, limits on magic items, etc, but got tons of abilities to go with it.
Rangers had to be good, could butcher 'giant-class' humanoids all day, used lighter armor, had some stealth skills, druid spells, and magic-user spells. Stat reqs in Wisdom, Dex as I remember? Hard to remember.
i.e. sub-classes weren't a rehashing of the basic abilities, they were more 'upgrades' that came with stringent choices and restrictions, and required good ability scores to qualify for. Heck, you could get away with a fighter with a 9 Str if you really had to.
==Aelryinth
How are archetypes different from sub-classes?
What's the world coming to? I had the exact same thought / reaction as TOZ :) Not to speak of "alternate" classes, a rose by any other name...
i.e. sub-classes weren't a rehashing of the basic abilities, they were more 'upgrades' that came with stringent choices and restrictions, and required good ability scores to qualify for. Heck, you could get away with a fighter with a 9 Str if you really had to.
==Aelryinth
Not in first edition, you needed 10 Str.
I believe you could in 2nd though (example character in book).
My 1e books are 600 miles away atm, so forgive me for being a point off ;)
PF archtypes are variants on a central theme. 2E did it with 'kits'. Sub-classes added a bunch of stuff, with restrictions accordingly.
==Aelryinth
Rangers had to be good, could butcher 'giant-class' humanoids all day, used lighter armor, had some stealth skills, druid spells, and magic-user spells. Stat reqs in Wisdom, Dex as I remember? Hard to remember.
Yup, gonna be THAT guy again. You are actually mixing the 1E and 2E Ranger here, in 1E they had the damage bonus to "giant class" class creatures equal to their level and a smattering of druid and magic-user spells, and took no real penalties to wearing heavy armor.
In 2E they lost there awesome giant damage bonus to be replaced with the crappy "species enemy" that gave you a +4 to hit against one type of specific creature (as in you couldnt just choose dragons, or even evil dragons, it had to be like white dragons) that never improved. They also lost access to mage spells, and could only cast spells of the animal and plant spheres instead of all 1-3 level druid spells, but gained limited stealth and the infamous Drizzt influenced free two weapon fighting.
History is fun isnt it. :)
How are archetypes different from sub-classes?
They are optional, have no pre-requisites and don't have a separate experience table and advancement chart.
I can't believe I haven't seen anybody say this yet. Yikes.
The reason paladins were originally shackled to the lawful good alignment was that they were given such great power that the only way to balance it was by tying them down to the most restrictive alignment.
However, since 3.0 paladins have not been powerful enough to warrent this. (In fact there was a good deal of complaining about how much paladins actually sucked in 3.0. I know a few pwople who compared it to the monk.) Mechanically, paladins are no more powerful than any other core class. Really, name one power that in the hands of someone who is not lawful good would break the game and I'll eat my hat.
Paladins should have to have a deity, should have to be the same alignment as their deity, and should have base abilities that are altered depending on what alignment they actually are. (Smite good for evil ones, for instance.)
IMHO, this is one of the things 4th edition got right.
I can't believe I haven't seen anybody say this yet. Yikes.
The reason paladins were originally shackled to the lawful good alignment was that they were given such great power that the only way to balance it was by tying them down to the most restrictive alignment.
However, since 3.0 paladins have not been powerful enough to warrent this. (In fact there was a good deal of complaining about how much paladins actually sucked in 3.0. I know a few pwople who compared it to the monk.) Mechanically, paladins are no more powerful than any other core class. Really, name one power that in the hands of someone who is not lawful good would break the game and I'll eat my hat.
Paladins should have to have a deity, should have to be the same alignment as their deity, and should have base abilities that are altered depending on what alignment they actually are. (Smite good for evil ones, for instance.)
IMHO, this is one of the things 4th edition got right.
well setting aside Charlemagne and his Paladins, a Paladin is supposed to be a knightly and heroic champion. That is what the word MEANS. To me saying a paladin can be CE is like saying a Fighter can't use any weapons, including his fist. It just doesn't make any since.
If you want holy warriors of differing alignments, MAKE them, give them unique powers and move along. But Paladins are supposed to be Champions of Noble causes, bound by Honor, and the like, let them stay that way.
Ok. I make a lawful evil class that's the equivalent of a paldin, has all the same skills, but lawful evil and has its abilities tweeked for that alignment. No matter what I call it, it's still a paladin I've made Lawful Evil. Call it whatever makes you feel good, but it is what it is.
will save
Ok, Paladins are NOT holy champions for a GOd. They are not holy warriors of a faith (that would be clerics). What they are would be becons of good, they are the mesurment for all that is right and just, they are not simply good they are so good it hurts. They are the paragon of the soul of Lawful good. They are the very distilled essence of what LG truly is at its height.
If you wish to play a warrior of a god, the cleric is the class made for that. The paladin while they are often of a Gods church are held to a far higher rule then clerics of a single god, as they do not just serve a god, but all that is just, holy and good.
will save 1d20+3
Ok, Paladins are NOT holy champions for a GOd. They are not holy warriors of a faith (that would be clerics). What they are would be becons of good, they are the mesurment for all that is right and just, they are not simply good they are so good it hurts. They are the paragon of the soul of Lawful good. They are the very distilled essence of what LG truly is at its height.
If you wish to play a warrior of a god, the cleric is the class made for that. The paladin while they are often of a Gods church are held to a far higher rule then clerics of a single god, as they do not just serve a god, but all that is just, holy and good.
Yikes. You people act like this is your religion or something. (joking, joking)
In any case, I didn't go into it because it wasn't relevant and I didn;t want to leave a wall of text, but my actual thoughts on it are that the base class called "paladin" right now should be called something else (faith fighter? na sounds lame. something like that though) and usable by players of every alignment. It should be given nerfed versions of the current abilities, with the bonus of being able to work on anything equally well.
Then you make all the extreme alignment versions of that class (including the current lawful good paladin) archetypes.
[Or if you prefer not to overhaul the class completely (although it could use it IMHO) make the alignment neutral version an archetype of the paladin class.]
That way you can have people get the basic abilities of the current paladin class with any alignment, but those who do epitomise a certain alignment the way the current paladin does gets specific boosts and drawbacks for doing so.
Everyone's happy, everyone wins.
Again, Cleric is the fighting arm of a church, not the paladin. Paladin is not a faith warrior, although they can and do belong to churches and Knightly orders.
They simply are not the class you want, that is called a cleric which indeed is based off the very concepts you speak of.
Again, Cleric is the fighting arm of a church, not the paladin. Paladin is not a faith warrior, although they can and do belong to churches and Knightly orders.
They simply are not the class you want, that is called a cleric which indeed is based off the very concepts you speak of.
In the post you're replying to, I never said anything about them being the fighting arm of a church. Actually read what I'm saying before replying in the most condescending way possible, please.
I did not feel my reply was condescending. You wish to overhaul the class so it works for any faith, that is simply not what the paladin is nor what it is meant to be. It is first and foremost a paragon of what LG is in its purist form, it is what people should strive to be, with honor, goodness and fairness, lacking any deceit or ill will.
Your overhaul leaves it a full BAB cleric. A simple warrior of the god, one for each Al which we have now. It lessens the paladin and makes it into a 3rd version of a holy warrior of a faith.
I did not reply in what is any way condescending.
"They simply are not the class you want, that is called a cleric"
If you didn't mean that to be condescending, then you phrased it in the most condescending way you could.
You wish to overhaul the class so it works for any faith, that is simply not what the paladin is nor what it is meant to be.It is first and foremost a paragon of what LG is in its purist form, it is what people should strive to be, with honor, goodness and fairness, lacking any deceit or ill will.
No, I wish to overhaul the class so it can work with any alignment. Faith doesn't enter into it. The class being a paragon of the LG alignment is just flavour. There's no mechanical reason for it. A class should be a package of abilities and nothing more. How a player wishes to flavour their character should be up to them.
Your overhaul leaves it a full BAB cleric. A simple warrior of the god, one for each Al which we have now. It lessens the paladin and makes it into a 3rd version of a holy warrior of a faith.
No, my overhaul leaves it a variant full bab class for someone who wants to play a martial class but doesn't want to be a fighter. Just like the barbarian and ranger are, and like the paladin already is. My overhaul does't do anything to make it more cleric like than it already is. I just think the package of abilities should be more open considering you're not gaining anything beyond the power of the other classes for such a huge restriction.
I disagree, you make it no longer a paladin but faith based warrior class number 3.