| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know that Paladins are staples to D&D for a long time, but Paladins still are alignment-restricted. My point is that I feel like the Paladin should have been modified into a class that offers abilities depending on the alignment. To me, a paladin is a religious solider... and the warpriest is like between the paladin and the cleric. However, you can't have such a character due to always bieng LG.
Anyone else thinks that paladins should have been "changed" when PF came out?
I keep thinking that paladins could have been renamed "crusaders" and have different abilities depending on the alignment. You have the Paladin and the Antipaladin, sure, but LE and CG deities can't have their own paladin-like soldiers. I remember in a Dragon magazine an article about archetypes, varients back then, for NG, CG, LN, N and CN paladins.
In short, could the paladin have been modified into a more general class to accommodate all alignments, or would it have to remain the same due to licenses and such?
I remember there were alternatives in 3.5 called Paladins of Freedom for your CG types and Paladins of Tyranny for LE roles. I think that the latter was relaxed and reworked into the Hellknight prestige class, though.
No, i think that the paladins needed to stay becuase they are the holy knight class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course the rules should allow for paladins that aren't LG. With minmal work, it opens up new character options without foreclosing any possibilities.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, I think the paladin got exactly the boost (in mechanics and character) that it needed. It doesn't need to be widened into a more generic holy warrior. I wouldn't have opposed a sidebar describing alignment alternatives to the paladin, but I don't want to see it replaced by that idea.
The original article was from Dragon magazine #106 called A Plethora of Paladins by Christopher Wood.
This link shows a copy of said article:
Might give a place to start from.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Inquisitor in many ways is the "alignment unrestricted" Paladin; a divine warrior with the ability to enhance his damage. WarPriest was another way they've put it together.
I think the paladin's abilities are too tied to Lawful goodness to really change; they'd have to make each of the "mercy" sets and such based on a specific alingment. It's better to use the non-alinged substitutes if you want a Chaotic Neutral "Holy Knight".
I'm not saying that they should have gotten rid of the paladin, just to tweak it to make it adaptable for multiple alignments.
Your LG paladin would still be your regular holy knight, but with a different name (like a crusader) and 8 archetypes (7 if you count the antipaladin).
Inquisitor in many ways is the "alignment unrestricted" Paladin; a divine warrior with the ability to enhance his damage. WarPriest was another way they've put it together.
Huh... I thought Inquisitors were rogue versions of paladins...
Nope. Paladin alignments are fine the way they are, particularly now that warpriests have been introduced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In short, could the paladin have been modified into a more general class to accommodate all alignments?
No.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I house rule that Paladins can be any Good Alignment and the Paladin code changes depending what type of Good Alignment they are. So far no one has played a Paladin yet. Same with the Anti Paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the inquisitor fills the gap in the idea of a staunch zealous divine knight for each of the alignments.
It comes down to personal opinion on what a paladin should be.
I liked the paladin of tyranny, etc. concept.
My take would be that the paladin needed to worship a deity with at least one alignment extreme (Evil, Good, Chaos or Law). The paladin must share that alignment and gains abilities for fighting it's opposition, so a Paladin of Abadar would get detect chaos, smite chaos, etc. If the deity has two alignment extremes, the paladin chooses one of the alignments to embody then is stuck with that choice, so a paladin of Iomedae would be able to either detect and smite evil, or detect and smite chaos. Imbuing weapons would get holy, unholy, anarchic, or axiomatic depending on this choice.
Again, that's my personal view. Lots of people think paladin's are only the lawful good flavor. Maybe a name change would have been in order. Call the class Divine Knight, then each alignment extreme gets its own name with G being Paladins, L being Judges, E being Tyrants, and C being Liberators.
|
Green Ronin put out in their book "the book of the Righteous" a class called the "holy Warrior". It basically expanded the paladin to fit all alignments. Its the best version I have seen.
here is where you can get the PDF for the 3.5 version: link I hope this helps.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think Paladins are redundant. We already have holy warriors: they're called Clerics.
In 3.5 I rolled all of the paladin abilities into the cleric domains and did away with the class.
While paladins are mechanically more interesting in Pathfinder I still think the class is redundant thematically and story wise.
I think the Paladin should have been made a Prestige Class, personally, though I think that's a change that ought to have been made with 3E, and I understand why PF kept it the way they did.
That said, I think the changes that were made to the Paladin for PF were pretty well conceived, and I like the class much better than I did previously.
Nope - all good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin is fine as is.
|
Of course the rules should allow for paladins that aren't LG. With minmal work, it opens up new character options without foreclosing any possibilities.
I agree more options are always better than less. What most people forget is the very first paladin in Gary's original dnd game was a cowboy with magic six shooters.
As stated above, the book of the Righteous is an excellant coverage of the paladin and makes the class fit better into most 3.5 campaigns. A pathfinder version / conversion would be nice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the Paladin should stay LG. They are the paragons of justice and good and should stay that way. You could create both a fighter and a cleric holy warrior archetype to fit a similar role with other alignments.
They have plenty of classes where you can do that. You can play a evil ranger. A evil inquisitor. A evil martial cleric. A evil Battle oracle. A evil Cavalier. They even have stated out the anti-paldin for you.
Why can’t there be just ONE class with a special alignment restriction? That’s what makes the class special.
Some folks just have issues with the alignment system. And you know- you can just play it like that in your games. Nothing is stopping you from houseruling paladins with other alignments.
Why force everyone else to play your way?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm okay with houseruling at my table, but just pointing out that your statement is somewhat hypocritical. Some of us are wanting more options, but you're wanting to restrict people to your view of what the paladin should be.
Why force everyone else to play your way?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I rule that ANTI-PALADINS SHOULD NOT BE CE...
I mean, if you have a Code of Conduct, then how are you Chaotic... If memory serves right, having a personal code of conduct (regardless of how said code lines up with the current place you are in) is a key trait of being LAWFUL.
I houserule that AP are LE not CE...
I know that Paladins are staples to D&D for a long time, but Paladins still are alignment-restricted. My point is that I feel like the Paladin should have been modified into a class that offers abilities depending on the alignment. To me, a paladin is a religious solider... and the warpriest is like between the paladin and the cleric. However, you can't have such a character due to always bieng LG.
Anyone else thinks that paladins should have been "changed" when PF came out?
I keep thinking that paladins could have been renamed "crusaders" and have different abilities depending on the alignment. You have the Paladin and the Antipaladin, sure, but LE and CG deities can't have their own paladin-like soldiers. I remember in a Dragon magazine an article about archetypes, varients back then, for NG, CG, LN, N and CN paladins.
In short, could the paladin have been modified into a more general class to accommodate all alignments, or would it have to remain the same due to licenses and such?
They could have changed it easily, or omitted and replaced it, or made it what it really is, a Cleric Archetype.
The Paladin had no alignment garbage during 3e playtesting, but the devs caved in to fan whining instead of doing it right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm okay with houseruling at my table, but just pointing out that your statement is somewhat hypocritical. Some of us are wanting more options, but you're wanting to restrict people to your view of what the paladin should be.
Why force everyone else to play your way?
Exactly.
I'm okay with houseruling at my table, but just pointing out that your statement is somewhat hypocritical. Some of us are wanting more options, but you're wanting to restrict people to your view of what the paladin should be.
Why force everyone else to play your way?
I don't know that was directed at me, but I'll just answer this:
1) Rename the paladin "crusader"2) Change its alignment to "any"
3) For each LG ability a paladin would have, add 8 more variants, one for each alignment.
There you go... no harm done to the source material or the class.
The paladin was also back in AD&D and it was still a LG class, which is probably what WotC used to make the 3e version. However, for Pathfinder, I just wished that they would have expanded the class. I mean, they made the antipaladin archetype after, but what about other versions?
A LG crusader would be known as a Paladin, just like a CE crusader would be known as an Antipaladin, BUT the class could have offered 7 more options than limiting itself again to a holy warrior image.
I'm not forcing anything, I'm just asking if it could have been done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I house rule that Paladins can be any Good Alignment and the Paladin code changes depending what type of Good Alignment they are. So far no one has played a Paladin yet. Same with the Anti Paladin.
I also have this house rule.
The Paladin as a Lawful Good paragon is one of the core staples of D&D and it's inheritors.
Just like dungeons not being jails - but instead mazes filled with creatures and treasure. Or metallic dragons being good.
It simply wouldn't be the same game without it. LG Paladins are part of the DNA of the game.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because 'our way' in this case is the rules. Trying to propose a universe where alignment is but the dreams of old men, holding back the wild ubermensch who lives his life as he sees fit, free of alignment is kind of trying to restructure the discussion towards one group as the put-upon party. I tend to call this the 'All Sons of the Old Gods Must Die!' argument.
That being said, paladins haven't been part of DnD Since forever, they were an add on to the Cavalier class back in UA and that should be kind of telling.
The paladin is intended to represent the Knightly Sir Galahad type, not the 'whatever heroic dude comes along what has divine flavor' type. Thats his schtick. Thats who he is supposed to really be, when you come down to brass tacks. The paladin grew out of the Knight, not the cleric. The code of honor he used to live under was Arthurian, as was the tithing requirement ("I tithe one-third of my earnings to the poor and orphan," brags Merlin in That Hideous Strength)
Its like saying 'we should have wizards who don't cast spells.
This is also why the paladin falls apart once you start trying to make its structure work for other alignments.
The dragon article vaunted above, was a collection of the most poorly thought out classes available. The paladin of freedom who /always/ has to seek freedom results in a code even more ridiculously legalistic then the standard LG one.
The tyranny paladin (LE) who must /always/ try to be on top, even from level 1, or the baby chick eating CE sociopath 'paladin.' Its easy to try to be lawful good all the time. The standard paladin's thing is basically just be a good citizen, and a good knight, meek in the hall and a terror on the battlefield.
Flavor is more important than mechanics. 2e taught us that. 3e forgot it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It simply wouldn't be the same game without it.
It would be a better game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flavor is more important than mechanics. 2e taught us that. 3e forgot it.
Flsvor should come from the players at the table, not the books.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what's wrong with the notion of houseruling. You want Paladins of other alignments? Include them in your game. You don't need (nor will you likely get) validation for your preferences from Paizo, particularly when so many are content with things the way they are. Will your CG paladin be somehow -less- if it doesn't have the official rubber stamp on it? Will it not be as fun to play? If either of these are the case, the issue runs deeper than a problem with Paladins.
Just play things the way you want to play them.
Vaunted?
Mentioned? Yes. Specifically cited? Yes.
But vaunted? I don't think so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That being said, paladins haven't been part of DnD Since forever, they were an add on to the Cavalier class back in UA and that should be kind of telling.
I agree with your opinion on the paladin and their background flavor, but this statement is a bit off.
Paladins have been part of D&D since the Player's Handbook. They were a subclass of the fighter (same as the ranger was). The initial Paladin in Hell artwork is one of the most iconic images from the time in my opinion, ranking up there with the thieves' prying the rubies from the statue on the cover of the book.
When the UA came out, the paladin was changed from a fighter subclass to a cavalier subclass. It kept the class flavor (code of conduct, tithing, magic limitations, etc), but added the shining knight/mounted combat crunch, so wasn't a bad thing.
It would be a better game.
It simply wouldn't be the same game without it.
Quippy, if devoid of constructive content.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. Customizing rules at the table is a tradition that goes back to the beginning. And if you don't want LG Paladins at your table you can change the rules to your heart's content.
But Pathfinder is an inheritor of the D&D identity. And enough people like this class as a part of the core that it is a net positive.
Because 'our way' in this case is the rules. Trying to propose a universe where alignment is but the dreams of old men, holding back the wild ubermensch who lives his life as he sees fit, free of alignment is kind of trying to restructure the discussion towards one group as the put-upon party. I tend to call this the 'All Sons of the Old Gods Must Die!' argument.
That being said, paladins haven't been part of DnD Since forever, they were an add on to the Cavalier class back in UA and that should be kind of telling.
The paladin is intended to represent the Knightly Sir Galahad type, not the 'whatever heroic dude comes along what has divine flavor' type. Thats his schtick. Thats who he is supposed to really be, when you come down to brass tacks. The paladin grew out of the Knight, not the cleric. The code of honor he used to live under was Arthurian, as was the tithing requirement ("I tithe one-third of my earnings to the poor and orphan," brags Merlin in That Hideous Strength)
Its like saying 'we should have wizards who don't cast spells.
This is also why the paladin falls apart once you start trying to make its structure work for other alignments.
The dragon article vaunted above, was a collection of the most poorly thought out classes available. The paladin of freedom who /always/ has to seek freedom results in a code even more ridiculously legalistic then the standard LG one.
The tyranny paladin (LE) who must /always/ try to be on top, even from level 1, or the baby chick eating CE sociopath 'paladin.' Its easy to try to be lawful good all the time. The standard paladin's thing is basically just be a good citizen, and a good knight, meek in the hall and a terror on the battlefield.
Flavor is more important than mechanics. 2e taught us that. 3e forgot it.
Spook, you are absolutely incorrect.
The paladin was a fighter sub-class, alongside the ranger, in the original Player's Handbook. It was MOVED to a subclass of the cavalier in Unearthed Arcana.
The paladin is as old as the ranger and fighter. It's the cavalier that's new.
And just imagine if you still had to tithe 10% of your wealth and could only own 10 magic items like the original class!
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what's wrong with the notion of houseruling. You want Paladins of other alignments? Include them in your game. You don't need (nor will you likely get) validation for your preferences from Paizo, particularly when so many are content with things the way they are. Will your CG paladin be somehow -less- if it doesn't have the official rubber stamp on it? Will it not be as fun to play? If either of these are the case, the issue runs deeper than a problem with Paladins.
Just play things the way you want to play them.
Important difference ... it's far easier and simpler to say 'Paladins are LG only in my game' and ignore the other options than have to create new material. It's always easier to restrict options given ('no gunslingers').
Let the individual tables decide, not the developers. More options, more freedom, more good.
It would be a better game.
It simply wouldn't be the same game without it.Quippy, if devoid of constructive content.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. Customizing rules at the table is a tradition that goes back to the beginning. And if you don't want LG Paladins at your table you can change the rules to your heart's content.
But Pathfinder is an inheritor of the D&D identity. And enough people like this class as a part of the core that it is a net positive.
And YOU could just as easily, and in fact more easily, say 'LG Paladins only'. Tables should do the restricting, not the rules.
The change Paladin needed was to become a prestige class.
Intriguing idea...
I thought Cavaliers were the paladins without alignment restrictions. Although, the lack of divine empowerment may be an issue in this case.
|
|
Because 'our way' in this case is the rules. Trying to propose a universe where alignment is but the dreams of old men, holding back the wild ubermensch who lives his life as he sees fit, free of alignment is kind of trying to restructure the discussion towards one group as the put-upon party. I tend to call this the 'All Sons of the Old Gods Must Die!' argument.
That being said, paladins haven't been part of DnD Since forever, they were an add on to the Cavalier class back in UA and that should be kind of telling.
The paladin is intended to represent the Knightly Sir Galahad type, not the 'whatever heroic dude comes along what has divine flavor' type. Thats his schtick. Thats who he is supposed to really be, when you come down to brass tacks. The paladin grew out of the Knight, not the cleric. The code of honor he used to live under was Arthurian, as was the tithing requirement ("I tithe one-third of my earnings to the poor and orphan," brags Merlin in That Hideous Strength)
Its like saying 'we should have wizards who don't cast spells.
This is also why the paladin falls apart once you start trying to make its structure work for other alignments.
The dragon article vaunted above, was a collection of the most poorly thought out classes available. The paladin of freedom who /always/ has to seek freedom results in a code even more ridiculously legalistic then the standard LG one.
The tyranny paladin (LE) who must /always/ try to be on top, even from level 1, or the baby chick eating CE sociopath 'paladin.' Its easy to try to be lawful good all the time. The standard paladin's thing is basically just be a good citizen, and a good knight, meek in the hall and a terror on the battlefield.
Flavor is more important than mechanics. 2e taught us that. 3e forgot it.
Spook, you are absolutely incorrect.
The paladin was a fighter sub-class, alongside the ranger, in the original Player's Handbook. It was MOVED to a subclass of the cavalier in Unearthed Arcana.
The...
Oh no! I've committed an ethos violation and been justly called out by my peers for my arrogance.
Man, now I need to have my sword broken, an atonement spell cast and my DM is going to have me go through thirty orc-baby scenarios. :/
EDIT: On the rare occasion I'm a player, and even rarer occasion I play a paladin. I do the tithing thing. The looks of unrelenting pain on the face of my WBL-following teammates makes it worth it.
Just remember though, paladins. Tithe from the net, not the gross. Don't give away 10% of money that isn't yours yet.
And YOU could just as easily, and in fact more easily, say 'LG Paladins only'. Tables should do the restricting, not the rules.It would be a better game.
It simply wouldn't be the same game without it.Quippy, if devoid of constructive content.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. Customizing rules at the table is a tradition that goes back to the beginning. And if you don't want LG Paladins at your table you can change the rules to your heart's content.
But Pathfinder is an inheritor of the D&D identity. And enough people like this class as a part of the core that it is a net positive.
Incorrect. That's what "rules" are: restrictions.
You start with the idea that anyone can do everything they want all the time and it's anarchy. All games have rules that limit the activities of the participants in order to channel them toward a desired result.
The rules restrict what you can do, how often you can do it, and the way it can be done.
Rules restrict you to only one class for each level. They restrict you to using certain types of dice for resolutions. They restrict the number of things you can do in a round, how many spells you can cast (if any).
The rules are a restrictive starting point. It's up to the table to remove the restrictions they don't like.
Zhayne, do you really expect them to produce eight distinct sub orders of paladins in order to satisfy a group that is clearly in the minority?
There are plenty of resources out there for off alignment "paladins". Use one, or make your own, if your goal is to broaden your experience.
If your goal is to be accepted as "right" or to effect a change in the game, I wouldn't hold your breath on either account.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what's wrong with the notion of houseruling.
Nothing. But it's a little hypocritical to say 'no, YOU do the houseruling, this is my game!'
Zhayne, do you really expect them to produce eight distinct sub orders of paladins in order to satisfy a group that is clearly in the minority?
You can't change the world by staying silent.
No, I think the paladin got exactly the boost (in mechanics and character) that it needed. It doesn't need to be widened into a more generic holy warrior. I wouldn't have opposed a sidebar describing alignment alternatives to the paladin, but I don't want to see it replaced by that idea.
I agree completely. Paladin is one of my favorite classes as is. Far better than previous incarnations in other games. I too would have liked to see some alignment alternatives. In particular LE. I get the impression that the Warpriest is supposed to ease the alignment choice void.