|
Hey there guys,
I was hoping to get your guy's opinions. I have a podcast (insert your groan here then keep reading)
For a quick backstory, we are successful, and have had a bunch of pathfinder people on the show such as Ed Greenwood, and Chris Jackson. As well as high end organizers as well as other authors and game designers. And many such as Kieth Baker and Ed have asked to come back. So trust us.
Ok, now that the establishing were not like every other 10 million podcasts.
We started doing episodes about specific classes, and have done wizards clerics, and most recently paladins. Paladins being what caused us to make this decision, I was hoping if you get time to listen to it, to let me know your thoughts on what we had to say, and maybe other classes.
A) feedback is great
B) we want to do more of these, but I feel eventually some of the flavor classes can't really get a whole episode because their class history really starts with pathfinder and other than possible historical references and the class itself doesn't have a lot to make a whole episode about. So we have been mostly sticking to the core classes.
But I am sure you good folk out there may have some more insight that would be awesome helpful to us.
Thanks
Nick
www.sideprojectpodcast.com
(Yes we are on itunes and damn near every podcatcher out there)
Totally aggree. More than any other class, Paladins aren't complete without the roleplaying and the restrictions attached to the class. No matter how cool the powers look, if you can't handle the roleplaying parts of the class you are not going to enjoy it.
Of course this is true for all the classes, but paladins have stronger guidelines compared to most classes.
If a class doesn't possess that much of a history, I'd consider including some well-known/received Paizo-published archetypes to help supplement their historical impact from previous versions of this game genre.
One example is a Magus (though they certainly have had their historical implications in past D&D editions) with the Eldritch Archer archetype as a means of expanding the classic Arcane Archer niche. I imagine there are more appropriate ones, but you get the point I'm making (hopefully).
|
|
My thoughts? ONLY play a Paladin if:
a: You know the GM very well and are on the same page regarding ethics and the alignment system, OR
b: love the prospect of playing the starring role in a tragedy.
Ok, while tormenting the paladin is a time honored tradition, is it honestly that hard to play one for y'all? I've played paladin more often than any other class than perhaps barbarian (it's hard to quantify these things) and have played with paladins in numerous other games (both as player and GM), and I've never really had difficulty doing it. The only times the paladin class has caused any problems for either the player or the party are when the person has no idea what they are doing or chose the class just to be a pain (in which case it really doesn't matter, because they were going to cause trouble in either case). Even when ethics systems differ between player and GM, I've never seen an issue come up that couldn't be solved with a few minutes of discussion. Maybe I'm just lucky in that problem players/GM don't last long with the people I tend to play with.
Only play Paladin if you want to be a Paladin. Don't play Paladin if you just want the powers.
Oh, don't start that again.
The best Paladin class I've seen is the Oath of Treachery for the 5E Paladin that got released in one of the recent Unearthed Arcanas. Why? Because while he has the same lack of alignment restriction that blesses almost all the other 5E Paladin Oaths, he comes with the additional blessing of not having any tenets to his oath of any kind. Which means he is also not prevented from following whatever code you may decide you want him to have. Want to play a Devotion or a Crown or an Ancients Paladin without having to worry about adhering to (not your idea of what those tenets entail but) what your DM thinks those tenets entail? Want to play a guy whose code is some combination of those Oaths, keeping some tenets from each but also dropping some tenets from each? Want to play the fighty guy with divine, non-naturey spells without having some looming Sword of Damocles hanging over your head just because playing that class means writing the word "Paladin" on your character sheet, a situation that no one going to a Saturday afternoon game should have to consign themselves to, regardless of what sorts of things he wanted his character to be able to do?
Then play an Oath of Treachery Paladin. And then have your character behave however he was going to behave anyway, with no more trepidation than any other player at the table with any other class. Heck, you can even play your Treachery Paladin exactly like a Devotion Paladin if you want, all the tenets to the letter. But, you're not at risk of losing your Paladin goodies and having to get a different Oath or multiclass out or rebuild your character like an actual Devotion Paladin is.
Which really makes you the genuine article. When the other guy has to adhere to a code of conduct or lose class features, then there's always some part of his good behavior that is nothing but an angle, gaming the system. You have no angle. You can leave the path of good with nary a second thought at any time. So why would a Treachery Paladin ever stay good? Well, it'd have to be because he genuinely believes in doing the right thing.
They got the name wrong, but otherwise, the Oath of Treachery Paladin is the most Paladiny Paladin that ever did Paladin.