An Impassioned Plea: Paladins - Respect Tradition


Prerelease Discussion

201 to 250 of 442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Your description isn't pathfinders either. You have this nebulous idea of what a paladin is and are so rooted in it you wont let other play something different. I don't stop other players from playing a barbarian with an 18 int and 14 Chr because all barbarians are dumb and live off in the mountains.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of the Paladin's Mechanics Other than its Alignment, Speaks ANYTHING of Being LAWFUL. ALL OF IT Screams of GOOD, Yes, But Not of LAW.

There's Literally Only one line in the fluff of the PF1 class that even says Anything that can Possibly be seen as Lawful, and that is:
"In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline." And Chaotic Good Can LITERALLY Do that Too, Chaotic Good is about having a free spirit and a Good Mind; Says NOTHING About Not having a Code of Conduct for yourself, Just Don't be tied down by the laws of the society around them IF They're Not Good....

Meanwhile In the Code of Conduct We Have: "Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority" So Don't go telling me that A Paladin WOULDN'T Not be troubled with Torture, Capital Punishment, Slavery, Child Marriage, or FGM and Discrimination, WHEN Performed By a LEGITIMATE Authority.... Because if They Do Anything About It THEY WILL FALL, that is LITERALLY In their Code of Conduct, and It Really Shouldn't Be If They're the So Called Heroes and Paragons of VIRTUE that the LG-Only Criers Say they Are, AND IF YOU REMOVE that Part, then they have No More TRUE Adherence to LAW In their Code.

MEANWHILE IF they Say that the Authority isn't Legitimate WHEN IT IS They've Now Crossed Into Chaotic Good Territory, so Good Going! Liberation from Laws You Don't Agree With, is LITERALLY Chaotic Good's Schtick, And Against your Code of Conduct!

You Know Who's a Legitimate EVIL Authority that Paladin's Should be able to do NOTHING About? Cheliax.
Legitimate Definition: Conforming to the law or to rules. Able to be defended with logic or justification (And if you think that a Nation pretty much run by Devils, CAN'T Find Legal(Law-Based) Justifications, I mock thee).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

"Respect tradition" is an interesting choice of words...

Most people fall into one of two categories, which I will (in a vague effort to avoid offending anyone) call Type 1 and Type A.

Type 1 people value tolerance, kindness, freedom.
Type A people value tolerance, kindness, freedom, loyalty, purity, tradition, respect.

"Respect tradition" is an argument that Type 1 people view with great suspicion. To them it's like saying, "We've been doing this stupid thing for a long time, so let's keep doing it!"

So I'm going to try to translate the argument for Lawful-Good-only Paladins into words a Type 1 person can understand, if not necessarily support.

"This is my favorite fantasy narrative:

Some people heed the call to true heroism. These champions are granted powers beyond those of common fighters, cavaliers, rangers and barbarians. To achieve this, they must live completely unselfish lives, and never once compromise their moral principles.

This type of hero is well known, due to their many great deeds. They bring hope to the hearts of the common people; it's good to know that, in a cruel world, someone out there is on your side. They are trusted by all, because their unique powers show that they have never fallen from their path, and they speak only the truth.

This narrative of virtue rewarded cannot exist if other, more 'morally flexible' divinely-empowered warriors get the same abilities without the same strictures.

I believe that the Golarion setting already works this way. Any change to the essential nature of paladins would be rewriting the history of the world, which seems to me neither necessary or desirable."


the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Scintillae wrote:


Option 1: Keep Paladin as-is
Pro: Maladaptive players who refuse to acknowledge the need for class flexibility for streamlining get to lord it over everyone else.
Con: Class withers and dies from a failure to adapt with the rest of the game.
I'm beginning to think that referring to "streamlining" as if it were inherently a benefit is a mark of arguments I'm going to have no sympathy for.

You are welcome to do that, though the heavy emphasis on simplicity and user-friendliness in the playtest FAQ's language would seem to heavily imply that streamlining is coming in one form or another, whatever we do. I argue in favor of streamlining preemptively to perhaps influence the way in which the inevitable happens, to argue a path to preserve the class flavor while still allowing the process to happen should it be deemed a necessary casualty as a stand-alone class.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
MidsouthGuy wrote:
I don't want to see Paladins end up like they are in 5e with a whole bunch of oaths and codes that don't resemble the original ideal of a Paladin at all.

If you think Oath of Devotion Paladins don't resemble the original ideal of a Paladin at all, you're either incredibly misinformed or lying.

-----------

As for the OP and their complaints - why aren't you playing OD&D/AD&D1st edition? Clearly you pine for a game long past and even the Pathfinder 1st Edition can't live up to your expectations of the class either.

Also, the lines you've drawn are totally arbitrary. Being human-only was just a big a deal to Gygax's version of a paladin as being only LG was, but you don't seem to care about that restriction. Or item restrictions. Or so on and so fourth.
You're cherry picking and telling everyone who disagrees they're wrong. I mean... wow.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

This is of course ignoring that for some reason HWalsh didn't stop playing 3.5 when Unearthed Arcana came out (presumably), but for some reason he'll also stop playing Pathfinder 1st if Pathfinder 2nd dares to have non-LG paladins.


Scintillae wrote:
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Scintillae wrote:


Option 1: Keep Paladin as-is
Pro: Maladaptive players who refuse to acknowledge the need for class flexibility for streamlining get to lord it over everyone else.
Con: Class withers and dies from a failure to adapt with the rest of the game.
I'm beginning to think that referring to "streamlining" as if it were inherently a benefit is a mark of arguments I'm going to have no sympathy for.

You are welcome to do that, though the heavy emphasis on simplicity and user-friendliness in the playtest FAQ's language would seem to heavily imply that streamlining is coming in one form or another, whatever we do.

And given the general calibre of designers at Paizo, I am willing to assess whether this strikes me as a good idea on a case-by-case basis, despite generally feeling that PF1.0 is close to perfect on overall degree of complexity.

Quote:


I argue in favor of streamlining preemptively to perhaps influence the way in which the inevitable happens, to argue a path to preserve the class flavor while still allowing the process to happen should it be deemed a necessary casualty as a stand-alone class.

To me, "flexibility" and "preserving the class flavour", with respect to paladins, are mutually exclusive options; and if that means PF2.0 doesn't come with a paladin that is satisfactory to me, my house rules will change appropriately.


Ideally i would like to see them keep paladins LG only, but change their generic code for a code defined per god.

I could see them making them focusing on making paladins N or C, but then the codes for either of these, mostly C, would probably be around something like "here is powers, do whatever you want with them because you are C and wont follow rules anyway", which honestly is pretty much whatever the antipaladin codes i remember turn around, with 1 or 2 lines with an actual easy to follow rule.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arakhor wrote:
This is of course ignoring that for some reason HWalsh didn't stop playing 3.5 when Unearthed Arcana came out (presumably), but for some reason he'll also stop playing Pathfinder 1st if Pathfinder 2nd dares to have non-LG paladins.

At this point I think he needs to stop continually threatening to stop playing PF2 if it's not built according to his and his wishes alone. Whatever point he is trying to get across is lost in his constant threats of quitting the rpg.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Thing From Another World wrote:
Arakhor wrote:
This is of course ignoring that for some reason HWalsh didn't stop playing 3.5 when Unearthed Arcana came out (presumably), but for some reason he'll also stop playing Pathfinder 1st if Pathfinder 2nd dares to have non-LG paladins.
At this point I think he needs to stop continually threatening to stop playing PF2 if it's not built according to his and his wishes alone. Whatever point he is trying to get across is lost in his constant threats of quitting the rpg.

This is pretty much one of the only things that would stop me from playing PF 2nd. I just spent a HUGE amount on books for PFS, which I don't have a lot to spare, and then this comes out?

Leave Paladins as they are, within the lore and I don't care. Like they could take away divine grace... I don't care about the mechanics... I care about their place in the lore.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

you know they will change the lore right? and then ditch the lawful good requirement just to good right?

so you might as well leave now and dream of Pathfinder 3rd edition that it finally allows you to play the most powerful unbalanced race simply known as " Spawn of Cthulu"( yeah still cant spell it, but it is overpowered and unbalanced)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
The Thing From Another World wrote:
Arakhor wrote:
This is of course ignoring that for some reason HWalsh didn't stop playing 3.5 when Unearthed Arcana came out (presumably), but for some reason he'll also stop playing Pathfinder 1st if Pathfinder 2nd dares to have non-LG paladins.
At this point I think he needs to stop continually threatening to stop playing PF2 if it's not built according to his and his wishes alone. Whatever point he is trying to get across is lost in his constant threats of quitting the rpg.

This is pretty much one of the only things that would stop me from playing PF 2nd. I just spent a HUGE amount on books for PFS, which I don't have a lot to spare, and then this comes out?

Leave Paladins as they are, within the lore and I don't care. Like they could take away divine grace... I don't care about the mechanics... I care about their place in the lore.

This isnt exactly the hardest change to cope with house rules mate. Unless you intend to follow into PFS, you can literally just change the lore back and ban paladins of both N or C type. I fully intend to also.

Shouldnt even take more than a minute to explain this change to any player.


Steelfiredragon wrote:

you know they will change the lore right? and then ditch the lawful good requirement just to good right?

so you might as well leave now and dream of Pathfinder 3rd edition that it finally allows you to play the most powerful unbalanced race simply known as " Spawn of Cthulu"( yeah still cant spell it, but it is overpowered and unbalanced)

You *assume* they are going to change the lore.

We, so far, have no confirmation that they are changing the alignment restrictions on Paladins for Pathfinder 2nd Edition.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ahhhhh
drink it in.

Definitely getting to be a worthy first paladin thread.
Ans here I was worried there wouldn't be enough fireworks for it to be worth it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:


This is pretty much one of the only things that would stop me from playing PF 2nd. I just spent a HUGE amount on books for PFS, which I don't have a lot to spare, and then this comes out?

Where are we at 12th or 13th time your threatening to quit PF over this I suggest you stop as coming off as incredibly childish. I doubt all your current material is going to be invalidated simply because they remove LG as a requirement for Paladins. Your trying to present yourself as a victim and your not one no one else.

I have D&D 2E, Earthdawn 1E and others and if I find the right players I can still use them. They have not vanished, Paizo did not send people to take my books away. The writing is still very legible I doubt PF will outlaw PF1 material for PFS as well. I can understand the cost spent on the books and not being able to find players. That's a risk with every edition or past edition of a rpg.

HWalsh wrote:


Leave Paladins as they are, within the lore and I don't care. Like they could take away divine grace... I don't care about the mechanics... I care about their place in the lore.

They have to offer something new imo. Alignment and Paladins have been a issue since 1Ed was published imo. It seems anecdotally to me at least that they are issues that need to worked. They can't sell the same product again. Not with 5E being popular. They could I just don't think it will do well. Then again PF2 might not sell as well.


The Thing From Another World wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


This is pretty much one of the only things that would stop me from playing PF 2nd. I just spent a HUGE amount on books for PFS, which I don't have a lot to spare, and then this comes out?
Where are we at 12th or 13th time your threatening to quit PF over this I suggest you stop as coming off as incredibly childish.

It's not childish to fight for something that you feel is important. I feel that this is important.

Silver Crusade

RickDias wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I do not want paladins of any alignment other than Lawful Good, full stop. I would rather see the Paladin class cease to exist than to open it up to all alignments.

Then we need classes that play very, very similarly to the Paladin but are open to the other alignments. They have certain play mechanics that are a lot of fun, but constrain the player by concept.

Someone else (not you, I believe) was saying we 'owe it to Gygax' to keep the Paladin in a classical style.

I fail to see why. Simply because he originated an idea does not mean it cannot evolve without him. It should evolve.

Paladins and Monks really ought to lose their alignment restrictions so their play-styles can be opened up to more character concepts. If 'tradition' requires that we do not (and this is, frankly, ridiculous) then the designers would be well served to offer us extremely close equivalents.

So you think a chaotic person would make a good monk? I can see Neutral, definitely lawful, but chaotic? Not at all, go read about real life monks, then get back to me.

They wouldn't, but there is Brawler.

As for Paladin, the clamoring to remove the restrictions on Paladin is just as silly. A chaotic person simply wouldn't make a good Paladin, they wouldn't have the discipline to maintain that type of code.

Besides, there is the Warpriest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

"Respect tradition" is an interesting choice of words...

Most people fall into one of two categories, which I will (in a vague effort to avoid offending anyone) call Type 1 and Type A.

Type 1 people value tolerance, kindness, freedom.
Type A people value tolerance, kindness, freedom, loyalty, purity, tradition, respect.

"Respect tradition" is an argument that Type 1 people view with great suspicion. To them it's like saying, "We've been doing this stupid thing for a long time, so let's keep doing it!"

So I'm going to try to translate the argument for Lawful-Good-only Paladins into words a Type 1 person can understand, if not necessarily support.

"This is my favorite fantasy narrative:

Some people heed the call to true heroism. These champions are granted powers beyond those of common fighters, cavaliers, rangers and barbarians. To achieve this, they must live completely unselfish lives, and never once compromise their moral principles.

This type of hero is well known, due to their many great deeds. They bring hope to the hearts of the common people; it's good to know that, in a cruel world, someone out there is on your side. They are trusted by all, because their unique powers show that they have never fallen from their path, and they speak only the truth.

This narrative of virtue rewarded cannot exist if other, more 'morally flexible' divinely-empowered warriors get the same abilities without the same strictures.

I believe that the Golarion setting already works this way. Any change to the essential nature of paladins would be rewriting the history of the world, which seems to me neither necessary or desirable."

100% Agreed!

We don't want to keep other people from playing their own characters elsewhere - as I have repeatedly told in this thread. We just want the guy (class) we always loved and enjoyed for all our hobby time.

5e didn't gave me that. It was one of the several reasons why I left it. 4e also didn't gave me that, but at the time (many years ago), I liked enough of the system to play. But if there was only one thing I could change in that edition, that would be the Paladin.

But now? I have a broader base. I'm not making an ultimatum here, not talking about "deal-breakers" (I don't have those), but this is something I deeply appreciate in any D&D-like system: that guy still being there :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

This is pretty much one of the only things that would stop me from playing PF 2nd. I just spent a HUGE amount on books for PFS, which I don't have a lot to spare, and then this comes out?

Leave Paladins as they are, within the lore and I don't care. Like they could take away divine grace... I don't care about the mechanics... I care about their place in the lore.

The Paladin Needs to change, its Barely tied to Law right now, and the one tie in its Code of Conduct Forces a Paladin to stand by while Evil acts are being committed or Fall (because you can't respect a Legitimate Authority at the same moment that you are trying to overthrow its laws). If you don't Believe me go read my post up above as well as all of the Base Paladin Class in the Core Rulebook. Right now the Paladin screams of Good, but Not Law, and it Never will, just lip service, and an unneeded Alignment tie.

If you don't think that Chaotic Good can be honorable I dare you to besmirch the honor of Mahatma Ghandi and Robin Hood.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

An Impassioned Plea: Drop ALL alignment restrictions in the game and in fact drop alignment all together... Make a NEW tradition!

"I feel that this is important."

Kain Dragonhand wrote:
So you think a chaotic person would make a good monk?

Yes I do. Ninja's prove ki/mental training isn't inherently lawful. What can a monk do that can't be replicated by a chaotic character? It's just 'sacred cow', like LG paladins.


Dracala wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

This is pretty much one of the only things that would stop me from playing PF 2nd. I just spent a HUGE amount on books for PFS, which I don't have a lot to spare, and then this comes out?

Leave Paladins as they are, within the lore and I don't care. Like they could take away divine grace... I don't care about the mechanics... I care about their place in the lore.

The Paladin Needs to change, its Barely tied to Law right now, and the one tie in its Code of Conduct Forces a Paladin to stand by while Evil acts are being committed or Fall (because you can't respect a Legitimate Authority at the same moment that you are trying to overthrow its laws). If you don't Believe me go read my post up above as well as all of the Base Paladin Class in the Core Rulebook. Right now the Paladin screams of Good, but Not Law, and it Never will, just lip service, and an unneeded Alignment tie.

If you don't think that Chaotic Good can be honorable I dare you to besmirch the honor of Mahatma Ghandi and Robin Hood.

The Paladin is Lawful Good.

The Paladin doesn't need to change just because someone wants their powers without paying the price.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
The Paladin doesn't need to change just because someone wants their powers without paying the price.

I don't play a paladin NOW because if the alignment issues that regularly crop up with some DM's and catch 22's 'because you have to continually 'test' a paladin BECAUSE 'they have to PAY for their power''... I'd rather it removed from the game instead of mired in a enforced LG alignment: so personally I not "someone wants their powers without paying the price" so I'd appreciate it if you would STOP repeating that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Please keep the sacred cow.
I want to ride in in my loyal Kaltenecker, slay the evil necromancer and celebrate with a cool, refreshing holy milkshake


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paladin_Knight_marshmallow wrote:

Ahhhhh

drink it in.

Definitely getting to be a worthy first paladin thread.
Ans here I was worried there wouldn't be enough fireworks for it to be worth it.

Next up, stat generation methods :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PT.B=The Devil wrote:
Paladin_Knight_marshmallow wrote:

Ahhhhh

drink it in.

Definitely getting to be a worthy first paladin thread.
Ans here I was worried there wouldn't be enough fireworks for it to be worth it.

Next up, stat generation methods :)

MADness be damned, old friend.


Honestly, monks shouldn't be just ki users. Monks should be more, well, monk-like. Keep all the Kung-Fu, by all means, but I'm enjoying some old-school versions. Whenever that goes into codes or alignments is another thing.
However, monks usually persist with pretty rigid vows, and live isolated in contemplation. Hierarchy (of their order) is also usually important to them.

Rubber Ducky guy wrote:

Please keep the sacred cow.

I want to ride in in my loyal Kaltenecker, slay the evil necromancer and celebrate with a cool, refreshing holy milkshake

The best kind of milkshake of all time! ^^

PT.B=The Devil wrote:


Next up, stat generation methods :)

God save us all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rubber Ducky guy wrote:
Please keep the sacred cow.

Myself, I'm all for killing as many cows as possible. I see NO reason to keep a 'tradition' only for the sake of keeping a tradition. I'd rather have holy burgers than holy milkshakes! ;)

Igwilly wrote:
However, monks usually persist with pretty rigid vows, and live isolated in contemplation. Hierarchy (of their order) is also usually important to them.

LOL Drunken monks are ALL into rigid vows, isolation, contemplation and hierarchy... :P

I hope we can open up the classes to accommodate as MANY character types as possible. No reason to have monks only fit one mold [or any other class... *looks at paladin*].


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd rather see the oathes tied to game choices like cavalier orders which come with themed abilities.

Same for monks.

Same for druids.

Divorce it from alignment and let my character be who they want to be while also having RP flavor baked into the mechanics.

Or include alignment into specific choices, not into the base class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:


It's not childish to fight for something that you feel is important. I feel that this is important.

We get it you want the Paladin to remain as is.

Repeating it over and over is childish. after awhile I and possibly other will stop listening to what you have to say.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Isaac Zephyr wrote:
You're either pro LG Paladin, or you're pro choice.

I'm both. Do I win the Internet now?


graystone wrote:

Myself, I'm all for killing as many cows as possible. I see NO reason to keep a 'tradition' only for the sake of keeping a tradition. I'd rather have holy burgers than holy milkshakes! ;)

Heresy. Everyone knows that all paladins eat the holiest kind of meat: fried chicken.

graystone wrote:

LOL Drunken monks are ALL into rigid vows, isolation, contemplation and hierarchy... :P

I hope we can open up the classes to accommodate as MANY character types as possible. No reason to have monks only fit one mold [or any other class... *looks at paladin*].

They seem more like “drunken martial artists” than properly said monks…

Also, classes aren’t about having as broad reach as possible. If we want that, we should go class-less, full stop.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally I like Pathfinder's LG paladins and would prefer they stayed like that but with a code revision that has less ambiguity/potential to cause problems. The idea of a LG warrior whose power can exist even without any deity due to his strict devotion to Good and Lawful following of a code is cool to me.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
"HWalsh wrote:
The Paladin doesn't need to change just because someone wants their powers without paying the price.

This canard has been thoroughly exploded by now. Stop using it.


Athaleon wrote:


This canard has been thoroughly exploded by now. Stop using it.

I think this has less to do with being overpowered (such things can Always change between editions) and more with having their (paladins) specific powers without paying the price (ethos and moral code).


Igwilly wrote:
Athaleon wrote:


This canard has been thoroughly exploded by now. Stop using it.
I think this has less to do with being overpowered (such things can Always change between editions) and more with having their (paladins) specific powers without paying the price (ethos and moral code).

That's it.

The thing is the canard hasn't been exploded. We see people stating that they want a Paladin, that isn't Lawful Good, BUT they're putting riders.

It must have smite evil.
It must have Divine Grace...

This is people who want to be able to play a Starknife shooting star paladin of Desna. This is 100% people wanting the powers. They don't care about being a Paladin, they want the class to just be a framework for the powers.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Igwilly wrote:
Also, classes aren’t about having as broad reach as possible. If we want that, we should go class-less, full stop.

I'm not disagreeing, but still it poses the question why you would waste space on a character class as restrictive as the Paladin (compared to most other classes), when that bans a lot of character concepts that technically would function mostly like the Paladin only with some alignment-based changes.

You could have a general "holy (alignment/deity) warrior" class and add the specifics via archetypes (one of them being the Paladin), but if you want to have a full LG-only-Paladin class, you basically need 8 very extensive archetypes or even alternate classes for everyone who wants to play a Paladin-like class just with another alignment. That's a lot of space you need.

But to say that only LG can have a paladin is unnecessarily restricting, and to argue that this is a price you have to pay to get the paladin's powers is ignoring the fact that I easily could play a much more powerful paladin-like character by using the cleric class. can be LG, can follow a paladin codex without having to fear to lose his powers just because the GM has a bad day, can in fact, be a paladin in all but their name, only with much better powers.

So don't tell me that someone who wants to play a non-LG paladin does this just because the class is so powerful. Because it isn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

chaotic monks work also. Who is the Master? and great example of a chaotic evil Monk. SHO'NUff
https://technicolored.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/sho_nuff.jpg


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Between this tread and the one on shields I am excited to play test a shield and sword paladin. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
Also, classes aren’t about having as broad reach as possible. If we want that, we should go class-less, full stop.

I'm not disagreeing, but still it poses the question why you would waste space on a character class as restrictive as the Paladin (compared to most other classes), when that bans a lot of character concepts that technically would function mostly like the Paladin only with some alignment-based changes.

You could have a general "holy (alignment/deity) warrior" class and add the specifics via archetypes (one of them being the Paladin), but if you want to have a full LG-only-Paladin class, you basically need 8 very extensive archetypes or even alternate classes for everyone who wants to play a Paladin-like class just with another alignment. That's a lot of space you need.

But to say that only LG can have a paladin is unnecessarily restricting, and to argue that this is a price you have to pay to get the paladin's powers is ignoring the fact that I easily could play a much more powerful paladin-like character by using the cleric class. can be LG, can follow a paladin codex without having to fear to lose his powers just because the GM has a bad day, can in fact, be a paladin in all but their name, only with much better powers.

So don't tell me that someone who wants to play a non-LG paladin does this just because the class is so powerful. Because it isn't.

Do keep in mind, im unsure people that people who want to play a "paladin" will want to play it after said lore changes.

Because ultimately being a paladin does matter ingame or atleast should in my opinion. You arent just a random sacred warrior, aka warpriest or cleric, no, you are a paladin, you are a symbol that goes beyond even the god you serve.

This symbol you become comes from both its restrictions. Simply put, being a paladin means a lot of things, very key things.

If paizo changes those things to each time broad more and more, then being a paladin ingame also change with the lore.

To the point where yes, you will eventually just be another sacred warrior of your faith, no better than a cleric, not to be treated any different either.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

You want to "Respect tradition"? Alright, so, play a fighter until 9th level, then, at 10th level if you're lawful good and have 17 charisma, 12 wisdom, and 14 constitution, you can be a paladin. Congrats, you now can now cast spells as a cleric 1/3 your level, and cast "Detect Evil" at will.


First: not all traditions are equal. Some are more important than others, for a good reason. No one quite remembers D&D as "roll 3d6 six times, in order". But Paladins... They should remain paladins.
Second: I reject the notion that we need 8 more archetypes/classes for each alignment. That's just senseless symmetry. Not to mention the fact that I've already told my opinion about specific alignment mechanics, but also about the problems of a mortal pursuing evil exactly as a paladin pursues good, or a chaotic neutral guy following such an strict honor code.
Not to mention the lack of imagination behind this. Classes/archetypes shouldn't be created to fill a grid because of another class, they must have their own value. There are better ways to represent other champions :)

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Do keep in mind, im unsure people that people who want to play a "paladin" will want to play it after said lore changes.

Well I love playing Paladins, and I inevitably end up as LG Paladin, because I love the idea, the concept behind this class. So it's not that I can't understand HWalsh's love for that concept.

On the other hand, I don't think that I'd lose anything if the mechanical construct would be opened for holy warriors of other alignments. It doesn't invalidate my preferences, it doesn't invalidate the Paladin's role in the setting, it doesn't lead to overpowered characters, and other players may gain from it, because it enables them to play the character they want.

Quote:
This symbol you become comes from both its restrictions. Simply put, being a paladin means a lot of things, very key things.

I agree, but non LG-paladins could have other restrictions, according to the code they live by. Maybe it's that I don't see why it should be impossible to translate the idea behind the class from LG to other alignments. Personally, I don't care too much how they do it, but if enough players want to have those options, I'm all for Paizo doing it, and it might be way easier to open up the Paladin class than to writing 9 different classes for every alignment (even when I would prefer that approach because I can't have enough new classes^^).

By the way, I've never thought of a Paladin as "better than a Cleric", so maybe that's why I don't fear the paladin losing their role for the game.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

From this thread, I see two options for how the paladin requirements should be

1.) Screw tradition.

  • remove the alignment requirement.

2.) TRADITION
Paladins must meet the following requirements

  • LG
  • Human
  • Must be a noble (Noble scion at first level required or you fall and lose the class)
  • Can only take at first level
  • Switching Classes keeps you from being able to gain more levels
  • Minimum stats of 15/10/13/15/15/17
  • He may never own more than ten magic items. Further, he is restricted to owning a single suit of armor, a single shield, four weapons, and only four items which do not fit into these categories. In counting weapons, weapons which intrinsically must work together--such as bows and batches of arrows--are counted as a single weapon.
  • Must give away 10% of WBL to LG causes
  • Can only be in a Good party, you may have a single neutral ally for 1 encounter and only if necessary.
  • May only associate with LG characters in the long term, and may only form alliances with other LG nobles

I doubt I need to say which option I prefer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:

From this thread, I see two options for how the paladin requirements should be

1.) Screw tradition.

  • remove the alignment requirement.

2.) TRADITION
Paladins must meet the following requirements

  • LG
  • Human
  • Must be a noble (Noble scion at first level required or you fall and lose the class)
  • Can only take at first level
  • Switching Classes keeps you from being able to gain more levels
  • Minimum stats of 15/10/13/15/15/17
  • He may never own more than ten magic items. Further, he is restricted to owning a single suit of armor, a single shield, four weapons, and only four items which do not fit into these categories. In counting weapons, weapons which intrinsically must work together--such as bows and batches of arrows--are counted as a single weapon.
  • Must give away 10% of WBL to LG causes
  • Can only be in a Good party, you may have a single neutral ally for 1 encounter and only if necessary.
  • May only associate with LG characters in the long term, and may only form alliances with other LG nobles

I doubt I need to say which option I prefer.

That is the thing: the second one is a straw-man for 95% of all people who want to keep paladins with their moral and ethos.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:


It's not childish to fight for something that you feel is important. I feel that this is important.

In that case if, and it is a big if, the restrictions for Paladins change, you can rip that section out of the 2e rulebook, tape in the old rules and say that is the way the game is played at your table. No one ever said you had to play with every published rule.

Because it makes not one iota of difference to your game if I am playing my CG paladin f Milani (which is still in my "how do I get this awesome concept to work" folder), given that I'm on a completely different continent to you.

I understand that you feel passionately about this - personally I have things I don't like, and would _prefer_ not to meet such as goblins PCs and drow, but stopping other people from having them if they really, really want them, and it has no impact on you personally seems a bit silly.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Igwilly wrote:
There are better ways to represent other champions :)

See my last post. I kinda agree with that and wouldn't mind them pursuing that path. I'm just not sure if it's worth the hassle when you already have customers complaining about any number of other classes that might not be in the 2E core rules.

But my main point wasn't about the symmetry. It's just that I disagree with you on your stance regarding pursuing other alignments the same way a paladin pursues LG. Alignments in D&D are not philosophical constructs only , they are active forces of the universe that strive to influence the world according to their ideology, and if LG can have their champions fighting for them, I don't see why other alignments couldn't do the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
That is the thing: the second one is a straw-man for 95% of all people who want to keep paladins with their moral and ethos.

They can keep their moral and ethos, which is their code of conduct.

They don't need to keep their alignment restriction, which serves no purpose. And is not their moral and ethos.

That second one is highly applicable for a thread which requests paladins to keep their requirements in a nod to gygaxian tradition. If you disagree with that part reply to the OP that he presented his arguement wrongly and make another thread about why the alignment restriction matters more than the classes code of conduct.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
You didn't spoke of a racial restriction, but you advocated for Paladins of every world in the system to be based on a specific kind of warriors from christian Europe.
Oh, honestly now, when Paizo's own artwork has had a stern Wakandan valkyrie in the role for the past nine years?
Quote:
The ethos of elves, dwarves, halflins, strixes, catfolks and dudes from Akiton differ too much from christian Europe.

I reject the implicit premise that the concept of "good" is inexorably bound to "christian Europe", and therefore possibly offensive to the sensibilities of those gamers who don't like either Christians or Europeans.

*sigh*

I never said that "good", or "lawful good", belongs only to christian or europeans.

Knights based on Charlemagne's court, however, do. And lots and lots of worlds do not follow that premise (european middle age as central culture), and those games/settings should not have only 11 classes in their core book, with one extra class (paladin) reserved exclusively for settings that follow the "this is Europe, but with magic" trope.

201 to 250 of 442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / An Impassioned Plea: Paladins - Respect Tradition All Messageboards