| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
Well honestly, even the change i think would be for the better already kinda of changes how i would treat the paladins in the setting. That change being removing the generic code and making each god have one.
Ultimately each change made to the paladin, to me atleast, could well change how they are treated ingame, if that would be in what a player of PF1 paladin would like or not remains to be seen, but we havent even put our eyes on it yet, so it is hard to judge.
On a note about each alignment having a champion, i wouldnt call these paladins really, i honestly believe the whole point of the warpriest was to be said PC. So if this was to be the goal, then might aswell not call them paladins at all, or do so knowing it doesnt mean what it meant in PF1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 :)
No need for 9 paladins. DnD 5e does a great job with only 3. People of several alignments can join each of them, also. NG paladins of Sarenrae can share abilities with LG paladisn of Iomedae, while LN paladins of Abadar can Share class abilities with LE paladins of Asmoedeus, while CN Paladins of Hanspur can share abilities with NG gods of Shelyn. It works perfectly, and those who want to play a character based on Hospitaler Knights, King Arthur's order of the round table and Charlemagne's Pairs, still can.
The only difference is those who want to play Galahad cannot shoe-horn others into playing the same kind of champion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, in terms of what Paizo is going to do with Paladins in Pf2, how about we stop talking around some nebulous ideal and look at some actual, existing pathfinder Paladins? I'd say they are more likely to support those than idealized versions belonging to specific individuals and questionable interpretations of a historical band.
So, off the top of my head from paizo products:
An elven paladin who holds that beauty and purity are the epitome of good. (Though she's loosening up on her absolute standards a little bit)
A young lesbian wih a gnomish lover who has trouble with the spell casting aspect of paladinhood, due to a reluctance to subsume herself completely into the guidance of her goddess.
And an atoned paladin who seeks to redeem his infernal lover through (consensual) beatings, choke play and marriage.
Somehow I suspect paizo will expand the scope of Paladins rather an restrict them to 'the ghost of Gygax decreed it so, and thus will it ever be'
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."
I'd like to borrow this statement, if I may. Because I think this also deserves its own thread. Mind you everyone, I am one of those 'romantic players' that view the Paladin as my sacred cow, and also like the AL system.
AL axis should also stay in the past, as well as the Paladin as we know right now. Change AL restrictions with 'codes/ethos/traditions' for each class and background. From a mechanical perspective, some good example for a change would be Protection from Good/Evil/Chaos/Law to Protection from Celestial beings/Demonic beings/Undeads/Elementals.
Want to keep the paladin? Make it a prestige class just for humans. Or just take the core class chasis and add/remove minor perks depending on race, god, code... I don't know. But really, I see so much hidden potential that I find 'a waste' to not think outside the box. A whole book dedicated to Holy Warriors... Can you believe it to be possible?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
We, so far, have no confirmation that they are changing the alignment restrictions on Paladins for Pathfinder 2nd Edition.
Which makes your impassioned plea decidedly premature and your frequent threats to cut and run all the more silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From this thread, I see two options for how the paladin requirements should be
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.
You forgot that the ability stats have to be obtained by rolling, in order, 3 d6 dice. No re-arranging the numbers
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm confused. Do we keep paladins the same because of "the lore"/tradition or because people want those powers without paying some nebulous price?
If I am remembering correctly, those suggesting that paladins evolve and expand to cover other alignments have suggested that they have codes to restrict/guide them and even different powers. No one is asking for something for nothing.
Alternate alignment paladins work. I've played them and I've GMed them for well over 30 years. It hasn't brought about the End of All Gaming or Removed The Sacred Lore. Gygax's ghost hasn't haunted me.
Franky says relax.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... if they rolled out a Paladin that didn't have the nifty powers but still required the LG alignment, would it still be a playable class to folks?
Some of us have been looking at this via the 'If you wanna sing the blues then you gotta pay the dues' perspective... but a truly humble warrior of lawfulness and good shouldn't need ANY powers.
Would it still be acceptable *then*?
|
So... if they rolled out a Paladin that didn't have the nifty powers but still required the LG alignment, would it still be a playable class to folks?
Well, I'd probably still play it if it was just a fighter with an added alignment restriction. In fact, I've already played such a fighter that behaved like a paladin would have behaved and would adhere to a similar code
The reason I ask is because one of the most memorable 'paladin' I've ever seen in literature was... Sturm Brightblade.
Well, for me that would be Sir Gawain, Sir Galahad or even King Arthur, according to the full chivalric Arthurian mythos, but Sturm was pretty gallant, indeed.
I really have a hard time accepting Arthurian knights as paladins given the amount of baggage they carry around... and pick up for themselves.
I really have a hard time accepting Arthurian knights as paladins given the amount of baggage they carry around... and pick up for themselves.
But you think of Sturm? The Knight of Baggage himself?
I don't remember him that way.
He wasn't the Once and Future King, he wasn't cheating on said king with said King's wife, he wasn't making foolish challenges to a hospitable host, etc...
and here is something else a lot of people might not even think of when they bring this up claiming gygax made it this way and we should maintain it as tradition.
IT is not Gygax's game anymore.
Gygax just codified the tradition. As I have already explained, it has been around for some centuries at least.
Again, play your own champions with something else, I don't mind it. Just do not mess up with the classic. Many people like the paladin as being an special class, and *under the alignment system*, they should be LG.Now, if we wouldn't be using the alignment system anymore, we could use other ways to keep that tradition alive ;)
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.
I'm sorry but IF, and only if, we are using the alignment system, then the LG alignment is essential to the paladin's ethos and code. It's pretty much the base in which they're built.
So yes, this still is a straw-man. Suggestion for using one tradition does not imply following all others: traditions are not all equal, for good reason :)| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please, no. I have grown to like ditching Al and forcing paladins to be LG. Lets not go backward here.
I really have a hard time accepting Arthurian knights as paladins given the amount of baggage they carry around... and pick up for themselves.
I wasn't suggesting even a majority by any means, but Galahad was said to be fated to find the Holy Grail, as was Percival. Presumably they would qualify as paladins, even if no one else did.
Exactly, so why keep a bad one.
So yes, this still is a straw-man. Suggestion for using one tradition does not imply following all others: traditions are not all equal, for good reason :)
Classic Paladin is a good tradition. A tradition we (its fans) like. Let's just keep it :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Classic Paladin is a good tradition. A tradition we (its fans) like. Let's just keep it :)Exactly, so why keep a bad one.
So yes, this still is a straw-man. Suggestion for using one tradition does not imply following all others: traditions are not all equal, for good reason :)
No one wants to take it away from you.
No one wants to take it away from you.Classic Paladin is a good tradition. A tradition we (its fans) like. Let's just keep it :)Exactly, so why keep a bad one.
So yes, this still is a straw-man. Suggestion for using one tradition does not imply following all others: traditions are not all equal, for good reason :)
Apparently, yes, there are people who do want that.
To destroy the Paladin and create a weak simulacrum called "paladin" would be taking that away from me :)| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one wants to take it away from you.Classic Paladin is a good tradition. A tradition we (its fans) like. Let's just keep it :)Exactly, so why keep a bad one.
So yes, this still is a straw-man. Suggestion for using one tradition does not imply following all others: traditions are not all equal, for good reason :)Apparently, yes, there are people who do want that.
To destroy the Paladin and create a weak simulacrum called "paladin" would be taking that away from me :)
No one is talking about that either.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Classic Paladin is a good tradition. A tradition we (its fans) like. Let's just keep it :)Exactly, so why keep a bad one.
So yes, this still is a straw-man. Suggestion for using one tradition does not imply following all others: traditions are not all equal, for good reason :)
A tradition some fans like, and others don't. Nothing will stop people from restricting alignment in their own campaign.
I fail to see how gatekeeping other people's fun serves any useful purpose. Tradition alone (particularly when you pick and chose what tradition to keep) is not a good reason. You and/ or your GM can very easily change any lore/ fluff to whatever best fits your own game and it is far easier to restrict things that way than expand things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its funny how people love to drop "traditions change" when its a change they want.
No one is talking about that either.
Apparently, yes, people are talking about that. I'll oppose them.
A tradition some fans like, and others don't. Nothing will stop people from restricting alignment in their own campaign.
I fail to see how gatekeeping other people's fun serves any useful purpose. Tradition alone (particularly when you pick and chose what tradition to keep) is not a good reason. You and/ or your GM can very easily change any lore/ fluff to whatever best fits your own game and it is far easier to restrict things that way than expand things.
First: Having one class grounded on specific ethos-and-moral-code fluff (which would include alignment in an alignment-based system) is hardly "gatekeeping other people's fun". No one is being forced to play a paladin.
Second: As I have repeatedly told, everyone is more than welcome to create the concepts they want to play, be as classes, archetypes or whatever. Be my guests. Just don't spoil the classics.I think I've already explained numerous times why this hypothetical watered-down "paladin" being used as a real paladin would completely destroy the Paladin's legacy. Many others have joined, too. For any further questions, just go back to previous posts ^^
If you want something paladin-like but not lawful good you really need to take it back to the bone and design it from the ground up with different abilities. Most lazy "smite evil become smite chaos" type conversions just don't work imo. And call them something not-paladin.
I'm a staunch Paladins are LG devotee.
yeah its also funny to see people want to keep to tradition when it is dumb to do so.
Funny but I don't feel dumb...but what do I know!
If you want something paladin-like but not lawful good you really need to take it back to the bone and design it from the ground up with different abilities. Most lazy "smite evil become smite chaos" type conversions just don't work imo. And call them something not-paladin.
I'm a staunch Paladins are LG devotee.
Yeah.
Honestly, the champions of other alignments need some thinking. People pursue good differently from evil. Same thing for law and chaos. To think what such champions would be in the setting, what are their reasons to be that, and how to better express that in mechanical terms, would take some work, but it also would add new and flavorful classes to the game.Well, at least we're not from Paizo, so it's not our job.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So to follow .. it is OK to take things away from others, but not to take this specific thing away from those that want it?
hate to tell you, sooner or later your sacred cow is going to die out. whether you like it or not..
Hate to tell you, but people who care about it will play the game that doesn't kill it off. Itd probably be easier to swallow if it wasn't blatantly players trying to snake the mechanical advantages with no rp restrictions.
lets see the ranger used to be good only, tht got messed with, the druid used to be true neutral , that got messed with, bards originally were chaotic only and iirc had no spellcasting, that got messed with.. paladins were human only lg and even that got messed with.
the arcane archer was elf only and got messed with
the dwarven defender was dwarf only and got messed with along with a name change and a few other things....hate to tell you, sooner or later your sacred cow is going to die out. whether you like it or not..
What happened to the Druid and the Ranger's ethos and moral is also absurd, but we are not talking about them, are we? But yeah, besides the paladin stuff, returning the Ranger and the Druid to their original ethos would be terrific for the game! I don't know where people got the idea of "Ranger = Robin Hood".
No, it won't die if there are enough people who want it to remain.So to follow .. it is OK to take things away from others, but not to take this specific thing away from those that want it?
With your pardon, I have explained this numerous times. There's no need to repeat that part any further.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one is talking about that either.Apparently, yes, people are talking about that. I'll oppose them.
A tradition some fans like, and others don't. Nothing will stop people from restricting alignment in their own campaign.
I fail to see how gatekeeping other people's fun serves any useful purpose. Tradition alone (particularly when you pick and chose what tradition to keep) is not a good reason. You and/ or your GM can very easily change any lore/ fluff to whatever best fits your own game and it is far easier to restrict things that way than expand things.
First: Having one class grounded on specific ethos-and-moral-code fluff (which would include alignment in an alignment-based system) is hardly "gatekeeping other people's fun". No one is being forced to play a paladin.
Second: As I have repeatedly told, everyone is more than welcome to create the concepts they want to play, be as classes, archetypes or whatever. Be my guests. Just don't spoil the classics.I think I've already explained numerous times why this hypothetical watered-down "paladin" being used as a real paladin would completely destroy the Paladin's legacy. Many others have joined, too. For any further questions, just go back to previous posts ^^
And yet when people want to make a character that is very similar to a Paladin but not bound within a tiny LG box, people come out of the woodwork to say that they are having wrong/bad/incorrect fun and it is ruining their traditional/right/correct fun. No company is going to make 2 classes that are very similar but one is bound is a tiny alignment restricted box and the other isn't.
I think the best way forward is to have a LG specific archetype of Paladin that does what the traditionalists want while the other options within the class allow freedom for those who want it. Then those who want to can say that only that specific archetype is usable in their game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hate to tell you, but people who care about it will play the game that doesn't kill it off. Itd probably be easier to swallow if it wasn't blatantly players trying to snake the mechanical advantages with no rp restrictions.
hate to tell you, sooner or later your sacred cow is going to die out. whether you like it or not..
This again. Even though it has been repeated over and over about similar ethical or RP restrictions.
Again, it makes it seem less like this has anything to do with "the lore" or tradition and rather protecting a set of abilities and powers.
And yet when people want to make a character that is very similar to a Paladin but not bound within a tiny LG box, people come out of the woodwork to say that they are having wrong/bad/incorrect fun and it is ruining their traditional/right/correct fun. No company is going to make 2 classes that are very similar but one is bound is a tiny alignment restricted box and the other isn't.I think the best way forward is to have a LG specific archetype of Paladin that does what the traditionalists want while the other options within the class allow freedom for those who want it. Then those who want to can say that only that specific archetype is usable in their game.
Again, I'm specifically against making "carbon-copies" of the Paladin for other alignments. I addressed that in one of my last posts.
Also, with your pardon, but the same alignment can be played in very different ways. Do you think that every character with the same alignment are equal? I hope not. The differences can be quite visible, because there's a Lot of stuff alignment does not cover.
They're not, you just think they are.
I'm pretty sure what these same people want to do with the class.
I like the 5e Paladin Oath of Vengeance. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
robin hood a ranger???? ick... just ick.....
the epitome of archery in fantasy and fiction, but he was a rogue, a bandit, a highway sure he knew the Sherwood forest but...
a fighter rogue at best.and dont et me started on the real world Robin Hood who still has no known identity .....
Blame 2nd edition D&D, if not 1st. But I know the Robin Hood was listed as inspiration for ranger in 2nd,right in the class description
Okay, Robin Hood was not what I meant.
A better way to say it is the idea that Rangers are just hunters or wilderness men/women, or just archers/dual-wielders. It involves that for sure, but there's something more, I think.
I like the 5e Paladin Oath of Vengeance. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
I'm sorry to say that, but this oath is a pale shadow of the 4e class: Avenger. The 4e version is way better than the 5e one.
And yet when people want to make a character that is very similar to a Paladin but not bound within a tiny LG box, people come out of the woodwork to say that they are having wrong/bad/incorrect fun and it is ruining their traditional/right/correct fun. No company is going to make 2 classes that are very similar but one is bound is a tiny alignment restricted box and the other isn't.I think the best way forward is to have a LG specific archetype of Paladin that does what the traditionalists want while the other options within the class allow freedom for those who want it. Then those who want to can say that only that specific archetype is usable in their game.
Again, I'm specifically against making "carbon-copies" of the Paladin for other alignments. I addressed that in one of my last posts.
Also, with your pardon, but the same alignment can be played in very different ways. Do you think that every character with the same alignment are equal? I hope not. The differences can be quite visible, because there's a Lot of stuff alignment does not cover.
Of course not every character of the same alignment or even the same alignment and class is going to be the same. However alignment does put restrictions on characters, and not every holy warrior that fights evil/chaos or for good/law needs to specifically be LG. There is nothing special about one alignment that merits it having its own unique class to defend it's ideals.
As I said, there should be different archetypes for different philosophies/alignments/codes. One of those archetypes in the core book should clearly be a very traditional lawful good Paladin. I just don't see why we can't have that and other options baked into one class.
Sure, rangers also get spells. Whether they're magic user and/or Druid spells, or specific priest pheres, depends on the edition. Sometimes they also get saddled with animal companions, other times they just stab Giants in the face extra hard.