An Impassioned Plea: Paladins - Respect Tradition


Prerelease Discussion

401 to 442 of 442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


So those who are so vehement about Paladins remaining LG and haven't answered this question, please do so:

If Paladin remained a class but lost all the 'special powers', but retained the LG requirement, would you still play it?

Wei Ji - I would.

I played Paladins back in 2nd Edition and Paladins SUCKED back in 2nd Edition - Lay on Hands was a complete joke (it was 2 hp per level that went into a pool, so at level 10 over the course of a full 24 hours you could heal a grand 20 HP, which was 1-2 hits max.) there was no smite evil, they were Fighters who couldn't weapon specialization, who had detect evil, but it wasn't even like today's detect evil, it was nowhere near that good.

There was no Divine Grace, there *was* immunity to disease, but that was fairly minor.

On top of that, to play one, you had to have a minimum 17 Charisma - Did I mention that Charisma did jack and squat for the class? Their spells, when they got them (their spellcasting was pathetic) were WISDOM BASED.

So you want to talk about MAD?

You needed everything a Fighter needed, but no weapon specialization (Which was very important back then), meaning Strength, Dex, and Con, but you also needed Wisdom for spells, AND you had to put a NATURAL 17 (rolled on 3d6) into Charisma. On top of that you had to play a Human, and Humans SUCKED BAD in 2nd edition.

So, yeah, I'd STILL play a Paladin if most of the bells and whistles were stripped out, so long as their place in the setting and lore were there.

Of course, it would be silly to have them be seen as crusading heroes without any powers at all, but I see the absurd argument but I still say... Yes... I'd play them. Why? Because I played Paladins long before they were even remotely good.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Warpriest is pretty cool, but a different concept. It is, literally, a priest that goes to war. Not a warrior who is holy.

Paladin is a derivation of fighter, not a derivation of cleric. It has full BAB, heavy armor, and spells are pretty minor. Warpriest is not a substitute for Paladin any more than a cleric with war domain is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
So if the warpriest is good enough for all the other alignments .. why does the paladin need to exist as a separate class?

In all honesty, I would rather the Paladin class go away completely than open it to all alignments. I would also prefer an LG-only "warrior priest" option to not be called "Paladin" as I would prefer Paladins to not have to be devoted to specific deities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
In all honesty, I would rather the Paladin class go away completely than open it to all alignments.

If that's what it came down to, I could live with that. I'd rather have no paladin than have to deal with a LG only one.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:

Warpriest is pretty cool, but a different concept. It is, literally, a priest that goes to war. Not a warrior who is holy.

Paladin is a derivation of fighter, not a derivation of cleric. It has full BAB, heavy armor, and spells are pretty minor. Warpriest is not a substitute for Paladin any more than a cleric with war domain is.

Ok!

So with that being true, we can stop insisting that people who want something similar just go play a war priest. They are two different things, two different feels, and not equivalent.

A NG paladin-type person should feel different than a LG or CG. They may even have different abilities, a vastly different code, and so on. They wouldn't just get a bunch of powers and the ability to run free while the poor LG would be "restricted" by their code. Rather, they'd have their own things to deal with that could be just as -- if not more so -- complicated as the standard paladin.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

Warpriest is pretty cool, but a different concept. It is, literally, a priest that goes to war. Not a warrior who is holy.

Paladin is a derivation of fighter, not a derivation of cleric. It has full BAB, heavy armor, and spells are pretty minor. Warpriest is not a substitute for Paladin any more than a cleric with war domain is.

Ok!

So with that being true, we can stop insisting that people who want something similar just go play a war priest. They are two different things, two different feels, and not equivalent.

snipped.

yes, thank you

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
In all honesty, I would rather the Paladin class go away completely than open it to all alignments.
If that's what it came down to, I could live with that. I'd rather have no paladin than have to deal with a LG only one.

I can’t imagine Paizo cutting the Paladin from 2E.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Code, and alignement, are two different things.

I go back again to 5e and it's three codes: devotion, Ancients, and Revenge.
They are 3 very different codes. All 3 of them can be LG (Iomedae, Erastil and Ragathiel are perfect PF examples for each). So you can be a LG paladin, with a code, and be totally different than another LG paladin, with a different code.

Even better, you could be a Devotion paladin, and follow Iomedae, or Saernrae, or Shelyn, or even Desna, and have different alignments, all within the same Devotion code. As much (or as little) restrictive for the NG and CG guys as it is for the LG guy.

Right now, in Pathfinder, the code of a Paladin of Torag, a Paladin of Ragathiel, a Paladin of Iomedae, a Paladin of Iomedae, and a Paladin of Abadar, are pretty different. With all of them being LG.


knightnday wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

Warpriest is pretty cool, but a different concept. It is, literally, a priest that goes to war. Not a warrior who is holy.

Paladin is a derivation of fighter, not a derivation of cleric. It has full BAB, heavy armor, and spells are pretty minor. Warpriest is not a substitute for Paladin any more than a cleric with war domain is.

Ok!

So with that being true, we can stop insisting that people who want something similar just go play a war priest. They are two different things, two different feels, and not equivalent.

A NG paladin-type person should feel different than a LG or CG. They may even have different abilities, a vastly different code, and so on. They wouldn't just get a bunch of powers and the ability to run free while the poor LG would be "restricted" by their code. Rather, they'd have their own things to deal with that could be just as -- if not more so -- complicated as the standard paladin.

If Paizo wants to make a new class called "Envoy of Balance" that is TN, and it is a full BAB that gets some abilities I am fine with that. As long as it doesn't get the name Paladin and doesn't have the Paladin powers. Specifically divine grace.

If Paizo wants to make a new class called "Champion of Freedom" that is CG, and it is a full BAB that gets some abilities I am fine with that. As long as it doesn't get the name Paladin and doesn't have the Paladin powers. Specifically divine grace.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
I mean, fervor and your two divine blessings that are related to your gods portfolio. Most of them aren't as mechanically powerful as divine grace though so i understand how thematically/deificially appropriate abilities are somehow less fluffy than raw number advantage.

Or they dont fit the concept, as a warpriest you're more of a spellcaster than a martial.

Gaining domains is also nonrepresentative of what I want as well, as a Paladin you can still be an atheist and gain powers from the concept of your class and what you fight for, a holy warrior should also be able to do so.

If divine grace was a flat bonus not based on anything I'd still take it. If it was situational to work against only foes of their ideals I'd still take it, because the flavor fits the class. The sacred armor of warpreist would be a nice substitute, if it didn't come so damned late in the class (a little under halfway through most campaigns, compared to a paladins 1/5th)

They also fail to grant a bonus to find and destroy foes of their ideals (While sacred weapon somewhat works, it doesn't really fit the flavor. Smite does.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
In all honesty, I would rather the Paladin class go away completely than open it to all alignments.
If that's what it came down to, I could live with that. I'd rather have no paladin than have to deal with a LG only one.
I can’t imagine Paizo cutting the Paladin from 2E.

It is confirmed to be there.

The hope is that it allows different ethos than "Galahad clone", even if it is through archetypes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

Warpriest is pretty cool, but a different concept. It is, literally, a priest that goes to war. Not a warrior who is holy.

Paladin is a derivation of fighter, not a derivation of cleric. It has full BAB, heavy armor, and spells are pretty minor. Warpriest is not a substitute for Paladin any more than a cleric with war domain is.

Ok!

So with that being true, we can stop insisting that people who want something similar just go play a war priest. They are two different things, two different feels, and not equivalent.

A NG paladin-type person should feel different than a LG or CG. They may even have different abilities, a vastly different code, and so on. They wouldn't just get a bunch of powers and the ability to run free while the poor LG would be "restricted" by their code. Rather, they'd have their own things to deal with that could be just as -- if not more so -- complicated as the standard paladin.

And thus would be something other than a paladin. Not a paladin with the lawful good removed.


if I ever created a paladin character and only dipped into for divine grace, and the multiclassed out of it, I do hate to tell people it wouldn't be a bard or sorcerer, but a cleric.
(sure the spellcasting part would kind of suck, but its all about the character concept, not the class or its abilities)

ick.. the sorcerer ... the one class in 3.x that never should have been..... didn't bring anything to the table... atleast when 4e and pathfinder came along it got some nice toys of its own...

edit: ick two... the another class in 3.x that never should have been, the war mage....

edit: the war priest in pathfinder never should have been...

or should ah ve been better


4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
knightnday wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

Warpriest is pretty cool, but a different concept. It is, literally, a priest that goes to war. Not a warrior who is holy.

Paladin is a derivation of fighter, not a derivation of cleric. It has full BAB, heavy armor, and spells are pretty minor. Warpriest is not a substitute for Paladin any more than a cleric with war domain is.

Ok!

So with that being true, we can stop insisting that people who want something similar just go play a war priest. They are two different things, two different feels, and not equivalent.

A NG paladin-type person should feel different than a LG or CG. They may even have different abilities, a vastly different code, and so on. They wouldn't just get a bunch of powers and the ability to run free while the poor LG would be "restricted" by their code. Rather, they'd have their own things to deal with that could be just as -- if not more so -- complicated as the standard paladin.

If Paizo wants to make a new class called "Envoy of Balance" that is TN, and it is a full BAB that gets some abilities I am fine with that. As long as it doesn't get the name Paladin and doesn't have the Paladin powers. Specifically divine grace.

If Paizo wants to make a new class called "Champion of Freedom" that is CG, and it is a full BAB that gets some abilities I am fine with that. As long as it doesn't get the name Paladin and doesn't have the Paladin powers. Specifically divine grace.

So pretty much divine grace is the sticking point, and the name I suppose. Not the lore, not tradition, but the worry that someone else might get divine grace and/or that the name might be attached to something that doesn't echo the past.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
In all honesty, I would rather the Paladin class go away completely than open it to all alignments.
If that's what it came down to, I could live with that. I'd rather have no paladin than have to deal with a LG only one.
I can’t imagine Paizo cutting the Paladin from 2E.

I'd be surprised myself, but it's possible. We're not even at the playtest yet. But I'll stick with my opinion: I'd rather see the class go away than stay LG only. Several of my worst gaming experiences have happened over 'is it evil or not' arguments and one is the only time I've seen an actual table flip.

gustavo iglesias wrote:
It is confirmed to be there.

It's a playtest after all so confirmed for the playtest doesn't mean it's confirmed for the final product.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
knightnday wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

Warpriest is pretty cool, but a different concept. It is, literally, a priest that goes to war. Not a warrior who is holy.

Paladin is a derivation of fighter, not a derivation of cleric. It has full BAB, heavy armor, and spells are pretty minor. Warpriest is not a substitute for Paladin any more than a cleric with war domain is.

Ok!

So with that being true, we can stop insisting that people who want something similar just go play a war priest. They are two different things, two different feels, and not equivalent.

A NG paladin-type person should feel different than a LG or CG. They may even have different abilities, a vastly different code, and so on. They wouldn't just get a bunch of powers and the ability to run free while the poor LG would be "restricted" by their code. Rather, they'd have their own things to deal with that could be just as -- if not more so -- complicated as the standard paladin.

If Paizo wants to make a new class called "Envoy of Balance" that is TN, and it is a full BAB that gets some abilities I am fine with that. As long as it doesn't get the name Paladin and doesn't have the Paladin powers. Specifically divine grace.

If Paizo wants to make a new class called "Champion of Freedom" that is CG, and it is a full BAB that gets some abilities I am fine with that. As long as it doesn't get the name Paladin and doesn't have the Paladin powers. Specifically divine grace.

oh... and because you think it will weaken the paladin if itwould get divine grace or a dandy abiltiy just like it, say a flat +5 to each throws strait up, you realise that could end up more powerful....

seriously, get off the high horse and the high pedestal it is standing on. it will hurt when you fall off.

and if nothing else, laugh at the last part


It is confirmed that the final product will have the 11 original core classes + alchemist. We don't know what those classes would like: maybe paladins are any aligment, maybe rogues are wuxia, and maybe monks cast spells. But those are the 12 classes that will be ther in August 2019 when the final game goes live.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Arakhor wrote:
because chances are that people who really want to play variant paladins are already doing so and aren't waiting for anyone's approval other than that of their GM.

Unless you want to play in PFS at gaming stores and conventions. Then you have to wait for Paizo to make non-LG paladins legal.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Manager

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Folks, I'm going to lock this up over the weekend. I'll open it back up when I'm in the office again on Monday morning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:


Context, past arguments with many of them continues to show that their primary complaint is that they can't get Cha to all saves with the alternate yet thematically appropriate options for holy warrior. Divine Grace is the one constant on any of the reworks. Own the label if thats going to so obviously be the case.

Hey Ryan, guess what has Divine Grace, Antipaladin and Tyrant aka the CE & LE (respectively) Paladins.....

Unholy Resilience(Su): At 2nd level, an antipaladin gains a bonus equal to his Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws.

So why aren't you letting other Paladins of other alignments have it? When other Paladins of Other Alignments Already Have It.

A Rose by any other name right?

Paizo Employee Customer Service Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a series of posts and replies. If you want to debate alignment and paladins, you need to find a way to do it without bickering. Reasons people like or don't like paladins are subjective. Discussion ideas is fine, attacking or fighting with other posters over differences of opinions on paladins is not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

off topic: Hi Sara, if it were up to me, I'd left this locked.

on topic. some traditions just need to be left in the past


Steelfiredragon wrote:

off topic: Hi Sara, if it were up to me, I'd left this locked.

on topic. some traditions just need to be left in the past

I am glad you didn't leave it locked Sara, I honestly feel the "open the class up" contingent are wrong here.

If I had to make the call... I'd rather have no Paladin than non-LG only. LG only is the way it was intended to be.

Taking that away, to me, lessens the class to the point where it's not worth even being in the game anymore.

I know, if it is opened up, I'll be stopping playing Pathfinder. I don't play 5e because they opened it up. I'll stick with 1e or just find a different game.

Paladins are one place I draw a line in the Sand.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:

off topic: Hi Sara, if it were up to me, I'd left this locked.

on topic. some traditions just need to be left in the past

I am glad you didn't leave it locked Sara, I honestly feel the "open the class up" contingent are wrong here.

If I had to make the call... I'd rather have no Paladin than non-LG only. LG only is the way it was intended to be.

Taking that away, to me, lessens the class to the point where it's not worth even being in the game anymore.

I know, if it is opened up, I'll be stopping playing Pathfinder. I don't play 5e because they opened it up. I'll stick with 1e or just find a different game.

Paladins are one place I draw a line in the Sand.

I am glad you didn't leave it locked Sara, I honestly feel the "keep it LG" contingent are wrong here.

If I had to make the call... I'd rather have no Paladin than LG only. LG only is the way it was intended to be in the past but it's time to expand.

Taking LG away, to me, strengthens the class to the point where it's now worth being in the game.

I know, if it is NOT opened up, I'll be stopping playing Pathfinder. I'll stick with 1e or just find a different game.

Paladins are one place I draw a line in the Sand.


Hwalsh you have made that point clearly several times over and clearly there are some that agree and some that disagree and a some that can come to a compromise. you on the other seem to be in the my way or the highway group.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelfiredragon wrote:

off topic: Hi Sara, if it were up to me, I'd left this locked.

on topic. some traditions just need to be left in the past

Everyone knows paladins are Human only man. Its tradition


Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:

off topic: Hi Sara, if it were up to me, I'd left this locked.

on topic. some traditions just need to be left in the past

Everyone knows paladins are Human only man. Its tradition

fixed

now laugh


Steelfiredragon wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:

off topic: Hi Sara, if it were up to me, I'd left this locked.

on topic. some traditions just need to be left in the past

Everyone knows paladins are Human only man. Its tradition

fixed

now laugh

That was not an act of goodness or kindness!


who ever said Dragons had to be nice.

it was supposed to be funny.

and you didn't laugh at the I'm only human video.... which was appropriate to tradition of the paladin being only human, flesh and blood a man


Steelfiredragon wrote:
Hwalsh you have made that point clearly several times over and clearly there are some that agree and some that disagree and a some that can come to a compromise. you on the other seem to be in the my way or the highway group.

In this matter? Yes. This is a binary situation.

Paladins should remain LG only.

If Paizo wants to make other classes, for different alignments, that have different abilities then I support that. As long as they have a different name and different abilities.

If they want to make a Herald of Freedom that is full Bab (or whatever 2e uses) and CG only with special abilities you can only get from being CG, that's fine.

In this case you can't really "compromise" regarding non-LG Paladins.

If my desire is for LG only Paladins then to compromise to allow non-LG Paladins isn't possible. Why? Because that's just a surrender.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:

off topic: Hi Sara, if it were up to me, I'd left this locked.

on topic. some traditions just need to be left in the past

Everyone knows paladins are Human only man. Its tradition

And only with the right stats... Or cavaliers... Or...

I do find it amusing that some can distil the decades of tradition in D&D into such a narrow vision.

"Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for that character"

"Paladins with any form of "Holy Sword" are virtually immune to all magic. The paladin may at any time he chooses obtain a horse which is likewise gifted, but he may never obtain a second within ten years of the first, so if one is killed it is not automatically replaced. The paladin's horse is a Heavy, with Armor Class 5, Moves 18", has 5+1 Hit Dice, and high intelligence. Paladins will never be allowed to possess more than four magical items, excluding the armor, shield and up to four weapons they normally use. They will give away all treasure that they win, save that which is necessary to maintain themselves, their men, and a modest castle. Gifts must be to the poor or to charitable or religious institutions, i.e. not to some other character played in the game. A paladin's stronghold cannot be above 200.000 gold pieces in total cost, and no more than 200 men can be retained to guard it. Paladins normally prefer to dwell with lawful princes or patriarchs, but circumstances may prevent this. They will associate only with lawful characters."


Steelfiredragon wrote:

who ever said Dragons had to be nice.

it was supposed to be funny.

and you didn't laugh at the I'm only human video.... which was appropriate to tradition of the paladin being only human, flesh and blood a man

No, No, it was evil. Say, you wanna be a paladin


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just chiming in to say "Sorry OP you and I disagree."

I would very much like to see Champions of "X" alignment for each alignment, as a class. Calling the LG one "Paladin" as a nod to legacy would be great, in my opinion.

It should be one class with different options based on your alignment, and the portfolio of your deity. Any defining features like *Cough* Divine Grace *Cough* should be on all of the champions. Any other abilities should be part of a common pool you choose from. Having some be "X" alignment or "X,Y" alignment only would also be fine.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:

Paladins should remain LG only.

If Paizo wants to make other classes, for different alignments, that have different abilities then I support that. As long as they have a different name and different abilities.

Just want to say that I appreciate that clarification. At least this would be a possible compromise that has already been suggested by people from the other side of the fence as well.

Now just for sake of clarity, three questions:

If you say other classes for different alignments, would that also include classes that have a Codex similar to the Paladin's Codex, only fitting their particular alignment? With the possibility to fall when they break their code?

Would it be ok, if some of the paladin's special abilities would be used or adapted for those other classes where they fit naturally (I'm not talking about divine grace, but for example Aura of good, or channel energy; and I'm explicitely not talking about just copying the Paladin's abilities).

And given that it's probably just not feasible for Paizo to print 8 other classes just as an alternative for the Paladin, what about expressing those alternative classes by archetypes (again must not necessarily be a Paladin archetype)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Paladins should remain LG only.

If Paizo wants to make other classes, for different alignments, that have different abilities then I support that. As long as they have a different name and different abilities.

Just want to say that I appreciate that clarification. At least this would be a possible compromise that has already been suggested by people from the other side of the fence as well.

Now just for sake of clarity, three questions:

If you say other classes for different alignments, would that also include classes that have a Codex similar to the Paladin's Codex, only fitting their particular alignment? With the possibility to fall when they break their code?

Would it be ok, if some of the paladin's special abilities would be used or adapted for those other classes where they fit naturally (I'm not talking about divine grace, but for example Aura of good, or channel energy; and I'm explicitely not talking about just copying the Paladin's abilities).

And given that it's probably just not feasible for Paizo to print 8 other classes just as an alternative for the Paladin, what about expressing those alternative classes by archetypes (again must not necessarily be a Paladin archetype)

Would be peachy keen here.


Please explain how we're removing the identity of the Paladin by opening it up, without resorting to "tradition" or "I feel that it does" for your arguement.

Right now the only reasons I've heard are those ones, and frankly it's getting weary.

Also explain why NG can't make a good paladin.


It can make a good holy warrior - but that isn’t a paladin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
It can make a good holy warrior - but that isn’t a paladin.

Why?

As in what are the differences between it and a LG paladin, that make it unable to be one, aside from alignment.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think this thread is producing more circular fighting/bickering. Going to go ahead and lock it for good this time.

401 to 442 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
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion