Ideas for Paladins


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, I know it's early for feedback, but I have a horrible memory and really like this idea. For Paladins I would like to keep the Lawful requirement, but the good/evil/neutral alignment would depend on the god worshiped. In my opinion this is a good compromise between people who want paladins of any alignment and people who don't want them to change overmuch. So, if a person wanted to be a Paladin of Abadar, then they'd be LN. If they wanted to be a Paladin of Asmodeus, they'd have to be LE, and if they wanted to be a Paladin of Desna, they'd have to be LG.

The Lawful aspect would represent their intense devotion to the ideals their deity represents.

You could also just fold the anti-Paladin rules into the Paladin class, and bam, rules for evil Paladins.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Look my dude, there is no compromise on the lawful good side. Because the minute you do, in many eyes (mine included) you have a warpriest, not a paladin. Its not an issue of devotion to a deity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

there is nothing about the paladin that requires it to be lawful, only that it sticks to the class's code, tenants of faith if any. and all that si weak sauce at best.

oh and we only need one paladin thread right now... think this is the 3rd.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelfiredragon wrote:

there is nothing about the paladin that requires it to be lawful, only that it sticks to the class's code, tenants of faith if any. and all that si weak sauce at best.

oh and we only need one paladin thread right now... think this is the 3rd.

(other than like three editions of the game including the one pathfinder is based off of requiring it to be both lawful and good)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's already a Paladin thread up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah. Paladins are lawful good or they are not paladins they are something not-paladin.

Also do a proper anti-paladin don't just reverse the effect of the paladin and call it a job done, it's lazy and ugly and doesn't really work.


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

there is nothing about the paladin that requires it to be lawful, only that it sticks to the class's code, tenants of faith if any. and all that si weak sauce at best.

oh and we only need one paladin thread right now... think this is the 3rd.

(other than like three editions of the game including the one pathfinder is based off of requiring it to be both lawful and good)

and if gygax didn't have anything to do with 3rd tha might have stopped at the end of 2nd

and even your reply is weak sauce at best


5 people marked this as a favorite.

"Any Good" is preferable to "Any Lawful" but I prefer "LG only". If we're doing "Paladin change wishlist" though I would prefer to further differentiate Paladins from "Martial Priests" by underlining how Paladins can venerate many deities or no deity at all.

IMO a Paladin should get their powers because they are a paragon of virtue, not as a quid pro quo with some divine being. Clerics are granted power from their service, Paladins are granted power because the powers that be are impressed with you (this is why Paladins are held to a much higher standard than all the other divine casters).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why not just have a war priest or something similar? A LG war priest is a paladin.

Or better yet, if you want Paladin to be THAT specific, make it a Prestige Class.


cause the war priest has issues of being one of 2 things and not really pulling it off


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelfiredragon wrote:
cause the war priest has issues of being one of 2 things and not really pulling it off

How about we make a new "martial priest" class that is good at being the sword arm of some deity or church, and we leave the Paladin to be "someone who is so devoted to goodness and law that they get magic powers"?

Like one of the things we can do with a 2nd edition is "make better the things that should have been better".


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Paladins don't require a deity in 1e, I hope that does not change in 2e.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Paladins don't require a deity in 1e, I hope that does not change in 2e.

Indeed, I want people to be able to play divine champions of Desna, or Norgorber, or Desna, or Besmara, or Ng, or whoever... I just don't want to call those Paladins. Heck, I'd prefer if "divine champion of Iomedae" was distinct from "Paladin" too.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

"Any Good" is preferable to "Any Lawful" but I prefer "LG only". If we're doing "Paladin change wishlist" though I would prefer to further differentiate Paladins from "Martial Priests" by underlining how Paladins can venerate many deities or no deity at all.

IMO a Paladin should get their powers because they are a paragon of virtue, not as a quid pro quo with some divine being. Clerics are granted power from their service, Paladins are granted power because the powers that be are impressed with you (this is why Paladins are held to a much higher standard than all the other divine casters).

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:
cause the war priest has issues of being one of 2 things and not really pulling it off

How about we make a new "martial priest" class that is good at being the sword arm of some deity or church, and we leave the Paladin to be "someone who is so devoted to goodness and law that they get magic powers"?

Like one of the things we can do with a 2nd edition is "make better the things that should have been better".

Agreed!

At least if we are talking about alignment-based games.
It's cool to find I'm not alone on this ^^


2 people marked this as a favorite.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

TWO THREADS AND THE PLAYTEST ISN'T EVEN OUT YET!!!!

Commence smiting of the BADWRONGFUN!!!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paladin_Knight_marshmallow wrote:

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

TWO THREADS AND THE PLAYTEST ISN'T EVEN OUT YET!!!!

Commence smiting of the BADWRONGFUN!!!!!

STOP HAVING BAD WRONG FUN SHOUTING >


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to see them ditch the LG requirement totally. If you want a LG Paladin cool, but if you want a NE Paladin of the god of Assassins, also cool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paladin_Knight_marshmallow wrote:

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

TWO THREADS AND THE PLAYTEST ISN'T EVEN OUT YET!!!!

Commence smiting of the BADWRONGFUN!!!!!

Badwrongfun you say? Humm, Yes I believe I shall.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Demon Lord of Tribbles wrote:
Paladin_Knight_marshmallow wrote:

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

TWO THREADS AND THE PLAYTEST ISN'T EVEN OUT YET!!!!

Commence smiting of the BADWRONGFUN!!!!!

Badwrongfun you say? Humm, Yes I believe I shall.

I don't remember adding you to my list of nemeses!?!?

YOU BASTARD!!!


I have arrived!


Paladin_Knight_marshmallow wrote:
Demon Lord of Tribbles wrote:
Paladin_Knight_marshmallow wrote:

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

TWO THREADS AND THE PLAYTEST ISN'T EVEN OUT YET!!!!

Commence smiting of the BADWRONGFUN!!!!!

Badwrongfun you say? Humm, Yes I believe I shall.

I don't remember adding you to my list of nemeses!?!?

YOU BASTARD!!!

But I have gift baskets!


so have I!!!!!


Pain in the Backside wrote:
so have I!!!!!

But, I have the Rum. Check and maties


Well, gonna be a long night.
tosses gauntlet


Uses gauntlet as a glass


This whole thread is simply fabulous!
Leaves glitter for everyone

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Paladins don't require a deity in 1e, I hope that does not change in 2e.

Well you are likely to be disappointed. In the Golorian setting, as they devs have said in the past, all divine casters need a deity(even druids, who worship the Green Faith as their deity).

2E is going to much more setting infused than 1E.

This means, most likely, that the days of characters worshiping ideals are over.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Well you are likely to be disappointed. In the Golorian setting, as they devs have said in the past, all divine casters need a deity(even druids, who worship the Green Faith as their deity).

I would happily give up spellcasting to keep deityless Paladins (or Paladins who worship like all the gods they like.) Whole "gotta worship only one" thing in Golarion is like no Polytheistic culture I've ever heard of.

If we're gonna reconsider any of the lore, lets reconsider that.


Dragonborn3 wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Paladins don't require a deity in 1e, I hope that does not change in 2e.

Well you are likely to be disappointed. In the Golorian setting, as they devs have said in the past, all divine casters need a deity(even druids, who worship the Green Faith as their deity).

2E is going to much more setting infused than 1E.

This means, most likely, that the days of characters worshiping ideals are over.

A paladin without some kind of pardon never made a lick of sense to me. I am totally fine with requiring one.

Shadow Lodge

Or at least not Asmodeus worshiping Paladins, right?


Dragonborn3 wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Paladins don't require a deity in 1e, I hope that does not change in 2e.

Well you are likely to be disappointed. In the Golorian setting, as they devs have said in the past, all divine casters need a deity(even druids, who worship the Green Faith as their deity).

2E is going to much more setting infused than 1E.

This means, most likely, that the days of characters worshiping ideals are over.

well that's poopy, all that does is stifle peoples creativity


Dragonborn3 wrote:
Or at least not Asmodeus worshiping Paladins, right?

Pretty much any paladin, IMO must have a God or Pardon of some type. God, Fey, devil, or maybe Demonlord. Just saying.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Prerequisites belong in prestige classes. There, I said it.


doomman47 wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Paladins don't require a deity in 1e, I hope that does not change in 2e.

Well you are likely to be disappointed. In the Golorian setting, as they devs have said in the past, all divine casters need a deity(even druids, who worship the Green Faith as their deity).

2E is going to much more setting infused than 1E.

This means, most likely, that the days of characters worshiping ideals are over.

well that's poopy, all that does is stifle peoples creativity

Clerics of Ideals were always "at the GM's discretion", presumably to accommodate the use of Pathfinder rules for other settings.


Threeshades wrote:
Prerequisites belong in prestige classes. There, I said it.

Not really, Wizards are required to be taught magic for example. Bards pretty much MUST use some type of preform, Druids are nature based and so on. To me Clerics and Paladins gain power from a higher source, they are gifted it for service.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

None of your examples are really prerequisites. Wizards don't have some requirement to have an academic background, a teacher or anything, even their spellbook is a class feature, not a requirement. Bards don't have a requirement to using perform, they gain the ability to perform and use it in interesting ways, druids gain the ability use nature based magic and clerics choose a deity or ideal to gain their power from. Paladins are required to go with lawful good alignment and beyond that it doesnt do anything except restrict the way the class can be interpreted fluffwise and take away your abilities should it ever change.


Threeshades wrote:
None of your examples are really prerequisites. Wizards don't have some requirement to have an academic background, a teacher or anything, even their spellbook is a class feature, not a requirement. Bards don't have a requirement to using perform, they gain the ability to perform and use it in interesting ways, druids gain the ability use nature based magic and clerics choose a deity or ideal to gain their power from. Paladins are required to go with lawful good alignment and beyond that it doesnt do anything except restrict the way the class can be interpreted fluffwise and take away your abilities should it ever change.

Its the same type of Requirement as paladins needing god, same kinda thing. If a bard does not want to have to perform does his class still get its goodies? Of course not. Its the very same kinda of thing, you want to be a cleric or paladin, you pay the price, if not, be a wizard or something. But ya know, not a wizard born with power, as ya know, thats a sorcerer


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And a fighter doesnt get his class goodies if he becomes a pacifist. Of course you can't use your abilities if you choose not to use them. Choosing to use the abilities that you took the class for is just what you do, It's not a requirement.

The bard does not pay a price. It gains the ability to turn its performance into special effects.

Saying "you must be lawful good or you don't get any of the following" is a prerequisite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
doomman47 wrote:
well that's poopy, all that does is stifle peoples creativity

That is how some people feel about restricting the class by alignment.

Personally, I don't think Paladin should be a class, especially when we only get 12 classes in the new core rules. For many people, there is a very narrow definition of what they consider a Paladin. With a limited number of classes, I want each class to have a wide range of character concepts it can be used to fill.

I would much rather have a holy martial class where you have options that affect what they can do. You could even have gating options which restrict what choices are valid for the class. As an example, one of those options could be "Pure" meaning someone who has never strayed from the faith while another is "Redeemed" meaning they got to where they are by becoming a believer.

Pure Evil would be very different than Pure Good or Pure Chaos. Making the decision to be Pure would open up some options that those who didn't choose that wouldn't be able to take. Selecting Redeemed would mean someone who found their faith and may have a different set of gated options based on that.

If we are to take from Starfinder, perhaps one of the profiles for this Warrior of Faith would in the fluff make reference to Paladins, Fáris or other cultures chivalrous knights.


Threeshades wrote:

And a fighter doesnt get his class goodies if he becomes a pacifist. Of course you can't use your abilities if you choose not to use them. Choosing to use the abilities that you took the class for is just what you do, It's not a requirement.

The bard does not pay a price. It gains the ability to turn its performance into special effects.

Saying "you must be lawful good or you don't get any of the following" is a prerequisite.

Funny how you are fine with bard having a prerequisite and not others.


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

And a fighter doesnt get his class goodies if he becomes a pacifist. Of course you can't use your abilities if you choose not to use them. Choosing to use the abilities that you took the class for is just what you do, It's not a requirement.

The bard does not pay a price. It gains the ability to turn its performance into special effects.

Saying "you must be lawful good or you don't get any of the following" is a prerequisite.

Funny how you are fine with bard having a prerequisite and not others.

If you can show me where it says you have to have ranks in perform in order to use any bard feature i may change my mind.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Threeshades wrote:
If you can show me where it says you have to have ranks in perform in order to use any bard feature i may change my mind.

Versatile Performance is a bard class feature. In order to use it, you need ranks in a perform skill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
If you can show me where it says you have to have ranks in perform in order to use any bard feature i may change my mind.
Versatile Performance is a bard class feature. In order to use it, you need ranks in a perform skill.

Nope. Doesn't require any ranks. Simply allows the bard to make a specific perform check in place of another skill. Perform can be used untrained.


But it requires preform. This is what you re refusing to see


it's a feature that allows the class to use perform in place of something else. You are spinning an option into a requirement here.

That's the same as claiming that weapon finesse requires dexterity. No it allows the use of dexterity in place of strength.

A bard can at any point choose to make a perform dance check instead of acrobatics and doesnt have to worry about it before or after.

A paladin's entire host of class features, including spellcasting hinge solely on the fact that she needs to be lawful good. and beyond that the fact that she is lawful good does not figure at all into how the ability works.


But, they are still required to use preform, correct?

Also, I am anti-LG, it should be any Al. I simply think it needs a pardon.

1 to 50 of 113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Ideas for Paladins All Messageboards