The unpopular opinion; Maybe Paladins shouldn't be a class

[Wicked Woodpecker of the West]

Quote:

Alternately, the paladin stays as is and some alternate options are introduced, with current paladin being the standard instead of the exception.

Sure we already have antipal, tyrant and NE egoistic variant, and Grey pal for LN and NG.

Give us liberator and full Monte Cook transition is made :3

[Wei Ji the Learner]

However, if we are going to make them all Paladin analogues, we NEED to have them be equivalent, not a watered down 'play-pretend-think really hard and maybe you might be a PINO'.

...and that will require a lot more work, imo, than simply adjusting the alignment requirements.

[Arssanguinus]

But analogues, not just a paladin with a sticker placed over the name. Something with its own power suite.

[Wicked Woodpecker of the West]

As I said - I play paladins bound to gods (mostly to care about deities personal codes in lives of divine classes not about vague, incoherent and outdated aligments) - so yeah I can see champion of every divine should be made different.

Examples:

true paladins - serve archon lords and after her ascencion often Iomedae - leave them as be - although I'd make Iomedean human only - for Gygax sake

then dwarven defender of Torag - with simmilar powers, but less healer more smiter, because Torag is not much into mercy

Erastil - male only archer type with ranger spell choice

Sarenrae - just swap pally elements for bard elements for dervish

Shelyn - hmmm... more classic arthurian, but focused on preserving beauty

Desna - wanderer protector of roads with ban for staying anywhere for more than month

CC - well if you do not yearly contribute to fight with one oppresive goverment - you're banned - also swashbuckler panache to some degree

Irori - just monks with some swaps of powers

Abadar - more like classic pallies, but strictly bound to laws, like bunch of Javerts.

Pharasma - undead hunter

Nethys - sort of magus? protector of all arcane relics? bit like Mystran paladins in Faerun

Gozreh... hmmm.. something like 4e Warden?

and so on, and on, and on

[Wei Ji the Learner]

What if instead of getting rid of the LG requirement the list of 'what makes a Paladin fall' was removed?

Would that make the class less restrictive, more inclusive, while still maintaining the alignment requirement?

Or is that a *must have absolute* for our niche fundamentalists?

[Diminuendo]

HWalsh wrote:

They'll single you out for direct personal Snipes and they outright refuse to practice what they preach.

HWalsh wrote:

I know a therapist in the Atlanta area who can probably help with that

The fact that you are so tone deaf as to write both of these sentences in the same post is astonishing. You are so self deluded that you have convinced yourself that anyone who disagrees with you must have mental instability. You are so immature that you feel people offering a counter argument are attacking you personally.

I initially tried to extend an olive branch, tried to convince you that it's OK for us to disagree on this issue, encouraged you to discuss your views, and share evidence for your arguments rather than continue your stomping tantrum.

With the above comment you have successfully graduated from an annoyance to outright offensive.

How dare you make light of people seeking to improve themselves through mental health services.

Find another thread to comment on. You have shown nothing toxicity in this thread, even those who share your opinion on LG Paladins are disgusted by your behavior. Your opinion is no longer wanted here.

How is that for a personal snipe?

[Arssanguinus]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

What if instead of getting rid of the LG requirement the list of 'what makes a Paladin fall' was removed?

Would that make the class less restrictive, more inclusive, while still maintaining the alignment requirement?

Or is that a *must have absolute* for our niche fundamentalists?

Providing more nuance to paladin codes and what makes them possibly fall in the core rules would be good.

[Wicked Woodpecker of the West]

Quote:

What if instead of getting rid of the LG requirement the list of 'what makes a Paladin fall' was removed?

Would that make the class less restrictive, more inclusive, while still maintaining the alignment requirement?

Or is that a *must have absolute* for our niche fundamentalists?

I'd rather see variety of codes with various conditions for fall.

Any variant of paladin still should have strictness.

[Demon Lord of Paladins!]

Arssanguinus wrote:

Does law get to have the same flexibility from the description?

Yes, there is being Lawful does not make you Judge dread, which it would if treated the way he wants to treat chaotic

[Revan]

Arssanguinus wrote:

But analogues, not just a paladin with a sticker placed over the name. Something with its own power suite.

I don't disagree in principle, but let me ask--what powers does the Paladin actually have that don't make thematic sense for a hypothetical Chaotic Good analogue? Discounting anti-chaos spells that can easily be swapped for their anti-law equivalents? Certainly their immunity to charm and compulsion (and protecting others from the same) are literally *more* thematic for CG variants, as that's literally where they originate.

[Demon Lord of Paladins!]

Wicked Woodpecker of the West wrote:

As I said - I play paladins bound to gods (mostly to care about deities personal codes in lives of divine classes not about vague, incoherent and outdated aligments) - so yeah I can see champion of every divine should be made different.

Examples:

true paladins - serve archon lords and after her ascencion often Iomedae - leave them as be - although I'd make Iomedean human only - for Gygax sake

then dwarven defender of Torag - with simmilar powers, but less healer more smiter, because Torag is not much into mercy

Erastil - male only archer type with ranger spell choice

Sarenrae - just swap pally elements for bard elements for dervish

Shelyn - hmmm... more classic arthurian, but focused on preserving beauty

Desna - wanderer protector of roads with ban for staying anywhere for more than month

CC - well if you do not yearly contribute to fight with one oppresive goverment - you're banned - also swashbuckler panache to some degree

Irori - just monks with some swaps of powers

Abadar - more like classic pallies, but strictly bound to laws, like bunch of Javerts.

Pharasma - undead hunter

Nethys - sort of magus? protector of all arcane relics? bit like Mystran paladins in Faerun

Gozreh... hmmm.. something like 4e Warden?

and so on, and on, and on

This is pretty much paladin with 5e style oaths man.

[kyrt-ryder]

I love how Nox and I managed to find common ground over this chasm in philosophy, but nobody else even mentions it. Quoting that exchange once.

Nox Aeterna wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Nox Aeterna wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

@ Nox

Let's say the CRB has a class called Champion of Ideals.

This class had eight branches, one representing each alignment other than True Neutral.

One of these branches are the Lawful Good Paladins.

In world, absolutely nothing changes.

How does this effect you?

It doesnt assuming the others have their own names and the paladins keep unique restrictions.

So we do have some common ground.

Fantastic.

My concern is with the paladin itself, what other iterations with equal or similar power have or dont, doesnt really concern me.

If they created a Guardian, which had the same exact powers of a paladin but were NG or CG, i wouldnt really care since it isnt a paladin, change the name, the lore and add it to the game, sure whatever.

This wouldnt change what a paladin is really, i can agree with a common ground here.

[Diminuendo]

That is awesome Kyrt, sorry I missed it among the toxicity.

My intent for this thread was always debate and discussion.

[willuwontu]

Bloodrealm wrote:

Hi, calm and rational pro-alignment here. I'd appreciate you not lying that HWalsh's fervor is the only argument for keeping Paladins as Paladins. I've pointed out multiple times that I'd be more than happy with a similar class to Paladin mechanics with several specializations based on alignment and having the LG option be Paladin and CE option Antipaladin.

How about a class almost exactly the same but not called paladin, with oaths for each alignment, and the LG oath is called "The Oath of the Paladin"?

[TolkienBard]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

@ Nox

Let's say the CRB has a class called Champion of Ideals.

This class had eight branches, one representing each alignment other than True Neutral.

One of these branches are the Lawful Good Paladins.

In world, absolutely nothing changes.

How does this affect you?

We already have 12 core base classes coming out. Now you want to add SEVEN MORE? The point of PF2 is to simplify.

I get what you are saying, and at first blush, it almost makes some sense. But here's the problem.

All eight versions need to be core, base classes that come with their own, mostly unique level progression from 1-20 and all of them need to exhibit the same rigid alignment restriction that the Paladin does to LG. For some, especially CN, that is going to be a logical quagmire, since the nature of CN is TO BE UNBOUND.

Furthermore, do we really need seven more martial fighter classes? And once we open that bottle, giving each alignment its own flavour, does it stop there? Or are we then going to start just making these abilities more feat-like, as plenty of players will want some of column A and a bit of column B, all while playing a PC from column C.

For the record, I'm not against more classes. I think that the more classes that are brought in as core. BASE classes, the more complicated things are quickly going to get though. In such a system, one would almost, by force, need to adopt a rule prohibiting these classes from multi-classing, just to keep things sane. Hell, in the campaigns I am part of, the house rule is already that Paladins can only multi-class with fighter or cleric, but that's a house rule we have settled on.

It seems some of the biggest reasons the existence of Paladins as a strictly LG class is even an issue really comes back to just a few glaring problems. First, there is the "Paladin of (deity name here)" issue. Paladins, don't need to worship a specific deity to obtain their blessings. They need to follow the path of LG. Outside of following that path, they could in fact be devotees/worshipers of pretty much any deity. That does not make said deity where they get there gifts from though. Granted, it would be illogical for the Paladin to worship any deity devoted to chaos and suffering, but that falls into following the LG path, not with a conflict of religious tennant. Secondly, there is the multi-classing issue. One thing early editions of D&D got mostly right (IMHO) was restricting the Paladin's ability to multi-class. They couldn't do it. As I pointed out above, we modified things to allow more fighter or, if the Paladin IS a devotee of a particular deity, cleric. Those are the only options. That eliminates the many of the incentives for players to take the Paladin dip. Players taking a Paladin dip are ALMOST always doing it for power optimization, not for story-driven reasons.

The classic Paladin archetype has been around for 600+ years now. Many players want to attempt it. It isn't easy. The fun of playing a Paladin often comes from the challenge of following such a rigid code, or else losing the gifts of Paladin-hood.

OPening up the Paladin to any alignment as some of suggested makes ZERO sense. Creating seven more base classes makes more sense, but still seems awfully fraught with problems. Then the arguments begin that rigid codes of conduct are silly and that there should be no reason for alignment to come into play. Except for the Paladin, alignment rests at the very core of their being.

[Charabdos, The Tidal King]

HWalsh wrote:

Wei Ji - Here is the thing...

What is the number one power people want out of non-LG Paladins...

Is it Smite Evil? Nope.
Is it Lay on Hands? Nope.
Is it Channeling? Nope.
Is it the Divine Health? Nuh uh.

I want all those things for my CG paladin of Cayden Cailean. And if you replace Smite Evil with Smite Chaos I want it all on my LN paladin of Abadar.

[Demon Lord of Paladins!]

TolkienBard wrote:

Players taking a Paladin dip are ALMOST always doing it for power optimization, not for story-driven reasons.

By all that is unholy, please learn about power gameing before you try to use this debunked and vastly flawed argument. Cleric dipping into paladin for a few levels is NOT power gaming.

[kyrt-ryder]

TolkienBard wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

@ Nox

Let's say the CRB has a class called Champion of Ideals.

This class had eight branches, one representing each alignment other than True Neutral.

One of these branches are the Lawful Good Paladins.

In world, absolutely nothing changes.

How does this affect you?

We already have 12 core base classes coming out. Now you want to add SEVEN MORE? The point of PF2 is to simplify.

No I don't. The Champion of Ideals is one class.

Just like the Sorcerer is one class despite numerous bloodlines.

Just like the Wizard is one class despite numerous specializations.

Just like the Cleric is one class despite numerous domains.

Quote:

I get what you are saying, and at first blush, it almost makes some sense. But here's the problem.

All eight versions need to be core, base classes that come with their own, mostly unique level progression from 1-20 and all of them need to exhibit the same rigid alignment restriction that the Paladin does to LG. For some, especially CN, that is going to be a logical quagmire, since the nature of CN is TO BE UNBOUND.

One core class, eight branches on a fundamentally identical chassis with a few differences over the levels. Like a sorcerer bloodline.

Quote:

Furthermore, do we really need seven more martial fighter classes? And once we open that bottle, giving each alignment its own flavour, does it stop there? Or are we then going to start just making these abilities more feat-like, as plenty of players will want some of column A and a bit of column B, all while playing a PC from column C.

How many 'classes' does the Fighter represent? I'm talking about one class here. Just one.

Quote:

For the record, I'm not against more classes. I think that the more classes that are brought in as core. BASE classes, the more complicated things are quickly going to get though. In such a system, one would almost, by force, need to adopt a rule prohibiting these classes from multi-classing, just to keep things sane. Hell, in the campaigns I am part of, the house rule is already that Paladins can only multi-class with fighter or cleric, but that's a house rule we have settled on.

...still just one class dude. Fills the same hole the Paladin would, but fills far more gamespace for players and GMs.

Quote:

It seems some of the biggest reasons the existence of Paladins as a strictly LG class is even an issue really comes back to just a few glaring problems. First, there is the "Paladin of (deity name here)" issue. Paladins, don't need to worship a specific deity to obtain their blessings. They need to follow the path of LG. Outside of following that path, they could in fact be devotees/worshipers of pretty much any deity. That does not make said deity where they get there gifts from though. Granted, it would be illogical for the Paladin to worship any deity devoted to chaos and suffering, but that falls into following the LG path, not with a conflict of religious tennant.

Paladin can be strictly LG, but everyone is better off if it's the LG option of a more inclusive class.

Quote:

Secondly, there is the multi-classing issue. One thing early editions of D&D got mostly right (IMHO) was restricting the Paladin's ability to multi-class. They couldn't do it. As I pointed out above, we modified things to allow more fighter or, if the Paladin IS a devotee of a particular deity, cleric. Those are the only options. That eliminates the many of the incentives for players to take the Paladin dip. Players taking a Paladin dip are ALMOST always doing it for power optimization, not for story-driven reasons.

Oh hi Walsh, when did you get a new account?

Paladin is not an optimizer's dip, and even if it were why are you judging people for their choices in a game we all play to have fun?

Instead, how about promoting story in your players regardless of what mechanical choices they make?

I'll just leave this here

Quote:

The classic Paladin archetype has been around for 600+ years now. Many players want to attempt it. It isn't easy. The fun of playing a Paladin often comes from the challenge of following such a rigid code, or else losing the gifts of Paladin-hood.

About 'Real Paladins...'

Quote:

OPening up the Paladin to any alignment as some of suggested makes ZERO sense. Creating seven more base classes makes more sense, but still seems awfully fraught with problems. Then the arguments begin that rigid codes of conduct are silly and that there should be no reason for alignment to come into play. Except for the Paladin, alignment rests at the very core of their being.

So Paladins can stay LG, as part of a larger more complete class that better serves the PF community as a whole.

[willuwontu]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I love how Nox and I managed to find common ground over this chasm in philosophy, but nobody else even mentions it. Quoting that exchange once.

Nox Aeterna wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Nox Aeterna wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

@ Nox

Let's say the CRB has a class called Champion of Ideals.

This class had eight branches, one representing each alignment other than True Neutral.

One of these branches are the Lawful Good Paladins.

In world, absolutely nothing changes.

How does this effect you?

It doesnt assuming the others have their own names and the paladins keep unique restrictions.

So we do have some common ground.

Fantastic.

My concern is with the paladin itself, what other iterations with equal or similar power have or dont, doesnt really concern me.

If they created a Guardian, which had the same exact powers of a paladin but were NG or CG, i wouldnt really care since it isnt a paladin, change the name, the lore and add it to the game, sure whatever.

This wouldnt change what a paladin is really, i can agree with a common ground here.

Missed it in all the toxicity, I'll drop my own thoughts here again.

How about a class almost exactly the same but not called paladin, with oaths for each alignment, and the LG oath is called "The Oath of the Paladin"?

Then we wouldn't have to create any new archetypes or classes and things would be fine.

[Arssanguinus]

Or the other classes can be alternates of the still standard lawful good Paladin.

[Demon Lord of Paladins!]

willuwontu wrote:

Missed it in all the toxicity, I'll drop my own thoughts here again.

How about a class almost exactly the same but not called paladin, with oaths for each alignment, and the LG oath is called "The Oath of the Paladin"?

Then we wouldn't have to create any new archetypes or classes and things would be fine.

How bout a paladin of any AL and if you want to make a LG one, you can?

[Arssanguinus]

Is it about gaining access or about getting rid of the LG Paladin as the standard?

[willuwontu]

Arssanguinus wrote:

Or the other classes can be alternates of the still standard lawful good Paladin.

As long as I can play non-LG paladin (or whatever the class name is gonna be) in PFS, whatever floats your boat.

Oaths just have less page requirements than archetypes imo

[MadScientistWorking]

Malefactor wrote:

Wei Ji the Learner or Diminuendo would certainly dislike having Paladins only be LG, I doubt it would be anything they'd stop playing Pathfinder over, with my primary evidence being they're playing it right now.

The problem with this argument is that nothing is stopping you from playing a chaotic good Paladin in 1e. Its one of my more favorite deities in Pathfinder simply because of that really bizarre and inane contradiction of a lawful good agent of chaos.

[Demon Lord of Paladins!]

Arssanguinus wrote:

Is it about gaining access or about getting rid of the LG Paladin as the standard?

Paladin is a paladin. You may choose to ply LG or NE or CG or NG or whatever, its still a paladin. People want to ply non-LG paladin not dark warder or "deathgurd" or whatever non-sense names you come up with for the very same damned class.

LG wizard is called wizard, a Cg wizard oddly is also called a wizard. Whats a LG rogue called? Oh yeah, a rogue. Its the same class no matter what AL you take so trying to give it new names because you want to keep LG only as a paladin names is both silly and counter productive.

[Neriathale]

TolkienBard wrote:

The classic Paladin archetype has been around for 600+ years now.

<Rolls Knowledge History>

<Looks confused>

Oh, you mean ever since those Norman French types like Thomas Mallory took the perfectly good 'Romano-Celtic survivor cavalry' class, added plate armour and some dodgy courtly love roleplay to it, then claimed their re-write of the Arthurian Mythos was the one true version?

Though I also blame Alfred Lord Tennyson for the even worse C19th re-write of the entire thing that went and added some sort of pre-Raphaelite art requirements on top...

[Demon Lord of Paladins!]

MadScientistWorking wrote:

The problem with this argument is that nothing is stopping you from playing a chaotic good Paladin in 1e. Its one of my more favorite deities in Pathfinder simply because of that really bizarre and inane contradiction of a lawful good agent of chaos.

Well a RAW GM or organized play pretty much stops this idea dead.

[graystone]

Arssanguinus wrote:

Or the other classes can be alternates of the still standard lawful good Paladin.

Yes, but alternates takes up more of a page count and is more complex than a bloodline/domain type alignment power/code section. It seems a LOT to ask JUST to keep the name 'paladin' a special snowflake.

[TolkienBard]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

TolkienBard wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

@ Nox

Let's say the CRB has a class called Champion of Ideals.

This class had eight branches, one representing each alignment other than True Neutral.

One of these branches are the Lawful Good Paladins.

In world, absolutely nothing changes.

How does this affect you?

We already have 12 core base classes coming out. Now you want to add SEVEN MORE? The point of PF2 is to simplify.

No I don't. The Champion of Ideals is one class.

Just like the Sorcerer is one class despite numerous bloodlines.

Just like the Wizard is one class despite numerous specializations.

Just like the Cleric is one class despite numerous domains.

It's NOT just like though. All of those classes have zero restrictions upon them. Short of the cleric, they can do whatever they want whenever they want without fear of consequence when it come to the class they have chosen. Even the cleric is likely to get away with just about anything so long as they aren't champioing something in direct opposition to their deity's wishes.

Having Champion of Ideals as ONE class with 8 branches seems interesting, I'll admit. But then each one still needs a full 1-20 uniqueness to it, including its own rigid code that punishes the character with loss of blessings for straying too far from the path. Call it one class if you want, at that point, it pretty much is eight classes.

A necromancer is still just a wizard. They just like playing with dead things. The difference is mostly cosmetic. Heck, by high levels the penalty for opposition schools is almost irrelevant. This is very different from making a dedicated path of each alignment.

The entire point of the Paladin class is to force a rigid alignment restriction upon a character in exchange for blessings. If the only restriction is that a player must choose an alignment they like at creation and that's it, the difficulty stops. "Hi, I'm CG, so I can do anything I want whenever I want so long as it helps the greater good and I get all sorts of benefits for doing so." They've just completely insulated themselves from most alignment-based repercussions that could strip them of their gifts. It gets even worse if they choose to be CN. Now there are no repercussions for ANY act.

Part of the Paladin's drive is the innate understanding that behaving in ways that stray from the LG path are going to cost them internally, scarring them, and also leaving them bereft of blessings they have come to use and rely on.

I have no idea what you are talking about with an alternate account. But. it has been my experience on numerous occasions that the Paladin dip has resulted in a massive influx of abilities that broke the game in some spectacular (though admittedly entertaining) ways. Maybe we just have different powergamers that we are exposed to.

[TolkienBard]

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

TolkienBard wrote:

Players taking a Paladin dip are ALMOST always doing it for power optimization, not for story-driven reasons.

By all that is unholy, please learn about power gameing before you try to use this debunked and vastly flawed argument. Cleric dipping into paladin for a few levels is NOT power gaming.

I never said anything about a cleric taking levels of Paladin being power-gaming. In fact, I have, more than once in these threads, pointed out that paladin-fighters and paladin-clerics are very much a thing that makes sense.

There are ways to in which a Paladin-dip can be used though which do break game balance.

[necromental]

TolkienBard wrote:

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

TolkienBard wrote:

Players taking a Paladin dip are ALMOST always doing it for power optimization, not for story-driven reasons.

By all that is unholy, please learn about power gameing before you try to use this debunked and vastly flawed argument. Cleric dipping into paladin for a few levels is NOT power gaming.

I never said anything about a cleric taking levels of Paladin being power-gaming. In fact, I have, more than once in these threads, pointed out that paladin-fighters and paladin-clerics are very much a thing that makes sense.

There are ways to in which a Paladin-dip can be used though which do break game balance.

Do tell.

[Fuzzypaws]

I don't personally care what the class is called, but if some people are so wedded to LG Paladins then make the class "Crusader" or "Templar" or whatever, with Paladin as the LG oath. Draw in ideas from the PF1e Cavalier and Hellknight, make the class more robust. Better to open it in the RAW rulebook so alternate alignments are organized-play legal, because while sure anyone could allow alternate alignments for a printed LG-only class in a home game that would sadly not be an option in organized play. It doesn't take anything away from people who want to only play LG paladins, that option is still there for them.

Since some settings allow paladins (and clerics for that matter) who get their powers from a philosophy or alignment rather than a deity, and other settings require divine powers to come from a deity, just address that in the description. The powers and oath and requirements are the same, just the flavor is a bit different.

Make the oaths more clear in what they allow and disallow, so people don't feel they are walking on eggshells around a punitive GM. Give the class the "phylactery of faithfulness" effect as a core ability at 1st level, saying that if the paladin is about to take an action that would endanger their moral or ethical standing, they get a warning in their head (from the GM) - and make it very clear this should only be an issue for major violations. Provide some guidelines for simple prayers or tasks for atonement of minor violations; also make clear that minor violations don't immediately cause falling, they're something that should really only be an issue if ignored and allowed to build up.

Note that smart tactics like guerilla ambush / hit and run warfare against a vastly superior force are not immoral or unethical, and this should be made explicit in the class description - "heroism" doesn't mean "suicidal overconfidence."

[Kaladin_Stormblessed]

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

Is it about gaining access or about getting rid of the LG Paladin as the standard?

Paladin is a paladin. You may choose to ply LG or NE or CG or NG or whatever, its still a paladin. People want to ply non-LG paladin not dark warder or "deathgurd" or whatever non-sense names you come up with for the very same damned class.

LG wizard is called wizard, a Cg wizard oddly is also called a wizard. Whats a LG rogue called? Oh yeah, a rogue. Its the same class no matter what AL you take so trying to give it new names because you want to keep LG only as a paladin names is both silly and counter productive.

Alignment isn't key to the identity of wizards or rogues. Paladins of any alignment are like saying protecting nature should be just an option for a druid, and urban-expansionist "druids" need to get all the same cool abilities and be counted as the same thing.

You probably still want to be able to say "I'm playing a Wizard" or "hi, I'm Robert of Castle Nextdoor, I'm a wizard" and have the word "wizard" indicate "intelligent, educated arcane caster", yes?

Because (and no, I do not care about what someone 500 years ago would have answered, they have different interpretations of a lot of words in modern usage than I do) when I hear "paladin", I do not see it as meaning "holy warrior who follows the code of conduct of their particular religion, whatever that is".

That's not what I think defines a paladin. A paladin is someone bound and sworn to the absolute service of justice, and any religious association is an aside of that goal.

Yeah, I'd be in favor of you guys getting your other flavors of "divine caster with full BAB and maybe some healing and such", but I'd rather those be an archetype(s) or alternate class with different alignment restrictions, and Paladins, as a default, need to remain LG-only imo.

[MadScientistWorking]

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

The problem with this argument is that nothing is stopping you from playing a chaotic good Paladin in 1e. Its one of my more favorite deities in Pathfinder simply because of that really bizarre and inane contradiction of a lawful good agent of chaos.

Well a RAW GM or organized play pretty much stops this idea dead.

Nope. As per RAW its 100% legal and one of the more overt cases where alignment crashes and burns into a fiery death. Apparently, its not even the most absurd Paladin deity to worship as you can start worshiping people on the Lawful Evil plane legally......

[HWalsh]

Neo2151 wrote:

Actually, we're pointing out that the strengths of their traditions are nebulous at best, and the traditions they tend to cite often end up being a mish-mash of cherry-picked lore from various points of time and different editions of the game.

Case in point: HWalsh has been arguing (likely until he's blue in the face) that Paladins are not holy warriors or servants of the gods, while the Pathfinder Core Rules directly contradict that argument in the very description of the class.

If you are going to quote me, please do so properly...

My argument is that they are not JUST Holy Warriors or servants of Gods. That the Paladin is FAR more than that and the people who just think ALL THEY ARE are warriors for a God are missing a key point in what Paladins ARE.

[graystone]

necromental wrote:

Do tell.

I too am QUITE interested in this theoretical way to "break game balance" with a multiclass paladin...

[Cheburn]

Off-topic:

TolkienBard wrote:

A necromancer is still just a wizard. They just like playing with dead things. The difference is mostly cosmetic. Heck, by high levels the penalty for opposition schools is almost irrelevant. This is very different from making a dedicated path of each alignment.

Off-topic, but this exact statement is one of my biggest gripes with the way wizards are built in Pathfinder. Pretty much every specialization only differs in their school powers, and can cast every spell on the Wizard list with nearly equal effect. The only major exception I can think of is building a specific blaster wizard.

If (as an example) wizards specialized school was the only one they had 9th level casting in (and they could cast one spell level lower in non-specialized school, and two lower in opposition schools), it would feel like a much more important character choice. Heck, they'd probably still be the most versatile class in the game. [Obviously, you'd need to tinker with other facets of the class too.]

I hope in PF2 that there is more distinction between Wizards based on which school they have taken.

Now back to your friendly Paladin-related discussion, and sorry for the derail.

[Nox Aeterna]

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I love how Nox and I managed to find common ground over this chasm in philosophy, but nobody else even mentions it. Quoting that exchange once.

To me this is whole lot of work making what mounts to 8 new classes so some people ( who already lost the fight on Human only) can keep the word paladin, but you can have a Non-LG paladin as long as you call it something else. Just call them all damned paladins as they freaking are

This is the real life anti-Gay marriage argument,but over paladins. So ya know, not a real issue, but its the very same argument. which to me, just shows how wrong that argument is.

The only thing i remember is you backing down when called out, but sure, believe whatever you need to believe mate. Being hypocritical, as you say yourself, is nothing uncommon.

Kaladin_Stormblessed wrote:

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

Is it about gaining access or about getting rid of the LG Paladin as the standard?

Paladin is a paladin. You may choose to ply LG or NE or CG or NG or whatever, its still a paladin. People want to ply non-LG paladin not dark warder or "deathgurd" or whatever non-sense names you come up with for the very same damned class.

LG wizard is called wizard, a Cg wizard oddly is also called a wizard. Whats a LG rogue called? Oh yeah, a rogue. Its the same class no matter what AL you take so trying to give it new names because you want to keep LG only as a paladin names is both silly and counter productive.

Alignment isn't key to the identity of wizards or rogues. Paladins of any alignment are like saying protecting nature should be just an option for a druid, and urban-expansionist "druids" need to get all the same cool abilities and be counted as the same thing.

You probably still want to be able to say "I'm playing a Wizard" or "hi, I'm Robert of Castle Nextdoor, I'm a wizard" and have the word "wizard" indicate "intelligent, educated arcane caster", yes?

Because (and no, I do not care about what someone 500 years ago would have answered, they have different interpretations of a lot of words in modern usage than I do) when I hear "paladin", I do not see it as meaning "holy warrior who follows the code of conduct of their particular religion, whatever that is".

That's not what I think defines a paladin. A paladin is someone bound and sworn to the absolute service of justice, and any religious association is an aside of that goal.

Yeah, I'd be in favor of you guys getting your other flavors of "divine caster with full BAB and maybe some healing and such", but I'd rather those be an archetype(s) or alternate class with different alignment restrictions, and Paladins, as a default, need to remain LG-only imo.

Ah and here it is someone that got it. Paladins are what they are because of the limitations put upon them, this is what makes playing a paladin what it is in PF1.

If they want to create other names just to get the same powers in other AL, whatever, but the paladin lore and name will be divided from such and thus what it is to being a paladin will remain unique to them.

[Revan]

They don't each need to be a unique write-up, TolkienBard. They need one standardized set of abilities for the class, and then a Code of Conduct and handful of special abilities unique to each branch. You can write that up just like Cavalier orders.

(Incidentally Pathfinder had already published a functionally inviolable Paladin code--the Antipaladin can explicitly disregard the requirements of the code if it would interfere with their larger goals, and is so mechanically similar to the Paladin that if it was all about power without the restrictions, we could just play that.)

[Lemartes]

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Make the oaths more clear in what they allow and disallow, so people don't feel they are walking on eggshells around a punitive GM. Give the class the "phylactery of faithfulness" effect as a core ability at 1st level, saying that if the paladin is about to take an action that would endanger their moral or ethical standing, they get a warning in their head (from the GM) - and make it very clear this should only be an issue for major violations. Provide some guidelines for simple prayers or tasks for atonement of minor violations; also make clear that minor violations don't immediately cause falling, they're something that should really only be an issue if ignored and allowed to build up.

I basically said something to this effect earlier in the thread. Except I think you should get the warning for minor infractions as the major ones should be obvious. Further I don't even think it should be a divine message so much as the Paladin knowing their oath. It's like someone doesn't have to know engineering to make an engineering check in game. So the dm should give you a hint that you are making a mistake as your pc knows the code so good that they wouldn't make a mistake like that. That's what I think is a good idea. :)

[Revan]

Kaladin_Stormblessed wrote:

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

Is it about gaining access or about getting rid of the LG Paladin as the standard?

Paladin is a paladin. You may choose to ply LG or NE or CG or NG or whatever, its still a paladin. People want to ply non-LG paladin not dark warder or "deathgurd" or whatever non-sense names you come up with for the very same damned class.

LG wizard is called wizard, a Cg wizard oddly is also called a wizard. Whats a LG rogue called? Oh yeah, a rogue. Its the same class no matter what AL you take so trying to give it new names because you want to keep LG only as a paladin names is both silly and counter productive.

Alignment isn't key to the identity of wizards or rogues. Paladins of any alignment are like saying protecting nature should be just an option for a druid, and urban-expansionist "druids" need to get all the same cool abilities and be counted as the same thing.

You probably still want to be able to say "I'm playing a Wizard" or "hi, I'm Robert of Castle Nextdoor, I'm a wizard" and have the word "wizard" indicate "intelligent, educated arcane caster", yes?

Because (and no, I do not care about what someone 500 years ago would have answered, they have different interpretations of a lot of words in modern usage than I do) when I hear "paladin", I do not see it as meaning "holy warrior who follows the code of conduct of their particular religion, whatever that is".

That's not what I think defines a paladin. A paladin is someone bound and sworn to the absolute service of justice, and any religious association is an aside of that goal.

Yeah, I'd be in favor of you guys getting your other flavors of "divine caster with full BAB and maybe some healing and such", but I'd rather those be an archetype(s) or alternate class with different alignment restrictions, and Paladins, as a default, need to remain LG-only imo.

Actually, I 100% believe that terms like wizard, witch, sorcerer, magus, arcanist et al would in setting be largely used interchangeably by the general populace and even to a degree by those more educated in magic to refer to any given Arcane caster--or even terms like barbarian, shaman, or Oracle depending on particular cultural context. Just as cleric might be used for *any* member of the priesthood, divine caster or no, and the average Golarionite might be unable to distinguish a cleric from an Oracle, Shaman, or even certain arcane classes like Witch or Bard. Just like a Paladin could call themselves a cavalier, inquisitor, samurai, warpriest...

A CG Paladin is bound and sworn to the absolute service of justice, in our conception. Justice is a Good concept, not a Lawful one. Indeed, Law sometimes gets in the way of Justice (as can Chaos, of course!)

[MuddyVolcano]

A liberator as in "freer of slaves" plays differently. More like an inquisitor!

Their enemy isn't a BBEG with 30 hit dice. It's the L4 commoner and the society they're part of. A simple knife would do; smite's just overkill.

Making a "liberator paladin" is a disservice to the concept, and I believe oversimplifies what real liberators, heroes, did.

Let "liberator" be a chance to add some greatness to inquisitors or rogues. Rogues often get stereotyped into "lolz steal" but one as a LIBERATOR...

That'd shine like woah. A "liberator inquisitor" or "liberator rogue" gives them their place in the sun, and has them stand among the heroes--but in their own way. They don't need to be a paladin to do it; that's a disservice to the abilities they need. And those abilities are more baked into those classes than paladin.

What could we do to make them more awesome?

Give them society abilities like the Vigilante, for building their rescue networks. Give them the stealth and disguise aura to rescue slaves successfully (rogue liberator archetype already grants this; awesome!) Make them shine their own way.

[Fuzzypaws]

Lemartes wrote:

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Make the oaths more clear in what they allow and disallow, so people don't feel they are walking on eggshells around a punitive GM. Give the class the "phylactery of faithfulness" effect as a core ability at 1st level, saying that if the paladin is about to take an action that would endanger their moral or ethical standing, they get a warning in their head (from the GM) - and make it very clear this should only be an issue for major violations. Provide some guidelines for simple prayers or tasks for atonement of minor violations; also make clear that minor violations don't immediately cause falling, they're something that should really only be an issue if ignored and allowed to build up.

I basically said something to this effect earlier in the thread. Except I think you should get the warning for minor infractions as the major ones should be obvious. Further I don't even think it should be a divine message so much as the Paladin knowing their oath. It's like someone doesn't have to know engineering to make an engineering check in game. So the dm should give you a hint that you are making a mistake as your pc knows the code so good that they wouldn't make a mistake like that. That's what I think is a good idea. :)

Agreed. :) I don't know the fundamentals of how to actually cast a spell "in context," but my wizard PC would; the same would be true of a paladin with respect to their oath and duties. And yeah, warnings for minor violations are good; I just really wanted to emphasize the GM shouldn't let the paladin do something that would fundamentally break their oath without giving a warning first.

[Demon Lord of Paladins!]

Nox Aeterna wrote:

The only thing i remember is you backing down when called out, but sure, believe whatever you need to believe mate. Being hypocritical, as,you say yourself, is nothing uncommon.

Pray tell, what did I back down from?

[WormysQueue]

Nox Aeterna wrote:

Paladins are what they are because of the limitations put upon them, this is what makes playing a paladin what it is in PF1.

Well, only that this would make every other character, that gets played like a Paladin, only without restrictions being forced upon them, and without any abilities they get out of it, a better and more shining example of what the Paladin is supposed to be about.

If Paladins are only what they are because of their limitations, they aren't worth being called Paladins.

Good thing that you're completely wrong about it.

[Demon Lord of Paladins!]

graystone wrote:

necromental wrote:

Do tell.

I too am QUITE interested in this theoretical way to "break game balance" with a multiclass paladin...

I too would like to see this mythical game breaking paladin

[Lemartes]

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Lemartes wrote:

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Make the oaths more clear in what they allow and disallow, so people don't feel they are walking on eggshells around a punitive GM. Give the class the "phylactery of faithfulness" effect as a core ability at 1st level, saying that if the paladin is about to take an action that would endanger their moral or ethical standing, they get a warning in their head (from the GM) - and make it very clear this should only be an issue for major violations. Provide some guidelines for simple prayers or tasks for atonement of minor violations; also make clear that minor violations don't immediately cause falling, they're something that should really only be an issue if ignored and allowed to build up.

I basically said something to this effect earlier in the thread. Except I think you should get the warning for minor infractions as the major ones should be obvious. Further I don't even think it should be a divine message so much as the Paladin knowing their oath. It's like someone doesn't have to know engineering to make an engineering check in game. So the dm should give you a hint that you are making a mistake as your pc knows the code so good that they wouldn't make a mistake like that. That's what I think is a good idea. :)

Agreed. :) I don't know the fundamentals of how to actually cast a spell "in context," but my wizard PC would; the same would be true of a paladin with respect to their oath and duties. And yeah, warnings for minor violations are good; I just really wanted to emphasize the GM shouldn't let the paladin do something that would fundamentally break their oath without giving a warning first.

Cool. This right here pretty much solves most of the alignment issue deals. Well, with a good outline of the code from Paizo, how to use it and a DM that isn't a complete imbecile. :)