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

[HWalsh]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Shifty wrote:

Don't like em? Don't play em.

The problem is the division between people who like the mechanics but not the theme (which causes too many Should the Paladin fall? threads), and the people who like the theme and think the theme would be ruined if the mechanics were available without it.

This is correct.

There is a percentage of the player base who think classes are just shells for cool powers. They think they should be able to take any shell and do whatever they like with it.

In my opinion those players are wrong.

Classes are part of the world setting and help set the tone. Druids are natural magic users. If you run into a druid you know what to expect, not just power-wise, you know that Druids are neutral, that they are lovers of nature, and these are things your CHARACTER knows without having to make a knowledge roll in game.

They help to create a sense of verisimilitude for the player. Not only that, if the GM does indeed allow an NPC to break from the mold as a shocking twist, then it creates a sense (for the player) of "wrongness" about the situation which increases immersion in roleplaying.

The same is said about Barbarians. If you encounter a Barbarian your character likely has a mental image in his or her mind. This is generally that they live in unstructured societies (They are Chaotic after all) they tend to wear lighter armors and they fight with a natural rage. Whenever you encounter a Barbarian in character that is something your character knows. When they act that way it feels right to you.

The same is true of Paladins.

In game if a Paladin is encountered, and you know he or she is a Paladin, you're likely to believe them. If you encounter a Paladin who is leading someone down a road who is chained and the prisoner yells out, "Adventurers! Help me! This murderer is selling me into slavery!"

Then the Paladin says, "Believe not the words of this criminal, I am escorting this person to trial in the nearby settlement."

Who are you likely to believe? If you're at all familiar with Paladins, and you have reason to believe this person is a Paladin (it's not really hard to figure out) then the Paladin. If you see a Barbarian in the same situation...

Well... Suddenly sense motive, the Barbarian could be lying, and it would be like a Barbarian to do something like that after all...

Those little things make the world feel more real... When classes are just fluff-less shells the world feels false, fake, and artificial.

[HWalsh]

RDM42 wrote:

Dear lord why are some people so obsessed with breaking up the lawful good paladin?

Just go look at what they usually ask for in other threads, it's not hard to figure out.

The biggest one is people want Paladins of Desna.

Why?

Desna's Shooting Star.

Shooting Star: Charisma to Attack
Shooting Star: Charisma to Damage

Then a simple 2 level Paladin Dip:
Divine Grace: Charisma to Saves

It's not about wanting to play a Holy Warrior - Warpriest does that.
It's simply about wanting specific powers for optimization.

The truth is:

Paladin is a good solid class. They like the abilities of the class, but they don't want to play a "goodie two shoes" character. They want to be unshackled by the lawful good requirement because, as a man named Spoony once said...

"Some people think lawful good means a goodie two shoes character who can't ever show anything like anger or frustration... And those people are dumb."

[Neo2151]

Paladin should really be a Fighter archetype or prestige.
That's how it started, and that's the only way to sever the cord that players have woven between Paladins and some divine-entity-power-source.

Be that righteous defender of the innocent and protector of the weak and maybe, if the stars align in your favor (ie, you meet prereqs for prestige/hit appropriate level for archetype) you'll catch the notice of those nebulous lawful and goodly energies mentioned above, and can tap into them as you continue the fight for Good.

I'm a newbie who barely knows how to hold his sword, let alone champion the cause of Good, but somehow I'm already this magical warrior? Doesn't make a lick of sense. :P

[HWalsh]

Neo2151 wrote:

Paladin should really be a Fighter archetype or prestige.

That's how it started, and that's the only way to sever the cord that players have woven between Paladins and some divine-entity-power-source.

Be that righteous defender of the innocent and protector of the weak and maybe, if the stars align in your favor (ie, you meet prereqs for prestige/hit appropriate level for archetype) you'll catch the notice of those nebulous lawful and goodly energies mentioned above, and can tap into them as you continue the fight for Good.

I'm a newbie who barely knows how to hold his sword, let alone champion the cause of Good, but somehow I'm already this magical warrior? Doesn't make a lick of sense. :P

It does from the lore perspective.

The idea is that people are born with the capacity to become Paladins. You either have that capability, or you don't. It isn't something you can earn, it isn't something that you can train, it is something that even the Gods can't control. Where does it come from? Nobody knows. All we know is that it only works for a small percentage of people, and even then only a small percentage of that percentage have the proper balance of elemental law and elemental good energies coursing through their veins.

[Diminuendo]

HWalsh I made this thread to discuss how I would personally like to see Paladins done in 2nd edition. While I am open to criticism on my views, it seems you wish to shut down discussion on this issue completely.

Singling out individual points of my original post; commenting underneath with statements like "No," and "ABSOLUTELY NOT," creates no opening for further discussion, isn't constructive, and gives those in the opposing camp no choice but to argue against your abrasiveness - rather than argue your points.

I'd love to have a discussion on this issue with you, but I can only do that if there is some mutual respect.

[Bluenose]

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Well, if we go back to BECMI D&D, which is part of the roots of 3.X and therefore of PF, we find that Paladins were not a core class.

In fact, they were not a standard class at all. They were more like what we would think of as a Prestige class that came later (though with very low entry requirements).

They were a choice Fighters could make upon attaining 9th level.

The Fighter, if they desired a noble calling, could attain one of three classes depending on their alignment.

If they were Lawful they could choose to become a Paladin.

If they were Neutral they could choose to become a Knight.

If they were Evil they could choose to become an Avenger (I think that is the title, this is off the top of my head from memory).

If we use this, there IS a precedent that a Paladin could be a prestige class.

There is also a precedent that the Paladin is just ONE of three different types of choices in that arena, the Paladin representing law (which is basically good in BECMI) the Avenger representing Chaos (which is basically evil in BECMI), and the Knight in between at neutral.

With a 9 axis alignment system, perhaps it could be a prestige class where those who are Lawful Good can choose to be a Paladin (or maybe just Lawful, or Good), Those who are Neutral can choose to be a Knight (and perhaps that could be LN, N, and CN), and those who are Chaotic Evil could be Avengers (or maybe just Evil or maybe just Chaotic).

That is if we use historical D&D in the time of BECMI (and I think the RC also included this) as a precedent to be used.

Any alignment could be a Knight, actually. Their defining characteristic is swearing fealty to a lord, instead of to a church/god and receiving powers (Clerical spells, and a few other things). For the knight it usually came with land and perhaps a keep of some sort.

[RDM42]

You seem to get to the point where people would rather abolish th.e class entirely than allow it to exist as lg limited and it starts seeming just plain odd.

[Diminuendo]

RDM42 wrote:

You seem to get to the point where people would rather abolish the class entirely than allow it to exist as lg limited and it starts seeming just plain odd.

I'm not suggesting abolishment at all, just that the Paladin class be broadened to new alignments. What I am truly suggesting is a name change.

[gustavo iglesias]

RDM42 wrote:

Dear lord why are some people so obsessed with breaking up the lawful good paladin?

No body want that. Every option out there still allows for the iconic sir Galahad template. They just want to add other options.

Kind of like adding natural weapons rangers did not ban the Legolas clone to those who want it.

[Diminuendo]

gustavo iglesias wrote:

They just want to add other options. Kind of like adding natural weapons rangers did not ban the Legolas clone to those who want it.

I don't think I could make my argument any clearer Gustavo.

[RDM42]

Sounds like a good opportunity for a new class...

[HWalsh]

Diminuendo wrote:

HWalsh I made this thread to discuss how I would personally like to see Paladins done in 2nd edition. While I am open to criticism on my views, it seems you wish to shut down discussion on this issue completely.

Singling out individual points of my original post; commenting underneath with statements like "No," and "ABSOLUTELY NOT," creates no opening to discuss the issue further, isn't constructive, and gives those in the opposing camp no choice but to argue against your abrasiveness - rather than argue your points.

I'd love to have a discussion on this issue with you, but I can only do that if there is some mutual respect.

It is very hard for me to answer why I only wrote:

"ABSOLUTELY NOT" in reply to the idea of an Asmodean Paladin.

Here is why:

Your proposal turns Paladins into just Holy Warriors. Which is not just a departure from the class, it completely invalidates the core idea of what a Paladin is.

The same is true of making a Holy Warrior called "Herald" but giving them all of the Paladin abilities.

This again, comes back to the misunderstanding you seem to have about what Paladins are.

Basically you're arguing to change the very core of what the Paladin is, which isn't a compromise, it is exactly what the people who want the class to remain L/G are upset about.

Do I wish to shut down discussion? Yes and no.

I feel that it is important to discuss the Paladin class, yes, but only if we are talking about the same class. When someone who interprets the Paladin as just a Holy Warrior, or even primarily a Holy Warrior it is judging the class incorrectly. Any ideas born of that concept are thus not talking about the same thing.

If I were to make an analogy about this, it is this:

A Paladin is (sometimes) a Holy Warrior, but not all Holy Warriors are Paladins. The system already has Holy Warriors built into it, just using the classes that Paizo included in the Core 2e. The first is the Cleric which is actually what the "Herald" would be. The second and third is a highly religious Fighter and/or Barbarian. The Paladin is something else, and unless we are going to discuss from that something else, it is really hard to discuss Paladins.

So...

If you go off of what a Paladin is which is a person possessing of a unique capacity that only activates if that person also has a specific mix of both Lawful and Good elemental energies running through it that, in order to maintain these energies, must follow a strict code of behavior that even the slightest deviation from can actually cause their powers to fail.

How do you justify that with non-Lawful Goods without either breaking the core concept, or making non-Lawful Goods no longer non-Lawful?

[Diminuendo]

HWalsh you seem to be making sweeping statements on what you feel Paladins should be as fact.

The problem is your argument is based on a series of premises, and if I or any other person arguing against your position feel that your premises are incorrect your message will fall flat.

For example; you state that people are born with the capacity to become Paladins, and Paladinship cannot be earnt or trained for.

Which Paizo book are your referring to when you make this statement? Can you please provide a source?

[The Thing From Another World]

I would not mind seeing the Paladin as a prestige class.

That being said the same class must included a lengthy and detailed list of what can actually make them fall from grace. with the added stipulation that they must be adhered to by the DM and players. Too often both DMs and players really don't know how how to run/play the class. Having what can make them fall listed as a official rules removes the class having to be at the whims of the DM and the problematic player.

HWalsh wrote:

You totally don't speak for the player base here.

You have made yourself the ultimate authority on Paladins since the announcement of a new edition was made. This post feels like the ultimate in irony.

[HWalsh]

Diminuendo wrote:

HWalsh you seem to be making sweeping statements on what you feel Paladins should be as fact.

The problem is your argument is based on a series of premises, and if I or any other person arguing against your position feel that your premises are incorrect your message will fall flat.

For example; you state that people are born with the capacity to become Paladins, and Paladinship cannot be earnt or trained for.

Which Paizo book are your referring to when you make this statement? Can you please provide a source?

Paizo's Paladin is based off of the 3.5 Paladin, which is based off of the 3.0 Paladin, which is based off of the 2nd Edition Paladin, which is explained in the Complete Paladin's Handbook from TSR.

The idea of the lawful and good components is covered in the Gray Paladin Archetype which specifically says as such.

To see the further information based on this, it is also Paizo lore and canon that Gods cannot make Paladins. Specifically stated by James Jacobs that there are no Paladins of a number of deities, specifically citing Asmodeus, is because they can't make Paladins.

To go further into this lore you can go into the core description of the Paladin in the Paizo Pathfinder CRB. That book mentions that Paladins do not require a god.

We can further draw information from the Paizo Archetype of Paladin known as the "Chosen One" which covers that the Paladin is chosen without, and with no regards, for training. The Chosen Ones, specifically, are found without training, but this codifies that those who are going to become Paladins are chosen at birth and it has nothing to do with training.

IE you either are, or are not.

[Diminuendo]

The Thing From Another World wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

You totally don't speak for the player base here.

You have made yourself the ultimate authority on Paladins since the announcement of a new edition was made. This post feels like the ultimate in irony.

I didn't want to be the one to say it.

HWalsh wrote:

Paizo's Paladin is based off of the 3.5 Paladin, which is based off of the 3.0 Paladin, which is based off of the 2nd Edition Paladin, which is explained in the Complete Paladin's Handbook from TSR.

So you are saying no official Paizo source supports your view of what Paladins are?

[RDM42]

To turn that around, the other side seems to be designating themselves ‘the voice of the pathfinder community, which of course agrees with us.”

[gustavo iglesias]

RDM42 wrote:

To turn that around, the other side seems to be designating themselves ‘the voice of the pathfinder community, which of course agrees with us.”

Not really, the «other side» knows the community is split about this. There are a lot of vocal guys advocating for Gygax vision of a Paladin. Just like there are a lot doing the opposite.

The point of the «other side» is «our solution still allows you to play your beloved Galahad clone. Your solution does not allow me to play a different kind of Paladin than what you envision as the Only True Valid Paladin»

[Diminuendo]

RDM42 wrote:

To turn that around, the other side seems to be designating themselves ‘the voice of the pathfinder community, which of course agrees with us.”

You do realise the following quote was a joke?

Diminuendo wrote:

You're welcome Pathfinder community. I am sure no-one will have issue with my solution.

I have said multiple times that I made this thread for discussion. If you disagree with my views, make an argument. In response, I will make a counter-argument.

[RDM42]

Why is “make a new class” not equally viable for you? Why is it ‘it MUST be the paladin!!!!z”

[gustavo iglesias]

Because paladins will be in core, we will have just 12 core classes, and we dont want to wait years to play it, when the framework needed is there and you only need to add a couple of options, like 5e does.

[Diminuendo]

RDM42 wrote:

Why is “make a new class” not equally viable for you? Why is it ‘it MUST be the paladin!!!!z”

Because an alternate class would either work fundamentally different from the core Paladin (like how the Champion of The Faith Warpriest does not have full BAB), or the second class would work so closely to how the OG Paladin works that the exercise would be a waste of paper.

HWalsh wrote:

We can further draw information from the Paizo Archetype of Paladin known as the "Chosen One" which covers that the Paladin is chosen without, and with no regards, for training. The Chosen Ones, specifically, are found without training, but this codifies that those who are going to become Paladins are chosen at birth and it has nothing to do with training.

IE you either are, or are not.

I just downloaded the Familiar Folio, and it seems the Chosen One Archetype states the opposite of your view;

Familiar Folio wrote:

Most paladins train for years at a temple to attain a holy status, but rarely, an emissary of the divine appears to one of humble origins and calls her directly to the charge. These chosen ones may lack experience, but their teamwork with their emissaries allows them to defeat any evil.

The bold text clearly states that Paladin status is usually trained for, and earned. The Chosen One Archetype is the exception, not the rule.

[HWalsh]

Diminuendo wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

Why is “make a new class” not equally viable for you? Why is it ‘it MUST be the paladin!!!!z”

Because an alternate class would either work fundamentally different from the core Paladin (like how the Champion of The Faith Warpriest does not have full BAB), or the second class would work so closely to how the OG Paladin works that the exercise would be a waste of paper.

HWalsh wrote:

We can further draw information from the Paizo Archetype of Paladin known as the "Chosen One" which covers that the Paladin is chosen without, and with no regards, for training. The Chosen Ones, specifically, are found without training, but this codifies that those who are going to become Paladins are chosen at birth and it has nothing to do with training.

IE you either are, or are not.

I just downloaded the Familiar Folio, and it seems the Chosen One Archetype states the opposite of your view;

Familiar Folio wrote:

Most paladins train for years at a temple to attain a holy status, but rarely, an emissary of the divine appears to one of humble origins and calls her directly to the charge. These chosen ones may lack experience, but their teamwork with their emissaries allows them to defeat any evil.

The bold text clearly states that Paladin status is usually trained for, and earned. The Chosen One Archetype is the exception, not the rule.

You are ignoring part of that:

"and calls her directly"

The idea is that, in all of these, the Paladin hears a call and answers it. The Paladin hears the call, then goes off to get training. The Chosen one is given the call directly and doesn't go for training.

They are all still chosen to receive the call. You either get the call, or you don't, you don't just train for it. That has NEVER been how Paladins work.

Now, a serious question to you:

"Do you think Paladin should be "just a class" in that it should only be a framework of abilities for players to use as they see fit to flavor however they want."

If you do... Then this discussion is moot, because we will never agree, and fortunately it seems Paizo doesn't agree with that line of reasoning either.

[HWalsh]

The line that I am sick and tired of hearing from the pro-opening route is this:

"Why do you want to stop me from playing the Paladin how I want to?"

Here is the issue:

If you are allowed to play the Paladin "how you want to" it cheapens the lore behind the Paladin and thus it stops me from playing the class that I want to play.

Sad to say... This is a binary system.

You get what you want and I lose what I like.

I get to keep what I like, and you don't get what you want.

There is no room for compromise here as they are both diametrically opposed.

[gustavo iglesias]

HWalsh wrote:

If you are allowed to play the Paladin "how you want to" it cheapens the lore behind the Paladin and thus it stops me from playing the class that I want to play.

Ok. Now ask me if I care.

Ut is up to you, buddy. Nobody FORCES you to take that decision. You do because you want. You can do whatever you want with the characters you want to play, because you are the supreme authority in your choices. You can't do that for the whole table, because you are not yhe supreme authority for my choices.

This is like going vegan. You don't like meat, don't eat it. I don't mind if you do. But don't tell me I can't like meat. I eat meat. But I ddont force you to.

[HWalsh]

gustavo iglesias wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

If you are allowed to play the Paladin "how you want to" it cheapens the lore behind the Paladin and thus it stops me from playing the class that I want to play.

Ok. Now ask me if I care.

Ut is up to you, buddy. Nobody FORCES you to take that decision. You do because you want. You can do whatever you want with the characters you want to play, because you are the supreme authority in your choices. You can't do that for the whole table, because you are not yhe supreme authority for my choices.

This is like going vegan. You don't like meat, don't eat it. I don't mind if you do. But don't tell me I can't like meat.

That is a bad analogy of the situation.

The fact is this... If you are telling me, outright, you don't care about how I feel regarding the class... Then why should I care, at all, about how you want to play the class.

You're trying to take something away from me by making Paladin "just a class" like any other.

I'm not taking something from you, because you never had Alignment free Paladins in Pathfinder.

You want to take the uniqueness of the class away, and I can tell you, I'll fight you until the last breath in my body.

[gustavo iglesias]

HWalsh wrote:

The fact is this... If you are telling me, outright, you don't care about how I feel regarding the class... Then why should I care, at all, about how you want to play the class.

You should not care at all about how I like my paladins. At all. Because that's none of your business. That's my entire point.

[Pete Simpson]

I have bad news, HWalsh. I have already, in the past, played non-LG paladins. I'm so sorry. I didn't realize at the time that it would stop you from being able to play paladins.

[Diminuendo]

HWalsh wrote:

You are ignoring part of that:

"and calls her directly"

Yes, here is the quote;

"Familiar Folio wrote:

"Most paladins train for years at a temple to attain a holy status, but rarely, an emissary of the divine appears to one of humble origins and calls her directly to the charge.

Again, the Chosen One clearly states that this call is a rare exception to the normal Paladin path.

HWalsh wrote:

They are all still chosen to receive the call. You either get the call, or you don't, you don't just train for it. That has NEVER been how Paladins work.

There is no evidence to support your theory in official Paizo material.

HWalsh wrote:

Now, a serious question to you:

"Do you think Paladin should be "just a class" in that it should only be a framework of abilities for players to use as they see fit to flavor however they want."

Yes. I believe that there is a difference between "Paladin" the Class and "Paladin" the title. I feel that Paladins should earn that position, and feel that even a Wizard should be able to achieve the title of Paladin. Alternately, maybe Paladins should be considered "trainee Paladins" until they get to a certain level.

To be clear though, the above is my opinion, which is what you asked for.

I am suggesting the name change from the Paladin to Herald because I know others like you are super passionate about what Paladins should be. I am suggesting we separate the mechanics from lore, making the Herald a "full BAB Holy Warrior," and keeping the Paladin "a knight renowned for heroism and chivalry"

HWalsh wrote:

The fact is this... If you are telling me, outright, you don't care about how I feel regarding the class... Then why should I care, at all, about how you want to play the class.

You're trying to take something away from me by making Paladin "just a class" like any other.

And you are basically telling us we can't have differing opinions because of your emotions.

We aren't trying to take anything away from you. We are trying to have our say, which Paizo has encouraged, about how the Paladin should be handled in 2e.

This isn't a personal attack. I literally never heard of you before starting this thread.

It's also pretty offensive to suggest how I want to play the game cheapens Pathfidner.

[Jester David]

This makes sense.

The default class should just be the warpriest. Or another name like templar or knight. And give different names to different alignments, with "paladin" being the Lawful Good warpriest/templar and "blackguard" being the Lawful Evil warpriest/templar.

This solves the problem of needing two different classes to represent the "holy warrior" while also keeping true to Pathfinder's 10 years of tradition of a LG only Pally.

Or, y'know, it could just be an optional rule in a sidebar.

[RDM42]

Or paladin could remain paladin and a new class is generated.

[Diminuendo]

RDM42, you are free to your own opinion, but I have already responded to this argument;

Diminuendo wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

Why is “make a new class” not equally viable for you? Why is it ‘it MUST be the paladin!!!!z”

Because an alternate class would either work fundamentally different from the core Paladin (like how the Champion of The Faith Warpriest does not have full BAB), or the second class would work so closely to how the OG Paladin works that the exercise would be a waste of paper.

Would you like to make a counter argument?

[Saldiven]

Diminuendo wrote:

It has been a huge argument; James Jacobs feels they should always be lawful for lore reasons, while players feel Paladins mechanics shouldn't be exclusive to LG characters.

To be accurate, not every player agrees with this. I'm not sure if even a majority of players agree with this. That may be a common attitude on the message boards, but most people would agree that attitudes common on the message boards are not anywhere near as common among the general population of Pathfinder players who do not frequent the boards.

(For example, I don't agree with it at all, as a player.)

[Diminuendo]

Never said every player agrees. If every player agreed, I would have written: "while all players feel Paladins mechanics shouldn't be exclusive to LG characters."

[gustavo iglesias]

I think paladins,should adhere to a code, that forces them to make tough moral decisions.

You can have a moral code with alignemts different than LG. Desna has a moral code too. So does Bushido, and druids, for example.

[WormysQueue]

HWalsh wrote:

I'd say about 30% of players feel they should remain lawful. 20% of players feel they shouldn't be. Then probably 50% of players don't really care.

Well it's more like 5% of the players feel that they should remain lawful. 15 % of the player's they shouldn't be and the other 80% don't care either way.

See I can also come up with some random numbers that have no anchor in reality.

[Saldiven]

Diminuendo wrote:

Never said every player agrees. If every player agreed, I would have written: "while all players feel Paladins mechanics shouldn't be exclusive to LG characters."

The generic "players agree" can easily be understood to be inclusive of all players. If you meant "some players," that's what you should have written, for clarity's sake. Though, it would admittedly sound far less authoritative.

[Charlie Brooks]

While a new edition is a chance to clean up a lot of the unnecessary tidbits that cropped up in the previous edition, I feel like there is a risk of going too far. D&D, for example, got a lot of people ticked off by cutting out favorite options when the game shifted to 2nd and 4th editions. Something big like chopping out a core class seems like it would do more harm to public perception of the new game than good.

[ulgulanoth]

So to those who are advocating that paladins are agents of law and good and that they heed the call of some higher source and that they are special, I have two questions. First do you role play this? Have you role played the fact that your character is special, unique and have to up hold this weight on their shoulders? Second question is it not easier to have this, all this that makes paladins special be a prestige class? Surely if it is hard and unique to be a paladin then it shouldn't be a starting class?

[Diminuendo]

Saldiven wrote:

Though, it would admittedly sound far less authoritative.

Admittedly, that is why I wrote "players," with the intention of it reading like "[some] players." Always write with strong language, you know?

Charlie Brooks wrote:

Something big like chopping out a core class seems like it would do more harm to public perception of the new game than good.

Again, not suggesting Paladins are "chopped out." Suggesting that the existing class is renamed and diversified.

[Skedge]

Bloodrealm wrote:

A Paladin is a champion of Good. They hold themselves to a code of conduct to better themselves and lead by example; adhering to a code like that is something a Lawful character would do. Therefore, only Lawful Good characters would want to become Paladins. A Paladin code is not a pact you sign for power; it's a standard they hold themselves to because that is what they believe they should be.

A Chaotic character would never willingly force themself into something like that. If you think that they would, you clearly don't understand what Chaotic means: it's the manner in which the character thinks.

Honestly I have since AD&D 2nd edition ran Paladin's like this. They are holy warriors of a church and champion that church's cause. Paladin's in games I run are the alignment of their deity and we adjust their abilities to match.

For anyone who argues that they have to be lawful good:
pal·a·din
ˈpalədn/Submit
nounhistorical
any of the twelve peers of Charlemagne's court, of whom the count palatine was the chief.

[Wultram]

Lore is not a valid argument. All the arguments made solution is simple answer. Setting, there done.

Now can we stop arguing fluff reasoning, when talking about crunch.

[CrystalSeas]

I like the idea of having a class of people who have all the mechanical benefits that the PF1 "Paladin" class has, but the class itself has a different name and no* alignment restrictions. The LG players are called "Paladins", but people who want to play other alignments are also allowed to create these kinds of characters. Without there being an entirely different class.

*no alignment restrictions.
Actually, I don't like evil PCs, but that's a GM or PFS decision, not Paizo's.

[Cole Deschain]

Wultram wrote:

Now can we stop arguing fluff reasoning, when talking about crunch.

Kinda hard to do that when "fluff" (it's really mostly tradition, rather than setting flavor at this point) governs GM decisions...

Or when alignment as a construct is just "fluff," if we're feeling arrogantly dismissive. (Yes, yes, alignment matters for certain things... which there are versions of for every alignment, so...)

That said, mark my words folks, if 2E is going to be more lore-linked at the core level, I think it's safe to say that "fluff" arguments are something you're going to have to deal with, no matter how married to "crunch" you wish to be.

[scary harpy]

Am I the only one who remembers Unearthed Arcana?

Paladins and Rangers (and maybe Bards) were presented as 15 level Prestige Classes.

It also have Paladins of Slaughter, Freedom and Tyranny (CE, CG, LE).

Nothing new under the sun here. (Oy, I feel old.)

[pjrogers]

As an ancient old fart, I'd very much like paladins to continue as a class, and I'd prefer they also remain LG. However, I am open to the idea of good paladins so there would be a bit more of an alignment range. However, I'm very much against:

1) Any non-good paladins.

2) Paladins as an archetype or something similar.

[Orthos]

scary harpy wrote:

Am I the only one who remembers Unearthed Arcana?

Paladins and Rangers (and maybe Bards) were presented as 15 level Prestige Classes.

It also have Paladins of Slaughter, Freedom and Tyranny (CE, CG, LE).

Nothing new under the sun here. (Oy, I feel old.)

I do. I believe they're technically OGL too, given a lot of the stuff in that book was, so it's a tad surprising we haven't seen SOMEONE bring them to PF as archetypes or sister classes. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and they aren't OGL or someone DID port them over without my knowing, of course!)

[Papa-DRB]

Diminuendo and others wrote:

Lots of stuff...

Diminuendo, and others. There already is a class where Paladin is an "archetype", and that is "Holy Warrior". It came out as a DnD 3.0 class, sorta updated to 3.5, and there is a 5E version. When I gave all my books to a local gaming shop ($1,150.00 credit!) that was one of the few that I kept.

Green Ronin makes the book/pdf. LINK to 3.0 version.

-- david

[Diminuendo]

Neat!