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


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 150 of 554 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is more with the alignment rules than the paladin. Too many "gotcha GM's", and "should the paladin" fall threads are the cause of this.

If better examples were given about what a paladin could and could not do, or the alignments were more strict about what it took to qualify for each one this would be less of a problem.

I have no problem with the paladin staying as LG, but I allow paladins a pretty wide berth until they do something that is absolutely evil such as murdering in cold blood. I'd even allow them to lie for the greater good as long as they atoned for it.

Keeping the code at the expense of people dying means he's lost his way in my opinion. With that being said players aren't mind readers, and many GM's don't get that.

They feel like a player should automaticaly know what will lead to a the stripping of powers. If he burns down a village sure, but some other things are highly subject.

Back on the topic of letting people die just so he can keep his powers, I'd let the player know that putting the code first is more likely to cause him to lose his powers. That way he can choose to lose them, and it won't be a gotcha moment.

A paladin should know his deity(GM's wishes) well enough to know when he is at risk of being turned away. If he's that lost he shouldn't be a paladin anyway aka "the GM did a bad job of explaining things, assuming the player actually listened".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't even think Gotcha-GMs are that much of a problem. Then again, my tables tend not to have problems with alignment because we have an unwrittem agreement not to think about it too hard, lest it break.

Mainly I would just like to see the Holy Warrior archetype opened up to more concepts. Not everyone wants to deal with the paperwork of full prepared spellcasting. Some people will want a character with supernatural abilities, but of a more martial bent. And PF2 will most likely not have the come-lately and arguably redundant Warpriest class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

The problem is more with the alignment rules than the paladin. Too many "gotcha GM's", and "should the paladin" fall threads are the cause of this.

If better examples were given about what a paladin could and could not do, or the alignments were more strict about what it took to qualify for each one this would be less of a problem.

I have no problem with the paladin staying as LG, but I allow paladins a pretty wide berth until they do something that is absolutely evil such as murdering in cold blood. I'd even allow them to lie for the greater good as long as they atoned for it.

Keeping the code at the expense of people dying means he's lost his way in my opinion. With that being said players aren't mind readers, and many GM's don't get that.

They feel like a player should automaticaly know what will lead to a the stripping of powers. If he burns down a village sure, but some other things are highly subject.

Back on the topic of letting people die just so he can keep his powers, I'd let the player know that putting the code first is more likely to cause him to lose his powers. That way he can choose to lose them, and it won't be a gotcha moment.

A paladin should know his deity(GM's wishes) well enough to know when he is at risk of being turned away. If he's that lost he shouldn't be a paladin anyway aka "the GM did a bad job of explaining things, assuming the player actually listened".

Agreed. Most stories of Paladin issues are usually "gotcha" GMs that think the entire point of a Paladin is to try to constantly make them teeter on the edge of falling (or sadistically outright trying to make it happen), players making their character behave like an ass, or players who treat a Paladin code as some sort of infernal pact and trying to abuse loopholes not realizing that if the character is a Paladin, they CHOSE to be a Paladin and impose their code on themselves.

Furthermore, a character worthy of being a Paladin would prioritize doing the right thing over keeping their flashy powers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Paladin is a toughy....on the one hand it represents the D10 member of the divine family tree and worthy of being distinct, but on the other it is a great concept for a Fighter Prestige Class...


9 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
You're trying to take something away from me by making Paladin "just a class" like any other.

You lost me here.

The paladin IS "just a class" like any other *core rulebook* classes.
You didn't have to earn it, you just had to write "paladin lvl 1" on your sheet.
It's got it's own unique quirks, just like every class does, but in Pathfinder, it's no more special than Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, or Wizard, or even any of the classes that came later.

If you want to ascribe something more to Paladin at your table, in your games, that's totally fine. But you can't bring that mentality to public forums and expect it to be blanket accepted as "the way it is/should be."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
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.

Whooooooa there.

"While players feel"

No no no no no no... SOME players feel. You totally don't speak for the player base here. I totally think they should always be lawful for lore reasons and I am a player. In fact a lot of players feel this way.

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.

Quote:
As the 2e rulebook will include Archetypes, Paizo has a unique opportunity to settle this argument to the satisfaction of all.

Uh... No?

Not all. Not all at all. A LOT of people would be upset if they turned them into some weak-sauce archetype rather than a class. Since they have been a class for over 40 years.

Quote:
Maybe, instead of Paladin, the core rulebook should have a class called the "Herald."

No.

Quote:
The Herald has all of the Paladins/AntiPaladins abilities - except - they are themed around the deity of the Herald, not around being LG/CE.

Absolutely not. Paladins are not just holy warriors. No. No. A million times no.

Quote:
The Herald also has an archetype called the "Paladin" which has a LG requirement and abilities similar to the 1e Paladin.

No. How about we just leave Paladin as is, a class, that has a Lawful Good requirement.

Quote:
This allows Paladins to remain part of the lore from day one of second edition, while also making the Paladins abilities available to characters of all alignments.

No. Because that isn't what Paladins ARE. Paladins serve gods, but they are not created by gods.

Quote:
Asmodean "Paladins" can also be a thing now.

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

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

Hei dude! Chill out here imho The herald option its a very good one that permit to have both the drunken wife and the bottle of Wine full.

Herald can be a sort of "fusion" between
The actual paladin without the alignment restriction and the warpriest. In fact the warpriest it's already something like that. If an archetypes its to meek for a mighty class that will change only in name, well maybe you can, at the first level, impose a code like a sort of cleric domain. You need to have the same allignment of your god (or one step on one axis like a LN paladin of asmodeus but not a lb one.) and it need to be legal.

But if you want the "chaotic o neutral one" you can introduce archetypes that change this and all will be good.

Rly i love the Idea of the herald. It need only very few tweeks

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You're not gonna convince him, man, just don't waste the energy =)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would hate that. Paladin is my favourite class.
I don’t get why you everyone feels they need to “fix” the class. Especially when they all seem get hung up on the alignment, when it’s the code restricts the Paladin. Take away alignments and most Paladins will still be played the same way. Which for me, and I’m assuming other Paladin fans, is the appeal of th class.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Reason why everyone want to fix the paladin is not because we hate the class.We love the class the way it is.Problem is it interferes with any kind of fun.Which in time it makes you want to kill or avoid the character instead of enjoying your 15 min adventure day with him/her.Then there are people who thinks lawfull good is not lawfull nice which is another kind of a pain.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Lausth wrote:
Reason why everyone want to fix the paladin is not because we hate the class.We love the class the way it is.Problem is it interferes with any kind of fun.Which in time it makes you want to kill or avoid the character instead of enjoying your 15 min adventure day with him/her.Then there are people who thinks lawfull good is not lawfull nice which is another kind of a pain.

Speak for yourself. Paladins are fine; it's the players and the GMs with dumb ideas that are the issue.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The idea of the Paladin always being a stick-in-the-mud killjoy or goodie two-shoes is just the result of poor understanding of what Lawful Good is.

Unless your party is regularly stealing from innocents, or torturing people or making ritualistic sacrifices to dark gods, a Paladin will probably find ways to fit in without causing trouble or having to break character/the code.

Games like the above are something people will want to do, of course, but those are the kinds of games where anything called a Paladin should not be.

I think a lot of good could come from retreading the code and better discussion of the alignment, but those aren't easy (the latter would likely a difficult fit for a CRB), but admittedly even those won't change some of the strange preconceptions people have.

The idea of Heralds, or Paragons as a blanket class the Paladin is a variant of, I can deal with - I don't like them, but I could work with them, as I do believe that the Paladin is something unique. More than just a Holy Warrior, and much more than a d10 hit die, full BAB divine character with Lay on Hands, Smite and Divine Grace.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Paladins can be HEAPS of fun... I ran one once who was basically a traumatized veteran guided by angelic voices.

Not so much a "knight in shining armor" as a combination of street preacher and underground railroad operative, who fought more like an insurgent than a cavalier (whoooooole lotta shankin' goin' on- you ever used Smite on a slaver in a barfight? 'Cause I have).

Paladins are only problems when you have people wanting to do genuinely shady crap, or when you have clashing notions of what is acceptable that you can't work through...


12 people marked this as a favorite.

What is so funny is, people wanting to allow the paladin to be any AL are not trying to stop people from playing LG paladins. But those LG only bunch are trying to stop the otherside from enjoying the clase for "reasons of badwrong fun"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
What is so funny is, people wanting to allow the paladin to be any AL are not trying to stop people from playing LG paladins. But those LG only bunch are trying to stop the otherside from enjoying the clase for "reasons of badwrong fun"

It's not badwrongfun, it's the fact that the Paladin concept doesn't make any sense without being Lawful Good. Call it something else, just not a Paladin. I would be fine with naming the class something else, and having different specializations based on alignment, calling the LG one Paladin.


I want alignment neutral paladin/paragon/whatever with abilities tied to their god/code. With LG being one of those options. But I also want to play the divine holy warrior fighting an evil tyranical government without having to stop and debate if breaking the law is a problem or not (imo it shouldn't be, but for some it is). I love the idea of a divine champion of a god or ideal, but find the LG only thing restrictive.
However, if the Paladin is still LG only I'll do what I always do for my group, swap stuff around to make it more open and thematic to different alignments. Cause I don't play PFS, and so no one is making me play only one way. So it's not an issue, even if I think it's a better design to start broad and offer archetypes for narrower ideas.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
Lausth wrote:
Reason why everyone want to fix the paladin is not because we hate the class.We love the class the way it is.Problem is it interferes with any kind of fun.Which in time it makes you want to kill or avoid the character instead of enjoying your 15 min adventure day with him/her.Then there are people who thinks lawfull good is not lawfull nice which is another kind of a pain.
Speak for yourself. Paladins are fine; it's the players and the GMs with dumb ideas that are the issue.

Speak for myself?Paladins are fine?Did you read the title?People want to remove the class from PF.Are you sure they are fine?


Matthew Downie wrote:
So, which are the "Paladin abilities" that are to be made available to Heralds of all alignments, and which are the "Paladin abilities" that are unique to the Paladin?

Paladin only:

Detect evil, smite evil, mercies, fear immunity

Herald:
Divine grace, aura, lay on hands/channel, divine bond,
variant detect (infidels) variant smite (infidels), combat enhancing features (warpriest-like stuff, perhaps with deities favored weapon), spells


Lausth wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
Lausth wrote:
Reason why everyone want to fix the paladin is not because we hate the class.We love the class the way it is.Problem is it interferes with any kind of fun.Which in time it makes you want to kill or avoid the character instead of enjoying your 15 min adventure day with him/her.Then there are people who thinks lawfull good is not lawfull nice which is another kind of a pain.
Speak for yourself. Paladins are fine; it's the players and the GMs with dumb ideas that are the issue.
Speak for myself?Paladins are fine?Did you read the title?People want to remove the class from PF.Are you sure they are fine?

i believe they’re referring to the fact that you said everyone hates the Paladin. OP doesn’t represent everyone.

As everyone else said, the major issue with Paladins tends to be a Player/GM problem, not a problem with th class itself.

Whenever someone comes up with a solution to the Paladin, it’s usually to remove it or replace the Paladin with something else not really caring about the fact that a lot of us like the Paladin just fine, and that we’d lose that. Then act like we’re telling you you’re playing wrong when we just want to continue playing the class we like. A neutral agnostic class would probably function differently too, otherwise why not just homebrew a Paladin’s alignment restriction away.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Cole Deschain wrote:
Paladins are only problems when you have people wanting to do genuinely shady crap, or when you have clashing notions of what is acceptable that you can't work through...

I played a Paladin in Kingmaker for a little while. My DM told me that I shouldn't have agreed with the party to attack the fortress of the evil bandit lord without first warning them and challenging them to battle.

I thought that was monumentally stupid, and regardless of which one of us was right, disagreements among players about how your character should act are not fun and don't contribute to the game. One of the other players told me after the fact that he has always wanted to play a Paladin, but can't, due to conflicts like these.

Is this a player issue rather than a game issue? Sure. But it could be alleviated by either making the bounds of acceptable behavior for a Paladin extremely explicit, or removing them altogether. I favor the latter, as reprinting all the inane arguments about goblin babies in the rulebook is going to take up too much space.

I've also seen people accusing everyone of wanting to use the Paladin for minmaxing, as if the alignment restriction is some sort of balancing factor, and that is frankly absurd. The Exploiter Wizard is a theorycrafter's wet dream, and they don't have any roleplaying restrictions on their mechanics. Furthermore, the Paladin is solidly middle-of-the-road as far as optimization goes. It's laughable to think that Smite Evil or Lay on Hands need to be gated behind some restriction due to their awesome powers as class abilities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

How about we don't remove a class. Instead, how about we improve it?
Just my 2 copper on the matter.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No one is saying you shouldnt play the way you want but it is obvious classes alignment and its Code of conduct causes problems for almost a decade now.Saying paladins are fine is like turning a blind eye to that.Sure you have a better understanding that you think it can enhance people's experience with them?Then share it but dont act like class has no problems with its code of conduct.İt needs to be better understood or changed.

EDİT:Forgot the PF's age.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thebazilly wrote:
Cole Deschain wrote:
Paladins are only problems when you have people wanting to do genuinely shady crap, or when you have clashing notions of what is acceptable that you can't work through...

I played a Paladin in Kingmaker for a little while. My DM told me that I shouldn't have agreed with the party to attack the fortress of the evil bandit lord without first warning them and challenging them to battle.

I thought that was monumentally stupid, and regardless of which one of us was right, disagreements among players about how your character should act are not fun and don't contribute to the game. One of the other players told me after the fact that he has always wanted to play a Paladin, but can't, due to conflicts like these.

Is this a player issue rather than a game issue? Sure. But it could be alleviated by either making the bounds of acceptable behavior for a Paladin extremely explicit, or removing them altogether. I favor the latter, as reprinting all the inane arguments about goblin babies in the rulebook is going to take up too much space.

I've also seen people accusing everyone of wanting to use the Paladin for minmaxing, as if the alignment restriction is some sort of balancing factor, and that is frankly absurd. The Exploiter Wizard is a theorycrafter's wet dream, and they don't have any roleplaying restrictions on their mechanics. Furthermore, the Paladin is solidly middle-of-the-road as far as optimization goes. It's laughable to think that Smite Evil or Lay on Hands need to be gated behind some restriction due to their awesome powers as class abilities.

That is entirely a GM/Player issue. There's no reason you should be required to warn the enemy that you're storming their fortress. There's a term for that: Stupid Good (there are "X Stupid" and "Stupid X" terms related to every alignment, actually).

Removing the alignment requirement strips the Paladin of its concept.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:

That is entirely a GM/Player issue. There's no reason you should be required to warn the enemy that you're storming their fortress. There's a term for that: Stupid Good (there are "X Stupid" and "Stupid X" terms related to every alignment, actually).

Removing the alignment requirement strips the Paladin of its concept.

I didn't bring this up because I wanted to start an ethics argument, or prove I was right or anything. I brought it up because it's an example of a common problem with the class, one which occurs frequently, given the existence of the term "Lawful Stupid," and which will continue to occur as long as Paladins exist as they do.

Making a Paladin cedes some of the narrative control of your character to your DM (do/don't do this or fall), and making a Paladin requires the rest of the party to cede some of the narrative control of their characters to you (you can't do that, that's evil). Unless you and the rest of your group are fully agreed in a set of moral beliefs, that is going to cause an argument at some point. It is not conducive to cooperative play.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Bloodrealm wrote:
It's not badwrongfun, it's the fact that the Paladin concept doesn't make any sense without being Lawful Good.

It may not make sense to you, but it sure makes sense to quite a few other people.

There's a lot of stuff in Pathfinder that doesn't make sense to me. But that doesn't mean that other people should only be allowed to play their characters in a way that makes sense to me.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
What is so funny is, people wanting to allow the paladin to be any AL are not trying to stop people from playing LG paladins. But those LG only bunch are trying to stop the otherside from enjoying the clase for "reasons of badwrong fun"
It's not badwrongfun, it's the fact that the Paladin concept doesn't make any sense without being Lawful Good. Call it something else, just not a Paladin. I would be fine with naming the class something else, and having different specializations based on alignment, calling the LG one Paladin.

It is still a paladin. A non good wizard is not a warlock or sorcerer or something, its a wizard. A paladin is not restricted to lawful good in many if not most fantasy settings. Hell even D&D killed the LG requirment and paladins are alive in well in D&D and for the first time, thriving.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And that, right there, is the core of the problem that is currently spread over at least five threads of discussion.

Any solution that makes one group happy is going to irrevocably infuriated or at least frustrate the other. The two opinions here are not at all compatible, as both rely on infringing against the core desire of the other group in sone way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lausth wrote:
No one is saying you shouldnt play the way you want but it is obvious classes alginment and its Code of conduct causes problems for almost for a decade now.Saying paladins are fine is like turning a blind eye to that.Sure you have a better understanding that you think it can enhance people's experience with them?Then share it but dont act like class has no problems with its code of conduct.İt needs to be better understood or changed.

Fair point. I was more responding to your generalising.

But yeah, the Paladin could do with a look over. I feel the issue is the generic code imported over from 3.5. I’ve found it so much easier to play even a traditional Paladin when you have their specific code in front of you.

That said, dedicating a archetype or two to nongood Paladins can only be a good thing. I just feel the base Paladin being a beacon of heroic goodness who at every opportunity tries to do the right thing, the right way is an important part of the Paladin’s flavour and identity.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:

And that, right there, is the core of the problem that is currently spread over at least five threads of discussion.

Any solution that makes one group happy is going to irrevocably infuriated or at least frustrate the other. The two opinions here are not at all compatible, as both rely on infringing against the core desire of the other group in sone way.

The issue is, one groups solution does not stop the other from having LG paladins. It has zero impact on folks wanting LG paladins to allow non lawful ones. You can still play LG paladins. Its just now you dont have to.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Orthos wrote:

And that, right there, is the core of the problem that is currently spread over at least five threads of discussion.

Any solution that makes one group happy is going to irrevocably infuriated or at least frustrate the other. The two opinions here are not at all compatible, as both rely on infringing against the core desire of the other group in sone way.

The issue is, one groups solution does not stop the other from having LG paladins. It has zero impact on folks wanting LG paladins to allow non lawful ones. You can still play LG paladins. Its just now you dont have to.

I don't disagree, but they do. There seem to be a great deal if people to whom severing the paladin in any way from its alignment or behavioral restrictions is nearly sacrilege. Therein lies the quandary of incompatibility.

Paizo is going to make one of these groups upset with whatever decision they make. The only question remaining is which.

I have a guess, but it's nothing more than a guess.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
karlbadmannersV2 wrote:
I see absolutely no reason Paladin cannot *EVOLVE* to being multiple alignments. It's silly to hold onto the "LG ONLY!" notion

Why is it "silly"? Look, no one has a big issue with Monks being Lawful, right?

There are plenty of ways to make a non-LG holy warrior- The Inquisitor comes to mind, as well as several others.

Leave the LG Paladin alone- why CAN'T it be just LG?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
What is so funny is, people wanting to allow the paladin to be any AL are not trying to stop people from playing LG paladins. But those LG only bunch are trying to stop the otherside from enjoying the clase for "reasons of badwrong fun"

fun part is that actually having diferent kinds of paladins, such as 5e Devotion, Ancients and Vengeance paladins, will give LG paladins more width and depth. Iomedae, Erastil and Ragathiel have ethos that can fill those Oaths, in some cases, more than one Oath.

A grim pistolero is a paladin in Stephen King's The Dark Tower. Just because it does not fit within the Galahad Clone Factory doesn't means he is not a paladin. Even a LG paladin.

Playing a paladin with the personality of Batman (forget about powers, I'm talking about personality alone), and that does not make you any less of a hero than playing a paladin with the personality of Superman. You could be a paladin with the personality of Spiderman too. Or the personality of Wolverine. Or even the personality of Ozymandias.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
karlbadmannersV2 wrote:
I see absolutely no reason Paladin cannot *EVOLVE* to being multiple alignments. It's silly to hold onto the "LG ONLY!" notion
Why is it "silly"? Look, no one has a big issue with Monks being Lawful, right?

1. Yeah some people do.

2. Monks don't lose their class abilities if they or their party do something naughty.

3. Monks have thrice the variance in available alignments from the paladin, but even that is too much to ask for from some.


gustavo iglesias wrote:

fun part is that actually having diferent kinds of paladins, such as 5e Devotion, Ancients and Vengeance paladins,

You understand in 5e they can be any alignment, right?


Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

fun part is that actually having diferent kinds of paladins, such as 5e Devotion, Ancients and Vengeance paladins,

You understand in 5e they can be any alignment, right?

5E has no Paladins. They have "thing that isn't me hunters". They're specialized in fighting creature types, not Evil.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

fun part is that actually having diferent kinds of paladins, such as 5e Devotion, Ancients and Vengeance paladins,

You understand in 5e they can be any alignment, right?
5E has no Paladins. They have "thing that isn't me hunters". They're specialized in fighting creature types, not Evil.

Looks at PHB, reads the Paladin entry

I think I can say for fact 5e has Paladins.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Dear lord why are some people so obsessed with breaking up the lawful good paladin?

Because they want all of the Paladin goodness without the restriction of actually being good and lawful.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Look, no one has a big issue with Monks being Lawful, right?

I do...

Kain Dragonhand wrote:
Because they want all of the Paladin goodness without the restriction of actually being good and lawful.

I want to be able to take the class and be fairly sure that the game isn't going to devolve into a 'did I fall' quandary in a catch 22 moment because the DM is like you and HWalsh MUST have a restriction in alignment and it's a duty/requirement to test it. I want to have a good time, not 'hold a grenade/bomb' and hope it doesn't go off ruining everyone's good time because I played a character class with a know alignment/code issue that makes me lose my entire class abilities because of a disagreement over aligned actions.

From my experience, CE characters have less issues than paladins as far as party cohesion and have less moments of disruption...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

How about this for an alignment restriction for Paladin...
Alignment: Any Good

And for Anti-Paladin:
Alignment: Any Evil


D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
So, which are the "Paladin abilities" that are to be made available to Heralds of all alignments, and which are the "Paladin abilities" that are unique to the Paladin?

Paladin only:

Detect evil, smite evil, mercies, fear immunity

Herald:
Divine grace, aura, lay on hands/channel, divine bond,
variant detect (infidels) variant smite (infidels), combat enhancing features (warpriest-like stuff, perhaps with deities favored weapon), spells

Okay... I'll bite...

Here, how about this:

Paladin:
Aura of Good, Smite Evil, Mercies, Lay on Hands/Channel, Divine Bond, Detect Evil, Divine Grace, Fear Immunity

Herald:
Aura of Good, Smite Evil, Mercies, Lay on Hands/Channel, Divine Bond, Fear Immunity

My "compromise" is that your Herald doesn't get Divine Grace. Why? Because that is the reason most people want Paladin to not be L/G.


graystone wrote:


Kain Dragonhand wrote:
Because they want all of the Paladin goodness without the restriction of actually being good and lawful.

I want to be able to take the class and be fairly sure that the game isn't going to devolve into a 'did I fall' quandary in a catch 22 moment because the DM is like you and HWalsh MUST have a restriction in alignment and it's a duty/requirement to test it. I want to have a good time, not 'hold a grenade/bomb' and hope it doesn't go off ruining everyone's good time because I played a character class with a know alignment/code issue that makes me lose my entire class abilities because of a disagreement over aligned actions.

From my experience, CE characters have less issues than paladins as far as party cohesion and have less moments of disruption...

That's an issue with the GM, not with the Paladin class.


Sadida wrote:

How about this for an alignment restriction for Paladin...

Alignment: Any Good

And for Anti-Paladin:
Alignment: Any Evil

I just... Don't like this. Removing the Lawful makes Paladins much more common, reducing their rarity, and it also opens the doors for some really "vile" things.

It also runs into certain issues...

If the Paladin code says they aren't allowed to use Poison, the Chaotic Good Paladin will easily be able to argue, "Nope. I'm Chaotic, so I'll use Poison, who cares about the Code if it gets in my way. I'll also cheat, lie, and do all kinds of other non-Paladin-like things because... Again... Chaotic... If the rules get in my way, and it isn't like this is a self-imposed code, this is a code handed down to me, which my alignment says I have no reason to uphold."


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

However, the problem is that mortal beings are trying to assess a morality and an ethics system that is quite possibly impossible for average mortals to attain, so it is not just GMs, but also players that cannot bring a typical Paladin paradigm to a complementary level.

It is a divisive relic of a past time and the first sign it needed to advance was when they put Seelah in the iconic role.

It suddenly couldn't be used as a banner class for a certain mindset, and I think the game was strengthened as a result, as well as the community.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sadida wrote:

How about this for an alignment restriction for Paladin...

Alignment: Any Good

That's certainly better than "any alignment", but I still think the Lawful component is important for a Paladin, as that's the manner in which they enact Good. At most, if absolutely necessary, I'd say "Good and non-Chaotic".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

fun part is that actually having diferent kinds of paladins, such as 5e Devotion, Ancients and Vengeance paladins,

You understand in 5e they can be any alignment, right?
5E has no Paladins. They have "thing that isn't me hunters". They're specialized in fighting creature types, not Evil.

Looks at PHB, reads the Paladin entry

I think I can say for fact 5e has Paladins.

Let's make no mistake calling something a "paladin" doesn't a paladin makes.

You can create a CE class and call it a paladin. There. That doesn't mean it has anything to do with the PF1 paladin.

This is what people are discussing here.

A warpriest isn't a paladin, but hey it can be LG... so they are now the same clearly.

Paladin does involve a certain lore in PF that lore involves it's restrictions, and yes, we all have ever ideas to how to change an "improve" them, but at a certain point there is no value in keeping the paladin name anymore.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

fun part is that actually having diferent kinds of paladins, such as 5e Devotion, Ancients and Vengeance paladins,

You understand in 5e they can be any alignment, right?
5E has no Paladins. They have "thing that isn't me hunters". They're specialized in fighting creature types, not Evil.

Looks at PHB, reads the Paladin entry

I think I can say for fact 5e has Paladins.

The problem you are facing, as I'm sure you no doubt noticed, us that your opponent does not care what the name says. If it doesn't match their idea if what a Paladin is, it's not a Paladin.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh look, ninjas.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
graystone wrote:


Kain Dragonhand wrote:
Because they want all of the Paladin goodness without the restriction of actually being good and lawful.

I want to be able to take the class and be fairly sure that the game isn't going to devolve into a 'did I fall' quandary in a catch 22 moment because the DM is like you and HWalsh MUST have a restriction in alignment and it's a duty/requirement to test it. I want to have a good time, not 'hold a grenade/bomb' and hope it doesn't go off ruining everyone's good time because I played a character class with a know alignment/code issue that makes me lose my entire class abilities because of a disagreement over aligned actions.

From my experience, CE characters have less issues than paladins as far as party cohesion and have less moments of disruption...

That's an issue with the GM, not with the Paladin class.

Disagree: the class enables that as it requires a judgement call to remove ALL your class abilities and you have plenty of people that are taking cues from past paladins and legacy to color their perspectives. For instance, HWalsh is pulling out material from 1e for his basis for how the class is run, which is at odds with actual publish material from the game so what happens if the player follows what he thing the current game allows but HWalsh disagrees because he has a different idea of what a paladin should be? Do I fall?

Even ignoring that, what you're overlooking is those situations when you have to people that, in good faith, fundamentally disagree on an actions alignment because of the alignment systems nebulous nature and the large grey areas and the fact that a single evil act removes your abilities. It's a recipe for a bad time.


Orthos wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

fun part is that actually having diferent kinds of paladins, such as 5e Devotion, Ancients and Vengeance paladins,

You understand in 5e they can be any alignment, right?
5E has no Paladins. They have "thing that isn't me hunters". They're specialized in fighting creature types, not Evil.

Looks at PHB, reads the Paladin entry

I think I can say for fact 5e has Paladins.

The problem you are facing, as I'm sure you no doubt noticed, us that your opponent does not care what the name says. If it doesn't match their idea if what a Paladin is, it's not a Paladin.

BINGO!

For many of us (more than even I assumed, according to the posters in this thread, which warms my heart) a Paladin is more than just a name, or even simply mechanics, it is the total package.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:


The problem you are facing, as I'm sure you no doubt noticed, us that your opponent does not care what the name says. If it doesn't match their idea if what a Paladin is, it's not a Paladin.

Yeah, some folks have a hard time dealing with reality.


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


5E has no Paladins. They have "thing that isn't me hunters". They're specialized in fighting creature types, not Evil.

Looks at PHB, reads the Paladin entry

I think I can say for fact 5e has Paladins.
The problem you are facing, as I'm sure you no doubt noticed, us that your opponent does not care what the name says. If it doesn't match their idea if what a Paladin is, it's not a Paladin.

If I call a cow's tail a leg, how many legs would she have?

101 to 150 of 554 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / The unpopular opinion; Maybe Paladins shouldn't be a class All Messageboards