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


Prerelease Discussion

151 to 200 of 554 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheburn wrote:
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?

Depends... Is the cow a paladin?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I personally don't see the equivalence,but hey, I've long since lost any stake in this particular argument, as I'm not even going to be involved with PF2. now I'm just here for the fire.


I came for the rum

Scarab Sages

I came for the demon lord seminar. What's all this ruckus about paladins?


That they are Fabulous?

Scarab Sages

Us Dammit, Glitter! This is gonna take weeks to get out of my webs....


24 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to say, that the prime reason I'd want to open the Paladin to other alignments is that I despise the elitism that people attach to the old idea.

"Not only am I Good, I'm the MOST Good. That Barbarian who champions everything that I do without my Code to guide them? Bah! A mere pretender, no where near my purity of soul. Chaotic Good? More like 'Decided not to be Evil today'! Those lesser Heroes know nothing of my incredible valor and my boundless humility! It is I, Lawful Good Paladin Man, who am the ultimate bastion of righteousness!"

And just wanting that to be enforced by the rules. So that anyone playing the game, whether they will ever interact with the "Keep em Lawful!" players or not, is 'forced' to acknowledge that Lawful Good Is Best Good.

I frankly find that sort of elitism completely goes in the face of everything a Paladin should stand for. Paladins are my favorite class, and I love Lawful Good more than every other alignment, but if this notion of "Paladins are the Greatest Good, an ELITE CLASS of Hero!" was brought up to one of my Paladins their response would be legendary! (Involving sitting down with whoever said that, and explaining that nothing about them elevates them above any other man, woman, or child. True Heroism is a choice that anyone can make, and to see those choices made every day is what inspires the Paladins I play to do their best too.)

So I want to burn those alignment restrictions to the ground, because I HATE the idea that only Lawful Good characters can be such champions! No! No, no, no, no, no! True Paladins would champion the idea that ALL people can make that choice to be a Hero, and they would be inspired by each and every person that made that choice.

That true humility, that's something I don't think the Old Paradigm being pushed can accept. That they aren't Special Warriors that are Better Than Everyone Else. But its something I dearly want, for my Lawful Good Paladins to welcome Neutral Good and Chaotic Good champions to their number, so that they can strengthen their cause of protecting the innocent and the lost, while opposing the wicked.

The Old Way of doing Paladins is just elitism pandering to Special Snowflakes, lets open that fellowship already. My Paladins will welcome every newcomer with open arms.

The Exchange

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Black Jimmy wrote:
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.

Well, the last instances I saw that wasn't true at all.Every time it was about adding options that allow for Non-LG paladins as well. That's neither trying to remove it nor is it replacing the Paladin with something else. So no, you wouldn't lose anything, but others would gain.

Also, the OP doesn't hate the Paladin. Diminuendo was trying to find a solution for the fact that it might not be feasible for Paizo to create several classes that basically do the same thing, only for other alignments, while the Paladin class as is doesn't allow for using other alignments than LG.

Quote:
why not just homebrew a Paladin’s alignment restriction away

1. PFS play

2. jerk GMs
3. jerk players


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Xerres: You deserve a cookie for that post. *hands over a cookie*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
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".

Would allow for more laid back characters. Like a chill CG Paladin of Cayden Cailean or NG Paladin of Shelyn.


Google, Demon Queen of Spiders wrote:
Us Dammit, Glitter! This is gonna take weeks to get out of my webs....

Longer! It reproduces!


He stole that idea from me!


Sadida wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
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".
Would allow for more laid back characters. Like a chill CG Paladin of Cayden Cailean or NG Paladin of Shelyn.

Implying a Lawful character must have a massive stick up their ass? That's false.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
Implying a Lawful character must have a massive stick up their ass? That's false.

Ok, which character do YOU expect are more laid back? A lawful one or a chaotic one? DO you expect to have a good time with a CG Paladin of Cayden Cailean or a typical LG paladin?

Why not trying to take posts at face value without reading in subtext into them... :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
Sadida wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
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".
Would allow for more laid back characters. Like a chill CG Paladin of Cayden Cailean or NG Paladin of Shelyn.
Implying a Lawful character must have a massive stick up their ass? That's false.

Most I played with treat the Lawful as the letter, not the spirit. Not false.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
Implying a Lawful character must have a massive stick up their ass? That's false.

Ok, which character do YOU expect are more laid back? A lawful one or a chaotic one? DO you expect to have a good time with a CG Paladin of Cayden Cailean or a typical LG paladin?

Not to throw a spanner into your calculations but I would totally have more fun with the LG guy because I am LN as heck and that chaotic guy is going to keep running off into crazy antics that are destined to give me a migraine I just KNOW it...

The Exchange

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

Now if we're talking about a laid back CG Paladin of Calistria....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sadida wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
Sadida wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
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".
Would allow for more laid back characters. Like a chill CG Paladin of Cayden Cailean or NG Paladin of Shelyn.
Implying a Lawful character must have a massive stick up their ass? That's false.
Most I played with treat the Lawful as the letter, not the spirit. Not false.

Sounds like they didn't know what Lawful is.


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

I've had far more 'moral' characters that were Neutral than any of the polar extremes -- they couldn't insist that anyone else follow their Path, only suggest it, and would feel rotten and horrible if they did something rotten and horrible because circumstances demanded it.

Even if they weren't required mechanically to get a 'Paladin-Get-Out-Of-Consequences-Free' card Read: Atonement they would do so as required to them personally.

And the few times I've adventured with Paladins in PFS that were not my own, most of the hardliners in the discussion would have had them fall for 'not being nearly Lawful enough'.

So maybe, just maybe the OP is onto something. If this is the equivalent of dropping forty gallons of kerosene into a gaming home, perhaps we need to re-assess where our priorities are both as a community and as a person.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
Now if we're talking about a laid back CG Paladin of Calistria....

I know this idea is immensely appealing to a lot of people on these forums, but I gotta admit, my skin legit CRAWLED for a sec reading this.

Do Not Want.

Granted, that's 100% because of my utter distaste for Calistra and not at all because of the CG Paladin part.

Any way, as you were.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orthos wrote:
I know this idea is immensely appealing to a lot of people on these forums, but I gotta admit, my skin legit CRAWLED for a sec reading this.

Sorry for that, didn't want to cause any unease. Also I didn't even know people would advocate for that to happen. Contrary to you, I like Calistria very much, but I never thought about creating a Paladin of hers. Until someone in this thread used the word "laid", that is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
Not to throw a spanner into your calculations but I would totally have more fun with the LG guy because I am LN as heck and that chaotic guy is going to keep running off into crazy antics that are destined to give me a migraine I just KNOW it...

LOL Chaotic = "running off into crazy antics" is as bad as Lawful = "massive stick up their ass".

So, let take fictional characters? Judge dread or han solo? Which one sounds like a better drinking companion? ;)

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'd vote for Judge Dredd. At least we could finish our drinks without getting shot at.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Dredd wouldn't drink with you, because he is the Law.

The Law cannot be drunk on duty.


WormysQueue wrote:
Orthos wrote:
I know this idea is immensely appealing to a lot of people on these forums, but I gotta admit, my skin legit CRAWLED for a sec reading this.
Sorry for that, didn't want to cause any unease. Also I didn't even know people would advocate for that to happen. Contrary to you, I like Calistria very much, but I never thought about creating a Paladin of hers. Until someone in this thread used the word "laid", that is.

Hahah, no harm done. I just really don't like Calistra. Patron goddess of the Crazy Ex. Lust and vengeance are not two portfolios that ever should have been allowed to mix.

Read my review of Dave Gross's Queen of Thorns if you really want to see my uncensored take on her.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Not to throw a spanner into your calculations but I would totally have more fun with the LG guy because I am LN as heck and that chaotic guy is going to keep running off into crazy antics that are destined to give me a migraine I just KNOW it...

LOL Chaotic = "running off into crazy antics" is as bad as Lawful = "massive stick up their ass".

So, let take fictional characters? Judge dread or han solo? Which one sounds like a better drinking companion? ;)

I would vote Dredd, Solo is fun to watch on screen bit I would never want to be near him when he's up to stiff.

Face it,I'm too Lawful for this example to work on me. =)


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The paladin has always been my favored class through 2E, 3.0, 3.5, PF. However, I think the concept of a holy warrior is more appropriate in today's game. I want my character to be driven by his/her's deities code/ethics more than a generic code put in place in the core rulebook, to mimic the games that have come before. I think that the warpriest was a good start in this direction, just did not quite make the cut in my opinion.

I want to see an unholy knight of Asmodeous, based upon tyranny, I want to see a champion of Sheylyn, defending the concept of good - purity, love, etc. for goods sake only. I want to see a defiler of Rovagug - intent on spreading chaos and discontent. And still I want the holy knight - the paladin, if you will, of Imodae, fighting back the corruption of the world wound. Call them what you will, I want a class that I can build based upon that characters religious or even general moral or immoral code.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
I'd vote for Judge Dredd. At least we could finish our drinks without getting shot at.

"Public intoxication is against the law!' *bang, bang* ;)

Orthos wrote:
Face it,I'm too Lawful for this example to work on me. =)

They have medications for that these days. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why would I want to medicate? I LIKE being lawful. I try to be LG but I'm a tad lot too cynical and pessimistic to really pull it off, so LN it is, irl anyway.


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?

Yes


Orthos wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:
Orthos wrote:
I know this idea is immensely appealing to a lot of people on these forums, but I gotta admit, my skin legit CRAWLED for a sec reading this.
Sorry for that, didn't want to cause any unease. Also I didn't even know people would advocate for that to happen. Contrary to you, I like Calistria very much, but I never thought about creating a Paladin of hers. Until someone in this thread used the word "laid", that is.

Hahah, no harm done. I just really don't like Calistra. Patron goddess of the Crazy Ex. Lust and vengeance are not two portfolios that ever should have been allowed to mix.

Read my review of Dave Gross's Queen of Thorns if you really want to see my uncensored take on her.

Also there is that whole thing with Calistra's followers and them unleashing wasps on those that they feel deserve it.

Like there is a reason that this art from pathfinder is pretty much Calistria in a nutshell:
http://cdn.obsidianportal.com/assets/242245/CalistriaVenganza.jpg


Orthos wrote:
Why would I want to medicate?

I'm too 'not-lawful' to understand why you wouldn't. :P

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orthos wrote:
Read my review of Dave Gross's Queen of Thorns if you really want to see my uncensored take on her.

I just went out of curiosity. Well done review, by the way, only that I'm a big fan of all things elves and, if I remember correctly, quite liked Kemeili at the time I read that book. That paladin, not so much.


Yeah,complete opposite of me. I wanted to punch her every time she was on scene.


gustavo iglesias 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.
Yes they have. Just like World of Warcraft have paladins too, and that includes Blood Elves paladins that steal the power of Light, making them certainly not Lawful Good. You don't like it? that's cool

Note to self: something akin to this for paladin archetype work....


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bloodrealm wrote:
5E has no Paladins. They have "thing that isn't me hunters". They're specialized in fighting creature types, not Evil.

RPGs have no Paladins. They have religious warriors with divinely-bestowed miraculous powers, not the 12 Peers of Charlemagne.

Kindly leave this "No True Scotsman" business elsewhere.

Now, with that said... you're probably not going to lose out in execution, because in the existing context of Golarion, non-LG Paladins require an Archetype. As Golarion's internal setting logic is not due for any kind of seismic shift, it seems likely to continue.

Fun tangential factoid-In the AD&D 2E days, my favorite setting was Ravenloft... which was a rough row to hoe for Paladins. The Domains of Dread Hardcover (the first to really allow for making PCs who were from Ravenloft rather than trying to escape it) made it plain that Paladins did not exist as a thing in Ravenloft- they could come in from elsewhere, but you didn't get native-born Paladins. Instead, they had a 2E class called the Avenger- had to be Neutral or Chaotic, and basically a "I'm hunting down a nemesis to achieve retribution for the traumas inflicted by this particular Mastermind/Werewolf/Vampire/Tutu-Wearing Flying Hippo-Man" Fighter upgrade.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

According to the online dictionary of google, paladins in their second definition are knights renowned for their heroism and chivalry. It kinda defeats the purpose of calling the class as whole a "paladin" if you're gonna make a CE paladin.

Now, I would be down for a warpriest class to replace the paladin. I'd actually prefer that; a lot of my settings I play in aren't exactly compatible with the notion of a paladin.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:

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.

I've never had a problem with paladins either, but I'm not as nitpicky as some people are when it comes to the code.

There've been people on the boards that argued that a palain/rogue shouldn't use sneak attack because it's not honorable.

Another said if a paladin was the general of an army, and had to defend his kingdom against a larger army the paladin would fall if he had his army ambush the larger army. He should meet them in open combat, even if it meant the kingdom he was defending would be conquered.

Other stories of similar nonsense have been told here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

*wakes up, bleary-eyed, grabs coffee*

“I wonder how that thread is going?”

[87 new posts]

Sweet hoogly-moogly.


Xerres wrote:

I have to say, that the prime reason I'd want to open the Paladin to other alignments is that I despise the elitism that people attach to the old idea.

"Not only am I Good, I'm the MOST Good. That Barbarian who champions everything that I do without my Code to guide them? Bah! A mere pretender, no where near my purity of soul. Chaotic Good? More like 'Decided not to be Evil today'! Those lesser Heroes know nothing of my incredible valor and my boundless humility! It is I, Lawful Good Paladin Man, who am the ultimate bastion of righteousness!"

And just wanting that to be enforced by the rules. So that anyone playing the game, whether they will ever interact with the "Keep em Lawful!" players or not, is 'forced' to acknowledge that Lawful Good Is Best Good.

I frankly find that sort of elitism completely goes in the face of everything a Paladin should stand for. Paladins are my favorite class, and I love Lawful Good more than every other alignment, but if this notion of "Paladins are the Greatest Good, an ELITE CLASS of Hero!" was brought up to one of my Paladins their response would be legendary! (Involving sitting down with whoever said that, and explaining that nothing about them elevates them above any other man, woman, or child. True Heroism is a choice that anyone can make, and to see those choices made every day is what inspires the Paladins I play to do their best too.)

So I want to burn those alignment restrictions to the ground, because I HATE the idea that only Lawful Good characters can be such champions! No! No, no, no, no, no! True Paladins would champion the idea that ALL people can make that choice to be a Hero, and they would be inspired by each and every person that made that choice.

That true humility, that's something I don't think the Old Paradigm being pushed can accept. That they aren't Special Warriors that are Better Than Everyone Else. But its something I dearly want, for my Lawful Good Paladins to welcome Neutral Good and Chaotic Good champions to their number, so that...

Okay, hold on, this is a red herring.

Nobody here, not even myself, said that Lawful Good is the best good. I've said, time and time again, that the Lawful and Good have NOTHING to do with "best good" it has to do with those are the energies needed to make the Paladin's POWERS work.

I'm a little frustrated that people keep ignoring this part. Its not about the best good, or the most good, and never has been. It is about the lore behind how this class works.

Yes, to many, the concept of the Lawful Good character is among the "Most Good"

It is simply put someone who is altruistic (good) who believes that laws, both natural and supernatural, improve society (lawful) are the most beneficial to the people.

That isn't saying that someone who is chaotic good, IE are altruistic (good) who believes that personal freedom, and not laws, improve people's lives, and doesn't care particularly about social constructs (chaotic) which they feel is not the most beneficial to people, isn't good.

That isn't saying that someone who is neutral good, IE are altruistic (good) who doesn't really care strongly one way or the other about laws and doesn't particularly have a strong belief on if laws or personal freedom are more important to society, (neutral) isn't good.

Is Lawful Good the most good? That is a matter of opinion. All that the lore states is that those Lawful and Good energies together are required to activate Paladin powers. It is you who are reading too much into that and saying that it is stating that is the most good.

None of us have said it is, or isn't, the most good. We have just said that it is what is required to activate the powers of a Paladin. That is all it is.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it's too crazy to say it should be either a prestige class or a "branch" of another class because there should be equivalents for other alignments, at least the 4 corners, but there aren't really. I'd love it if the class had to pick an alignment at level 1 or level 3 and go from there - We could roll in Hellknights for LE and make them better than a prestige class, anti-paladins could get a better name and then there'd be something for CG.

If 2E is going to be as versatile as they say, I don't think that would be too much of a stretch - and if there's not enough room in the CRB I wouldn't mind waiting for another book to come out


Cheburn wrote:
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?

You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't make it table, and I'm sure that's your point.

However WoTC has the authority to call their paladin a paladin, even if it doesn't match up to previous versions of a paladin or Paizo's paladin since they get to make the rules for their game.

Some people complained about PF1's paladin being able to work with evil for a short time, but that didn't make it a non-paladin.

So if the book says paladin that is what it is.

Of course we're allowed to feel like something that doesn't match our ideal of what it should be, but that doesn't change what it is. It just means that whoever gave it a classification could have done a better job.


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

RPGs have no Paladins. They have religious warriors with divinely-bestowed miraculous powers, not the 12 Peers of Charlemagne.

Kindly leave this "No True Scotsman" business elsewhere.

Now, with that said... you're probably not going to lose out in execution, because in the existing context of Golarion, non-LG Paladins require an Archetype. As Golarion's internal setting logic is not due for any kind of seismic shift, it seems likely to continue.

Fun tangential factoid-In the AD&D 2E days, my favorite setting was Ravenloft... which was a rough row to hoe for Paladins. The Domains of Dread Hardcover (the first to really allow for making PCs who were from Ravenloft rather than trying to escape it) made it plain that Paladins did not exist as a thing in Ravenloft- they could come in from elsewhere, but you didn't get native-born Paladins. Instead, they had a 2E class called the Avenger- had to be Neutral or Chaotic, and basically a "I'm hunting down a nemesis to achieve retribution for the traumas inflicted by this particular Mastermind/Werewolf/Vampire/Tutu-Wearing Flying Hippo-Man" Fighter upgrade.

As an aside -

Paladins are indeed a "setting" class. Not a "universal" class. You are correct Ravenloft didn't have Paladins. The energies needed to have them appear simply did not exist.

Also, as a side note, Dragonlance didn't have Paladins either. Krynn had the Knights of Solomnia which were not Paladins and did not have Paladin powers.

This is another interesting point people miss...

Paladins aren't meant for "every world" and are one of the things that are part of the Golarion Setting, not a "framework class" for any and every world. This, however, doesn't mean other worlds don't have Paladins, just that some do, and some don't.

Which is one of the reasons I want Paladins to remain Paladins. They are part of the Golarion Setting, not a universal setting agnostic class.

So... Since people are quick to say:

"In your home game you can make L/G Paladins..."

Well... I'll throw it back... "In your home game you can make non-L/G Paladins. Golarion, however, is a setting, and there full Paladins are L/G with some rare archetype exceptions that prove the rule."

Side note:

We also know that Pathfinder 2nd Edition is using the Starfinder Archetype system, so you won't see "Fighter Archetypes" or "Paladin Archetypes" you will just see "Archetypes"


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

HW, you and others keep insisting that LG gets 'all the candy' even though mechanically there's not a lot of 'all the candy' in such a class.

Few have offered reasoned responses to my 'if the candy was removed would you still play the class if it required LG' thought experiment.

Most have said "Well, it'd need different candy to make up for the candy not being there."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

C'mon guys, there aren't enough available characters to change my name to Overworked-Paladin_Knight_marshmallow!

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can get you more letters, man. Just shake my hand!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


HW, you and others keep insisting that LG gets 'all the candy' even though mechanically there's not a lot of 'all the candy' in such a class.

Few have offered reasoned responses to my 'if the candy was removed would you still play the class if it required LG' thought experiment.

Most have said "Well, it'd need different candy to make up for the candy not being there."

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.

What is it?

Divine Grace... See, and this is why people were never satisfied with the non-L/G Paladins they made... None of them got Divine Grace. (And no Antipaladin, as stupid as it is, isn't a Paladin, it is an Antipaladin.)

Not getting Divine Grace instantly made the Archetype suck... Why?

Come on, we all know the answer...

Bards, Oracles, and Sorcerers.

They know that for a simple 2 level dip they can get +Charisma to all of their Saves. That is it. That is the ONLY reason people really want non-L/G Paladins.

They don't care about being a Paladin. They want those sweet, sweet, powers. That is it.

And that, to me, is reason enough to fight to keep them away from the Paladin.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Them there's a lot of assumptions all stacked up in a row domino-like.

Be a shame if somethin' were to come along an'... give 'em a little push.


HWalsh wrote:
It is simply put someone who is altruistic (good) who believes that laws, both natural and supernatural, improve society (lawful) are the most beneficial to the people.

Lawful doesn't even need to pertain to actual laws. Lawful alignment represents ordered thinking and being more inclined to follow rules than they are to break them. That's why Lawful characters are the ones who choose to take up the mantle of the Paladin, enforcing a code of conduct upon themselves in order to live their ideals (and perhaps teach by example).

A Chaotic Good character would probably be more inclined to enact what they feel is right spur-of-the-moment and likely doesn't think too hard in advance about it before doing so, simply acting on their Good nature.

151 to 200 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