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


Prerelease Discussion

351 to 400 of 554 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have mentioned the option of a branched class of which Lawful Good Paladin are one branch.


I’d go more with lawful good paladin is the standard, and there are archetypes which create some different options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
I have mentioned the option of a branched class of which Lawful Good Paladin are one branch.

That's more or less what I was going for with the Archetype suggestion.

The Exchange

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

While they thankfully haven't reared their ugly heads for a few posts, the idea that Paladins aren't Paladins if they're not Lawful Good due to some historical argument is complete hogwash.

1st edition and 2nd edition AD&D paladins could only be humans. I guess we can't have any non-human paladins in D&D/Pathfinder because as construed in 1st edition/2nd edition AD&D they were only humans. It was actually a big deal at the time(wow I feel old) when 3rd edition paladins could be non-humans. I even recall the third edition announcement materials emphasizing 'gnome paladins' <gasp> I believe this was even on a t-shirt (although I might be remembering that wrong I know the half-orc barbarian was on it.)

A similar argument can be made for Lawful Good, times change, editions change, what is true in the past doesn't have to be true in future (look at how 5th edition D&D has handled Paladins, the world didn't end because they are less alignment restricted, just like the world didn't end when they could be other races besides human.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

A real Paladin would be a non-chaotic Knight sworn to the Frank King without proficiency in plate armor or spells or supernatural abilities (basically a Cavalier or fighter) so...

Its best if we don't get hung up on what is a 'real Paladin' is and focus on the benefits to the game as a whole.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:

A real Paladin would be a non-chaotic Knight sworn to the Frank King without proficiency in plate armor or spells or supernatural abilities (basically a Cavalier or fighter) so...

Its best if we don't get hung up on what is a 'real Paladin' is and focus on the benefits to the game as a whole.

With Weapon Profiency: Firearms, right?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Shaudius wrote:
(wow I feel old)

LOL In MY day, hobbit was a class! [yes, hobbit before copyright forced it to change to halfling]. These young whippersnappers know nothing of tradition! *pulls out blockmoor pamphlet*


Charlemagne's Paladins. Circa 800 AD

Chainmail, Swords, period polearms and chainmail


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Charlemagne's Paladins. Circa 800 AD

Chainmail, Swords, period polearms and chainmail

Limit: 12


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Charlemagne's Paladins. Circa 800 AD

Chainmail, Swords, period polearms and chainmail

Limit: 12

Level limit 4


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it makes the most sense just to have a class that encompasses the general flavor of a Paladin, but for all alignments, and just houserule ban any alignments for that class that you don't like.

Any other option just sounds like forcing a your particular play style down the community's throats.

Even if they keep Paladin LG, I will homebrew alternate alignments for my players if they want it. I'd just prefer to not have to spend a hour or so doing it.

Personally, I don't think "Chaotic" meshes well with "Oath", but I don't care that some people want to play Chaotic paladins. I'll let them have their fun and I can have mine.

Quick question though, if I tell a Chaotic paladin to "have a nice day" are they oath bound to reject my wishes and have a terrible day?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:


Quick question though, if I tell a Chaotic paladin to "have a nice day" are they oath bound to reject my wishes and have a terrible day?

Chaotic does not mean "Insane". See this is why AL is an issue and needs to die.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
thflame wrote:
Quick question though, if I tell a Chaotic paladin to "have a nice day" are they oath bound to reject my wishes and have a terrible day?

Don't confuse "counter dependent" with "independent".

A counter dependent person does the opposite of what the other person asks, much like a dependent person does what they are asked to do, thinking will make the other person like them.

Independent people may or may not do what you ask. They decide based on their own needs, not yours.

A chaotic person may, or may not, behave like an oppositional-defiant person


Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
thflame wrote:


Quick question though, if I tell a Chaotic paladin to "have a nice day" are they oath bound to reject my wishes and have a terrible day?
Chaotic does not mean "Insane". See this is why AL is an issue and needs to die.

It was a joke. The way I interpret, chaos is a rejection of authority, tradition, etc. in favor of personal freedom. So someone "oath bound" towards Chaos would have to reject any attempt at authority. Therefore, by asking them to have a nice day, if they do have a nice day, they just submitted to your will, thus breaking their oath.

So I guess the Chaotic paladin could just respond, "I will, but not because you told me to, but because I wanted to!"

Also, you'd have to be pretty insane to take an oath of Chaos.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
thflame wrote:
Also, you'd have to be pretty insane to take an oath of Chaos.

Why? Being unpredictable and unconventional doesn't mean you are antisocial. There are lots of fictional protagonists who are beloved *because* they flout convention.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Except 'have a nice day' is not a command, its well-wishing.

Also as far as I am aware the chaotic alignment doesn't outright reject the concept of authority, they just do their own thing to the best of their ability.

Even demons follow orders from their masters (usually an act of self preservation.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:

It was a joke. The way I interpret, chaos is a rejection of authority, tradition, etc. in favor of personal freedom. So someone "oath bound" towards Chaos would have to reject any attempt at authority. Therefore, by asking them to have a nice day, if they do have a nice day, they just submitted to your will, thus breaking their oath.

Once more, this is an issue with AL, everyone has their own, often oddball view of it. Nothing you said is correct. Case on point, Barbarians. They are Chaotic, yet have laws, they have social structure, they have traditions and take oaths VERY seriously


If this were to happen, I think it should exist as an archetype of Cavalier, introducing a smattering of spell casting and what not. Then you could have your LG paladin, or any good, or one for each alignment extreme, or for whatever god the paladin is a champion of, or whatever.


Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
thflame wrote:

It was a joke. The way I interpret, chaos is a rejection of authority, tradition, etc. in favor of personal freedom. So someone "oath bound" towards Chaos would have to reject any attempt at authority. Therefore, by asking them to have a nice day, if they do have a nice day, they just submitted to your will, thus breaking their oath.

Once more, this is an issue with AL, everyone has their own, often oddball view of it. Nothing you said is correct. Case on point, Barbarians. They are Chaotic, yet have laws, they have social structure, they have traditions and take oaths VERY seriously

I guess Pathfinder is wrong about how Pathfinder determines chaos:

"Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."

I think my take on it is pretty close to the source material.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also what's to stop a 2e Paladin from having an oath similar to the Cavaliers Order of the Cockatrice, which is literally "Order of Being a Selfish Bastard, Who Always Thinks of Themselves First".

Do you honestly believe a CN "Paladin" would have difficulty following that?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:


I think my take on it [alignment] is pretty close to the source material.

So does everyone else.

Hence the legendary endless alignment debates.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:


I guess Pathfinder is wrong about how Pathfinder determines chaos:

"Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."

I think my take on it is pretty close to the source material.

LOL,It is not all at once. Those are examples of what chaos CAN be, not what it is at all times to all people. Chaotic could just men you are messy and not well organized, it does not mean you're an insane anarchist always trying to destroy order.

I gave n example of society that by the rules is chaotic, you just have a really insane view of what it is, s you try to force all the types at once.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."

Bold text for emphasis, chaotic characters could be described by any combination of reckless, resenting legitimate authority, acting arbitrarily, or being irresponsible.

Chaotics only feel constricted by if they are prevented from acting how they otherwise would.

a CG character would feel right at home in a liberal nation that only regulates actions they would never consider, such as "no murdering".


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Charlemagne's Paladins. Circa 800 AD

Chainmail, Swords, period polearms and chainmail

Limit: 12
Level limit 4

I suppose they might qualify for the Character level 5-8 prestige class Knight of the Round Table...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Charlemagne's Paladins. Circa 800 AD

Chainmail, Swords, period polearms and chainmail

Limit: 12
Level limit 4
I suppose they might qualify for the Character level 5-8 prestige class Knight of the Round Table...

Could be. Multi-class might be required.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Add me to the list of people who think Paladins should be a prestige class (or maybe even some kind of fighter/cleric multiclass archetype).

If my memory of the heydays of 3E aren't failing me entirely, I believe early iterations of 3E attempted to do just that (have paladins be a prestige class) but the idea was thoroughly poopooed by the playtesters, such that the designers went back and made Paladins a core class again. (This happened during the private playtesting of the game that took place well before the first public marketing/leaks of the game began to dribble out and get posted online in places such as Eric Noah's D&D website- which of course eventually became ENWorld.)


Shaudius wrote:

While they thankfully haven't reared their ugly heads for a few posts, the idea that Paladins aren't Paladins if they're not Lawful Good due to some historical argument is complete hogwash.

1st edition and 2nd edition AD&D paladins could only be humans. I guess we can't have any non-human paladins in D&D/Pathfinder because as construed in 1st edition/2nd edition AD&D they were only humans. It was actually a big deal at the time(wow I feel old) when 3rd edition paladins could be non-humans. I even recall the third edition announcement materials emphasizing 'gnome paladins' <gasp> I believe this was even on a t-shirt (although I might be remembering that wrong I know the half-orc barbarian was on it.)

A similar argument can be made for Lawful Good, times change, editions change, what is true in the past doesn't have to be true in future (look at how 5th edition D&D has handled Paladins, the world didn't end because they are less alignment restricted, just like the world didn't end when they could be other races besides human.)

Just because it doesnt have to be, doesnt mean it has to change either.

Quite happy with the current interaction of what a paladin is what it is means to be one.

The game will certanly wont end with this change, it will literally be my houserule one to revert it back, but i would rather that they kept paladins as in the lore of PF1 in the game, instead of tossing that away.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:


Just because it doesnt have to be, doesnt mean it has to change either.

Quite happy with the current interaction of what a paladin is what it is means to be one.

The game will certanly wont end with this change, it will literally be my houserule one to revert it back, but i would rather that they kept paladins as in the lore of PF1 in the game, instead of tossing that away.

And some folks where "Quite happy" with human only. I simply do not get this, allowing Non-LG paladins does not affect you at all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:


Just because it doesnt have to be, doesnt mean it has to change either.

Quite happy with the current interaction of what a paladin is what it is means to be one.

The game will certanly wont end with this change, it will literally be my houserule one to revert it back, but i would rather that they kept paladins as in the lore of PF1 in the game, instead of tossing that away.

And some folks where "Quite happy" with human only. I simply do not get this, allowing Non-LG paladins does not affect you at all.

It *does* affect them, just not in a way that should be encouraged or supported.

It pops their bubble over how the word works.


Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:


Just because it doesnt have to be, doesnt mean it has to change either.

Quite happy with the current interaction of what a paladin is what it is means to be one.

The game will certanly wont end with this change, it will literally be my houserule one to revert it back, but i would rather that they kept paladins as in the lore of PF1 in the game, instead of tossing that away.

And some folks where "Quite happy" with human only. I simply do not get this, allowing Non-LG paladins does not affect you at all.

Indeed, if it did i imagine they will do what i will, in case this change, and houserule it back.

Reality it does affect me, because said changes directly affect how the works in the world around it and its lore, thus playing one wont be the same anymore, which is why im against the change and will remain so.

I wonder what exactly is this idea paizo devs had that to them will please everyone, but it must be one hell of an idea.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Indeed, if it did i imagine they will do what i will, in case this change, and houserule it back.

Reality it does affect me, because said changes directly affect how the works in the world around it and its lore, thus playing one wont be the same anymore, which is why im against the change and will remain so.

I wonder what exactly is this idea paizo devs had that to them will please everyone, but it must be one hell of an idea.

No it does not affect you as you can still play LG paladins as you always could. Zero impact on you. What you want is to force everyone only to play your way.


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

Perhaps the inclusive nature of the company and how they try to expand, grow, and be a generally 'better' company than a good chunk of gaming companies out there?


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

Indeed, if it did i imagine they will do what i will, in case this change, and houserule it back.

Reality it does affect me, because said changes directly affect how the works in the world around it and its lore, thus playing one wont be the same anymore, which is why im against the change and will remain so.

I wonder what exactly is this idea paizo devs had that to them will please everyone, but it must be one hell of an idea.

No it does not affect you as you can still play LG paladins as you always could. Zero impact on you. What you want is to force everyone only to play your way.

You think all i care about is playing some amorphous class that happens to be called "paladin" and is LG, which isnt what im talking about.

Paladins have a unique lore to them, they work in a unique way in PF1, those things will be directly affected by this change and thus yes, i wont be able to play a PF1 paladin in PF2 if the lore of the class change.

Again, in my game this wont change, paladins will remain exactly with the same lore as they have in PF1, even if they i need to directly houserule it to have it this way, but like we all know, standard rules are the most recurring in tables, even if each have their own houserules.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

There would be absolutely zero effect if Paladin is a branch of a more flexible class.

Zero.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:


You think all i care about is playing some amorphous class that happens to be called "paladin" and is LG, which isnt what im talking about.

Paladins have a unique lore to them, they work in a unique way in PF1, those things will be directly affected by this change and thus yes, i wont be able to play a PF1 paladin in PF2 if the lore of the class change.

Again, in my game this wont change, paladins will remain exactly with the same lore as they have in PF1, even if they i need to directly houserule it to have it this way, but like we all know, standard rules are the most recurring in tables, even if each have their own houserules.

That lore happens to include they can only be human. Yet, you choose to ignore that part eh?

Using the Scotsmen fallacy to try to claim non-LG paladins are not paladins is simply silly and desperation talking for lack of rel argument.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

That's three!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There are three problems with the paladin class, each of which contributes to the issues/debate on this forum:


    1. People want "Paladin" to be a Class, not a subclass/archetype/feat/prestige.

    2. People want "Paladin" to be LG, so anything not LG but similar should have a different name.

    3. People want the core "Paladin" to not be a pain to run in a game, so that means not restricting it to LG.

While it's obvious to many that attachment to a name should not dictate mechanical design: it's important from a marketing perspective to sell the "LG Paladin" as a core option.

The most practical way to do it is obviously a parent class with a different name: but since that's a marketing no-no, we're probably going to have to settle for an identical sister class that's obviously the same, but "Paladins" get a special name, and get to be called a core class, just because.

The majority of other arguments that paladins should be special delicate flowers with original mechanics that no one else can have are glossing over the idea of what a core class is meant to represent: there's a reason we don't have core classes for all specializations of wizard, or all sorcerer bloodlines, and this is no different.

TLDR: make it a clone class of the real "sister" class, which is also core, and suspiciously located right after Paladin in the CRB, but they're totally different guys, totally! ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
It's not angry and paranoid... Their desire is to change Paladins either so they can gain powers in the future or because they are trying to get one over on "the man" that they think is keeping them down.

You've lost it.

Bloodrealm wrote:
I've pointed out multiple times that I'd be more than happy with a similar class to Paladin mechanics with several specializations based on alignment and having the LG option be Paladin and CE option Antipaladin.

I think that's perfectly reasonable and in fact that I've been advocating the whole time. I think one for all nine alignments is too many, but the four LG/CG/LE/CE would be fine.


Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:


You think all i care about is playing some amorphous class that happens to be called "paladin" and is LG, which isnt what im talking about.

Paladins have a unique lore to them, they work in a unique way in PF1, those things will be directly affected by this change and thus yes, i wont be able to play a PF1 paladin in PF2 if the lore of the class change.

Again, in my game this wont change, paladins will remain exactly with the same lore as they have in PF1, even if they i need to directly houserule it to have it this way, but like we all know, standard rules are the most recurring in tables, even if each have their own houserules.

That lore happens to include they can only be human. Yet, you choose to ignore that part eh?

Using the Scotsmen fallacy to try to claim non-LG paladins are not paladins is simply silly and desperation talking for lack of rel argument.

I said multiple times, but i will repeat: The lore in PF1, Pathfinder 1, Pathfinder First Edition...

This is the lore im talking about, i understood people for some reason are trying to point to older sources and like i said, yes i can understand GM/Players of those also being against these changes, thus, if i see someone who has a houserule saying paladins can only be humans, i will understand.

You once more point to your OPINION as a fact. 5th edition is in my opinion not a valid example, their codes directly point to how this would actually change paladins completely and how their lore wouldnt be the same at all.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:


I said multiple times, but i will repeat: The lore in PF1, Pathfinder 1, Pathfinder First Edition...

So you are fine with altered paladin lore, as long as it fits your altered idea of a paladin eh?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

THIS THREAD IS BEING QUARANTINED DUE TO HERETICAL SENTIMENT! PLEASE REMAIN SEATED AND PREPARE TO BE PURGED. AVE INHERITOR!

351 to 400 of 554 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 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