| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Evil Paladins have existed for decades in many versions of the game, including PF1 (whether they're called Blackguards, or Anti-Paladins, or whatever else).
Does their existence make it impossible for you to play a Paladin too?Why does the idea of a LN Paladin (see: Hellknight) or a NG Paladin of Shelyn make it impossible for you to play the LG Paladin with the lore you are familiar with?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Evil Paladins have existed for decades in many versions of the game, including PF1 (whether they're called Blackguards, or Anti-Paladins, or whatever else).
Does their existence make it impossible for you to play a Paladin too?Why does the idea of a LN Paladin (see: Hellknight) or a NG Paladin of Shelyn make it impossible for you to play the LG Paladin with the lore you are familiar with?
The Badwrongfun, group keep overlooking that PF has been having to find work arounds to bring non-LG paladins to the settings since almost day one. The Hellknight is a concept that would just be a paladin, but because of the silly LG rule they had to make kinda paladins. Heck even Sarenrae could never be a paladin, which makes zero sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you are fine with altered paladin lore, as long as it fits your altered idea of a paladin eh?
I said multiple times, but i will repeat: The lore in PF1, Pathfinder 1, Pathfinder First Edition...
It is quite hilarious that you are saying that while at the same time fighting so vehemently to have your idea of paladin accepted as the core one in the book.
The whole point of our discussion is literally our views of this.
These changes were made a long time ago, very long time ago since PF paladins are already a copy from previous ones. Im quite happy playing with these and will remain against this change, to me, in my view yes, it wont a paladin anymore, which is why in my games i will change it back if need be to keep paladins what i think they should remain, which is what they are currently in PF1.
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.
Evil Paladins have existed for decades in many versions of the game, including PF1 (whether they're called Blackguards, or Anti-Paladins, or whatever else).
Does their existence make it impossible for you to play a Paladin too?Why does the idea of a LN Paladin (see: Hellknight) or a NG Paladin of Shelyn make it impossible for you to play the LG Paladin with the lore you are familiar with?
Antipaladin and blackguards arent paladins. Same way a samurai isnt a cavalier or a ninja isnt a rogue.
Sharing concepts and powers doesnt mean sharing the lore around the class.
My point isnt about what a paladin can do, i dont even care so much about the paladin powers themselves, i care about the symbol that being a paladin represents and what their lore is. Your changes would directly affect these.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is quite hilarious that you are saying that while at the same time fighting so vehemently to have your idea of paladin accepted as the core one in the book.
The whole point of our discussion is literally our views of this.
These changes were made a long time ago, very long time ago since PF paladins are already a copy from previous ones. Im quite happy playing with these and will remain against this change, to me, in my view yes, it wont a paladin anymore, which is why in my games i will change it back if need be to keep paladins what i think they should remain, which is what they are currently in PF1.
Its not funny at all, and unlike your view not Hypocritical. Nor does allowing any AL stop you from playing LG paladins, you just seem to want to take options away from others and claim its "Lore" while ignoring the fact that lore has already been heavily altered once to allow "Gasp" more options.
The Badwrongfun, group keep overlooking that PF has been having to find work arounds to bring non-LG paladins to the settings since almost day one. The Hellknight is a concept that would just be a paladin, but because of the silly LG rule they had to make kinda paladins. Heck even Sarenrae could never be a paladin, which makes zero sense.
Evil Paladins have existed for decades in many versions of the game, including PF1 (whether they're called Blackguards, or Anti-Paladins, or whatever else).
Does their existence make it impossible for you to play a Paladin too?Why does the idea of a LN Paladin (see: Hellknight) or a NG Paladin of Shelyn make it impossible for you to play the LG Paladin with the lore you are familiar with?
Tossing around "Badwrongfun" to those that disagree with you is literally nonsense, since i can claim this to everything related to exactly like you to have it "changed" then.
Why the hell cant i play an evil maniac assassin cleric who loves the night and thus follows Desna? What the setting and goddess doesnt make sense? Well f~$+ that this is my fun it should be allowed, the fact she is good has nothing to do with this.
Why the hell cant i play a core druid fully geared in steel fullplate? What they are nature linked and must remain away from steel? That is bs, i want to try this out anyway.
I could go on but my point stands. Fact is, PF is full of "Badwrongfun", that simple. You want to change the paladin using such a silly argument and then draw a line right there, but here is the thing, with this argument i can keep changing anything and everything, afterall, why shouldnt my fun be allowed right?
Accept that the simple fact there are limitations, hell you even agreed to putting a code in the paladin, that is "Badwrongfun", we should allow paladins to be whatever they want codes be dammed right? Why not?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly though, the paladin will probably stay Lawful Good in 2nd edition whatever the majority (or vocal minority, be as it may) says. This is not because I believe that Paizo doesn't listen to it's fanbase or anything like that, rather that it is a matter of realpolitik.
You see, this is rather like that issue a few months back about Folca and The Book of The Damned. Most of the forum disagreed with the sentiments of the OP, and I presume most of the greater Pathfinder buying public wouldn't have been overly shocked that a book about the embodiments of pure evil would have some rather unpleasant things in it, but at the end of the day Paizo decided to remove Folca from subsequent printings of that book. As Paizo let the material get published in the first place and several of their employees had defended the inclusion of Folca in the book previously on the boards leads me to the conclusion that, at the very least, they did not feel quite as strongly about that particular issue as those raising it did.
The fact of the matter was though, that Paizo could better afford to go against the wishes of the majority than to lose the patronage of a minority.
While fellows such as Gorbacz and myself were certainly disagreed with and were unhappy about that decision, it wasn't like we were going to stop buying Pathfinder books over something like that. The ones who took issue with Folca? They were entirely ready split with Paizo over that issue. In the end Paizo made the correct business decision.
The reason why I went on that long anecdote just now was to draw parallels in between that situation and this one. While folks like Wei Ji the Learner or Diminuendo would certainly dislike having Paladins only be LG, I doubt it would be anything they'd stop playing Pathfinder over, with my primary evidence being they're playing it right now. Even among people who strongly dislike alignment restrictions, the amount of them who would completely refuse to play a system they otherwise like just because paladins are LG only is infinitesimal.
HWalsh and folk like him on the over hand? This is a hill they're are ready to die on. I expect they would refuse point-blank to play in game that had non-Lawful Good paladins in it, and not wish to use any system where such a thing is the default. Regardless of your feelings on the matter, this sentiment represents losing players (and by proxy, customers) for a change in one line in the write up of the paladin class.
Paizo will, in all likelihood, keep Paladins LG. It is better to irritate part of your fanbase than to lose another part all together, and with the edition change and everything, they won't want to give anyone a reason to stay with this one when they don't have to.
After all, it's just good business.
@ Nox
Let's say the CRB has a class called Champion of Ideals.
This class had eight branches, one representing each alignment other than True Neutral.
One of these branches are the Lawful Good Paladins.
In world, absolutely nothing changes.
How does this effect you?
It doesnt assuming the others have their own names and the paladins keep unique restrictions.
What you are saying goes back to the blackguard/antipaladin, which amount to CE paladins, like i said, these arent the same and i dont really care if their powers are similar or not, since their lore itself is diferent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tossing around "Badwrongfun" to those that disagree with you is literally nonsense, since i can claim this to everything related to exactly like you to have it "changed" then.
Why the hell cant i play an evil maniac assassin cleric who loves the night and thus follows Desna? What the setting and goddess doesnt make sense? Well f&!% that this is my fun it should be allowed, the fact she is good has nothing to do with this.
Why the hell cant i play a core druid fully geared in steel fullplate? What they are nature linked and must remain away from steel? That is bs, i want to try this out anyway.
I could go on but my point stands. Fact is, PF is full of "Badwrongfun", that simple. You want to change the paladin using such a silly argument and then draw a line right there, but here is the thing, with this argument i can keep changing anything and everything, afterall, why shouldnt my fun be allowed right?
Accept that the simple fact there are limitations, hell you even agreed to putting a code in the paladin, that is "Badwrongfun", we should allow paladins to be whatever they want codes be dammed right? Why not?
You're being silly. You're the "badwrongfun" group because this is your argument and that silly non-sense you just spit out is the very best you have and is so laughable I am not wasting the time to explain how flawed it is.
@ Nox
Let's say the CRB has a class called Champion of Ideals.
This class had eight branches, one representing each alignment other than True Neutral.
One of these branches are the Lawful Good Paladins.
In world, absolutely nothing changes.
How does this effect you?
It doesnt assuming the others have their own names and the paladins keep unique restrictions.
So we do have some common ground.
Fantastic.
My concern is with the paladin itself, what other iterations with equal or similar power have or dont, doesnt really concern me.
If they created a Guardian, which had the same exact powers of a paladin but were NG or CG, i wouldnt really care since it isnt a paladin, change the name, the lore and add it to the game, sure whatever.
This wouldnt change what a paladin is really, i can agree with a common ground here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you are fine with altered paladin lore, as long as it fits your altered idea of a paladin eh?
I said multiple times, but i will repeat: The lore in PF1, Pathfinder 1, Pathfinder First Edition...
It is quite hilarious that you are saying that while at the same time fighting so vehemently to have your idea of paladin accepted as the core one in the book.
The whole point of our discussion is literally our views of this.
These changes were made a long time ago, very long time ago since PF paladins are already a copy from previous ones. Im quite happy playing with these and will remain against this change, to me, in my view yes, it wont a paladin anymore, which is why in my games i will change it back if need be to keep paladins what i think they should remain, which is what they are currently in PF1.
Antipaladin and blackguards arent...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.
Evil Paladins have existed for decades in many versions of the game, including PF1 (whether they're called Blackguards, or Anti-Paladins, or whatever else).
Does their existence make it impossible for you to play a Paladin too?Why does the idea of a LN Paladin (see: Hellknight) or a NG Paladin of Shelyn make it impossible for you to play the LG Paladin with the lore you are familiar with?
Except...a Samurai *is* a Cavalier, a Ninja *is* a rogue, and an Anti-Paladin *is* a Paladin--or at least as initially conceived. Dunno if the rules still work this way, but as introduced, they were not only called 'Alternate Classes', but one was specifically disallowed from multiclassing Rogue/Ninja or Cavalier/Samurai because they were *the same class* in the eyes of the rules.
Details and mechanics shift and provide some different focus, but the lore is fundamentally the same. The Ninja loses access to some of the Rogue's more thievery and trap-oriented abilities to focus more heavily on the existing assassination talents and add some supernatural flair, but the fundamental lore of being a sneaky trickster who stalks the shadows and fights dirty remains intact. You could just as easily have turned all the uniquely Ninja abilities into Rogue Talents, and it would have been a perfectly coherent (if less optimal) design space. And that's the Alternate Class with the *most* conceptual difference from its parents.
The Samurai de-emphasizes mounted combat in favor of implacability, but like the Cavalier, it is a knightly class with a code of conduct typically imposed by a lord or larger organization who challenges foes to honorable combat. Samurai and Cavaliers can even freely take each other's Orders.
And the Antipaladin especially is almost *precisely* the Paladin; abilities are inverted just as alignment is, but the lore is *exactly* the same from the opposite direction--a divinely empowered champion of an alignment and/or God, with a code of conduct that demands they be a paragon of those ideals or lose their powers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion. I love paladins. They're great as they are (with whatever 2E tweaks they get). I love them as LG. Great for role-playing. Great for whooping butt in a group. Super, awesome class.
Full disclosure.. I also love bards.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Per Pathfinder Lore, Paladins are Holy Warriors, HWalsh. Every Paladin introduced in the Golarion canon serves and worships a God, and all the major Gods who can have Paladins (and by this point, most of the minor ones) have had specific Codes of Conduct published for their Paladins. To say nothing of the simple fact that 'A fighting-type so dedicated to an ideal that they get divine magic and protection' is a pretty good definition for 'Holy Warrior' regardless.
You can believe it or not, but I have played no shortage of Lawful Good Paladins, and to date have actually played no non-LG ones. But I can and have conceived of countless characters who are warriors fanatically dedicated to ideals of freedom and justice who have been divinely empowered to protect the weak and kick evil in the teeth, and the most accurate way to represent the divine protection, unshakable confidence and force of will, and inspirational figure that these characters should have is with the mechanics of the Paladin. Clearly, you think of this as powergaming, and an admission that I'm 'only in it for the powers', but it is literally no different than choosing the Rogue class--notionally a thief and criminal--because its various abilities actually work very well for a police investigator.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You say:
"Well you can always house rules non-LG at your table! That should be good enough for you!"
Gee? Really? Seems that house ruling LG Paladins isn't good enough for you though.
We've explained at length that it's more than just what we can do, but the core of the class.
Not... really. You've offered nothing but an appeal to tradition, without really articulating why it has to be this way.
Your position is the one advocating limiting what other groups should be allowed to do with the rules as written- things like PFS, rookie GMs just finding their feet, RAW-addicted GMs, all will have to cope with this.
It makes this little persecution flag you're waving really hard to empathize with. Particularly since, all things being equal, PF2 is quite, quite likely to keep things the way you want it, if only because Paizo's not going to upend the setting lore (er.... Goblins as a core Ancestry aside, of course...)
"Other God's should have holy warriors too!"
We've explained that Paladins aren't just holy warriors. They ignore that and continue to spout the same gibberish.
... Have you?
Have you explained why the divine powers that a Paladin wields don't make them holy warriors? Have you really dug into what giving a weapon the "Holy" quality tends to mean?
Paladins are precisely as holy as Oracles. To most of us, that's pretty friggin' holy. In a game where one can access literally divine magic without worshiping a deity, Paladins are holy warriors.
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful.
They want Paladin opened up for whatever reason. Maybe they do want to be a Paladin, but for some reason are psychologically incapable of roleplaying a lawful character (I know a therapist in the Atlanta area who can probably help with that) to the point that they become physically ill. Maybe they want certain powers for whatever reason, even if they claim nobody dips Paladin despite things like Oradins and Sorcadins existing. Whatever the reason behind their desire, malicious, self-serving, or otherwise...
Lemme help ya here, since it seems to be a major psychological stumbling block:
People want Paladins to be opened up so that we have fewer, "My GM made my paladin fall" threads. So we have fewer, "I really wanted to run a paladin in this campaign about overthrowing an evil government, but my GM says that isn't Lawful."
It's purely about limiting misery for playgroups.
Like, my group? We don't need Pallies "opened up." GMing (which rotates) isn't an exercise in capricious efforts to cut a player's character off from most of their class abilities for... whatever reason.
We also have a near-century's worth of gaming experience between the players.
They do not care about what you, I, or anyone who enjoys Paladins as they are want or feel.
You certainly seem equally indifferent to what the other side wants. You've made absolutely zero attempts to understand why this change might be something people would ask for, beyond ascribing motives almost nobody here has actually stated.
They want what they want and will kick us all to the curb to get it.
There's more than one "my way or the highway" position here. And you're taking one of them.
Allow me to wrap this up by stating that I haven't actually got much skin in this game... but arguments based upon appeals to tradition without something more are a pretty weak position to defend logically.
Personally, I don't care what happens with the Paladin's alignment... Keep 'em lawful good, turn 'em into a ninefold spectrum of holy champions of a given ideal, turn them into a Cavalier/Fighter Prestige class, whatever. My group will sort things out.
But of these irreconcilable positions, one is framed in terms of giving players greater agency (which has been a steadily increasing trend in RPGs for quite some time now- when I was a little gamer, NOBODY got feats! and your only options were what spells you prepared every day! IF YOU WERE LUCKY!)... while the other seems to be based mostly upon, "but we've always done it this way."
Your case will continue to come under fire until you get some new material.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
PALADINS DO NOT NEED TO BE HOLY WARRIORS!
They do not have to worship ANY god. You can be an atheist Paladin. It's in the core rule book.
Who said they *have* to be?
However, according to PF lore, MANY OF THEM ARE.Edit: Let's just nip this in the bud right now, eh?
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and lawbringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful. Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future.
Paladins. Are. Holy. Warriors.
Straight from the Core Rulebook.
(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*
Tradition isn’t just ‘it was this way a long time ago’, it is ‘it has been this way for a long time.’ It has both an extended as well as a static temporal position. Substituting one of the other is not talking about tradition.
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.
Does law get to have the same flexibility from the description?
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.
How long has it been since paladins were last human only? Tradition isn’t just ‘it was originally this way so all aspect are frozen”. Tradition includes things which have been stable over a long period of time. A bit disingenuous to try to conflate the two.
Don’t count dragon magazine articles and try again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would you accept, "there has been a decades-long *tradition* of trying to offer the concept of a Paladin to other, non-LG, alignments, usually accompanied by a title change?"
Oh it’s obvious people have been trying to undo the lawful good paladin for a long time, but as you would say in your own arguments -that ‘tradition’ isn’t relevant ...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ars, it seems you're arguing semantics about the definition of "tradition" and dismissing anything anyone mentions that you disagree with.
It’s not semantics when what you are talking about and what they are talking about are literally not the same thing. You were trying to dismiss their argument about tradition by citing something that isn’t traditional.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, we're pointing out that the strengths of their traditions are nebulous at best, and the traditions they tend to cite often end up being a mish-mash of cherry-picked lore from various points of time and different editions of the game.
Case in point: HWalsh has been arguing (likely until he's blue in the face) that Paladins are not holy warriors or servants of the gods, while the Pathfinder Core Rules directly contradict that argument in the very description of the class.
Actually, we're pointing out that the strengths of their traditions are nebulous at best, and the traditions they tend to cite often end up being a mish-mash of cherry-picked lore from various points of time and different editions of the game.
Case in point: HWalsh has been arguing (likely until he's blue in the face) that Paladins are not holy warriors or servants of the gods, while the Pathfinder Core Rules directly contradict that argument in the very description of the class.
So you are really going to claim that the concept of the lawful good paladin does not have very significant ontological weight over time in d&d and related properties?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you are really going to claim that the concept of the lawful good paladin does not have very significant ontological weight over time in d&d and related properties?
Of course not; obviously it does.
What I'm going to claim is that the concept of the non-lawful good paladin has also been significantly represented over time and it's inclusion into a new edition of Pathfinder, despite claims to the contrary, will in no way impede players who favor the lawful good variety from enjoying their character.
Don’t count dragon magazine articles and try again.Unearthed Arcana isn't a Dragon Magazine article, and had the non-LG Paladins in it. They also appear in some campaign settings, FR is one example. Variant alignment Paladins are an older tradition than non-human ones.
And that unearthed arcana thingy ... which was a list of alternate rules ... how much in game continued support did it receive? Appearing in a book of optional rules once does not turn something into a tradition. Again, that is abusing the definition of tradition horribly.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've stopped even trying to talk to these guys. They'll single you out for direct personal Snipes and they outright refuse to practice what they preach.
So claiming that those who want to play a Paladin only want to do so because they are min-maxers and power gamers is not a personal attack against myself others. Claiming to be a victim when your also attacking other posters on the boards is being hypocritical
They want Paladin opened up for whatever reason. Maybe they do want to be a Paladin, but for some reason are psychologically incapable of roleplaying a lawful character (I know a therapist in the Atlanta area who can probably help with that) to the point that they become physically ill. Maybe they want certain powers for whatever reason, even if they claim nobody dips Paladin despite things like Oradins and Sorcadins existing. Whatever the reason behind their desire, malicious, self-serving, or otherwise...
So it's not good when they say negative things about you. Yet your free to engage with personal attacks on other posters. Sorry you can't have it both ways. Claim to be a victim while also being the aggressor.
They do not care about what you, I, or anyone who enjoys Paladins as they are want or feel.
Yourself and some other posters are really not trying to find any common ground. It's your way or the highway imo. Do you really expect myself and others to agree with that stance. The difference being I want to allow everyone to play whatever they want. Your position is Paladins can only be LG and anyone who feels differently apparently has both mental problems and are power gamers. Can you try and see why honestly try and see why your posts are getting the reaction they are.
They want what they want and will kick us all to the curb to get it.
No one is kicking you to the curb. I get your position on Paladins and while I don't agree with it. I can respect it. Yet the respect is not very mutual. It just seems that your very antagonistic towards anyone who does not agree with your position on any topic.
And that unearthed arcana thingy ... which was a list of alternate rules ... how much in game continued support did it receive? Appearing in a book of optional rules once does not turn something into a tradition. Again, that is abusing the definition of tradition horribly.
Well, assuming you disregard White Dwarf articles as non canonical, since they were not published by TSR, UA has the first set of rules for
Barbarians
Cavaliers
Cantrips
that's from my 30 second dim recollection of the book without bothering to go and check what else is in it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You want to take the uniqueness of the class away, and I can tell you, I'll fight you until the last breath in my body.
My friend you care too much about official lore, mechanics and whatever PAIZO is producing.
You make your own games. With your friends.I play Pathfinder with mana-based spellcasters, pro-patriarchy Erastil (without moving it to Asmodeus), paladins who are always God appointed (because in my lore Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are too unfantomable and dispersonal to directly influence mortal without divine person in conduct), aligment is karma not personality based, there are "paladins" for most gods (but only knights of Iomedae and archon princes use this title), strife between law and chaos is just as brutal and violent as between good and evil, and I cut off most ethnic gods.
And I can do much, much, much more.
Pathfinder and D&D metaphysics and worldbuilding from Gygax to Jacobs is BAD. Really BAD. Those words Faerun, Golarion all of them are frikkin mess. And in this incoherent mess you cut a niche for your stories.
It always been like that - without any coherent philosophical vision how this universe function - becuase it's not universe build to function in coherent way but to contain all weird stories you can envision.
So it's just better for PAIZO to make mechanically open classess - that are lore irrelevant, and then we can narrow it down in our games.
It's easier for you to cut down all non-LG non-Gygaxian paladins from your games - than for people wanting to play Desnian full-BAB, low-spellcasting Champion to build it from a scratch.
I remind you - this world is not coherent, it makes no sense.
BTW what would you say about such option:
RAW Cleric by mechanics can be devout of philosophy, gathering power from own devotion to idea, than from person.
It's by RAW.
There were such clerics on Oerth.
But Golarion lore says - there are only deity based clerics (which I make in my games anyway Eberron be damned).
What would you say if Core Rulebook of Pathfinder 2.0 gave us Open Paladin but for sake of Golarion setting all paladins would remain as they were?
Would that satisfy you?
And that unearthed arcana thingy ... which was a list of alternate rules ... how much in game continued support did it receive? Appearing in a book of optional rules once does not turn something into a tradition. Again, that is abusing the definition of tradition horribly.Well, assuming you disregard White Dwarf articles as non canonical, since they were not published by TSR, UA has the first set of rules for
Barbarians
Cavaliers
Cantripsthat's from my 30 second dim recollection of the book without bothering to go and check what else is in it.
And I believe those things received continued support did they not?
You want to take the uniqueness of the class away, and I can tell you, I'll fight you until the last breath in my body.My friend you care too much about official lore, mechanics and whatever PAIZO is producing.
You make your own games. With your friends.I play Pathfinder with mana-based spellcasters, pro-patriarchy Erastil (without moving it to Asmodeus), paladins who are always God appointed (because in my lore Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are too unfantomable and dispersonal to directly influence mortal without divine person in conduct), aligment is karma not personality based, there are "paladins" for most gods (but only knights of Iomedae and archon princes use this title), strife between law and chaos is just as brutal and violent as between good and evil, and I cut off most ethnic gods.
And I can do much, much, much more.
Pathfinder and D&D metaphysics and worldbuilding from Gygax to Jacobs is BAD. Really BAD. Those words Faerun, Golarion all of them are frikkin mess. And in this incoherent mess you cut a niche for your stories.
It always been like that - without any coherent philosophical vision how this universe function - becuase it's not universe build to function in coherent way but to contain all weird stories you can envision.
So it's just better for PAIZO to make mechanically open classess - that are lore irrelevant, and then we can narrow it down in our games.
It's easier for you to cut down all non-LG non-Gygaxian paladins from your games - than for people wanting to play Desnian full-BAB, low-spellcasting Champion to build it from a scratch.I remind you - this world is not coherent, it makes no sense.
BTW what would you say about such option:
RAW Cleric by mechanics can be devout of philosophy, gathering power from own devotion to idea, than from person.
It's by RAW.There were such clerics on Oerth.
But Golarion lore says - there are only deity based clerics (which I make in my games anyway Eberron be damned).
What would you say...
Alternately, the paladin stays as is and some alternate options are introduced, with current paladin being the standard instead of the exception.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
That's just not true.
First of all they still would be limited by various codes - and any code my friend can be hell in hands of evil GM.It's not easy to be rabid demon-bound antipaladin.
But then there are many that want them for lore reasons.
I want holy knights of Pharasma - with smite undead power, I want tyrant of Asmodeus (thanks PAIZO), I want Desnan warrant knights (and honestly this one spell can be just cut of paladin list - it's separate from cleric).
I want amoral absolute law bidden LN pals of Abadar.
(Then I also wants NE avenger of Norgorber based on 4-e avenger).
Also paladin of Urgathoa becoming undead knight in process.
That's all cool concepts. And so far with weak mechanical support - so I have to combine it on my own way. Which sucks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While folks like Wei Ji the Learner or Diminuendo would certainly dislike having Paladins only be LG, I doubt it would be anything they'd stop playing Pathfinder over, with my primary evidence being they're playing it right now.
I can confirm I wouldn't, that's why I created this thread. I want 2e to be the game I want to play, and the only way to influence that is to post here about what I want out of the new system. I figure if enough people agree with me the developers will take that into consideration.
I want PCs and NPCs with the title of Paladin to keep their LG requirement because I know how important this is to some players, but I want the class mechanics to no longer be locked behind that door. I feel removing the Paladin name from the class achieves a happy middle ground.
I wouldn't put this much effort into the thread if I wasn't super excited for 2e. I am honestly getting burnt out on Pathfinder 1e - lately, I feel 3.5s dated mechanics get in the way.
I'm sick of feat taxes, I hate that I can't build characters to suit my concepts without sacrificing viability. Why is it impossible to make two weapon fighters wielding mismatched weapons viable? Why is antagonize a feat when any character should be able to bait their opponents? Why do 50 charge wands cost so little that you would never need to waste a spell slot on cure spells?
All of my complaints about Pathfinders current form are mechanics. I've considered leaving, or even trying to make my own system.
But I love Golarion, I love the gods, I love the set pieces, and don't want to move to a new system without them. I am currently writing a campaign that involves Sarenraen Orcs invading Lastwall. The only thing that has kept me playing Pathfinder is the setting.
I will be downloading the playtest 3 days before my birthday and as a gift to myself I'll buy a physical book which will be out of date in 6 months. I'm ready to jump ship now.
If Paladins end up being LG restricted I'll live, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to try to convince the community they shouldn't be.