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


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 554 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

9 people marked this as a favorite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Asmodean "Paladins" can also be a thing now.

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

PS. Alternately, Paladins could be a prestige class; it always bugged me that Paladins were meant to be highly warriors, who also happen to start at level 1. I feel Paladin should be an earnt title.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah a 3rd or is this 4th paladin thread.


I am sorry, I didn't realise that meant I was not allowed to make my own.


No, Ya can make all you like. Others can post as well man. It was more a joke and jab, then an actual complaint.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't mind them as a prestige class. I wrote one (of many at the time).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

No. Paladin shoulld be a prestige class.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm slowly starting to prefer the idea of the Paladin (and Liberator, Tyrant, and Blackguard. Wink.) to be Prestige Classes or even Fighter Archetypes.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Pitch Duelist PrC, replace with Paladin PrC?


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


Pitch Duelist PrC, replace with Paladin PrC?

I think Duelist/Swashbuckler should absolutely be a Fighter archetype.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If removing Paladin as a class in and of itself and instead making it a specialization of some sort will stop people from making non-LG "Paladins", then I'm all for it. Paladin makes no sense if it isn't LG, so why not swap out Paladin for Warpriest or something similar as the core class?


I do not see this gaining ground with the paladin pretty much having spot in fantasy as a whole now days, often fueled by MMO's


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

Except this new edition is supposed to be an *EVOLUTION* of the game.

Things need to change for something to *EVOLVE*.

That means yes, Paladins too.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I see absolutely no reason Paladin cannot *EVOLVE* to being multiple alignments. It's silly to hold onto the "LG ONLY!" notion


That does not mean they will remove it. In may way PF has a down right archaic view of the class. I do not see many people being fine with removing what is a fantasy staple you can play on most MMO's


3 people marked this as a favorite.
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I do not see this gaining ground with the paladin pretty much having spot in fantasy as a whole now days, often fueled by MMO's

Paladins would still have their spot though, just as an Archetype or Prestige Class.

They would still be part of PFs lore, and any player who wants to be a Paladin could be one.

The only change my suggestion makes is that it gives the Paladins tools to any alignment without besmirching the Paladins name.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
That does not mean they will remove it. In may way PF has a down right archaic view of the class. I do not see many people being fine with removing what is a fantasy staple you can play on most MMO's

I am not suggesting Paladins be removed, only adapted.

I am suggesting Paladins be renamed so that they can be non-LG, and that an Archetype or Prestige Class called "Paladin" be made for those who prefer them to be LG.


Still not seeing it, that is not a paladin, its PRC. Removing it as class, is removing it. I have seen paladins played in 5e for years now without being LG and they are still paladins, there is no besmirching. What is a CE wizard called, oh yeah, a wizard.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
What is a CE wizard called, oh yeah, a wizard.

While I agree with your view of this, many in the community do not, and feel Paladins must always be LG. The suggestion for the "Herald" name change is a compromise; Paladins get to remain LG, while their mechanics become available to any alignment.

If a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, why can't we rename the Paladin?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like Paladins should exist but should choose Law or Chaos and Evil or Good or just Beall around neutral. Different powers for each choice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can dig it


Malwing wrote:
I feel like Paladins should exist but should choose Law or Chaos and Evil or Good or just Beall around neutral. Different powers for each choice.

Once more, simply not agreeing. I used to have that same view, but it leads to an unfun game for many. If someone does not want to play a LG paladin, they can always make LG ones, but they should get out of the way for someone else CG paladin of vengeance


6 people marked this as a favorite.

They should be a « martial crusader of a god ». So the only restrictions they should have is a code of conduct depending from their Gods, just like the Cleric. All the rest is nonsense coming from the previous editions.

To be honest they should be, in role play only not in mechanics, like the Warpriest.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A Paladin is a champion of Good. They hold themselves to a code of conduct to better themselves and lead by example; adhering to a code like that is something a Lawful character would do. Therefore, only Lawful Good characters would want to become Paladins. A Paladin code is not a pact you sign for power; it's a standard they hold themselves to because that is what they believe they should be.
A Chaotic character would never willingly force themself into something like that. If you think that they would, you clearly don't understand what Chaotic means: it's the manner in which the character thinks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:

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

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

Being Good in the first place requires a person to commit themselves to a higher standard of behavior. Is Chaotic Good an impossible alignment to hold?

Furthermore, Cavaliers have Orders with codes of conduct, and are not required to be Lawful.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would be up for making the paladin an archetype of the cavalier or call them herald or whatever. I think they have been given far too much time in the spot light, caused far too many problems in games and being a core class, they've eaten too much of the design space for something rarely played. If the entire playgroup groans or worse yet just flatly refuses to play with a paladin being announced then it just doesn't deserve to be in the core book.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yep, I could live with that idea. Only I fear that some special snowflake players won't be satisfied with that solution because they feel that Paladins are way to special to be "graded down" to an archetype. Even when historically paladins were handled as subclasses anyways.

Well, and for some weird reasons, others feel that their non-LG-variant absolutely has to be called a Paladin even when another name would do just fine.


Athaleon wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:

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

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

Being Good in the first place requires a person to commit themselves to a higher standard of behavior. Is Chaotic Good an impossible alignment to hold?

Furthermore, Cavaliers have Orders with codes of conduct, and are not required to be Lawful.

Being Good in the first place can simply be the character's nature.

I'm pretty sure Cavalier Orders are intended to be actual organizations with membership (though I do find that a very strange design choice).

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Fun Fact: The paladin's code does not mention anything about not committing chaotic acts or even being Chaotic. It just cares that you are Good and do not commit Evil acts.

Diminuendo wrote:
Asmodean "Paladins" can also be a thing now.

*walks on by, whistling*


Developers have said that doesn’t work because Paladins are not spellcasters at level 1

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Then the developers need to go back on Paladins at level one using wands because they have a spell list.

Not that they will now, I think. >.>


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Players" dont agree on this at all OP, personally i would back James 100%, paladins as far as i care should remain LG. I believe the paladin represents something that only the paladin can represent.

Now, if they change to another class, then fine, with the requirements goes the lore and deference an actual paladin would get ingame, which im fine with, it is no diferent than playing a cleric or warpriest, your more standard divine servant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not pretending they do - it’s more of a lore vs mechanics issue


Diminuendo wrote:

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

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

What are the abilities of the Paladin as distinct from the Herald?

For people who like the traditional Paladin lore, the Paladin must have certain unique abilities that mark them out as Paladins, and anyone with these abilities is guaranteed to be lawful good.

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

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Now, if they change to another class, then fine, with the requirements goes the lore and deference an actual paladin would get ingame, which im fine with, it is no diferent than playing a cleric or warpriest, your more standard divine servant.

What lore and deference? You don't get authority and privilege just because you took a level in paladin.


Maybe you do, maybe you don't. It's not clear how widely known class mechanics are, but if most people know
(a) a paladin can't lie or act selfishly, and
(b) you can't fake being a paladin because they're the only one with Lay on Hands
then paladins would probably get a lot of trust from non-evil people everywhere.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I dont see them removing the Paladin at this point (For one I'm pretty sure they have new art orderd for the Iconic Paladin.)


Paladin is confirmed. All original 11 core classes are.

That they are always LG and a carbon copy of middle age christian knights is something we don't know yet


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I could actually see and enjoy Paladin as a bolt on or unlock kind of deal for all classes.
You're true to the deities beliefs, you're lawful good and act it, here have some powers to make you better.

However I think after listening to most of the Know Direction interview with Erik they're not going to take away the base options we have now, Paladin will be a full class because they don't want to screw up that for people.


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

I hated, like REALLY hated all the Occult classes, but that doesn't mean I was going to have a complain and ruin it for those that liked them.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Diminuendo wrote:
It has been a huge argument; James Jacobs feels they should always be lawful for lore reasons, while players feel Paladins mechanics shouldn't be exclusive to LG characters.

Whooooooa there.

"While players feel"

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

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

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

Uh... No?

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

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

No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

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

I have issue. Major league issues.

Quote:
PS. Alternately, Paladins could be a prestige class; it always bugged me that Paladins were meant to be highly warriors, who also happen to start at level 1. I feel Paladin should be an earnt title.

Paladins are NOT Holy Warriors. This is why there is such a blow back from the Paladin player community when this keeps being said. Paladins are not, repeat after me:

"Paladins are not Holy Warriors."

"Paladins are unique individuals who gain power from a nebulous source that is activated by a specific combination of Elemental Good and Elemental Law energies coursing through an individual. Gods have absolutely nothing to do with that. A God cannot make a Paladin. That isn't how it works.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shifty wrote:
Don't like em? Don't play em.

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


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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

1 to 50 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