Paladin Poll


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 359 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

50 people marked this as a favorite.

There has been a lot of talk about the future of Paladins so I decided to make a poll. Simply favorite the post you want to vote for. Please wait as I make all of the posts.

1. Paladins should be LG paragons with lawful and good energy coursing through them.


19 people marked this as a favorite.

2. Paladins should be LG holy warriors


77 people marked this as a favorite.

3. Paladins should be any holy warrior, alignment doesn't matter.


26 people marked this as a favorite.

Paladins should be an LG only archetype for a Herald, Warpriest, Templar, or similar holy warrior class.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

5. Paladins should be a fighter archetype

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Posting a Paladin question is an EVIL act!

If I understand your list: #4 - they should be Holy Warriors who happen to follow a Lawful Good faith.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

6. Paladins should be a caviler archetype.
That should round out the list. Feel free to vote and/or discuss below.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

9 people marked this as a favorite.
CactusUnicorn wrote:
6. Paladins should be a caviler archetype.

Cavaliers should be a Fighter archetype.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Paladins can be any alignment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Several of these are not mutually exclusive. Also, I agree with Lord Fyre that posting a new Paladin thread is a bad idea.

1, 2, 4, and 5 all work.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
Several of these are not mutually exclusive. Also, I agree with Lord Fyre that posting a new Paladin thread is a bad idea.

Does posting a Paladin thread cause an irreversible alignment change toward Evil?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
Several of these are not mutually exclusive. Also, I agree with Lord Fyre that posting a new Paladin thread is a bad idea.
Does posting a Paladin thread cause an irreversible alignment change toward Evil?

If you have to ask, you've already fallen! :P


6 people marked this as a favorite.

This will end in tears and/or fire.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Umm, honestly?


#2 is my vote

Silver Crusade

10 people marked this as a favorite.

7. Paladins should be Heroes and paragons of Good with Codes of Conduct that keep them focused on their purpose.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
If you have to ask, you've already fallen! :P

I can help with that!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
Several of these are not mutually exclusive. Also, I agree with Lord Fyre that posting a new Paladin thread is a bad idea.
Does posting a Paladin thread cause an irreversible alignment change toward Evil?

I don't think it's THAT severe in and of itself. Doing it on purpose while already knowing the consequences might, though.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

7. Paladins should be Any Good. Antipaladins should be Any Evil.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

8. drop alignments all together and change paladin to 'holy fighting guy'.


graystone wrote:
8. drop alignments all together and change paladin to 'holy fighting guy'.

Well we already know this isn't happening. Paizo apparently revealed earlier today that alignment us still a part of PF2.


1 or 2

To me, seems to be pretty much the same, either would be best for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
graystone wrote:
8. drop alignments all together and change paladin to 'holy fighting guy'.
Well we already know this isn't happening. Paizo apparently revealed earlier today that alignment us still a part of PF2.

It's part of the playtest... Nothing says it HAS to be part of the final product. ;)

EDIT: If nothing else, I'd like it to lose ANY mechanical relevance if it MUST be kept.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Orthos wrote:
graystone wrote:
8. drop alignments all together and change paladin to 'holy fighting guy'.
Well we already know this isn't happening. Paizo apparently revealed earlier today that alignment us still a part of PF2.
It's part of the playtest... Nothing says it HAS to be part of the final product. ;)

Don't count on it.


...
...
...
Really, is this a good idea?
Well, 1.


For me, the first one is closest to what I want since I don't want Paladins as "Holy Warriors" in the sense that they fight for a specific diety or church. I'd prefer to play LG Paladins who don't worship any deity, but thinks a great number of appropriate deities are on the right track ("but Erastil's gotta lighten up, Cayden has to learn responsibility, Shelyn's Gotta be more assertive, and Iomedae is still new at this and we all make mistakes"). Paladins should be fundamentally concerned with creating beneficial outcomes and preventing bad ones not for the greater glory of divine beings.


Why not make an actual poll offsite? That way you can actually keep track of the votes.

Anyways, I vote #3.


I vote [dark]2[/dark]

There really should be Poll search in these forums. Come on, Paizo! You just updated the website! Also, I agree creating yet another paladin thread is an error, but oh well, here we are.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

To people voting: the easiest way to vote is to Fav the post you want to vote for.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I vote 4


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Magic 8-Ball says... wrote:
graystone wrote:
Orthos wrote:
graystone wrote:
8. drop alignments all together and change paladin to 'holy fighting guy'.
Well we already know this isn't happening. Paizo apparently revealed earlier today that alignment us still a part of PF2.
It's part of the playtest... Nothing says it HAS to be part of the final product. ;)
Don't count on it.

*shrug* I hope nothing is set in stone or it limits the usefulness of having a playtest. I know I keep advocating for alignment removal until the actual 2e rules et comes out: worst case i'm stuck with the same old crappy system... :P

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
EDIT: If nothing else, I'd like it to lose ANY mechanical relevance if it MUST be kept.

Personally, that would be the best outcome.


Just for the sake of sharing my thoughts, the Paladin as an ideal attached to a class should be:

1. LG
2. Dedicated to an Order, not directly involved with the God/Goddess (i.e: Order of the Brave Companions of Caiden Caylean).

This kind of Paladin can coexist perfectly with other Heralds, Knights, Avengers, Doomknights, Feyservants and a myriad of 'Divine Champions not called paladins'. I hope to see a day when 'the order of my sacred cow' and 'the order of the death to the sacred cows' can live in harmony.

Fav 1, don't know the difference between option 1 and 2 though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Watching the any alignment option get BTFO by LG only is just....pretty much the best thing on this forum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For those that say they don't understand the difference between 1 and 2, my interpretation is that 1 is "Powered by the concepts of Law and Good" while 2 is "Powered by Divinity (e.g. Gods)". That said, I'm with Darigaaz's 7. Paladins as Sacred Champion of Good, vs Antipaladin Unholy Champions of Evil. Then again, I'm biased because Law and I do not get along.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Watching the any alignment option get BTFO by LG only is just....pretty much the best thing on this forum.

It really isn't if you add up the results of the other options: you have almost as many that want something OTHER than 1-2 as there is a more diverse opinion as to what to do to 'fix' the paladin. it's far from a slam dunk.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

ANY ALIGNMENT, alignment restrictions are dumb


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Years ago I was sad that the paladin was LG and the anti-paladin was CE. There was no class for my LE zealot. Then the hellknight showed up.


graystone wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Watching the any alignment option get BTFO by LG only is just....pretty much the best thing on this forum.
It really isn't if you add up the results of the other options: you have almost as many that want something OTHER than 1-2 as there is a more diverse opinion as to what to do to 'fix' the paladin. it's far from a slam dunk.

Yeah i mean 2 to 1


1 person marked this as a favorite.

3


Ryan Freire wrote:
graystone wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Watching the any alignment option get BTFO by LG only is just....pretty much the best thing on this forum.
It really isn't if you add up the results of the other options: you have almost as many that want something OTHER than 1-2 as there is a more diverse opinion as to what to do to 'fix' the paladin. it's far from a slam dunk.
Yeah i mean 2 to 1

Ah, then I have no opinion on that: they seem equivalent/synonyms to me. Carry on.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

3, not-4, 7a, 7b

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Patch Notes PF v 2.0.0.1.b
Alignment has been removed
All Paladins now have no alignment
All paladins now have no spell casting or healing
To account for this, all paladins now have Rage as per the Barbarian class feature
All Paladins have been equipped with Great Clubs.
Paladins retain their special mount and sense of moral superiority.


Honestly, I'm rethinking my position of this now.

Still, it seems I would choose "None of the Above"...


There should be a class for martially oriented divine casters with oaths. LG members of this class are called Paladins.

I see no reason why Paladin-like abilities should be limited to a single alignment. If the issue is with Evil or Chaotic characters calling themselves "paladins" then change the name for those characters.

To be honest though, accepting an Oath seems like a Lawful act, so Chaotic "paladins" don't make a whole lot of sense.

Regardless, if you want the Paladin-like powers being reserved for LG characters, you can house rule that.

On the flip side, if you want non-LG paladins, you can probably houserule that too, although this is harder than just banning non LG paladins for Paladin Purists.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd argue that an Oath doesn't have to be a 'sworn' thing. It could just be how a person lives their life, in keeping with the needs of a Greater Cosmic Entity such as a Deity/Force/Whatnot.

If they hold to it, they could be Chaotic as all heck if that's part of the dicates of that life-path...

After all, what alignment would one consider Loki (or even Thor) of the MCU to be?

A 'gut' feeling would be 'Chaotic Evil' (Loki) or 'Chaotic Good' (Thor) but both of them work within the framework of the organization of Asgard and do 'Good' for Asgard, just in different ways and means.

Granted, that's a bit deep in philosophy, but... I think the point is clear?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

9. The nature of paladins’ alignment restrictions (or lack thereof) in the new edition will have a negligible effect on my opinion of 2E and I really wish people would spend their time and effort discussing things beyond this one single class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Where is the "This is a really minor issue that distracts from actually getting the ruleset right" option?


If you like paladins being available to other alignments you can houserule that too. Thats a vacuous argument to make. Its an issue of flavor, theme, and history. Some people value that more. roughly at a 2 to 1 ratio at current posting.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Paladins, blackguard, and anti-pallys for all!

1 to 50 of 359 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paladin Poll All Messageboards