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.
Where is the "This is a really minor issue that distracts from actually getting the ruleset right" option?
Unfortunately, which topic gets discussed more depends more on what's in the hearts of people right now than what is important.
I'm not saying that this questions is meaningless, just telling the truth.Of course, I share part of that blame. Posted a lot just to say I'm on the fence right now.
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.currently the vote sits at 1. 0 votes, 2. 2 votes, 3. 6 votes, 4. 1 vote, 5. 0 votes, 6. 0 votes, 7a. 1 vote, 7b. 1 vote, none of the above. 1 vote.
so actually its a 3-1 vote in favor of those wanting the removal of the alignment restriction
Ryan is counting the Favorites of the options at the top of Page One, which is originally how the votes were meant to be cast in the first place.
Some people only Favorited without posting, some people posted without favoriting, and some people did both.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you have to ask, you've already fallen! :PI can help with that!
true true
here's your whiskey, sorry im late with it
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.currently the vote sits at 1. 0 votes, 2. 2 votes, 3. 6 votes, 4. 1 vote, 5. 0 votes, 6. 0 votes, 7a. 1 vote, 7b. 1 vote, none of the above. 1 vote.
so actually its a 3-1 vote in favor of those wanting the removal of the alignment restriction
Uh, these polls run via favorites of the post containing your preferred option.
so its 1. 19, 2. 6 and 4, 8 or 33 votes for LG only and 14 for remove its alignment, like 5 for good only.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
no post no vote, otherwise people can vote for multiple things and it skews thingsIf 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.currently the vote sits at 1. 0 votes, 2. 2 votes, 3. 6 votes, 4. 1 vote, 5. 0 votes, 6. 0 votes, 7a. 1 vote, 7b. 1 vote, none of the above. 1 vote.
so actually its a 3-1 vote in favor of those wanting the removal of the alignment restrictionRyan is counting the Favorites of the options at the top of Page One, which is originally how the votes were meant to be cast in the first place.
Some people only Favorited without posting, some people posted without favoriting, and some people did both.
1. You didn't make the poll, you don't get to decide how it works :P
2. You can do that anyway. Just post multiple things in your post (as some people did) or post multiple times.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
no post no vote, otherwise people can vote for multiple things and it skews thingsIf 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.currently the vote sits at 1. 0 votes, 2. 2 votes, 3. 6 votes, 4. 1 vote, 5. 0 votes, 6. 0 votes, 7a. 1 vote, 7b. 1 vote, none of the above. 1 vote.
so actually its a 3-1 vote in favor of those wanting the removal of the alignment restrictionRyan is counting the Favorites of the options at the top of Page One, which is originally how the votes were meant to be cast in the first place.
Some people only Favorited without posting, some people posted without favoriting, and some people did both.
OP posted how to vote in the original post. I get that it can be shocking to find ones opinion on alignment isn't shared by some silent majority but given your take on how paladins only purpose now is to be a LG stick in the mud and ruin the game for others you, like lady J with "all killing is an evil act therefore paladins autofall" should probably get used to being in a minority opinion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Repeating it verbatim doesn't make your position any more valid.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
26 vs 23 is not 2 to 1 ratio.
you can filter out peoples posts for voting the same thing multiple times you however can not filter out people favoring similar options in a post which artificially skews the numbers of the voteno post no vote, otherwise people can vote for multiple things and it skews thingsIf 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.currently the vote sits at 1. 0 votes, 2. 2 votes, 3. 6 votes, 4. 1 vote, 5. 0 votes, 6. 0 votes, 7a. 1 vote, 7b. 1 vote, none of the above. 1 vote.
so actually its a 3-1 vote in favor of those wanting the removal of the alignment restrictionRyan is counting the Favorites of the options at the top of Page One, which is originally how the votes were meant to be cast in the first place.
Some people only Favorited without posting, some people posted without favoriting, and some people did both.
1. You didn't make the poll, you don't get to decide how it works :P
2. You can do that anyway. Just post multiple things in your post (as some people did) or post multiple times.
Actually, yes, you can. You can see which people favorited each post, and remove any repeated vote if you want.
Click on the "X people have favorited" text. There's a list of people who favorited at the bottom of the page it leads to.
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.26 vs 23 is not 2 to 1 ratio.
If you're going to argue do your best to read the whole post.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because of the informal nature of this 'poll' some folks have chosen many options.
Including options that were not presented initially.
Be sure to include them all, including repeats, as that may indicate folks that are amenable to various solutions to the issue rather than camping on one data point.
Because of the informal nature of this 'poll' some folks have chosen many options.
Including options that were not presented initially.
Be sure to include them all, including repeats, as that may indicate folks that are amenable to various solutions to the issue rather than camping on one data point.
Yes i will happily turn this into a class project level research option because people who don't like alignment are unhappy that indications that they aren't the majority are appearing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes i will happily turn this into a class project level research option because people who don't like alignment are unhappy that indications that they aren't the majority are appearing.
Why?
Why?
Yes i will happily turn this into a class project level research option because people who don't like alignment are unhappy that indications that they aren't the majority are appearing.
That was sarcasm, its a massive waste of my time to go parsing double votes, a glance shows there aren't that many. A similar glance shows that the remove alignment restrictions has the same issue where non op people created their own options and are clearly being counted by others to support their side.
If you're going to argue do your best to read the whole post.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.26 vs 23 is not 2 to 1 ratio.
Maybe I'm mussing something because of language barrier.
Arent you counting people who wants LG only paladins (options 1/2) vs thise who wabt it opten (options 3/4)?
If you're going to argue do your best to read the whole post.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.26 vs 23 is not 2 to 1 ratio.Maybe I'm mussing something because of language barrier.
Arent you counting people who wants LG only paladins (options 1/2) vs thise who wabt it opten (options 3/4)?
How is "LG-only archetype" leaving it open? Because that's what option 4 is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is "LG-only archetype" leaving it open? Because that's what option 4 is.If you're going to argue do your best to read the whole post.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.26 vs 23 is not 2 to 1 ratio.Maybe I'm mussing something because of language barrier.
Arent you counting people who wants LG only paladins (options 1/2) vs thise who wabt it opten (options 3/4)?
Because it is an archetype of a whole class? Are you being serious? Because if you are being serious, this might be the compromise we need. Make "champion" a class, with full bab, and paladin-like abilities, then call "paladin" one of the archetypes, and everyone is happy. Other archetypes could be "ancients", "avenger", and whatever. To be honest, it's the same than calling the class "paladin", and then making an archetype called "devotion" which is LG only. I'm ok with that.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Other classes don't have extremely strict lore- and tradition-based restrictions that have a long, long legacy of causing inter-party strife due to misinterpretation, GM and player disagreements, and player interaction problems.
Other classes also don't take the only class of their design type and limit it to a single, fairly exclusive type of presentation, and utterly block out all other possible interpretations and presentations of that same basic character mechanic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the first thread I made hint that if they fix the paladin class then we wouldn't need another paladin thread.
They ran with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because it is an archetype of a whole class? Are you being serious? Because if you are being serious, this might be the compromise we need. Make "champion" a class, with full bab, and paladin-like abilities, then call "paladin" one of the archetypes, and everyone is happy. Other archetypes could be "ancients", "avenger", and whatever. To be honest, it's the same than calling the class "paladin", and then making an archetype called "devotion" which is LG only. I'm ok with that.How is "LG-only archetype" leaving it open? Because that's what option 4 is.If you're going to argue do your best to read the whole post.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.26 vs 23 is not 2 to 1 ratio.Maybe I'm mussing something because of language barrier.
Arent you counting people who wants LG only paladins (options 1/2) vs thise who wabt it opten (options 3/4)?
Of course I'm serious! I'd rather it be an in-class specialization choice rather than a simple archetype, but it's still pretty close to the same thing. The Paladin remains as a Paladin, the Iconic Paladin can instead be that class with the Paladin specialization, and people can play a divine warrior concept with any alignment, essentially merging the PF1 Paladin and Warpriest classes. My issue is with something that is not a Paladin claiming to be a Paladin, such as "CN Paladin of Slaughter", which makes my blood boil.
The different specializations would likely have different methods of attaining their power, such as an Abyssal pact or Infernal contract (not sure how CG would work, but it's a start). It would also remove the need to create an entire Antipaladin alternate class as Antipaladin would be the CE specialization.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
\
You can't make any statements about ratios of people in favor or against. You don't have that kind of data. Your sample size is not even a sample of the people posting in the forums, much less everyone who's going to be involved in the playtest.
In fact, you don't even have a good sample of the people participating in the multiple 'paladin alignment' threads in the playtest forum, much less all the participants over all the years.
So expect to be called out for faulty arithmetic and faulty math and faulty statistics.
And, thank you for the "If you like paladins being available to other alignments you can houserule that". That's precisely what everyone on the other side is in favor of.
You can houserule a more limited subset of "Paladin" if you like. But the rest of us are given the legal option to play our version, too.
I'm totally cool with that, Bloodrealm (I don't really care about antipaladins, but whatever).
I want a "champion class", which is essentially martial (I could live without spells if it's replaced with something else), with a touch of supernatural abilities, that follow a Code/Oath/Order, and gain things from it. It might be divine (ie: a Desna Champion/paladin/holywarrior), or not (a Knight, or Samurai, or even a gunslinger from Stephen King's The Dark Tower).
Cavalier is pretty close, but it lacks in the "supernatural stuff" that paladin has. Then you could have different archtypes or whatever, to make them a certain alignment, and I don't really care if it's called "paladin" or "hero" or whatever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BTW: 36 votes between options 1 and 2, and 34 between options 3 and 4 (didn't check for double votes, tho).
So, if we go by this poll, the answer is "the community is split about it".
wouldn't a paladin of slaughter be CE not CN?Of course I'm serious! I'd rather it be an in-class specialization choice rather than a simple archetype, but it's still pretty close to the same thing. The Paladin remains as a Paladin, the Iconic Paladin can instead be that class with the Paladin specialization, and people can play a divine warrior concept with any alignment, essentially merging the PF1 Paladin and Warpriest classes. My issue is with something that is not a Paladin claiming to be a Paladin, such as "CN Paladin of Slaughter", which makes my blood boil.
The different specializations would likely have different methods of attaining their power, such as an Abyssal pact or Infernal contract (not sure how CG would work, but it's a start). It would also remove the need to create an entire Antipaladin alternate class as Antipaladin would be the CE specialization.
I'm pretty sure I've seen someone write "CN Paladin of Slaughter" before.
It's in the SRD as CE.
All four extremes are in the SRD for that matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BTW: 36 votes between options 1 and 2, and 34 between options 3 and 4 (didn't check for double votes, tho).
So, if we go by this poll, the answer is "the community is split about it".
4 is also a LG only option, which is my point.
Since its obviously going to have to go this way. At 5:54pm (since the use of the word currently is apparently easy to disregard)
1. 27 votes LG only option
2. 6 non duplicated, LG only option
4. 11 non duplicated LG only option
Total: 44 for LG only
3. 22 votes, Open alignment
Demon Lord of paladins post for open alignment is all duplicate votes
Greystone's drop all alignments 1 non duplicate vote.
Total 23 for Open up their alignment totally.
Roughly 2 to 1 for LG only
Good only is >50% duplicate votes from both sides.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
4 is also a LG only option, which is my point.BTW: 36 votes between options 1 and 2, and 34 between options 3 and 4 (didn't check for double votes, tho).
So, if we go by this poll, the answer is "the community is split about it".
I think it's a 'paladin'-type base class with a LG only archetype for those that just can't have any fun unless their holy warrior is restricted to LG and has the name paladin attached to it. So it's not a LG only option unless you mean LG attached to the name [not CLASS] paladin.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is with all these paladin threads? I don't see threads for any other classes. People seem awfully passionate about paladins for some reason.
Battle lines on "should the Paladin be LG-only or just whatever" have been drawn over the last few years, particularly in light of "that's how 5E does it" vs. "I don't see 8/9 of those as Paladins." Oddly, this is one of the only ways folks around here want PF2 to be more like 5E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is with all these paladin threads? I don't see threads for any other classes. People seem awfully passionate about paladins for some reason.Battle lines on "should the Paladin be LG-only or just whatever" have been drawn over the last few years, particularly in light of "that's how 5E does it" vs. "I don't see 8/9 of those as Paladins." Oddly, this is one of the only ways folks around here want PF2 to be more like 5E.
Well that and the "get rid of alignment brigade" rolled into a bunch of threads preemptively doing a smug victory dance before paizo said alignment was still in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
BTW: 36 votes between options 1 and 2, and 34 between options 3 and 4 (didn't check for double votes, tho).
So, if we go by this poll, the answer is "the community is split about it".
4 is also a LG only option, which is my point.
Since its obviously going to have to go this way. At 5:54pm (since the use of the word currently is apparently easy to disregard)
1. 27 votes LG only option
2. 6 non duplicated, LG only option
4. 11 non duplicated LG only option
Total: 44 for LG only3. 22 votes, Open alignment
Demon Lord of paladins post for open alignment is all duplicate votes
Greystone's drop all alignments 1 non duplicate vote.
Total 23 for Open up their alignment totally.Roughly 2 to 1 for LG only
Good only is >50% duplicate votes from both sides.
4 makes "LG paladin" an archetype of a parent class without LG component. As I said before, if you agree with that, (and other people who want LG only paladins do too), it might be the solution.
Make a Paladin class, with multiple ethos, then give one of the archetypes the name of "true paladin" or whatever, give it a LG restriction, and those who want to play LG paladins can use that archetype and those who don't can use the parent class and/or other archetypes.
If we can agree with that, by consensus, I think we solved the issue.
BTW: 36 votes between options 1 and 2, and 34 between options 3 and 4 (didn't check for double votes, tho).
So, if we go by this poll, the answer is "the community is split about it".
4 is also a LG only option, which is my point.
Since its obviously going to have to go this way. At 5:54pm (since the use of the word currently is apparently easy to disregard)
1. 27 votes LG only option
2. 6 non duplicated, LG only option
4. 11 non duplicated LG only option
Total: 44 for LG only3. 22 votes, Open alignment
Demon Lord of paladins post for open alignment is all duplicate votes
Greystone's drop all alignments 1 non duplicate vote.
Total 23 for Open up their alignment totally.Roughly 2 to 1 for LG only
Good only is >50% duplicate votes from both sides.
4 makes "LG paladin" an archetype of a parent class without LG component. As I said before, if you agree with that, (and other people who want LG only paladins do too), it might be the solution.
Make a Paladin class, with multiple ethos, then give one of the archetypes the name of "true paladin" or whatever, give it a LG restriction, and those who want to play LG paladins can use that archetype and those who don't can use the parent class and/or other archetypes.
If we can agree with that, by consensus, I think we solved the issue.
There's no issue to solve, as of right now, with the only poll we have available, 2 to 1 people want paladins to be LG only. Whether its an archetype of another class is irrelevant, its been an offshoot of I think cavalier in the past, the relevant point is LG ONLY.
Well that and the "get rid of alignment brigade" rolled into a bunch of threads preemptively doing a smug victory dance before paizo said alignment was still in.
Honestly, I'm fine with "doing away with alignment" thing (even though they won't do it) but I would still want Paladins to be Paragons of Law and Goodness exclusively.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no issue to solve, as of right now, with the only poll we have available, 2 to 1 people want paladins to be LG only. Whether its an archetype of another class is irrelevant, its been an offshoot of I think cavalier in the past, the relevant point is LG ONLY.BTW: 36 votes between options 1 and 2, and 34 between options 3 and 4 (didn't check for double votes, tho).
So, if we go by this poll, the answer is "the community is split about it".
4 is also a LG only option, which is my point.
Since its obviously going to have to go this way. At 5:54pm (since the use of the word currently is apparently easy to disregard)
1. 27 votes LG only option
2. 6 non duplicated, LG only option
4. 11 non duplicated LG only option
Total: 44 for LG only3. 22 votes, Open alignment
Demon Lord of paladins post for open alignment is all duplicate votes
Greystone's drop all alignments 1 non duplicate vote.
Total 23 for Open up their alignment totally.Roughly 2 to 1 for LG only
Good only is >50% duplicate votes from both sides.
4 makes "LG paladin" an archetype of a parent class without LG component. As I said before, if you agree with that, (and other people who want LG only paladins do too), it might be the solution.
Make a Paladin class, with multiple ethos, then give one of the archetypes the name of "true paladin" or whatever, give it a LG restriction, and those who want to play LG paladins can use that archetype and those who don't can use the parent class and/or other archetypes.
If we can agree with that, by consensus, I think we solved the issue.
That's such a poor attempt to move the point of the poll, that I must believe you are kidding. Adding the votes of those who want LG paladin reduced to a single archetype of a broader class with different options as ethos as "votes against making new ethos for paladins possible" is too blunt to be serious.
| 2 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.
Considering that Paladins of different alignment have been around since 1st edition.....I say let them be any alignment but True Neurtal
no they're votes for paladin being LG.
ANd don't come at me with that "other holy warrior class" its been made abundantly clear that things like Warpriest as an option for non LG holy warrior isn't good enough, only Paladin will do for many of the "open it up" people.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
no they're votes for paladin being LG.
Yep. A LG archetype, a subset of a parent "Champion" class, with other alignments getting different archetypes.
I would vote for that too. I'm totally happy with that solution.
ANd don't come at me with that "other holy warrior class" its been made abundantly clear that things like Warpriest as an option for non LG holy warrior isn't good enough, only Paladin will do for many of the "open it up" people.
Because Warpriest fills a different niche. It's a caster who goes to war, not a warrior with divine powers.
Any class which would produce Paladin as AN ARCHETYPE, is a class close enough to the paladin to be OK for me. It means a parent class which is so close to a Paladin, as "thief" is to "rogue", or "weapon master" is to "fighter". Which means the main class also have full BAB, 1-4 castign, and most of the abilities (Except those replaced by the archetype). The parent class also would have no restriction, and only the archetype would be LG. I'm totally cool with that.
no they're votes for paladin being LG.Yep. A LG archetype, a subset of a parent "Champion" class, with other alignments getting different archetypes.
I would vote for that too. I'm totally happy with that solution.
Sweet as long as they don't get called paladins or simply copy paste the paladin abilities onto a less behaviorally restrictive chassis.
IMO warpriest works fine and i could build a character who calls themself a paladin of whatever god and does a perfectly fine job of being a holy warrior for that deity or even alignment if deity requiremetns are removed. What you'll find is tha for most o the proponents if it doesnt grant divine grace lay hands and smite evil its not good enough (which is a literal powergamer argument but apparently insulting to comment on it being a powergaming argument).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
no they're votes for paladin being LG.Yep. A LG archetype, a subset of a parent "Champion" class, with other alignments getting different archetypes.
I would vote for that too. I'm totally happy with that solution.
That's why I voted for it. *thumbs-up!*
Granted I also voted for the any-alignments option, because I'd be equally good with that.