Paladin Poll


Prerelease Discussion

151 to 200 of 359 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Option 4 really isn't exactly what I had in mind Defiently don't want it to be a prestige class itself just to have options to make it other things. I will say an archetype of cavalier would at least link back to its original 1st edition roots.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

According to the poll creator: The point of option 4 is to say "Paladins are still LG, but you can play a 90% similar thing as a different alignment."

But I agree. There is definitely a place of the chivalric knight blessed by God, just as much as there is for other types of paladin, even if "Paladin" is just the name for the LG variety, because (you know) there is Power in Names, my boy.


Arakhor wrote:

According to the poll creator: The point of option 4 is to say "Paladins are still LG, but you can play a 90% similar thing as a different alignment."

But I agree. There is definitely a place of the chivalric knight blessed by God, just as much as there is for other types of paladin, even if "Paladin" is just the name for the LG variety, because (you know) there is Power in Names, my boy.

Well sounds like we are two individuals that are in agreement on a paladin thread. Do we win something? When do the angels show up with trumpets? I guess given your avatar that might *NOT* be your preference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
Or leave the lg paladin the standard and all the others archetypes. Why should YOU object to that?

I wouldn't. At all. It's just not what it was written in the poll, but if that's the solution, I'm equally happy.

(In fact, that's closer to a possible solution. Paizo WILL realease Paladin in the core, as a core class, named Paladin. That's for sure. It might, or might not, leave the LG restriction. And if they remove it, archetypes are a great way to do it, because that way you can replace "good-infused" things like detect evil, for some other things (like detect Chaos, or "detect Aberrations", or maybe something enterely different)


Says wheres the option of #7?
"Paladins should have the alignment of Any Good"


Without checking the double posts, the 1-2 options have now 43 votes, while the 3-4 options (which is what the people who want non-LG paladins will agree with) have 46.

As I said, the community is split.


Well, duh. It's the people who fear that they have the most to lose who have been shouting the most about being the majority.

Dark Archive

Okay Beardguy is starting to worry me a little. And given I'm an incomprehensible being of nightmares and insanity wrapped in lovely gold foil with chocolate filling, that's saying something!


I wish I could vote for more than one. My votes would be

Paladins can be any alignment

OR

Paladins remain LG with a concise, clear, fairly complete list of what can and will make them fall and they lose all their class abilites. Which must be adhered to by both players and DMs. No exceptions unless it's a homebrew campaign where DMs will change what they like or don't. That way bad DMs can no longer screw over players running Paladins and players who have no business playing them have to either follow what they can or cannot do. Make them less a problem at the table.


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

Okay, so this thread has devolved to 'Neener neener you can't have my niche fundamentalist extremist holy good warrior' vs. 'Let everyone have the choice of their own fundamentalist extremismist warrior flavor'?

I just want to make sure I've got the parameters right before hitting the eject tabs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lazaro wrote:
Paladins, blackguard, and anti-pallys for all!

Actually, That is an interesting idea. Expand the Paladin Class to have multiple Alignment emphasis, with the features of the class depending on the Alignment and the ideas being championed and opposed. The ideas being championed will depend on the "paladin" code.

Paladins = LG, LN, NG (focus is against evil/chaos)

Antipaladins = CE, NE, CN (focus is against good/law)

Grayguards = N, LN, CN (focus is against good/evil)

Templars = N, NG, NE (focus is against law/chaos)

Maquis = CG, CN, NG (focus is against evil/law)

Magnate = LE, LN, NE (focus is against good/chaos)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I will never understand the need to come up with 8 more names for the same class. LN paladin is still just a paladin, a NE paladin is still just a paladin. A CG paladin, yep still just a paladin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

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.

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.

Or leave the lg paladin the standard and all the others archetypes. Why should YOU object to that?

Funny enough I think it's the "pro-Restriction" side that would most object to that, because in my experience when talking about a class with an archetype they're usually referred to as "[Archetype] [Class]", so this solution would mean that those of us who had the other alignments would still be using the name "Paladin".


I love the paladin class as it is. Paizo, and our community, did a great job with it, so I hope not to see too many changes. I remember the 2,000+ page paladin thread in the original playtest. We all contributed and Paizo listened. The current class is the result of so much effort by the people here in this community.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
I will never understand the need to come up with 8 more names for the same class. LN paladin is still just a paladin, a NE paladin is still just a paladin. A CG paladin, yep still just a paladin.

lol, I certainly don't know that there is a need for it. However, I don't think it takes away from the game to include it for those who want it.

As long as the class is enjoyable to play and well designed I will be happy. If at the same time the class is broadened to incorporate the wants and desires of more players, I don't see anything wrong with that either.

Also, Demon Lord of Paladins is an awesome title, and I will be borrowing for use in my game! Thank you sharing!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
7. Paladins should be Any Good. Antipaladins should be Any Evil.

I'd go with this or option 3. It would be nice to have a little more versatility in terms of alignment.


Options 1&2 add 48 votes. Options 3&4 add 53 votes.

As always, it's a debate which has the community split.


Brinebeast wrote:

lol, I certainly don't know that there is a need for it. However, I don't think it takes away from the game to include it for those who want it.

As long as the class is enjoyable to play and well designed I will be happy. If at the same time the class is broadened to incorporate the wants and desires of more players, I don't see anything wrong with that either.

Also, Demon Lord of Paladins is an awesome title, and I will be borrowing for use in my game! Thank you sharing!!!

What I am saying is, there is no point in having 9 names for the same class. Its like having nine names for each AL of cleric. If you want to name your archetypes cool, but they are still paladins.

If you want to dd the hellknight templet or something called Knight of the grey order or Heart Knight or whatever, cool, but its still a paladin. Just like in 5e, Devotion paladin and vengeance paladin are both still paladins.

And glad ya liked the Alias, I have a few Demon lords at this point


I would like to see "antipaladins" go away, honestly. It's just a silly idea for a class, edgy for its own sake.

Like the CE antipaladin almost makes sense since it's a sneering inversion of its opposite, but I definitely do not want LE and NE "antipaladins". Ideally the "so evil you're awesome" types in those alignments would get their own thing.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like paladins as any good. It adds some variation to an otherwise single faceted class and is a home rule my friends and i have all added to our home rules. Having a paladin of Caiden is pretty fun.

Silver Crusade

Paladins should stay lawful good. Other classes can have their own paragons which are well-suited to their alignments without being tethered to things like auras and magic touches.

Consider the antipaladin. He's far from terrible, but he does not make the best paragon of Chaotic Evil. He has the paladin's tanky saves and immunities when you'd expect a chaotic evil character to be more aggressive, has auras that debuff enemy saves in a way that weirdly doesn't sync with his other abilities, which rarely call for said saves or do so at low DCs, and has touch of corruption, which is much worse than lay on hands and weirdly redundant for a class whose job is to do damage by swinging swords at things.

Now consider the Hellknight. He has disciplines that suit his role as an enforcer of law, and armor abilities which match his specific flavoring. He is a much better paragon of Lawful Neutral than a paladin who had simply be neutralified.

The paladin's abilities are built for a cooperative, defensive, self-sacrificing team player. He is a tank who heals others as well as himself and buffs his friends. His spells are often suited to investigation and law enforcement. Clumsily editing those things to make them eviller or chaoticer will result in worse classes then making paragons of chaos, evil, and neutrality without paying attention to what people before you have done for other alignments (except to barrow ideas from them where they clearly do make sense for the class you're building, like with detect and smite).

Liberty's Edge

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would like to see "antipaladins" go away, honestly. It's just a silly idea for a class, edgy for its own sake.

Like the CE antipaladin almost makes sense since it's a sneering inversion of its opposite, but I definitely do not want LE and NE "antipaladins". Ideally the "so evil you're awesome" types in those alignments would get their own thing.

The one antipaladin I liked was the insinuator. That archetype was genius.


Regardless of what people want in this thread or what Paizo does with the rules, everyone is going to do whatever they want at their own table, so what's the point of trying to get your way with the rules draft?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Boots wrote:

Regardless of what people want in this thread or what Paizo does with the rules, everyone is going to do whatever they want at their own table, so what's the point of trying to get your way with the rules draft?

Because if its not in the book, you can't use it at some tables or in organized play. Non-LG paladins are such a common house rule and LG only is such a long known issues. I really do not understand the "LG only because all else is badwrongfun" group.


Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Kobold Boots wrote:

Regardless of what people want in this thread or what Paizo does with the rules, everyone is going to do whatever they want at their own table, so what's the point of trying to get your way with the rules draft?

Because if its not in the book, you can't use it at some tables or in organized play. Non-LG paladins are such a common house rule and LG only is such a long known issues. I really do not understand the "LG only because all else is badwrongfun" group.

It is a common houserule, the opposite will also become one when this hits, as this thread shows, many do not want it to stop being LG, hell it will be my houserule number 1 to toss it back if paizo changes it.

But yeah, usually whatever is the standard counts and in PFS it will be this way ofc.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem with the paladin issue is that it has the community split. And it's difficult to find a middle ground. Those who want it to remain LG, will be very angry if it opens to all alignments, and those who want it to be open will be very angry if it doesn't. And regardless of what they do, Paizo will be blamed, and we will have 3234+ threads about it, for the whole 10 years of New Pathfinder, until we get into Super New Pathfinder.


Probably the most defensible position for Paizo would be "there weren't Paladins of these alignments prior to 4219, so in keeping with continuity there won't suddenly be CN Paladins".

But keep around the Grey Paladin and make it better, and keep the Vindictive Bastard as an option.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
The problem with the paladin issue is that it has the community split. And it's difficult to find a middle ground. Those who want it to remain LG, will be very angry if it opens to all alignments, and those who want it to be open will be very angry if it doesn't. And regardless of what they do, Paizo will be blamed, and we will have 3234+ threads about it, for the whole 10 years of New Pathfinder, until we get into Super New Pathfinder.

While making paladins any AL, might make the "Badwrongfun" people upset, it will have zero impact on them playing paladins as they like. However, given in to the "Badwrongfun" group will stop the other side from playing the class as they want.

Its really, butt hurt they will get over vs "You can not play that".

Silver Crusade

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
The problem with the paladin issue is that it has the community split. And it's difficult to find a middle ground. Those who want it to remain LG, will be very angry if it opens to all alignments, and those who want it to be open will be very angry if it doesn't. And regardless of what they do, Paizo will be blamed, and we will have 3234+ threads about it, for the whole 10 years of New Pathfinder, until we get into Super New Pathfinder.

While making paladins any AL, might make the "Badwrongfun" people upset, it will have zero impact on them playing paladins as they like. However, given in to the "Badwrongfun" group will stop the other side from playing the class as they want.

Its really, butt hurt they will get over vs "You can not play that".

That's not true. If non-lawful-good paladins are commonplace, I cannot play my paladin as a rare and special warrior whose powers prove to other people that he is trustworthy and who had to maintain a code to acquire and keep his powers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You are assuming other alignments won't have a code. The fact that "devotion" paladins have a code about Honor and Justice, while "Ancients" paladins have a code about light and beauty, doesn't mean Ancient paladins don't have to work to mantain his code and keep his powers


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
The problem with the paladin issue is that it has the community split. And it's difficult to find a middle ground. Those who want it to remain LG, will be very angry if it opens to all alignments, and those who want it to be open will be very angry if it doesn't. And regardless of what they do, Paizo will be blamed, and we will have 3234+ threads about it, for the whole 10 years of New Pathfinder, until we get into Super New Pathfinder.

While making paladins any AL, might make the "Badwrongfun" people upset, it will have zero impact on them playing paladins as they like. However, given in to the "Badwrongfun" group will stop the other side from playing the class as they want.

Its really, butt hurt they will get over vs "You can not play that".

You can repeat that a thousand times and a thousands times i will disagree.

Reality is, changing the paladin in such manner will directly change how they are treated ingame and how their lore work. that simple.

Make these changes, and literally playing a paladin will become pretty much like playing a warpriest right now in PF1, all that changes is what powers you can use or not.

Silver Crusade

gustavo iglesias wrote:
You are assuming other alignments won't have a code. The fact that "devotion" paladins have a code about Honor and Justice, while "Ancients" paladins have a code about light and beauty, doesn't mean Ancient paladins don't have to work to mantain his code and keep his powers

Designing strenuous codes will be very difficult without making the characters in question lawful, and being good is always harder than being neutral or evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

That's not true. If non-lawful-good paladins are commonplace, I cannot play my paladin as a rare and special warrior whose powers prove to other people that he is trustworthy and who had to maintain a code to acquire and keep his powers.

D&D 5e has proven this to be totally false in every way.


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

You can repeat that a thousand times and a thousands times i will disagree.

Reality is, changing the paladin in such manner will directly change how they are treated ingame and how their lore work. that simple.

Make these changes, and literally playing a paladin will become pretty much like playing a warpriest right now in PF1, all that changes is what powers you can use or not.

And you can repeat this thousand times and it will still be false.


ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

Designing strenuous codes will be very difficult without making the characters in question lawful, and being good is always harder than being neutral or evil.

It really is not. Once more, 5e has shown this is not hard. Heck you can have the standard code and not even be LG! Other codes re not hard, the core book has three, I have seen dozens of easily done homebrew ones including a Golrion Hellknight. Its not hard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:


Designing strenuous codes will be very difficult without making the characters in question lawful, and being good is always harder than being neutral or evil.

The first part is not true. There are codes for followers of Desna, and they are chaotic, and 5e follows the same alignment paradigm, and have different codes for different kinds of paladins, and people of different alignment can be paladins of those. An oath to be kindle, sympathetic, defend life and nature, protect beauty, and being a glorious beacon of light for those in desperate need, can work equally well for LG Erastil or for CG Desna.

The second part is somewhat true. But even if the regular "good" alignment is harder to mantain than the regular "evil" alignment, that does not necesarely mean the same is true for paladins or people under a code. For example, a greedy Tyrant God might require half the treasure their paladins earn. That's a pretty harsh punishment for the player wanting to be a paladin of said god. Other codes might ask for other stuff, easier or harder than that, depending on the code. A code asking you to ALWAYS lie, no matter of what, even when telling the truth will help you more, can be as hard to mantain, or more, than one asking you to always say the truth.

Silver Crusade

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

That's not true. If non-lawful-good paladins are commonplace, I cannot play my paladin as a rare and special warrior whose powers prove to other people that he is trustworthy and who had to maintain a code to acquire and keep his powers.

D&D 5e has proven this to be totally false in every way.

News flash, there are nine alignments. If there's a paladin for every alignment, I can effectively behave however I want and still be a paladin.

Other alignments should have their own paragons, whose abilities suit being a paragon of that alignment. Being a paragon of an alignment should not have to mean having auras and magic touches and being a tank even if it doesn't suit that alignment as well. Alignment paragons should be as different from each other as the alignments themselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:


News flash, there are nine alignments. If there's a paladin for every alignment, I can effectively behave however I want and still be a paladin.

Other alignments should have their own paragons, whose abilities suit being a paragon of that alignment. Being a paragon of an alignment should not have to mean having auras and magic touches and being a tank even if it doesn't suit that alignment as well. Alignment paragons should be as different from each other as the alignments themselves.

No, You really need to look at 5e so you can see how wrong and off you are. You keep claiming things, while ignoring the fact D&D has done what I m saying and shows it can be easily done and your claims are false.

They re not champions of an alignment, it chucks alignment totally for paladins, they can be any alignment, as long as they hold to their code, keep their oaths. Hell, nothing about the devotion code requires LG, it would likely need good AL, but eh LN person could prob pull it off as well.

Silver Crusade

gustavo iglesias wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:


Designing strenuous codes will be very difficult without making the characters in question lawful, and being good is always harder than being neutral or evil.
An oath to be kindle, sympathetic, defend life and nature, protect beauty, and being a glorious beacon of light for those in desperate need, can work equally well for LG Erastil or for CG Desna.

That code is incredibly loose. Other than the bit about beauty, it applies to absolutely any good-aligned character.


Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

You can repeat that a thousand times and a thousands times i will disagree.

Reality is, changing the paladin in such manner will directly change how they are treated ingame and how their lore work. that simple.

Make these changes, and literally playing a paladin will become pretty much like playing a warpriest right now in PF1, all that changes is what powers you can use or not.

And you can repeat this thousand times and it will still be false.

You can call it whatever you want.

To begin with appanrently your example are 5th edition paladins, which is already a horrid example since just because they share the name doesnt mean their lore or standing ingame is even remotely the same.

Again, the more you broad what being a paladin means , aka 5th edition, the more you change the experience that is playing one.


Nox Aeterna wrote:


You can call it whatever you want.

To begin with appanrently your example are 5th edition paladins, which is already a horrid example since just because they share the name doesnt mean their lore or standing ingame is even remotely the same.

Again, the more you broad what being a paladin means , aka 5th edition, the more you change the experience that is playing one.

They are paladins, have you read the devotion code? That is pure up classic paladin


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:


News flash, there are nine alignments. If there's a paladin for every alignment, I can effectively behave however I want and still be a paladin.

That's false. Because your alignment do not dictate your behaviour. Your personality does, and in case of paladins, your code does. Just like not all LG act the same, not all NG or CN or LN act the same.

In pathfinder, a Paladin of Torag have this tenet (among others):

Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.

But a Paladin of Iomedae has this one:
When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives

Those are 2 different codes for LG, and those codes guide the action of the character, not the fact he is LG. Same goes for other alignments.

Same goes for characters of other aligments and ethos. Saerenrae is a NG goddess, and her tenet says:
"The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not."

while the also NG Shelyn says:
"I am peaceful. I come first with a rose rather than a weapon, and act to prevent conflict before it blossoms. I never strike first, unless it is the only way to protect the innocent."

Just because both gods are NG, doesn't mean both behaeave the same.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Does it amuse anyone else Saerenrae could not be a paladin?


ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
That code is incredibly loose. Other than the bit about beauty, it applies to absolutely any good-aligned character.

That's a brief resume. It's longer:

oath of ancients:
Kindle the Light. Through your acts of mercy, kindness, and forgiveness, kindle the light of hope in the world, beating back despair.
Shelter the Light. Where there is good, beauty, love, and laughter in the world, stand against the wickedness that would swallow it. Where life flourishes, stand against the forces that would render it barren.
Preserve Your Own Light. Delight in song and laughter, in beauty and art. If you allow the light to die in your own heart, you can't preserve it in the world.
Be the Light. Be a glorious beacon for all who live in despair. Let the light of your joy and courage shine forth in all your deeds.

and can be expanded. For example, adding the following:

shelyn:
I see beauty in others. As a rough stone hides a diamond, a drab face may hide the heart of a saint.
I am peaceful. I come first with a rose rather than a weapon, and act to prevent conflict before it blossoms. I never strike first, unless it is the only way to protect the innocent.
I accept surrender if my opponent can be redeemed—and I never assume that they cannot be. All things that live love beauty, and I will show beauty’s answer to them.
I live my life as art. I will choose an art and perfect it. When I have mastered it, I will choose another. The works I leave behind make life richer for those who follow.
I will never destroy a work of art, nor allow one to come to harm, unless greater art arises from its loss. I will only sacrifice art if doing so allows me to save a life, for untold beauty can arise from an awakened soul.
I lead by example, not with my blade. Where my blade passes, a life is cut short, and the world’s potential for beauty is lessened.
which are tenets for Shelyn.

And that NG character would behave differently than another NG one saying:

devotion:
Honesty: Don't lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.
Courage: Never fear to act, though caution is wise.
Compassion: Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.
Honor: Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible, while causing the least amount of harm.
Duty: Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you.
and also:
saerenrae:
will protect my allies with my life. They are my light and my strength, as I am their light and their strength. We rise together.
I will seek out and destroy the spawn of the Rough Beast. If I cannot defeat them, I will give my life trying. If my life would be wasted in the attempt, I will find allies. If any fall because of my inaction, their deaths lie upon my soul, and I will atone for each.
I am fair to others. I expect nothing for myself but that which I need to survive.
The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not.
I will redeem the ignorant with my words and my actions. If they will not turn toward the light, I will redeem them by the sword.
I will not abide evil, and will combat it with steel when words are not enough. I do not flinch from my faith, and do not fear embarrassment. My soul cannot be bought for all the stars in the sky.
I will show the less fortunate the light of the Dawnflower. I will live my life as her mortal blade, shining with the light of truth.
Each day is another step toward perfection. I will not turn back into the dark.

Those are two NG characters, with a code, that they follow, but totally different behaviour.


gustavo iglesias wrote:


That's a brief resume. It's longer:
** spoiler omitted **

and can be expanded. For example, adding the following:
** spoiler omitted ** which are tenets for Shelyn.

And that NG character would behave differently than another NG one saying:...

Ya know, a CG paladin could follow the Devotion Oath and stay CG

Silver Crusade

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:


News flash, there are nine alignments. If there's a paladin for every alignment, I can effectively behave however I want and still be a paladin.

Other alignments should have their own paragons, whose abilities suit being a paragon of that alignment. Being a paragon of an alignment should not have to mean having auras and magic touches and being a tank even if it doesn't suit that alignment as well. Alignment paragons should be as different from each other as the alignments themselves.

No, You really need to look at 5e so you can see how wrong and off you are. You keep claiming things, while ignoring the fact D&D has done what I m saying and shows it can be easily done and your claims are false.

They re not champions of an alignment, it chucks alignment totally for paladins, they can be any alignment, as long as they hold to their code, keep their oaths. Hell, nothing about the devotion code requires LG, it would likely need good AL, but eh LN person could prob pull it off as well.

Looking through them. http://engl393-dnd5th.wikia.com/wiki/Paladin This wiki (format show thing isn't working so i can't make it a link) has a selection of them.

Devotion is effectively the paladin code pathfinder has now. It requires both compassion (Good) and not lying or breaking your word even when it would help you save innocent people (Lawful).

Ancients is compatible with any good alignment, and easy for any good character to follow as a result. I'm willing to bet it's overwhelmingly the most popular on account of this. It amounts to "be a good example to others."

Vengeance reminds me of a Hellknight code. I admit it is as strenuous. I wonder if it would be more suited to a suite of abilities like the Hellknight's, but if all they did was add something like this to 2e I'd not be mad.

Conquest proves my point better than I could have without seeing it. It has three tenants. The first is a pretty simple and easily maintained (presuming you have the prowess to triumph so completely). The second amounts to "be lawful evil." The third amounts to "don't give up." It is much less restrictive than the one that requires you to never lie.

Redemption nearly requires the character to be good (who would be interested in redeeming others but not mind that they're not good themselves?). It also describes how most PF paladins are theoretically meant to act.

Crown is to Lawful Neutral what Conquest is to Lawful Evil.

Notice how all of them are at least flavored lawful or flavored good. Notice how they vary widely in how hard they are to follow. Notice that making them flavorful involves attaching a separate suite of abilities to each of them, kind of like I said should be done. Notice how we have the cavalier for this niche already. (Sure, we won't for a while after 2e releases, but then we will again.)


Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:


You can call it whatever you want.

To begin with appanrently your example are 5th edition paladins, which is already a horrid example since just because they share the name doesnt mean their lore or standing ingame is even remotely the same.

Again, the more you broad what being a paladin means , aka 5th edition, the more you change the experience that is playing one.

They are paladins, have you read the devotion code? That is pure up classic paladin

Indeed, did you read the others?

And that is the point here.

You have paladin A, which matches PF1 kinda, you have paladin B, which is completely diferent and hell some of those codes are clearly meant for either neutral towards evil or just plain evil. Both as far as 5th edition cares are paladins.

And you are telling me it is the same as PF1? Yeah... right.

I will continue to disagree, they arent the same, their lore isnt the same, ingame playing one isnt the same.

Feel free to disagree ofc, but a 5th edition example means very little with what they call a paladin over there.

Silver Crusade

gustavo iglesias wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:


News flash, there are nine alignments. If there's a paladin for every alignment, I can effectively behave however I want and still be a paladin.

That's false. Because your alignment do not dictate your behaviour. Your personality does, and in case of paladins, your code does. Just like not all LG act the same, not all NG or CN or LN act the same.

In pathfinder, a Paladin of Torag have this tenet (among others):

Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.

But a Paladin of Iomedae has this one:
When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives

Those are 2 different codes for LG, and those codes guide the action of the character, not the fact he is LG. Same goes for other alignments.

Same goes for characters of other aligments and ethos. Saerenrae is a NG goddess, and her tenet says:
"The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not."

while the also NG Shelyn says:
"I am peaceful. I come first with a rose rather than a weapon, and act to prevent conflict before it blossoms. I never strike first, unless it is the only way to protect the innocent."

Just because both gods are NG, doesn't mean both behaeave the same.

And if every alignment has their own set of paladin codes which are similarly diverse, paladins can follow any mode of behavior their player wants. The more codes there are, the more different ways paladins can act, the less exclusive and therefore less special being a paladin is.

151 to 200 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