Inclusive, not Exclusive

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

How do we turn classes that are divisive into unifying classes, while understanding and respecting the history of the classes involved while moving forward to a more modern and open era?

...without attacking each other or insisting that there is only 'one true path'?

By figuring out what it is that people want from the divisive classes, and providing that as other options (ideally to my mind in the form of other classes) without actually changing the things other people are attached to about the existing option, I would hope. I would certainly like classes to be "unifying" in terms of bringing the player base together, but I continue opposed to classes being "unifying" in the sense of "the swashbuckler should just be a subtype of fighter" whether that subtype is provided through an archetype or a set of feat choices.

What do the people who want alignment-free paladins want from an alignment-free paladin that can't be provided via a warpriest or an inquisitor, possibly with some redesign, for example ? Just the name "paladin" and nothing else seems a bit pointless. If you want to get rid of alignment-based restrictions, what then makes an inquisitor or a warpriest essentially not a paladin ?

[TheFinish]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

What do the people who want alignment-free paladins want from an alignment-free paladin that can't be provided via a warpriest or an inquisitor, possibly with some redesign, for example ? Just the name "paladin" and nothing else seems a bit pointless. If you want to get rid of alignment-based restrictions, what then makes an inquisitor or a warpriest essentially not a paladin ?

Presumably the Paladin class features, which is the only real difference between a Cleric/Warpriest/Inquisitor and a Paladin, assuming they're all the same alignment. (since you can use all three of those to make the holy warrior concept).

[Steelfiredragon]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

So an inclusive approach is an eyesore, when we take into account even those views we don't necessarily agree with?

eh, no its not.

it just seems that thios thread is rinse and repeat posts and its an eye sore.

as for the inquisitor and war priest as holy warriors.
neither are a good substitute for the paladin.

and some of the class features can not be obtained elsewhere save watered down weaksauce from another prc or class with or without an archtype.

if they broke the paladin into 3 groups that were all good and which gained their powers from the heavens, nirvana and the one that started with E, (the home of the azatas ) with the base of the class the same as the paladin say of PF1( don't know how it works in 2 yet) and add bonuses against its 2nd opposed alignment, would people still gripe that it is not the paladin to them?

after all your paladin of the heavens would be more adept at fighting evil in its most darkest form

the one from nirvana would get to chose between the two

the other would be adept at saying evil tyrants

and all this would be on top of the base paladin. thus this would get rid of the lawful good alignment for the base class. the three others must have an alignment

they could do the same for the anti paladin class

[The Sideromancer]

At least paladins can wear whatever armour they want...

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Actually, that's not true. They can't wear any evil- or chaotic- aligned armor. :P

[Planpanther]

I fear a lot more of these topics are going to pop up with Golarion being tied tighter to PF2.

[Demon Lord of Paladins!]

Planpanther wrote:

I fear a lot more of these topics are going to pop up with Golarion being tied tighter to PF2.

The only way this stops is

A: they remove the paladin totally
B: They allow paladins of any AL and more than single code

Option B actually fits Golarion better anyhow as they have jumped though hoops to both bend the "LG only" as far as they can and keep making work around that simply could be a non-LG paladin.

Really how often do you see this stuff about 5e paladins?

[Orville Redenbacher]

Oh the fun will go well beyond the paladin, but im not going to spoil it. :)

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

Option B actually fits Golarion better anyhow as they have jumped though hoops to both bend the "LG only" as far as they can and keep making work around that simply could be a non-LG paladin.

Really how often do you see this stuff about 5e paladins?

Reason #573 to play PF over 5e; real Paladins...

Since I seem to have put my question above insufficiently clearly, let me rephrase; if there were a warpriest-type character class that was exactly the same mechanically as a paladin in all respects except for not actually being called a paladin and not having the alignment restriction, would playing that satisfy your desire to play a non-LG "paladin"? Or is it being able to call your character concept a "paladin" that you care about more here?

[Rob Godfrey]

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

I don't see the need for this. I'd actually be fine removing the alignment requirements from classes so long as the other elements of them that regulated their behavior stayed intact. Ideally, those two things should be redundant ways of serving the same function. What I worry is that the elimination of alignment requirements would be a precursor to much more severe removal of limitations that add flavor. For paladins, it seems to me a character who wasn't lawful good couldn't possibly follow the Paladin code as it exists. That said, if someone really did find a way, it wouldn't be the end of the world. I just don't think it's possible. For barbarians, I would be fine with allowing them to be lawful so long as the rest of their behavioral requirements stay intact. Likewise with Druids. For monks, replacing it with a statement that they have to be disciplined in some sense would be sufficient in my mind.

No one has successfully explained to me what makes the LG gods so powerful that they get a special holy warrior over everyone else. That is what a paladin is. While war priests exist, they do not have the same feel to them as paladins, they feel like clerics who fight, not the avenging knights of the deity obliterating the unbeliever with divine fury. SO why are they unique to LG (and for APs without specific archetypes CE [which btw never made any sense]) deities? Or ones that can have those alignments as followers at least.

[Rob Godfrey]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

Option B actually fits Golarion better anyhow as they have jumped though hoops to both bend the "LG only" as far as they can and keep making work around that simply could be a non-LG paladin.

Really how often do you see this stuff about 5e paladins?

Reason #573 to play PF over 5e; real Paladins...

Since I seem to have put my question above insufficiently clearly, let me rephrase; if there were a warpriest-type character class that was exactly the same mechanically as a paladin in all respects except for not actually being called a paladin and not having the alignment restriction, would playing that satisfy your desire to play a non-LG "paladin"? Or is it being able to call your character concept a "paladin" that you care about more here?

That would work for me, it's the built in powers and gifts that do it, that feels less like a spell caster who has been to the gym and more like the anointed warrior of a deity.

[Sara Marie]

This kind of went off the rails. Locking.

[Dαedαlus]

Ummmm.... (Flagging this post to bring to attention)

[The Sideromancer]

Dαedαlus wrote:

Ummmm.... (Flagging this post to bring to attention)

I have no idea what to flag it as...

[Dαedαlus]

Breaking other guidelines?
(Posting in a thread after it’s been locked)

[CrystalSeas]

That's the flag I used

[Sara Marie]

Thank you, should be locked now.