Chaotic Good Goblin Paladins As Core


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 100 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Wultram wrote:
Paladins? It is a loaded term and as such the class should have a more generic name. Paladin would remain as a in world term.

As I've said elsewhere, the issue could be resolved by having a class mechanically similar to Paladin, and having them choose a specialization requiring one of the four corner alignments with Paladin being the specialization for LG and Antipaladin being the one for CE. There would need tweaking to give them each different abilities, but it wouldn't be that hard and Seelah could remain a core iconic despite Paladin not technically being a class.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
Wultram wrote:
Paladins? It is a loaded term and as such the class should have a more generic name. Paladin would remain as a in world term.
As I've said elsewhere, the issue could be resolved by having a class mechanically similar to Paladin, and having them choose a specialization requiring one of the four corner alignments with Paladin being the specialization for LG and Antipaladin being the one for CE. There would need tweaking to give them each different abilities, but it wouldn't be that hard and Seelah could remain a core iconic despite Paladin not technically being a class.

That's a very good idea. I doubt it will be implemented for marketing reasons; too many people need the paladin core class for brand purposes. But it is very elegant.

I think 5e got it right with Oaths over alignment for paladins, and generally de-emphasizing alignment in general. Would not mind it if we went that route.

Liberty's Edge

Bloodrealm wrote:
Wultram wrote:
Paladins? It is a loaded term and as such the class should have a more generic name. Paladin would remain as a in world term.
As I've said elsewhere, the issue could be resolved by having a class mechanically similar to Paladin, and having them choose a specialization requiring one of the four corner alignments with Paladin being the specialization for LG and Antipaladin being the one for CE. There would need tweaking to give them each different abilities, but it wouldn't be that hard and Seelah could remain a core iconic despite Paladin not technically being a class.

You can easily do this and keep the Class name as 'Paladin'. Just name the LG one 'True Paladin' or something and it works (right down to calling the CE version Antipaladin). You could call the CG version a 'Chevalier' as a mythology nod to the Cayden Cailean affiliated Prestige Class with Smite Evil back from 3.5...though I guess that might cause Cavalier confusion.

That's actually more or less what I'm hoping for.


Who's ready to play a Goodrightdin?


I'd be fine with a divine warrior class, and the name was varied for each alignment. Paladins can be LG, and a different name for each version/archetype.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bloodrealm wrote:
Wultram wrote:
Paladins? It is a loaded term and as such the class should have a more generic name. Paladin would remain as a in world term.
As I've said elsewhere, the issue could be resolved by having a class mechanically similar to Paladin, and having them choose a specialization requiring one of the four corner alignments with Paladin being the specialization for LG and Antipaladin being the one for CE. There would need tweaking to give them each different abilities, but it wouldn't be that hard and Seelah could remain a core iconic despite Paladin not technically being a class.

"Agreed, with the proviso that Anti-Paladin is renamed to Reaver! :) My depravities as a Unholy Chaos warrior can not be measured in inverse by the yardstick of the traditional Paladin!"

Kisses of the Mother's Lash, Depravity -- 20th level Reaver of Loviatar and First among her Nine Diseases. :)

P.S. Paladin archetypes for the other alignments and Deities would also be acceptable -- Avatarless


6 people marked this as a favorite.

As someone who is staunchly in the LG paladin camp, I really do like the idea of a class of warrior, that has 4 different specializations for each corner alignment, each named something different with the LG specialization being called Paladin. And the class would always be referred to as their specialization, like how a specialist wizard is always called an invoker, enchanter, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
fearcypher wrote:
As someone who is staunchly in the LG paladin camp, I really do like the idea of a class of warrior, that has 4 different specializations for each corner alignment, each named something different with the LG specialization being called Paladin. And the class would always be referred to as their specialization, like how a specialist wizard is always called an invoker, enchanter, etc.

I really, really prefer a system where Paladin has subclasses based on their Oath, and their Oath defines their Code of Conduct rather than an internally contradictory set of rules that are never actually defined.

Make 80% of those CoCs different flavors of Lawful Good, and more than half of the remainder NG/CG, and I'm happy.

Frankly, I do not like "Evil Paladins" in the slightest.


Hmm If paladin is going to be the ARMOR class then I expect a pretty big revision of the entire paladin concept. mostly because I would expect all the armor related stuff to take up room for some of the classic paladin stuff. Hmm as long as I can still make the classic paladin I'll be OK with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's probably armour and good saves.

And action-efficient self-healing/recovery.

And maybe some defensive buff auras.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You think they will throw paladin spells out? (which I'm actually ok with.) Hope I can still get a mount/sword.


Paladins will probably be either 1-5 casters (spell circles at class levels 1/5/9/13/17), 1-7 casters (spell circles at 1/4/7/10/13/16/19), or 1-6 casters (spell circles at 4/7/10/13/16/19).

That said, I keep hoping that's just one path. I hope there's another path that gives you a different package of abilities instead of spells, maybe containing the essence of the Cavalier class, and that they likewise do the same for the Ranger. I don't want to have to archetype to get rid of spellcasting on a partial caster, because archetypes not only usually change /other/ things, but also usually err on the side of being weaker than the features they're replacing.


The classic LG paladin deserves something too, when dealing with outside forces. Not too big, but something small. Their traits lend them a certain trustworthiness. Don't want your stuff stolen? Hand it to the paladin, not the rogue, is a classic party trope.

I don't expect a CG version would lend the same level of trust: maybe they'd have a minor intimidate bonus when representing their deities' edicts, sort of like a zealot without the brakes the paladin (law/ordered good) has, instead. Like many here, I would never give a CG version the title paladin.

Zealot would fit just fine, and their aura would possess chaos. Very different flavor.


The reason LG, CG, CE, and LE make better paladins is because of predictability (this goes back to the ancient origins of alignment). Back in the day, LE existed so the party would know that if they made a deal with a LE being, the LE guy would honor the deal (unless the party did a lousy job making the deal), and if they were dumb enough to make a deal with a CE being, they could predict that it would break the deal as soon as they thought they could get away with it. Neutrality, which came much later, basically exists as unpredictability. If the party makes a deal with a NE type, they can expect at some point the NE guy will probably break the deal, but "at some point" is pretty nebulous--it could be 100 years from now (long after the adventure is over) or just as fast as the CE guy....

What does this have to do with paladins? I figure paladins are living symbols of something. Symbols benefit from predictability. Neutral types are inherently unpredictable, so they make less good paladins.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

While I'd rather alignment was completely minimized in the game except as a guideline for the basis of someone's outlook on life, and would prefer to see Paladins based on oaths, it wouldn't break my heart to see a four-corner spread of LG/CG/LE/CE paladins.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
While I'd rather alignment was completely minimized in the game except as a guideline for the basis of someone's outlook on life, and would prefer to see Paladins based on oaths, it wouldn't break my heart to see a four-corner spread of LG/CG/LE/CE paladins.

As evidenced by the people of these forums, a lot of people are under the impression that they can't play a LG character without something exploding, and those people need to be taught otherwise by being forced to do it. Giving people the option to play a CG paladin will mean people have one fewer reason to face their fear of LG characters and learn that everything is going to be okay, so that attitude will become even more widespread than it already is.

I find it tremendously ironic that the pro-goblin and anti-traditional paladin people tend to be most of the same people while the anti-goblin and pro-traditional paladin people tend to be the same people, because the arguments for why paladins should be changed and for why goblins should be excluded tend to be very similar. "It promotes bad behavior because insert pessimistic speculation."

Though pessimistic speculation is what I did above there... so maybe it's more fitting than I'm inclined to think. There's still this same sense of fearmongering. The horror stories I see people citing as the reason why paladins need to be changed remind me a lot of the radically literalist interpretations of goblins the same people decry. It's like, apparently there's nothing off about a goblin being literate, compassionate and gregarious, but a Paladin who deals with foes lethally or allows their allies to carry out an ambush (or gasp, participates) is apparently something the GM himself cannot permit even if he wants to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
a lot of people are under the impression that they can't play a LG character without something exploding

Not LG specifically but paladins. A LG person doesn't fall if you and the DM disagree an action is evil.

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
the pro-goblin and anti-traditional paladin people tend to be most of the same people while the anti-goblin and pro-traditional paladin people tend to be the same people

Not me! Anti goblin, anti LG only paladins.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

problem with making similar versions of the paladin is that some of us would want divine grace across the board and the LG only crowd would not want that and would want them to have powers to match their alignment.

which is bull in its own right.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pro-goblin and pro-traditional paladin.

I'm pretty sure I just want the opposite of what graystone wants like 95% of the time.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelfiredragon wrote:

problem with making similar versions of the paladin is that some of us would want divine grace across the board and the LG only crowd would not want that and would want them to have powers to match their alignment.

which is bull in its own right.

The Solomon solution is that no one gets divine grace. It would be incredibly broken under PF2's math anyway so it is probably either already gone or completely rewritten into something else. Good riddance.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
a lot of people are under the impression that they can't play a LG character without something exploding
Not LG specifically but paladins. A LG person doesn't fall if you and the DM disagree an action is evil.

That's a confusing statement to me, because I find it so hard to imagine that happening. Like, what kind of GM would just spring a mechanically impactful alignment change on someone without making it clear that the action would have that effect and giving them a chance to take it back? I'm pretty sure that in society, you're required to do so (I could be wrong).

I did once spring an alignment change on a NG cavalier after he goaded two goblins into fighting for the death for his amusement, but I was only willing to do that because being N instead wasn't significant for him, and I ignored the stupid -1s to everything you're supposed to take after an alignment change because they're just that: stupid. (This fight also took several minutes, so it wasn't a spring of the moment choice I was 'punishing' him for.)

I get if someone wants to be less lenient than me and hold the possibility of unwarned falling over a paladin's head, but what kind of GM would stick with that even when the action was debatable enough that someone could reasonably not see the fall coming? That's effectively a misunderstanding between the GM and the player, and that's a meta concern that shouldn't effect the game world by causing a paladin to fall without warning inside said game world.

I have had the general observation, with both paladins and goblins, actually, that the more strictly one seems to interpret the requirements of being a goblin/traditional paladin, the more likely they are to oppose those things.

Edit: This gives me an idea for a change that could be made to 2nd edition. Characters who fall if they act out of line (perhaps this could be baked into 'aura of good') automatically sense when something they're about to do would cause them to fall, similar to a phylactery of faithfulness. Or perhaps this could be or could be part of a class feat. Or perhaps now that you don't need the headband slot for stat boosts you can just get a phylactery of faithfulness.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

All for paladins of any alignment. All for Goblins of any class. Wouldn't mind seeing alignment disappear despite the massive canon change implied by such a thing. Doubt we see any non-LG Paladins for a long time, and even if we do it will probably be along the lines of the Grey Paladin. Hopefully there are plenty of non-paladin tank choices, as I've no interest in playing a paladin unless it gets the defensive feel of Sacred Shield or Stone Lord, but I have plenty of interest in playing a tank.


Bloodrealm wrote:
Wultram wrote:
Paladins? It is a loaded term and as such the class should have a more generic name. Paladin would remain as a in world term.
As I've said elsewhere, the issue could be resolved by having a class mechanically similar to Paladin, and having them choose a specialization requiring one of the four corner alignments with Paladin being the specialization for LG and Antipaladin being the one for CE. There would need tweaking to give them each different abilities, but it wouldn't be that hard and Seelah could remain a core iconic despite Paladin not technically being a class.

Alternatively the issue could be resolved by Paizo saying, "Paladins are Lawful Good only and that ain't changing."

Which would be what I would prefer.


and as that it goes without saying," NOT our IP. What we want and what we get is not up to us as far as PF2 goes," and " though that does not stop anyone for tying to convince their minds to change either."


Fuzzypaws wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:

problem with making similar versions of the paladin is that some of us would want divine grace across the board and the LG only crowd would not want that and would want them to have powers to match their alignment.

which is bull in its own right.

The Solomon solution is that no one gets divine grace. It would be incredibly broken under PF2's math anyway so it is probably either already gone or completely rewritten into something else. Good riddance.

be that as it may, it wasn't the point of the comment, and DG was only listed because it was a potent class feature that one got early on in pf1.

and it being gone or rewritten to do something else, I do not doubt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
That's a confusing statement to me, because I find it so hard to imagine that happening.

I have a hard time imagining it NOT happening with frightening frequency. Around 1/2 the times I'm played with paladins some kind of argument ensued, with the worst resulting in a literal table flip. After that I don't play with paladin anymore. There is a liberal sprinkling of catch 22 situations, genuine inabilities to see eye to eye, and some lawful stupid tossed in.

As to falls, it's not always the fall that's an argument but the 'warning' of a fall that starts an argument when the player thinks the DM is being unfair or the DM think the player is trying to get away with something. If you play a game with anything close to morally grey, it's an issue.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'm pretty sure I just want the opposite of what graystone wants like 95% of the time.

LOL Something we both agree on! ;) It does happen!!!


uh oh.... the stars are in the alignment, cabbage and graystone are in agreement.
the stars indicate that the nation of Andoran is doomed as a Great Danish Prince is foreseen showing up and taking over the nation. This Great Danish Prince is known through out the multiverse as Scooby Doo.

oh and he is a Great Dane....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelfiredragon wrote:
uh oh.... the stars are in the alignment, cabbage and graystone are in agreement.

It IS one of the signs of the apocalypse.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pro-4 Corner Alignment Paladin and pro-Goblin PC...but I'm not for more Paladin options because LG Paladins have ever caused problems in a game of mine (they've been fine), I just like CG and don't think it's less Good than LG...which makes it not having champions weirdly imbalanced.

NG deities and the like do fine and can have either LG or CG champions in such a system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
As to falls, it's not always the fall that's an argument but the 'warning' of a fall that starts an argument when the player thinks the DM is being unfair or the DM think the player is trying to get away with something. If you play a game with anything close to morally grey, it's an issue.

It's a real problem with superhero games, too, where a lot of times they still demand PCs behave like Silver Age superheroes while putting them in Iron Age situations.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pro "corner paladins" and not anti-goblin, but then I've never even touched a Golarion book. My goblins are more 3.5 than PF, with a generous sprinkling of 2E's Birthright setting.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm in the "pro player choice" camp. Having a class restricted to one alignment is anti-player choice, anyone who wants to roleplay their Paladin in the old style absolutely could do som every one else has to wait for another class or archetype whose only difference is "Paladin but a different alignment." Removing a race that already has a great deal of work done on it is anti-player choice. For me it is that simple.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
I'm in the "pro player choice" camp. Having a class restricted to one alignment is anti-player choice, anyone who wants to roleplay their Paladin in the old style absolutely could do som every one else has to wait for another class or archetype whose only difference is "Paladin but a different alignment." Removing a race that already has a great deal of work done on it is anti-player choice. For me it is that simple.

I feel like im just one step off from that. I think I'm in the camp where I just want the name changed slightly for each extreme. something like paladin, anti paladin, crusader, and black guard. Maybe some slight differences in mechanics, but it won't break my heart if its not that way. As long as I can play the OG paladin still.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I'm in the "pro player choice" camp. Having a class restricted to one alignment is anti-player choice, anyone who wants to roleplay their Paladin in the old style absolutely could do som every one else has to wait for another class or archetype whose only difference is "Paladin but a different alignment." Removing a race that already has a great deal of work done on it is anti-player choice. For me it is that simple.
I feel like im just one step off from that. I think I'm in the camp where I just want the name changed slightly for each extreme. something like paladin, anti paladin, crusader, and black guard. Maybe some slight differences in mechanics, but it won't break my heart if its not that way. As long as I can play the OG paladin still.

I'd be totally fine with that. In the same way I'm totally fine with different niches of wizard being referred to as different name. If Paladin became Holy Warrior with a sidebar on how different alignments are generally referred to that isn't taking anyones options away,


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I'm in the "pro player choice" camp. Having a class restricted to one alignment is anti-player choice, anyone who wants to roleplay their Paladin in the old style absolutely could do som every one else has to wait for another class or archetype whose only difference is "Paladin but a different alignment." Removing a race that already has a great deal of work done on it is anti-player choice. For me it is that simple.
I feel like im just one step off from that. I think I'm in the camp where I just want the name changed slightly for each extreme. something like paladin, anti paladin, crusader, and black guard. Maybe some slight differences in mechanics, but it won't break my heart if its not that way. As long as I can play the OG paladin still.
I'd be totally fine with that. In the same way I'm totally fine with different niches of wizard being referred to as different name. If Paladin became Holy Warrior with a sidebar on how different alignments are generally referred to that isn't taking anyones options away,

Yeah I'd be down with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I’m in the ‘make the various alignment holy warriors be distinct’ camp. I want some significant differences in how a champion of Cayden Calien and Irori present.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Arssanguinus wrote:
I’m in the ‘make the various alignment holy warriors be distinct’ camp. I want some significant differences in how a champion of Cayden Calien and Irori present.

If they manage that in core then awesome! If not I'd rather have a Holy Warrior anyone can use out the gate, that they can then flesh out later .


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm of the opinion that variant "paladins" of other alignments should be part of the core. Players will want to play their holy champion, or [alignment] champion, etc. with supernatural abilities (i.e. not a Fighter) but without being a full spellcaster (i.e. not a Cleric). The PF2 core rules will have the original classes plus Alchemist. It took a year to get the Antipaladin (APG) and five years to get the Warpriest (ACG) - and the latter is still too much of a spellcaster for many people's taste.

People still seem to be hung up on the idea that a Paladin variant of an evil (or otherwise non-LG) alignment is an "evil Paladin". Just because it uses a lot of the same mechanics doesn't mean it's still a Paladin, nor does it make the LG Paladin retroactively cease to exist (as I've seen some people claim about 5e).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I'm in the "pro player choice" camp. Having a class restricted to one alignment is anti-player choice, anyone who wants to roleplay their Paladin in the old style absolutely could do som every one else has to wait for another class or archetype whose only difference is "Paladin but a different alignment." Removing a race that already has a great deal of work done on it is anti-player choice. For me it is that simple.
I feel like im just one step off from that. I think I'm in the camp where I just want the name changed slightly for each extreme. something like paladin, anti paladin, crusader, and black guard. Maybe some slight differences in mechanics, but it won't break my heart if its not that way. As long as I can play the OG paladin still.
I'd be totally fine with that. In the same way I'm totally fine with different niches of wizard being referred to as different name. If Paladin became Holy Warrior with a sidebar on how different alignments are generally referred to that isn't taking anyones options away,

While I'm indifferent on naming, and don't see a problem with an evil Paladin, your point about thinking in terms of specialist wizards is a good one. If it will make it more palatable to more people to have a core class chassis that gets a different name based on alignment, and maybe a couple extra abilities at certain levels like a wizard school or sorcerer bloodline, I'm fine with that.

I'd still ultimately rather see an oath based paladin, where the different abilities actually come from the different gods. So a paladin of Serenrae has a few different abilities from a paladin of Desna etc, just because of who the deity is and what the flavor of their sphere of influence is.

Since I'm all about decoupling Golarion flavor as much as possible, I'd maybe in this case actually tie Paladins to cleric domains. So a Paladin of Sun or Paladin of War will actually be what gets the specific abilities, with just a note that "in Golarion this domain is tied to deity X."


I have to say one of the way that Golarion lore differs most from my interpretation of Paladins is that Golarion Paladins have to be servants of whichever deity granted them their powers, instead of just "being such a good person that they get powers without having any idea where they came from." I prefer Paladins to not be associated with specific deities, churches, or religions being largely "above that" and being held to a higher standard.

I guess I could be appeased with an LG-only Oracle-esque Paladin whose powers are from a source not inclined to identify itself, one that is merely content if the Paladin goes out and does good works.


I will state - If Paizo continues to water down the game's flavor in order to allow greater "player choice" for PC creation as a default option... I may go elsewhere. I have strong views on the value of the setting's baked in flavor... While I can always do that at my home table - That becomes harder and harder to do the more watered down the core is.

It also would force me to deal with it at PFS which is an absolute no-go for me.

More and more I am feeling less and less enthusiastic about PF2.

Silver Crusade

HWalsh wrote:

I will state - If Paizo continues to water down the game's flavor in order to allow greater "player choice" for PC creation as a default option... I may go elsewhere. I have strong views on the value of the setting's baked in flavor... While I can always do that at my home table - That becomes harder and harder to do the more watered down the core is.

It also would force me to deal with it at PFS which is an absolute no-go for me.

More and more I am feeling less and less enthusiastic about PF2.

Remember that nothing has actually been said by paizo about paladins. All of the talk about them being changed in any way has come from requests and speculation by players on these forums.

It remains to be seen how they'll handle goblins. Presuming they do it well, the flavor of goblins won't be diluted, but expanded upon and rendered more diverse by in world events. Of course, they have the option of f****** this up, but they've hinted that they do at least intend to attempt something substantial.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I have to say one of the way that Golarion lore differs most from my interpretation of Paladins is that Golarion Paladins have to be servants of whichever deity granted them their powers, instead of just "being such a good person that they get powers without having any idea where they came from." I prefer Paladins to not be associated with specific deities, churches, or religions being largely "above that" and being held to a higher standard.

I guess I could be appeased with an LG-only Oracle-esque Paladin whose powers are from a source not inclined to identify itself, one that is merely content if the Paladin goes out and does good works.

Actually, this isn't true. Paladins are, canonically, powered by their own righteousness and need not have a deity at all. The same is true of Inquisitors and, indeed, every Class except Clerics.

A lot of people make this mistake because Pathfinder Society play does require Paladins to select a deity, but that's not actually canon for Golarion. Most Paladins do have deities, but it isn't a requirement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:

I will state - If Paizo continues to water down the game's flavor in order to allow greater "player choice" for PC creation as a default option... I may go elsewhere. I have strong views on the value of the setting's baked in flavor... While I can always do that at my home table - That becomes harder and harder to do the more watered down the core is.

It also would force me to deal with it at PFS which is an absolute no-go for me.

More and more I am feeling less and less enthusiastic about PF2.

I don't see how it is watering down. We already have ways to play "Paladin but different alignment." The only thing putting it in core is to let people do it without having to wait for the arbitrary restriction to go away through archetypes down the line. How on earth does it effect you that someone can play a proper Paladin of a non lg God. If anything it more fulfills the games flavour by letting people represent things that are in cannon already.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

I will state - If Paizo continues to water down the game's flavor in order to allow greater "player choice" for PC creation as a default option... I may go elsewhere. I have strong views on the value of the setting's baked in flavor... While I can always do that at my home table - That becomes harder and harder to do the more watered down the core is.

It also would force me to deal with it at PFS which is an absolute no-go for me.

More and more I am feeling less and less enthusiastic about PF2.

I don't see how it is watering down. We already have ways to play "Paladin but different alignment." The only thing putting it in core is to let people do it without having to wait for the arbitrary restriction to go away through archetypes down the line. How on earth does it effect you that someone can play a proper Paladin of a non lg God. If anything it more fulfills the games flavour by letting people represent things that are in cannon already.

It affects me because I have to interact with them. That is how it effects me. It effects me when I encounter them as it DOES affect my enjoyment of the game and lore. It makes the Paladin less special and unique.

Or, to quote Syndrome, "When everyone is super, nobody is."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

I will state - If Paizo continues to water down the game's flavor in order to allow greater "player choice" for PC creation as a default option... I may go elsewhere. I have strong views on the value of the setting's baked in flavor... While I can always do that at my home table - That becomes harder and harder to do the more watered down the core is.

It also would force me to deal with it at PFS which is an absolute no-go for me.

More and more I am feeling less and less enthusiastic about PF2.

I don't see how it is watering down. We already have ways to play "Paladin but different alignment." The only thing putting it in core is to let people do it without having to wait for the arbitrary restriction to go away through archetypes down the line. How on earth does it effect you that someone can play a proper Paladin of a non lg God. If anything it more fulfills the games flavour by letting people represent things that are in cannon already.

It affects me because I have to interact with them. That is how it effects me. It effects me when I encounter them as it DOES affect my enjoyment of the game and lore. It makes the Paladin less special and unique.

Or, to quote Syndrome, "When everyone is super, nobody is."

When all the lights are on, is the room dark?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

I will state - If Paizo continues to water down the game's flavor in order to allow greater "player choice" for PC creation as a default option... I may go elsewhere. I have strong views on the value of the setting's baked in flavor... While I can always do that at my home table - That becomes harder and harder to do the more watered down the core is.

It also would force me to deal with it at PFS which is an absolute no-go for me.

More and more I am feeling less and less enthusiastic about PF2.

I don't see how it is watering down. We already have ways to play "Paladin but different alignment." The only thing putting it in core is to let people do it without having to wait for the arbitrary restriction to go away through archetypes down the line. How on earth does it effect you that someone can play a proper Paladin of a non lg God. If anything it more fulfills the games flavour by letting people represent things that are in cannon already.

It affects me because I have to interact with them. That is how it effects me. It effects me when I encounter them as it DOES affect my enjoyment of the game and lore. It makes the Paladin less special and unique.

Or, to quote Syndrome, "When everyone is super, nobody is."

Awesome. I also think anything that I don't personally enjoy shouldn't be allowed in the game in case I have to interact with it. Lets reduce every ones ability to play what they like just because you don't like certain variants. Despite the fact they exist already.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

I will state - If Paizo continues to water down the game's flavor in order to allow greater "player choice" for PC creation as a default option... I may go elsewhere. I have strong views on the value of the setting's baked in flavor... While I can always do that at my home table - That becomes harder and harder to do the more watered down the core is.

It also would force me to deal with it at PFS which is an absolute no-go for me.

More and more I am feeling less and less enthusiastic about PF2.

I don't see how it is watering down. We already have ways to play "Paladin but different alignment." The only thing putting it in core is to let people do it without having to wait for the arbitrary restriction to go away through archetypes down the line. How on earth does it effect you that someone can play a proper Paladin of a non lg God. If anything it more fulfills the games flavour by letting people represent things that are in cannon already.

It affects me because I have to interact with them. That is how it effects me. It effects me when I encounter them as it DOES affect my enjoyment of the game and lore. It makes the Paladin less special and unique.

Or, to quote Syndrome, "When everyone is super, nobody is."

Awesome. I also think anything that I don't personally enjoy shouldn't be allowed in the game in case I have to interact with it. Lets reduce every ones ability to play what they like just because you don't like certain variants. Despite the fact they exist already.

Don't bother, this is a hill HWalsh is willing to die on.

Ontopic, I don't mind goblins, although what was fun about paizo version is that they are unplayable in standard heroic campaigns, and that normalizing is loosing part of that fun. Also, my favorite hobgobs are jealous. On paladin, I like them LG only although would wanted them opened up for other alignments (mostly because non-compatibility of me and my GM in alignment issues). Would be ok if core is LG, but we get all extreme alignment in sequel book (IMO, paladins will stay LG as I believe that is James Jacobs' pet cow he doesn't want to turn into veal).

51 to 100 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Chaotic Good Goblin Paladins As Core All Messageboards