On setting and flavor - Why I oppose some "player choice" options in the core.

[Zhayne]

dragonhunterq wrote:

It is much easier for a GM to relax a restriction than to impose one (in general). I'd much rather keep paladins LG.

I have to disagree with this. In the paladin example, it means some fairly significant restructuring of the class. On the other hand, if all-alignment paladins exist, it's easy as pie to just say 'LG only'.

[willuwontu]

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

Frankly, I think the number of people who actually dislike playing Lawful Good characters in the way you describe is miniscule. I think far more people have never played one, and somehow have it in their head that they can't.

My evidence for this is that people who want to make chaotic good paladins a thing often talk about it as though it were an act of inclusion, like there's some class of lawful good challenged people finally being allowed to indulge in one of the game's classes from which they had previously been unfairly excluded, like this were the equivalent of building a wheelchair ramp.

In reality, these people would get along just fine playing lawful good if they just tried it. But they're scared too, and have it in their heads that they can't, so they think the game is outlawing them from playing a paladin by requiring them to be lawful good in order to do it.

This is a hang up I would have had if I hadn't had to try out a lawful good character in order to play a paladin. I discovered my favorite class and favorite character is a result. If you get what you want, and someone like me joins the game in two years, they'll be cheated out of a great experience.

I can't disagree with the idea that LG is playable and very few can't play it, nor that people aren't being unfairly excluded from playing it. The thing is that there are those who can't (granted I've met only a couple in my years of playing), and opening it up doesn't hurt existing paladin players while including others (oh look it's the inclusive arguement, I'm sorry, but it's still true). Excluding other alignments only limits the players who can (or want to) play it, it's a shallow-ish argument (I accept that), but a true one none the less.

Having to force a player to play some way in order to learn to like it is not a healthy thing from a game design perspective. If you could only build a fighter a certain way when you were playing it, it wouldn't be as fun (granted that's not the same thing, just a similar idea.) It might be fun the first couple times round, but when you want to play a fighter again and have to play it in the same darned way, it wears down on you as loses its fun for you. (No, I'm not claiming every paladin is the same, I'm saying limiting playstyles is inherently limiting the people who can have fun with it. And I can't phrase this properly, and are continuing to type for no reason.)

Honestly my real opinion is paladin should become a prestige class, but that's not going to happen. (Not to mention the outrage it would generate, heh, and I thought the goblin debate was annoyingly bad.)

[HWalsh]

willuwontu wrote:

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

Frankly, I think the number of people who actually dislike playing Lawful Good characters in the way you describe is miniscule. I think far more people have never played one, and somehow have it in their head that they can't.

My evidence for this is that people who want to make chaotic good paladins a thing often talk about it as though it were an act of inclusion, like there's some class of lawful good challenged people finally being allowed to indulge in one of the game's classes from which they had previously been unfairly excluded, like this were the equivalent of building a wheelchair ramp.

In reality, these people would get along just fine playing lawful good if they just tried it. But they're scared too, and have it in their heads that they can't, so they think the game is outlawing them from playing a paladin by requiring them to be lawful good in order to do it.

This is a hang up I would have had if I hadn't had to try out a lawful good character in order to play a paladin. I discovered my favorite class and favorite character is a result. If you get what you want, and someone like me joins the game in two years, they'll be cheated out of a great experience.

I can't disagree with the idea that LG is playable and very few can't play it, nor that people aren't being unfairly excluded from playing it. The thing is that there are those who can't (granted I've met only a couple in my years of playing), and opening it up doesn't hurt existing paladin players while including others (oh look it's the inclusive arguement, I'm sorry, but it's still true). Excluding other alignments only limits the players who can (or want to) play it, it's a shallow-ish argument (I accept that), but a true one none the less.

Having to force a player to play some way in order to learn to like it is not a healthy thing from a game design perspective. If you could only build a fighter a certain way when you were playing it, it wouldn't be as fun (granted that's not the same thing,...

Opening it up DOES hurt other people. Stop saying it doesn't.

It *does* hurt me. I physically have no interest in playing Paladins in a game where they *DON'T* have that restriction.

You know those "mythical" gamers who physically feel ill if they try to play a Lawful Good player? I'm a gamer who physically feels ill when I play a class called PALADIN that doesn't adhere to the precepts of being a Paladin.

I've played a Paladin in every game that offered them. Paladins in AD&D 2nd Edition, Paladins in 3.0, 3.5, Palladins in Palladium Fantasy, Paladins in Forged, Paladins in Pathfinder...

Guess which ones I couldn't bring myself to play?

Paladins in 4th Edition.
Paladins in 5th Edition.

Why? They aren't Paladins. I don't feel comfortable playing them.

So yeah. I lose something. My favorite class. You take that away from me.

I know *my* Paladin could be Lawful Good, but the Paladin Order no longer is Lawful Good - They aren't Paladins. It actually feels WRONG to me. Literally and completely I can't do it. I would physically get sick.

[A Ninja Errant]

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

A Ninja Errant wrote:

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

My evidence for this is that people who want to make chaotic good paladins a thing often talk about it as though it were an act of inclusion, like there's some class of lawful good challenged people finally being allowed to indulge in one of the game's classes from which they had previously been unfairly excluded, like this were the equivalent of building a wheelchair ramp.

I've played LG, I've played Paladins. It's fun in its own way, but CG is more my style. I don't see why I can't be a CG Holy Crusader of say Milani. Granted Warpriest fills that role, but how long did it take for us to get a class that does? Besides the Warpriest is basically a redesigned Paladin that doesn't have to be LG. So why not make Warpriest default and call the Paladin what it should be: a subclass of Warpriest.

You should, but that class should be flavored around subterfuge, protection, and subversion of more powerful forces. The lawful good Paladin we have is flavored around supporting one's allies, taking blows for them, and healing.

The essence of chaotic good is just more like a rogue than a tank. A chaotic good Rogue/Paladin hybrid would be a wonderful thing that I would love to see in the game.

While I don't completely agree that a CG Paladin should be more Rogue-like by default, I will 100% agree that a CG Rogue/Paladin hybrid class sounds like fun to play.

[kyrt-ryder]

Walsh, how does it hurt you if the Paladin remains everything you want it to be, but the chassis is used to create a 9 branched Class like the wizard.

Paladins get to be exclusively shining beacons of Lawful Good, but Pathfinder gets more characters from a small amount more wordcount (Perhaps double)

[Fuzzypaws]

Milo v3 wrote:

I don't really like your distinctions for Narrative gamer etc. since I don't think they're very accurate in this circumstance. I'd be counted as a Narrative-Gamer by your definition, but because I dislike Golarion and use homebrew settings of my own creation, my desire for how 2e goes would be an "Agency-Gamer" because I want to be able to do my Narrative-Gamer style stuff but find setting-specific material makes that more difficult.

Regardless, Paizo are the ones who own the setting and narrative of Pathfinder, if they put options in Core which can do a thing, then that thing is a thing in the setting. Narrative gamers aren't suffering in anyway if something they dislike gets put into the setting, because ... that just means they're disliking some aspects of the setting.

This is also the case with me. I'm not a player. I'm the GM, and I virtually always make my own settings. I don't give a flying fig what is in flavor for the schizophrenic Golarion setting that can barely be said to have a flavor anyway. I want those options in the rules because they WOULD be in flavor in my own world... Or even if I play an old D&D setting like Planescape.

[Browman]

If Paladin stays restricted to LG it probably shouldn't be in the CRB. Core classes should be broad ideas that can fit many character concepts, not really narrow ones that put lots of restrictions on you options, keep those classes for later supplements.

[ThePuppyTurtle]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Walsh, how does it hurt you if the Paladin remains everything you want it to be, but the chassis is used to create a 9 branched Class like the wizard.

Paladins get to be exclusively shining beacons of Lawful Good, but Pathfinder gets more characters from a small amount more wordcount (Perhaps double)

I'm not Walsh, but your earlier comment about Wizards did Revitalize my belief that 9 substantially different classes could be made.

Here's how I might approach it: everyone detects and smites something opposed to what they are. Everyone gets divine grace, Divine health, and divine Bond. Each of the four alignment components, that is, good, evil, chaotic, lawful, comes with a set of abilities. Lawful Paladin's get the auras, good Paladin's get lay on hands and it's family of abilities, chaotic paladins get abilities that compliment the idea that they're agile and good at avoiding hits, and evil Paladin's get debuff abilities.

Weakening your opponent's hits is a way of being a tank, and being agile can be as valid as being heavily armored, so everyone gets to be a tank. the four kinds of holy Warrior still play significantly differently, and have different flavor. Each of them is getting rewards that only they could have gotten by behaving the way that they do.

[Heather 540]

That sounds pretty neat.

[Tarik Blackhands]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Walsh, how does it hurt you if the Paladin remains everything you want it to be, but the chassis is used to create a 9 branched Class like the wizard.

Paladins get to be exclusively shining beacons of Lawful Good, but Pathfinder gets more characters from a small amount more wordcount (Perhaps double)

I'm not Walsh but I'll try to offer an explanation.

Essentially, Paladins as a (largely) exclusive champion of LG is a part of the flavor that goes with Pathfinder/Golarion and some people happen to like that particular flavor for whatever reason. Tossing in 7 (lets presume archtypeless anti-pals are still around for dastardly bad guys) other versions can be viewed as watering down the class's/world's flavor just to put a few checkmarks on some nebulous "player options!" box.

If I had to think of a similar version that resonates more with me (since I care little about Golarion, let alone it's version Paladins), it would probably be like someone having a game of Dark Heresy where suddenly every class could just pick up Mechanicus Implants and their associated talents rather than it being exclusive to tech-priests and their affiliated alternates. Does it offer more options to people who wanted a Sororita with cogboy implants (to pick the most ludicrous example off the top of my head)? Sure. But it certainly takes a hatchet to the background and setting's (Warhammer 40k) flavor that many players (me included) would view as not worth the trade compared to adding a few options for players.

[dragonhunterq]

If, and it's a big if, they feel that they need a 'paladin' for every alignment please by all that they hold holy don't just 'anti-paladin' it. That freak show was just lazy design. You don't just reverse everything and call it done. It was ugly as all hell. Even if I was minded to allow an evil paladin I wouldn't use that as the chassis. There is nothing wrong with replacing smite with sneak attack for instance, it is far more thematic.

[A Ninja Errant]

HWalsh wrote:

I know *my* Paladin could be Lawful Good, but the Paladin Order no longer is Lawful Good - They aren't Paladins. It actually feels WRONG to me. Literally and completely I can't do it. I would physically get sick.

A LG Paladin would, pretty much of necessity, belong to a LG Paladin order, that takes LG-type vows. You don't just go Paladin-ing about with people who aren't wholeheartedly onboard with your particular vows of Paladin-ing. The only difference is now there are other Paladin orders that have a different take on Paladin-ing than your order. Some you might tentatively ally with (NG, LN), some you might dislike but leave alone(CG,TN) others might be active enemies of your order (CN, any Evil). It opens up a lot of narrative space that has previously been closed off for no real good reason. Besides non-LG Paladins are already in PF1. They just called them Warpriests. It makes better logical sense for the Warpriest to be the main class, with Paladin a specific LG subclass of that. Would it help if only LG Warpriest orders use the name Paladin?

[willuwontu]

HWalsh wrote:

Opening it up DOES hurt other people. Stop saying it doesn't.

It *does* hurt me. I physically have no interest in playing Paladins in a game where they *DON'T* have that restriction.

You know those "mythical" gamers who physically feel ill if they try to play a Lawful Good player? I'm a gamer who physically feels ill when I play a class called PALADIN that doesn't adhere to the precepts of being a Paladin.

I've played a Paladin in every game that offered them. Paladins in AD&D 2nd Edition, Paladins in 3.0, 3.5, Palladins in Palladium Fantasy, Paladins in Forged, Paladins in Pathfinder...

Guess which ones I couldn't bring myself to play?

Paladins in 4th Edition.
Paladins in 5th Edition.

Why? They aren't Paladins. I don't feel comfortable playing them.

So yeah. I lose something. My favorite class. You take that away from me.

I know *my* Paladin could be Lawful Good, but the Paladin Order no longer is Lawful Good - They aren't Paladins. It actually feels WRONG to me. Literally and completely I can't do it. I would physically get sick.

Except it doesn't hurt you, you can still play the LG paladin, you still have the oath. You literally lose nothing except the ability to stick your nose up at other players and go "I'm playing a paladin, so I'm better than you." (Which you shouldn't be doing in the first place.)

If you really insist that it should remain LG, then as others have noted maybe it should be removed from Core, or as I noted earlier, moved to become a Prestige class (which are noted for being gated to enter into and having requirements to take and maintain.)

[Revan]

HWalsh, To paraphrase what you said in another thread to one of those very 'mythical' gamers: that sounds like a condition worth seeking professional help for.

[Browman]

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Walsh, how does it hurt you if the Paladin remains everything you want it to be, but the chassis is used to create a 9 branched Class like the wizard.

Paladins get to be exclusively shining beacons of Lawful Good, but Pathfinder gets more characters from a small amount more wordcount (Perhaps double)

I'm not Walsh but I'll try to offer an explanation.

Essentially, Paladins as a (largely) exclusive champion of LG is a part of the flavor that goes with Pathfinder/Golarion and some people happen to like that particular flavor for whatever reason. Tossing in 7 (lets presume archtypeless anti-pals are still around for dastardly bad guys) other versions can be viewed as watering down the class's/world's flavor just to put a few checkmarks on some nebulous "player options!" box.

If I had to think of a similar version that resonates more with me (since I care little about Golarion, let alone it's version Paladins), it would probably be like someone having a game of Dark Heresy where suddenly every class could just pick up Mechanicus Implants and their associated talents rather than it being exclusive to tech-priests and their affiliated alternates. Does it offer more options to people who wanted a Sororita with cogboy implants (to pick the most ludicrous example off the top of my head)? Sure. But it certainly takes a hatchet to the background and setting's (Warhammer 40k) flavor that many players (me included) would view as not worth the trade compared to adding a few options for players.

That argument might make sense if Pathfinder was designed solely for Golarion like Dark Heresy is for 40k. But currently pathfinder is not Golarion specific and it should stay setting neutral in the core book.

[A Agent of the Inquisition]

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Walsh, how does it hurt you if the Paladin remains everything you want it to be, but the chassis is used to create a 9 branched Class like the wizard.

Paladins get to be exclusively shining beacons of Lawful Good, but Pathfinder gets more characters from a small amount more wordcount (Perhaps double)

I'm not Walsh but I'll try to offer an explanation.

Essentially, Paladins as a (largely) exclusive champion of LG is a part of the flavor that goes with Pathfinder/Golarion and some people happen to like that particular flavor for whatever reason. Tossing in 7 (lets presume archtypeless anti-pals are still around for dastardly bad guys) other versions can be viewed as watering down the class's/world's flavor just to put a few checkmarks on some nebulous "player options!" box.

If I had to think of a similar version that resonates more with me (since I care little about Golarion, let alone it's version Paladins), it would probably be like someone having a game of Dark Heresy where suddenly every class could just pick up Mechanicus Implants and their associated talents rather than it being exclusive to tech-priests and their affiliated alternates. Does it offer more options to people who wanted a Sororita with cogboy implants (to pick the most ludicrous example off the top of my head)? Sure. But it certainly takes a hatchet to the background and setting's (Warhammer 40k) flavor that many players (me included) would view as not worth the trade compared to adding a few options for players.

I seem to remember something close being possible with the right alternative rank(s) + a mechadendrite + an external/internal power source = fake tech-priest :P

[Mosaic]

This whole deate about if goblins should be a core race or not demonstrates why the CRB should be world-neutral. There is absolutely not mechanical reason why go like a couldn’t be a fun small-race alternative to gnomes and halflings. So go ahead and include them in the CRB if that makes people happy. But in Golarion, the flavor and history and lore makes goblins crazy evil, and therefore inappropriate for cannon and/or society games. Home games...that’s up to the GM and players. Keeping the CRB setting-neutral solves the whole issue.

[Tarik Blackhands]

Browman wrote:

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Walsh, how does it hurt you if the Paladin remains everything you want it to be, but the chassis is used to create a 9 branched Class like the wizard.

Paladins get to be exclusively shining beacons of Lawful Good, but Pathfinder gets more characters from a small amount more wordcount (Perhaps double)

I'm not Walsh but I'll try to offer an explanation.

Essentially, Paladins as a (largely) exclusive champion of LG is a part of the flavor that goes with Pathfinder/Golarion and some people happen to like that particular flavor for whatever reason. Tossing in 7 (lets presume archtypeless anti-pals are still around for dastardly bad guys) other versions can be viewed as watering down the class's/world's flavor just to put a few checkmarks on some nebulous "player options!" box.

If I had to think of a similar version that resonates more with me (since I care little about Golarion, let alone it's version Paladins), it would probably be like someone having a game of Dark Heresy where suddenly every class could just pick up Mechanicus Implants and their associated talents rather than it being exclusive to tech-priests and their affiliated alternates. Does it offer more options to people who wanted a Sororita with cogboy implants (to pick the most ludicrous example off the top of my head)? Sure. But it certainly takes a hatchet to the background and setting's (Warhammer 40k) flavor that many players (me included) would view as not worth the trade compared to adding a few options for players.

That argument might make sense if Pathfinder was designed solely for Golarion like Dark Heresy is for 40k. But currently pathfinder is not Golarion specific and it should stay setting neutral in the core book.

1.0 may have been more (anyone who says totally I will call a liar) setting neutral, but times are changing and the devs are pretty locked into PF2 being more tied to Golarion. The exact extent of how tied it is is anyone's guess, but it's certainly going at least more in the direction I'm referring to than to something like GURPS.

[Zhayne]

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

1.0 may have been more (anyone who says totally I will call a liar) setting neutral, but times are changing and the devs are pretty locked into PF2 being more tied to Golarion.

Hopefully, they'll realize what a colossal mistake this is very soon.

[Tarik Blackhands]

A Agent of the Inquisition wrote:

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Walsh, how does it hurt you if the Paladin remains everything you want it to be, but the chassis is used to create a 9 branched Class like the wizard.

Paladins get to be exclusively shining beacons of Lawful Good, but Pathfinder gets more characters from a small amount more wordcount (Perhaps double)

I'm not Walsh but I'll try to offer an explanation.

Essentially, Paladins as a (largely) exclusive champion of LG is a part of the flavor that goes with Pathfinder/Golarion and some people happen to like that particular flavor for whatever reason. Tossing in 7 (lets presume archtypeless anti-pals are still around for dastardly bad guys) other versions can be viewed as watering down the class's/world's flavor just to put a few checkmarks on some nebulous "player options!" box.

If I had to think of a similar version that resonates more with me (since I care little about Golarion, let alone it's version Paladins), it would probably be like someone having a game of Dark Heresy where suddenly every class could just pick up Mechanicus Implants and their associated talents rather than it being exclusive to tech-priests and their affiliated alternates. Does it offer more options to people who wanted a Sororita with cogboy implants (to pick the most ludicrous example off the top of my head)? Sure. But it certainly takes a hatchet to the background and setting's (Warhammer 40k) flavor that many players (me included) would view as not worth the trade compared to adding a few options for players.

I seem to remember something close being possible with the right alternative rank(s) + a mechadendrite + an external/internal power source = fake tech-priest :P

It's been ages since I've reviewed the backlog of splats, but near as I recall, there wasn't any way to get the proper Ad Mech Implants trait without being either a Cogboy or an alternate career that tied you to the organization (IE Crimson Guard Guardsmen, I remember those OP jerks...). Same applies to dendrite training. I guess your GM could be hideously generous with elite advances, but beyond that...

Edit: Okay, maybe you can count some of the completely nutso Radical stuff but that's tying you to it's own kettle of fish flavor wise (like Maltek Stalkers and the Phaeonites respectively).

[Browman]

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Browman wrote:

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Walsh, how does it hurt you if the Paladin remains everything you want it to be, but the chassis is used to create a 9 branched Class like the wizard.

Paladins get to be exclusively shining beacons of Lawful Good, but Pathfinder gets more characters from a small amount more wordcount (Perhaps double)

I'm not Walsh but I'll try to offer an explanation.

Essentially, Paladins as a (largely) exclusive champion of LG is a part of the flavor that goes with Pathfinder/Golarion and some people happen to like that particular flavor for whatever reason. Tossing in 7 (lets presume archtypeless anti-pals are still around for dastardly bad guys) other versions can be viewed as watering down the class's/world's flavor just to put a few checkmarks on some nebulous "player options!" box.

If I had to think of a similar version that resonates more with me (since I care little about Golarion, let alone it's version Paladins), it would probably be like someone having a game of Dark Heresy where suddenly every class could just pick up Mechanicus Implants and their associated talents rather than it being exclusive to tech-priests and their affiliated alternates. Does it offer more options to people who wanted a Sororita with cogboy implants (to pick the most ludicrous example off the top of my head)? Sure. But it certainly takes a hatchet to the background and setting's (Warhammer 40k) flavor that many players (me included) would view as not worth the trade compared to adding a few options for players.

That argument might make sense if Pathfinder was designed solely for Golarion like Dark Heresy is for 40k. But currently pathfinder is not Golarion specific and it should stay setting neutral in the core book.

1.0 may have been more (anyone who says totally I will call a liar) setting neutral, but times are changing and the devs are pretty locked into PF2 being more tied to Golarion. The exact extent of how tied it is...

That seems like a good way to limit growth of the game, Golarion is not a setting for everyone.

[HWalsh]

Revan wrote:

HWalsh, To paraphrase what you said in another thread to one of those very 'mythical' gamers: that sounds like a condition worth seeking professional help for.

Not really - Mine isn't a psychological issue, it is simply an issue of the following:

"I won't play it."

Simple as that. I'll find another game. There were games before Pathfinder, there will be games after Pathfinder. You're the one asking to change something to suit you, I'm only asking things to be kept as they are.

[willuwontu]

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

I'm not Walsh, but your earlier comment about Wizards did Revitalize my belief that 9 substantially different classes could be made.

Here's how I might approach it: everyone detects and smites something opposed to what they are. Everyone gets divine grace, Divine health, and divine Bond. Each of the four alignment components, that is, good, evil, chaotic, lawful, comes with a set of abilities. Lawful Paladin's get the auras, good Paladin's get lay on hands and it's family of abilities, chaotic paladins get abilities that compliment the idea that they're agile and good at avoiding hits, and evil Paladin's get debuff abilities.

Weakening your opponent's hits is a way of being a tank, and being agile can be as valid as being heavily armored, so everyone gets to be a tank. the four kinds of holy Warrior still play significantly differently, and have different flavor. Each of them is getting rewards that only they could have gotten by behaving the way that they do.

This is actually all I'd want, having a different alignment should have different abilities and oath for that alignment.

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

kyrt-ryder wrote:

With all due respect to Walsh and Turtle, there is only so much available word count in the crb. Even the Barbarian, with his former 'non lawful' limitation and access to six of nine alignments is too limited for the crb, let alone the Paladin.

Feh. We are going to have twelve core character classes, I believe; that's space enough to have one limited to each alignment with three left over.

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

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Note that a necromancer and illusionist have massive overlap in abilities, yet they still play very differently.

Some of us see this as a bug.

[Tarik Blackhands]

Browman wrote:

stuff about Golarion limiting growth, snipped for brevity

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. RPGs tied to particular settings and infused with fitting mechanics have worked in the past just as general universe stuff have. Even then, Golarion as a complete kitchen sink setting of general high fantasy tropes will invariably be easier to strip of flavor than taking the 40k out of DH or the Rokugan out of Legend of the Five Rings or similar if you ask me.

[NielsenE]

To me, part of the class balance is the alignment restriction. LG is probably the strictest alignment. If you want Paladin abilities, that's the trade off. A non-LG "Paladin" would need to either have weaker abilities or some form of further limiting code than what their alignment alone would provide. -- Its not just a matter of "flipping" all alignment based abilities and changing cure<->inflict style flavor.

I can envision a game with especially dedicated holy warriors for all aignments. They aren't Paladins, they aren't reskinned paladins. Id be sad, but OK if Paladins were dropped from Core and the 9 special holy warriors were added later, assuming all got their own treatment. They are full featured classes, IMO to be done right, not archetypes, or "domain" flavors of warpriest.

[HWalsh]

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

kyrt-ryder wrote:

With all due respect to Walsh and Turtle, there is only so much available word count in the crb. Even the Barbarian, with his former 'non lawful' limitation and access to six of nine alignments is too limited for the crb, let alone the Paladin.

Feh. We are going to have twelve core character classes, I believe; that's space enough to have one limited to each alignment with three left over.

Less than 60 words shouldn't make or break the CRB.

Alignment: Lawful Good

A Paladin draws their powers from the elemental forces of law and goodness, as such must retain a Lawful Good alignment. If they ever willingly commit an evil act, or their alignment changes, they lose access to their powers and class abilities until they receive an atonement spell and regain their Lawful Good alignment.

[Mosaic]

As for paladins of any alignment... LG paladins are pretty iconic, goi g all the way back to 1E. I don’t love the idea of paladins s of every alignment, but i couple see “champions,” with the paladin being the champion of LG.

And, per my post about goblins and the CRB being setting-neutral, champions would allow home games and 3rd party publishers to tell lots of stories however they want, and then Paizo can make whatever choices and restrictions it wants about Golarion, like only including LG campions (paladins) and CE champions (antipaladins). But the core rules should enable, not limit, the stories people can tell, and different worlds with different sets of assumptions should give us different playgrounds to play in.

[dragonhunterq]

Mosaic wrote:

This whole deate about if goblins should be a core race or not demonstrates why the CRB should be world-neutral. There is absolutely not mechanical reason why go like a couldn’t be a fun small-race alternative to gnomes and halflings. So go ahead and include them in the CRB if that makes people happy. But in Golarion, the flavor and history and lore makes goblins crazy evil, and therefore inappropriate for cannon and/or society games. Home games...that’s up to the GM and players. Keeping the CRB setting-neutral solves the whole issue.

This, all of my objections to goblins revolve solely around the lore. Setting neutral goblins as PC I could totally get behind. Golarion goblins though, hell no!

[Zhayne]

NielsenE wrote:

To me, part of the class balance is the alignment restriction.

Roleplaying in no way serves as any kind of balancing effect, because it's purely subjective. Note how many threads come up asking whether or not a paladin should get hosed, and that there's never any real consensus? That's why it doesn't work as a balancer, because you may or may not be able to get away with things depending on the GM's view on things. (See: Baby Goblin Slaughter threat #58392).

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

Browman wrote:

That seems like a good way to limit growth of the game, Golarion is not a setting for everyone.

The thing I have always found most appealing about Golarion as a setting is how much variety it supports; I have difficulty seeing how it would be possible for any setting to offer locations and settings supportive of so many different genres of adventure and ways of having fun within a D&D-type chassis to exist. I'm not in sympathy with the complaint that having that many places with such different social setups in close proximity limits plausibility or makes the setting as a whole characterless, because pretty much every adventure or other Paizo product I have read looking closely at some piece of the setting (which I willingly concede is not all of them) makes that bit of setting work solidly enough for me. Sometimes it takes in-world intervention of superhuman powers to make it so, but that is what one gets in a world teeming with superhuman powers.

[kyrt-ryder]

HWalsh wrote:

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

kyrt-ryder wrote:

With all due respect to Walsh and Turtle, there is only so much available word count in the crb. Even the Barbarian, with his former 'non lawful' limitation and access to six of nine alignments is too limited for the crb, let alone the Paladin.

Feh. We are going to have twelve core character classes, I believe; that's space enough to have one limited to each alignment with three left over.

Less than 60 words shouldn't make or break the CRB.

Alignment: Lawful Good

A Paladin draws their powers from the elemental forces of law and goodness, as such must retain a Lawful Good alignment. If they ever willingly commit an evil act, or their alignment changes, they lose access to their powers and class abilities until they receive an atonement spell and regain their Lawful Good alignment.

You're ignoring the thousands of words for the waste of space that is an entire class only available to one of nine alignments.

PF2 will be better off without Paladins than with an entire core class that can only have one alignment. Or three for that matter.

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

Zhayne wrote:

NielsenE wrote:

To me, part of the class balance is the alignment restriction.

Roleplaying in no way serves as any kind of balancing effect, because it's purely subjective. Note how many threads come up asking whether or not a paladin should get hosed, and that there's never any real consensus? That's why it doesn't work as a balancer, because you may or may not be able to get away with things depending on the GM's view on things. (See: Baby Goblin Slaughter threat #58392).

I've yet to see a single example of that that could not be avoided, among people of goodwill, by a reasonable discussion of expectations and confirming that everyone is on the same page, which seems as much an inherent part of set-up as all the other checking that everyone is on the same page about expectations of tone and genre that session 0 is for. So I would argue that roleplaying can be entirely balanced if people communicate reasonably well in advance.

(Not playing with people of goodwill is a different scale of problem, but not one that changing how paladins work will fix; someone setting out to be a jerk can do so under any ruleset.)

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

kyrt-ryder wrote:

PF2 will be better off without Paladins than with an entire core class that can only have one alignment. Or three for that matter.

I wasn't being sarcastic above, fwiw. I am very much in favour of all core classes being limited to few alignments or even single ones. I could get behind wizards being limited to Lawful, for example, because I don't believe in the classic scholarly-wizard archetype being any less work to attain, in-world, than an advanced degree is in RL, and that requires enough self-discipline to commit to and carry out projects on a scale of multiple years.

[TarkXT]

Mosaic wrote:

Keeping the CRB setting-neutral solves the whole issue.

Or you know, just advancing the setting.

The headache for me is everyone's endless griping.

Personally I'd prefer the class be called something like "Templar" and paladin is an option in it. A fighting style, an order, whatever. If that makes someone like HWalsh leave that's fine. As someone else will come in excited to to try their CG Templar of Desna and another may come in running their NG Crusader of Sarenrae. Same class, different sorts of abilities. Less headache for me as I'm looking at one entry rather than like, 10. Better game overall.

[Ilina Aniri]

The Only Difference between a Hellknight and a Paladin is literally what they write on the upper left corner of their character sheet and Hellknight was literally designed to get around the Lawful Good Requirement of Paladins and there was also the enlightened knight trait.

removing the alignment restriction on the base paladin means you don't have to write 9 different classes worth of copy pasted word count for what you could do with one.

[A Ninja Errant]

NielsenE wrote:

To me, part of the class balance is the alignment restriction. LG is probably the strictest alignment. If you want Paladin abilities, that's the trade off. A non-LG "Paladin" would need to either have weaker abilities or some form of further limiting code than what their alignment alone would provide.

Not true, because

A. Roleplay restrictions are bad balancers, and
B. LG isn't actually all that restrictive unless you're a Paladin and have to take it to the extreme degree (which reasonably Paladins of other alignments would have to do too.) and
C. Paladins aren't actually particularly powerful.
They're tier 3 or 4. About on par with Barbarian and Ranger. They're generally more powerful than Fighters or Rogues, but that's no great accomplishment (and a fallen Paladin is less good than a Fighter.) Clerics easily blow them out of the water, and don't have a hard-coded code of conduct to keep their powers. IF they worship a deity, the deity can cut them off if it wants, but they don't have to worship a deity, and it wouldn't be super hard to convert to a new one of that happened.
EDIT: Basically what I'm saying is Paladin abilities really aren't balanced around the role-play restriction, that's literally just there for flavor.

[thflame]

HWalsh wrote:

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

kyrt-ryder wrote:

With all due respect to Walsh and Turtle, there is only so much available word count in the crb. Even the Barbarian, with his former 'non lawful' limitation and access to six of nine alignments is too limited for the crb, let alone the Paladin.

Feh. We are going to have twelve core character classes, I believe; that's space enough to have one limited to each alignment with three left over.

Less than 60 words shouldn't make or break the CRB.

Alignment: Lawful Good

A Paladin draws their powers from the elemental forces of law and goodness, as such must retain a Lawful Good alignment. If they ever willingly commit an evil act, or their alignment changes, they lose access to their powers and class abilities until they receive an atonement spell and regain their Lawful Good alignment.

What's the class that gets its powers from the elemental forces of Chaos and Evil? Law and Evil? Good and Chaos? Just Good? Just Law? Just Evil? Just Chaos? Utter Neutrality?

You see the problem here? There are people who want to play a class like Paladin, but want to get their power from another source.

I don't care if the name "Paladin" is reserved for the LG version of this, but there really should be a version of this for every alignment, or a lore explanation as to why only the elemental forces of Law and Good, while working in tandem, can create a being like the Paladin.