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


Prerelease Discussion

151 to 200 of 407 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So can we just water down that the main issue with Paladin is that its closely tied to a obsolete system like alignment? more often than not i found its easier to change the alignment of a character than to teach a player how to alignment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Revan wrote:
"You can play what you want and I can play what I want," is a compromise on it's face. More specifically, we're prepared to give up the specific name 'Paladin' and have certain mechanical differences in exchange for being able to use the mechanical chassis overall on a Chaotic Good character. That's a compromise. We give up part of what we want, you give up part of what you want, but we both get something out of it.

I think basically all the traditional-paladin advocates are fine with something like that. Wires just get crossed and misunderstandings happen with the times when the point is overstated into "...and besides, you're wrongity wrong wrong and CG paladins wouldn't hurt anything, get over your sacred cow" because then people have to defend their own perspective when they would have otherwise agreed. I'd be happy with a compromise like that; it just needs to be one that leaves the default/assumed/most common use of "paladin" to mean something that acts like a standard paladin.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just wanted to say that I like the name choice Kaladin Stormblessed. Now I feel I need a Dalinar alias...


Kaladin_Stormblessed wrote:

I'd be happy with a compromise like that; it just needs to be one that leaves the default/assumed/most common use of "paladin" to mean something that acts like a standard paladin.

I am A-OK with it as well. I just want the Holy Liberator, Avenger, and Hospitaler (at least) to be core classes, with mechanics similar to the Paladin-- smite, lay on hands, and divine grace, with spell lists and auras and whatnot tailored to their Oaths.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Morality is honestly a spectrum, and the fact that in D&D/PF it is boiled down to 9 categories is honestly dumb. Hell I once saw someone take the setting of Ravnica from Magic the Gathering, and try to turn it into a D&D setting with each guild overarchingly based on an alignment. The Guild of Izzet was placed as Lawful Chaotic....... And to be honest that Guild Really is LC. But Ravnica and MtG work off of a Completely Different Alignment system to D&D, one I can Honestly get behind a Lot more, because its more philosophically inclined than morally or ethically so.


Dracala wrote:
Morality is honestly a spectrum, and the fact that in D&D/PF it is boiled down to 9 categories is honestly dumb. Hell I once saw someone take the setting of Ravnica from Magic the Gathering, and try to turn it into a D&D setting with each guild overarchingly based on an alignment. The Guild of Izzet was placed as Lawful Chaotic....... And to be honest that Guild Really is LC. But Ravnica and MtG work off of a Completely Different Alignment system to D&D, one I can Honestly get behind a Lot more because it has none of this Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic schtick and instead has 5 different extremes which you can mix and match between at least 3 of (like the former Shards of Alara).

Hmm the way I divided up alignment in magic was easy enough

White = good
Black = evil
Red = chaos
Blue = law
Green = neutral

Ravnica made for some weird combinations like the black/white orzhov guild (which ended up feeling like the most lawful one to me). white/blue felt more NG but lg could fit as easily. red/white was spot on as chaotic good same for black/red being CE. Most of them fit pretty well that way the weird ones being opposites r/blu w/blac.


Except that White represents Societal Structure and Rule of Law, what you would normally see as the Lawful Alignment, and is very much the opposing force to Red's Freedom of Self. Blue and Red differ more on Emotion vs Thought, Passion vs Logic.


Dracala wrote:
Except that White represents Society, what you would normally see as the Lawful, its very much the opposite to Red's Freedom of Self. Blue and Red differ more on Emotion vs Thought.

Also true but not how I looked at it. white had angels and pegasi and noble creature that made you think Good guys. Blue had structure and seemed like the hard science (despite it being more hard magic) way of doing things which made me think lawful, Red fire lighting chaos goblins yeah red can def lend itself to chaos. I know yours are the official wizard creators views on it but I see them fitting into my structure just as easily.

Also I feel its hard to look at black cards and not say hey THOSE ARE THE BAD GUYS!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah Black is Very much about Amorality. Also there's the fact that Green Does oppose Blue and Black, despite as you put it, how it may lend itself to True Neutral in D&D Terms.... But then, its also opposed to how you would have Blue as Lawful and Black as Evil, so is it then Chaotic Good?

While the D&D Alignments are based on Morality(Good vs Evil) and Ethics(Law vs Chaos) the Magic Pie is based on Philosophical Debate at its Very Core, which absolutely appeals to me.

EDIT: To go along with this a good place to put Orzhov, is Literally in LE, that's very much a good place to put the Orzhov Syndicate, they aren't really good, but they're very much about Law and Evil. And the Senate as NG? Really?!?! There is Absolutely No way they are Neutral, They're the Lawmaking group amongst the Guilds, how could the possibly be anywhere Near Chaotic?


Yeah so lawful evil (blue/black) opposite would be chaotic good red/white which those colors are opposed to each other.
Green being neutral fits nature is pretty neutral you leave it alone it leaves you alone unless its hungry. When nature destroys it doesn't pick and choose it just does. Plus green druids nature all fit together.

If you move green to the center of the wheel instead of being a part of it it works a lot better too.


Except that in Magic its Not, Green opposes Blue on the basis of Nature vs Nurture and Overcoming Destiny vs Accepting Destiny. Blue believe that you can make yourself whatever you want to become, while Green believes that you are what you will Always be and there's no need to fight against that.

Meanwhile Green opposes Black on the basis of Accepting vs Overcoming Nature. Green as a Force sees Life and Death as a cycle (we all know how that cycle goes), while Black wants to turn that cycle on its head and move past it, hence all the undeath in Black. Green vs Black is about symbiosis vs parasitism, ecosystem vs self, status quo vs warping things to one's own Favor.

So Green is honestly diametrically opposed to Black and Blue, all of the Colors are Diametrically opposed to 2 of the other colors, in your example of Blue/Black being Lawful Evil and Red/White being Chaotic Good, did you fail to take into account that Red is Black's Ally and White is Blue's Ally, or that Red and White themselves are Opposed to each other? Remember that there have been Blogs on the Various Guilds of Ravnica, and Boros like the other Opposed force guilds shine a light more on how they come to terms with the differences between their colors, while the ones of allied colors show off the similarities between them.

GOD This just makes me want a D&D Take on Ravnica all the More.


Yeah its not perfect. but it kind of works especially if you move green down in the center of the wheel let me see if I can type that out.

W...R
..G..
U...B

Green/black death and rebirth food chain etc. blue/green focused adaption evolving. green white = pure life baby. green red = Chaos of life Fast changes occasionally wild fires and the growth that comes from clearing out making way for the new.

Really the magic color wheel can really encompass a lot of things just like alignment its kind of a How do you look at it thing. Its abstract enough to make on many shapes.

plus white and black always felt like the stronger rivalry then white and red.

Also keep in mind that in some sets they are not as strongly diametrically opposed. Early sets white had a ton of cards to beat black and red specifically and vice versa. Ravinca however didn't really do that a few other sets didn't really igther. IT kind of depended on what world they were in.

I've ran a D&D MTG game but I didn't do ravnica. I wanted to do stuff with the weatherlight gerrald and all them.


Ravnica is built differently as a set because its based on the 10 guilds, its built upon color combinations, as is Alara. Mirrodin on the other hand was everyone vs those Colorless guys(the True Neutral of Magic is Colorless remember, aka things that aren't colored by the 5 forces), Innistrad was about Humans vs Monsters(Werewolves were Green and Red, Vampires were Red and Black, Zombies were Black and Blue, Spirits were Blue and White, and Humans were White and Green) >.>

There was also another point I think you missed me trying to make, and that was White/Red is Just as likely to work with Black/Blue as against it due to Red being Black's Ally, and Blue being White's Ally. To be honest to get a Feel for Why/Where Colors are Allied, all you need to do is look at the color that they both Oppose, Green for blue and black, White for black and red, Blue for red and green, Black for green and white, and Red for white and blue. I'm just saying that the Magic Alignment system is Blue-Orange to the D&D System.


Dracala wrote:

Ravnica is built differently as a set because its based on the 10 guilds, its built upon color combinations, as is Alara. Mirrodin on the other hand was everyone vs those Colorless guys(the True Neutral of Magic is Colorless remember, aka things that aren't colored by the 5 forces), Innistrad was about Humans vs Monsters(Werewolves were Green and Red, Vampires were Red and Black, Zombies were Black and Blue, Spirits were Blue and White, and Humans were White and Green) >.>

There was also another point I think you missed me trying to make, and that was White/Red is Just as likely to work with Black/Blue as against it due to Red being Black's Ally, and Blue being White's Ally. To be honest to get a Feel for Why/Where Colors are Allied, all you need to do is look at the color that they both Oppose, Green for blue and black, White for black and red, Blue for red and green, Black for green and white, and Red for white and blue. I'm just saying that the Magic Alignment system is Blue-Orange to the D&D System.

Eh I'm able to make it work without to much of a stretch of the imagination. hmm I feeling your kind of a very literal type person maybe?

I do agree artifacts and such are the real true neutral in that game I treated them as more mindless no alignment at all.

White is definetly not specifically lawful good. Neutral good or rather Just good of any sorts has some white. law of any sorts has some blue. etc.

So black creatures are more evil then they are any other alignment blue creatures are more lawful then they are any other.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Dracala wrote:

Ravnica is built differently as a set because its based on the 10 guilds, its built upon color combinations, as is Alara. Mirrodin on the other hand was everyone vs those Colorless guys(the True Neutral of Magic is Colorless remember, aka things that aren't colored by the 5 forces), Innistrad was about Humans vs Monsters(Werewolves were Green and Red, Vampires were Red and Black, Zombies were Black and Blue, Spirits were Blue and White, and Humans were White and Green) >.>

There was also another point I think you missed me trying to make, and that was White/Red is Just as likely to work with Black/Blue as against it due to Red being Black's Ally, and Blue being White's Ally. To be honest to get a Feel for Why/Where Colors are Allied, all you need to do is look at the color that they both Oppose, Green for blue and black, White for black and red, Blue for red and green, Black for green and white, and Red for white and blue. I'm just saying that the Magic Alignment system is Blue-Orange to the D&D System.

Eh I'm able to make it work without to much of a stretch of the imagination. hmm I feeling your kind of a very literal type person maybe?

I do agree artifacts and such are the real true neutral in that game I treated them as more mindless no alignment at all.

I feel like too if you look at the creatures they tend to run in the colors they would fit the alignments that my color and alignment theory would fit. animals being neutral angels are good scientist structured mages (as opposed to reds more chaotic mages) seem lawful, barbarians are chaotic demons are evil. I feel That the people that threw the MTG thing together had similar influences as D&D.


well they are both Wizard products, so yeah.

Anyways! It's not about being literal minded, so much as not wanting the nuances of green to be discounted. See by calling Green True Neutral, you're basically saying that Green is the balance between White, Red, Blue, and Black, when its Not.

Now if you wanted to say that Green is True Neutral, White is Lawful Good, Blue is Lawful Evil, Red is Chaotic Good, and Black is Chaotic Evil, I might, and that is a very small Might, be able to get behind it.... (I'm mostly offering that as a compromise, because that's still making Red Allied to White, and Green allied to noone, and just outright removing color oppositions, which is why its a star in the first place >.>)


Dracala wrote:

well they are both Wizard products, so yeah.

Anyways! It's not about being literal minded, so much as not appreciating the nuances of green to be discounted. See by calling Green True Neutral, you're basically saying that Green is the balance between White, Red, Blue, and Black, when its Not.

Now if you wanted to say that Green is True Neutral, White is Lawful Good, Blue is Lawful Evil, Red is Chaotic Good, and Black is Chaotic Evil, I might, and that is a very small Might, be able to get behind it....

Well the reason green is neutral is because nature growth survival are all neutral behaviors. animals don't hunt for food because their evil they hunt to survive. Which is why their neutral. almost all solid green cards are very neutral feeling. Squall or tornado for example deals damage to everything. Its not picking and choosing it just is which is very neutral. Plus come on druids are green cards druid are always neutral.

I don't think you can say Every white card fits lawful but I think every white card fits good in some way. same for the others.

No no red would be allied to green black and white in this set up. and so forth. Green would be able to be allied to any of the other 4. green would have no opposed and all the others would have only 1 opposed.


Yes, but there in lies the problem, because Blue and Black are Purposefully opposed to the Natural Order of things as Green sees it.


Dracala wrote:
Yes and Blue and Black are Purposefully opposed to that Natural Order.

No blues only opposed would be red. also Blue black decks are super fun well for the person playing it anyways.


So you Are Discounting the nuances of the Pie Wheel, and the Actual Philosophy of the game, because you want to fit things in your neat and tidy D&D Squares >.> I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.


Dracala wrote:
So you Are Discounting the nuances of the Pie Wheel, and the Actual Philosophy of the game >.> I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Like I said its not perfect you have to move green a bit for it to work perfectly but you can still see how a lot of the cards in a given color can fit into that alignment.

Also I thought the philosophy of the game was to make wizards a bunch of money so they could afford to do other projects.

And hey I'm just telling you it worked out real well when I ran that game too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What I want, assuming that PF2 has 12 classes, 8 races and 9 alignments (or whatever the numbers are...

... is for Paizo to look at every possible combination of race, class and alignment that could be played and playtest it to ensure that it isn't in some way broken or horribly crippled. Then, once they have created a decent balanced game, any GM can take it and say "I exclude <insert option> from my gameworld/campaign because it doen't fit the flavour I have in mind".

If that means you can legally create CE Goblin paladins, LG Orc sorcerors, CN Dwarven monks or LE elf barbarians, I am fine with that. because it is much, much easier to remove something than to cobble together a homebrew version that hasn't been playtested or checked for balance.

My campaign, if I get round to running one, might have CG paladins, only lawful wizards and no halflings because that's my preferred flavour. But how I run my game has zero impact on anyone playing anywhere else in the world. I just want to be sure that the ruleset I'm using makes the stuff I am including work.


By the way my favorite deck is my Exponential Growth Green Deck, I know Exactly what you're talking about, but you are missing big points on the Philosophy of Green, and discounting it into being allied to all of the colors, when my color specifically is opposed to Blue and Black, because they Break the Natural Cycle.

If green leans towards nature, blue leans towards nurture. Blue has this false notion that individuals have complete say on who they are. Blue not only fails to acknowledge what comes from within, it also spends lots of time and energy trying to become something else. Blue is the color most intent on creating artificial items, with complete disregard for anything natural. Blue and green both seek to educate, but while green looks to the wisdom of the past, blue is obsessed with the unknown of the future. Blue not only prevents green from getting out its message, it constantly misleads individuals by offering them a false path.

Green looks at black and sees a color intent on destroying everything green holds dear. Black is power-hungry and has no conscience to keep it in check. Black kills wantonly and dangerously, wrecking ecosystems left and right. Green sees death for what it is: a key component in the great circle of life. Black sees it as a weapon, and through misuse of it threatens the very system green cares most about. How can green introduce everyone to the natural world around them if black destroys it? Also, black does not understand that one's role in life is predetermined—it acts out trying to prove that it has free will.


Dracala wrote:

By the way my favorite deck is my Exponential Growth Green Deck, I know Exactly what you're talking about, but you are missing big points on the Philosophy of Green, and discounting it into being allied to all of the colors, when my color specifically is opposed to Blue and Black, because they Break the Natural Cycle.

If green leans towards nature, blue leans towards nurture. Blue has this false notion that individuals have complete say on who they are. Blue not only fails to acknowledge what comes from within, it also spends lots of time and energy trying to become something else. Blue is the color most intent on creating artificial items, with complete disregard for anything natural. Blue and green both seek to educate, but while green looks to the wisdom of the past, blue is obsessed with the unknown of the future. Blue not only prevents green from getting out its message, it constantly misleads individuals by offering them a false path.

Green looks at black and sees a color intent on destroying everything green holds dear. Black is power-hungry and has no conscience to keep it in check. Black kills wantonly and dangerously, wrecking ecosystems left and right. Green sees death for what it is: a key component in the great circle of life. Black sees it as a weapon, and through misuse of it threatens the very system green cares most about. How can green introduce everyone to the natural world around them if black destroys it? Also, black does not understand that one's role in life is predetermined—it acts out trying to prove that it has free will.

You read a lot more into those then I do. Its just like alignment if you look at one single perspective of it hard enough in the right way it falls apart like so very many metaphysical constructs. Its all about perspective.

Also you seem to be saying that nature and nurture are diametrically opposed but they work together. they are both two forces working on an individual to shape who they are they work in concert in two different ways to achieve the same goal of shaping the individual. nurture using laws and rules put in place and nature being inherent.

Also black is power hungry and destroys stuff hmm sounds evil to me. Death is part of life but it can be heartless at times and can cause a lot of pain so green does have its dark side.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to preface this by saying I haven't read the full thread, so I apologize if I'm simply repeating what's already been said.

For me a paladin is not a paladin if they're not LG. A paladin is a holy knight, with strict customs (chivalry in Arthurian stories) dictating his/her behavior. To lose those customs makes the class a... battle mage? Don't we have enough of those classes as it is? If you want to be CG, why not just play a Warpriest? If you want the class abilities of a Paladin, in my mind those abilities are tied specifically to a LG holy knight...

Here's a compromise I've seen thrown out often: make a template Knight class. Call it an Exemplar or something. Then add an alignment choice (LG, CG, CE, LE) that corresponds to the extreme alignments. Your choice must be the same as your alignment. Each of these choices has its own name, similar to the wizard schools, and the LG choice would be Paladin. The class abilities that are currently keyed to LG would come with the alignment choice. Would that maintain your idea of a Paladin HWalsh?

EDIT: I've also had Paladins in most of my groups. None of them have been Awful Good. Perhaps that's because I start each campaign with a talk about the Social Contract (which for me boils down to placing the fun of the group before the fun of the individual). But, and this is tied to the Goblin conversation, I don't think disruptive player choices exclusively create disruptive characters. There are ways around that, if you're willing to communicate and listen to each other. And that's true even in PFS or online games.


yeah, but that's just the thing, None of these philosophies are based on Good or Evil(at all), or necessarily the same Law and Chaos of D&D, both Blue and White have aspects of Law in them, while Red has the bulk on Chaotic sure, but its not about Chaos its About Individuality, Freedom, and Passion.

Meanwhile sure, Black is the only one who has the Amorality of D&D Evil, but it espouses Free Will and the Choices of the Individual. If the Individual is too sheepish to take what it wants then it doesn't deserve to have it. If they're going to fail because they're too weak to succeed, then why drag yourself down with them. That's Black's Philosophy, and you know what? that's honestly not good or evil, its not Good surely by any imaginings, but its not necessarily Evil either, its Neutral because it didn't create the evils of the world, its just playing the game by its rules. That's honestly how All of the Colors are on the Good/Evil Spectrum.

White for example wants to make Everyone play by its Ballgame, by creating rigid structures and codes of moral and civil laws to Enforce that everyone needs to work together towards White's Big Picture of Peace. This is where I get that White is about Structure and Rules, aka Lawful, because those are the Literal tools it uses to get its way.

You know I always heard when you hear that Evil People are doing Evil to create good in the big picture, that the Ends don't justify the means, well if doing evil things to create good makes one evil, then wouldn't doing Lawful things to create Peace(as seen by white) make White Lawful? Honestly in the Metaverse of Magic, the Conscience is just a Creation of White's Moral Laws.


Dracala wrote:

yeah, but that's just the thing, None of these philosophies are based on Good or Evil(at all), or necessarily the same Law and Chaos of D&D, both Blue and White have aspects of Law in them, while Red has the bulk on Chaotic sure, but its not about Chaos its About Individuality, Freedom, and Passion.

Meanwhile sure, Black is the only one who has the Amorality of D&D Evil, but it espouses Free Will and the Choices of the Individual. If the Individual is too sheepish to take what it wants then it doesn't deserve to have it. If they're going to fail because they're too weak to succeed, then why drag yourself down with them. That's Black's Philosophy, and you know what? that's honestly not good or evil, its not Good surely by any imaginings, but its not necessarily Evil either, its Neutral because it didn't create the evils of the world, its just playing the game by its rules. That's honestly how All of the Colors are on the Good/Evil Spectrum.

White for example wants to make Everyone play by its Ballgame, by creating rigid structures and codes of moral and civil laws to Enforce that everyone needs to work together towards White's Big Picture of Peace. This is where I get that White is about Structure and Rules, aka Lawful, because those are the Literal tools it uses to get its way.

You know I always heard when you hear that Evil People are doing Evil to create good in the big picture, that the Ends don't justify the means, well if doing evil things to create good makes one evil, then wouldn't doing Lawful things to create Peace(as seen by white) make White Lawful? Honestly in the Metaverse of Magic, the Conscience is just a Creation of White's Moral Laws.

Ah see this isn't gonna work cause I already disagree with some of your assumptions about morality. That sort of argument never ends.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pretty sure neither paladins nor alignment are the problem.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I think "go and play a Warpriest" is scalling quickly as my most hated sentence on this forums. If Warpriest had 4 spell levels and the necessary full BAB, maybe. As is, Warpriest has nothing mecanically on common with paladin.
As an exemple, recently I made a character whose 3 central points where...
- Highly religious, and with good standing on her religion, even chosen by her deity.
- Centered on being the very best with her weapon.
- The deity was CN.
Finally, I had to take antipaladin and made the character CE. I vastly had prefered some CN holy warrior. But no, CN has not that right. And please...no more "play warpriest", please.


Quote:
Lawful Good Paladin proponents cannot compromise with non-Lawful Good Paladin proponents because, quite simply, if one only wants Lawful Good Paladins then anything that allows non-Lawful Good Paladins isn't a compromise anymore. That is simply losing.

As I said before in another thread - no it is not losing.

Why not? Because rulebooks and setting books are not RULES. Merely... advices.
Any group shape their own campaign world.

If PAIZO allow for other-aligned "paladins" you can IGNORE it in your Golarion. Because it's your Golarion, dammit.

And if you want to run a ready adventure with CG paladin of Desna, you can just re-write him as bloody inquisitor, with only a bit work.

I'd say less work than for someone to make CG Liberator Paladin from a scratch but honestly whatever.

You already have LN-LG-NG paladins, and LE-NE-CE antipals.

Quote:


For the most part Average Gamers make up the bulk of the gamer population, I'd wager they make up around 50% of the gaming population. The other two seem to exist in equal population, around 25% each. The forum-goer numbers do skew toward the Agency gamer, but is not indicative of the actual population of gamers as a whole.

My observations generally support those basic assumptions, although I have rather less agency gamers really, but in my opinion most Narrative Players... do not care about lore much.

They care about story, campaign, they like limitations and stuff, but I play in Forgotten Realms, my two most NP are well taught in Faerun lore, and yet I changed hell lot of world for purposes of my campaign without any problem.
And they fit in, and they are still NP's and indeed quite powerful engine pushing story through.

Because you know - it's our Faerun, not Greenwood's nor WoTC's.
We can ignore or add whatever we want, and still make deep, lore-rich narrative.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Alaryth wrote:

I think "go and play a Warpriest" is scalling quickly as my most hated sentence on this forums. If Warpriest had 4 spell levels and the necessary full BAB, maybe. As is, Warpriest has nothing mecanically on common with paladin.

As an exemple, recently I made a character whose 3 central points where...
- Highly religious, and with good standing on her religion, even chosen by her deity.
- Centered on being the very best with her weapon.
- The deity was CN.
Finally, I had to take antipaladin and made the character CE. I vastly had prefered some CN holy warrior. But no, CN has not that right. And please...no more "play warpriest", please.

But my problem with that is that you want the mechanics but not the flavor. That's cherrypicking. If I said "I want to play a monk who's lazy and never practiced, I just sit on the couch and have cool monk abilities"... that doesn't make sense. Seems like people want the benefits of being a holy knight without actually being a holy knight. Paladins get their abilities BECAUSE they are LG.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Why not play a warpriest" Mechanically its a 3/4bab that "can" become a full BAB and have some more spellcasting. When are we getting the "Religious champion" of any other alignment? "Pick Warpriest or Cleric" they cry into the aether, and we ignore their cries as that is not what we asked for!

If i am going to be blunt is that i do not care the slightest for what the Paladin ever stood for in RPGs, for whatever that image is muddied, a relic of the past, a tradition sacred only to those who hold to it. For everyone else its a restriction, a uncompromising rule, a iron grip that will never let go.

So lets make it easy: Remove Paladin, and we never have this argument again, if anyone else want to play a "Heavy plated juggnernaut of their faith" they better see elsewhere or pay up feats and spellcompoments and 3 rounds every combat to get there.


Alaryth wrote:

I think "go and play a Warpriest" is scalling quickly as my most hated sentence on this forums. If Warpriest had 4 spell levels and the necessary full BAB, maybe. As is, Warpriest has nothing mecanically on common with paladin.

As an exemple, recently I made a character whose 3 central points where...
- Highly religious, and with good standing on her religion, even chosen by her deity.
- Centered on being the very best with her weapon.
- The deity was CN.
Finally, I had to take antipaladin and made the character CE. I vastly had prefered some CN holy warrior. But no, CN has not that right. And please...no more "play warpriest", please.

That said, would the described Exemplar class work for you? I feel like this class idea can't have a neutral component. They are the pinnacle of a belief system, one which is not a compromise with another set of beliefs but has wholeheartedly devoted themselves to their cause... or something like that. Your character could have been a CG Templar or something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:


As a GM it makes my job harder, as it is easier for a home GM to remove a restriction than to put one back in place. There is less push back from players in the former than in the latter. As a player it makes my job harder in home games because it is part of the new core set, and in PFS it is impossible as there is literally nothing I can do.

I disagree.

Now I do not have an experience with PFS, in fact I find whole idea... not appealing at all, but then you are there to play short stories... with often alien people.
Even if there will be paladin of Desna, who cares... it's not like PFS really works as a long, lore-deep campaign. It's too episodic by nature.

And in my own home campaign, where i'm not bound by tyranny of PAIZO to allow everything they will allow in their games, and ban evil characters, even though Pathfinder Lodge is true neutral, and it's perfect place for evils ;)

I'd much prefer to negotiate with my players to reinstate more limitations, than to have to remove existing ones - because that means more technical work. If PAIZO won't give me mechanics for CG paladin of Desna I have to engineer it alone.

If I do not want paladins of Desna in my game, I just propose players - let's play with only old school paladins. And that's all.

Quote:

Example:

If there are 10 things Narrative Gamers care about in PF1, and in PF2 they lose 5 things, and the Agency Gamers get 5 things changed that they want. That only leaves 5 things for the Narrative Gamers.

If then PF3 comes out, and there are only 5 things left for the Narrative Gamers, and they lose half, keeping 2 things while the Agency Gamers get 3. Then there are only 2 things left for the Narrative Gamer.

Then, in PF4, they have only one thing remaining. By PF5 they are extinct.

It does not work that way.

And you are not bound by PAIZO edicts in your home games.

Take what's neat, band what's naughty.
It's D&D variant not some indie game, let's leave mechanics as setting free as possible, and put restrictions on setting level.

Like with godless clerics in PF, but not on Golarion.

Quote:
As long as you can find like-minded people, you can always play the game you want. PFS, of course, becomes a very tricky issue and this leaves you with doing what I did: raise my own crop of players with the narrative style.

now it's your time to feel your local Guild with inherent hate for church of Desna and it's paladins ;)


Quote:


As a GM it makes my job harder, as it is easier for a home GM to remove a restriction than to put one back in place. There is less push back from players in the former than in the latter. As a player it makes my job harder in home games because it is part of the new core set, and in PFS it is impossible as there is literally nothing I can do.

I disagree.

Now I do not have an experience with PFS, in fact I find whole idea... not appealing at all, but then you are there to play short stories... with often alien people.
Even if there will be paladin of Desna, who cares... it's not like PFS really works as a long, lore-deep campaign. It's too episodic by nature.

And in my own home campaign, where i'm not bound by tyranny of PAIZO to allow everything they will allow in their games, and ban evil characters, even though Pathfinder Lodge is true neutral, and it's perfect place for evils ;)

I'd much prefer to negotiate with my players to reinstate more limitations, than to have to remove existing ones - because that means more technical work. If PAIZO won't give me mechanics for CG paladin of Desna I have to engineer it alone.

If I do not want paladins of Desna in my game, I just propose players - let's play with only old school paladins. And that's all.

Quote:

Example:

If there are 10 things Narrative Gamers care about in PF1, and in PF2 they lose 5 things, and the Agency Gamers get 5 things changed that they want. That only leaves 5 things for the Narrative Gamers.

If then PF3 comes out, and there are only 5 things left for the Narrative Gamers, and they lose half, keeping 2 things while the Agency Gamers get 3. Then there are only 2 things left for the Narrative Gamer.

Then, in PF4, they have only one thing remaining. By PF5 they are extinct.

It does not work that way.

And you are not bound by PAIZO edicts in your home games.

Take what's neat, band what's naughty.
It's D&D variant not some indie game, let's leave mechanics as setting free as possible, and put restrictions on setting level.

Like with godless clerics in PF, but not on Golarion.

Quote:
As long as you can find like-minded people, you can always play the game you want. PFS, of course, becomes a very tricky issue and this leaves you with doing what I did: raise my own crop of players with the narrative style.

now it's your time to feel your local Guild with inherent hate for church of Desna and it's paladins ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like to have characters that make sense within the setting, but I also like options.
So, I don't know why we can't possibly have different versions of Paladins, each with their own flavor and abilities. Call them differently, if you want, so the Paladin is still the lawful good hero, but you can make a holy champion of Shelyn who is NG and is sworn to protect art, beauty and love, with some Bard-like abilites and spells; or a LE tyrant of Asmodeus who is sent to see that contracts are rightly complied with, or to recapture escaped slaves, and has got abilities to support this kind of work.

I find it VERY flavorful. Why not?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:
Alaryth wrote:

I think "go and play a Warpriest" is scalling quickly as my most hated sentence on this forums. If Warpriest had 4 spell levels and the necessary full BAB, maybe. As is, Warpriest has nothing mecanically on common with paladin.

As an exemple, recently I made a character whose 3 central points where...
- Highly religious, and with good standing on her religion, even chosen by her deity.
- Centered on being the very best with her weapon.
- The deity was CN.
Finally, I had to take antipaladin and made the character CE. I vastly had prefered some CN holy warrior. But no, CN has not that right. And please...no more "play warpriest", please.
But my problem with that is that you want the mechanics but not the flavor. That's cherrypicking. If I said "I want to play a monk who's lazy and never practiced, I just sit on the couch and have cool monk abilities"... that doesn't make sense. Seems like people want the benefits of being a holy knight without actually being a holy knight. Paladins get their abilities BECAUSE they are LG.

I do not want a "knight on shinning armor, a guide to all" of any alignment. I just want a full-BAB class (or equivalent warrior style, now with no BAB) with some divine powers from the deity. Is that too much to ask?

Edit: Normally I say that I find that the only alignment restriction with some kind of sense is the Paladin. But anytime I see more and more "only the perfect and difficult LG has the right to have divine warriors. The rest, inferior alignment are unworthy". That, or tradition for its own sake.
That kind of arguments, to me at least, only put me on "no alignment restrictions" more and more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It would very much make sense to have the Pharasmian Warriors clad in their silver armor and white hoods as they bring down the cycle apon those who dear disturb the cycle of judgement. Even though that kinda sound like a Paladin theres the flavor that they care about the cycle of life and Death and whatever other domain Pharasma is in care of.

Why wouldnt the Warriors/fighters of other gods be similary blessed with the Power of their gods aswell, and yet not be so inclined to the path of Magics?

We did finally get the Arcane Version with the Bloodrager,and nature casting got the Hunters, so why not finish the cycle of having a opion of none/4th/6th/9th casters avaliable to Nature/Arcane/Divine?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
A character who was chaotic good would be able to choose to tolerate societies evils whenever it struck them as expedient for the greater good

Or maybe... not.

Like for instance your LG cleric of Erastil, won't get defrocked by god, or alignment changed for using poisoned arrows, or attacking evil enemies from a trap.

But LG paladin will get smack.
But then LG paladin can tolerate LN, or LE laws to extent, there are paladins in Cheliax, that does not work against house of Thrune.
There are Paladin Hellknights, dammit.

So make CG paladin life harder.
Take chaotic really strong.
You cannot tolerate evil.
You need to smite it.
Even if it's protected by Law.
ESPECIALLY when it's protected by bloody Law.

Now playing CE antipaladin is no easy task, because his chaotic part does not allow him at all to put his evil in a closet when it's convenient. That why antipaladins rarely works well as undercover demon cult leaders.

Also: paladins of Desna should get a ban on staying in one place longer than month, and paladins of CC ban on fighting not-drunk, except usual - ATTACK EVIL ON SIGHT.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dracoknight wrote:

It would very much make sense to have the Pharasmian Warriors clad in their silver armor and white hoods as they bring down the cycle apon those who dear disturb the cycle of judgement. Even though that kinda sound like a Paladin theres the flavor that they care about the cycle of life and Death and whatever other domain Pharasma is in care of.

Why wouldnt the Warriors/fighters of other gods be similary blessed with the Power of their gods aswell, and yet not be so inclined to the path of Magics?

We did finally get the Arcane Version with the Bloodrager,and nature casting got the Hunters, so why not finish the cycle of having a opion of none/4th/6th/9th casters avaliable to Nature/Arcane/Divine?

Yes, yes! I'd love to see that, too!

While we don't agree on objective alignment, which I actually like, we definitely agree on the fact that divine warriors have the right to exist outside the LG niche.

I understand people who object saying that those powers are only given to the righteous; and since being truly LG is HARD, that kind of reward is fitting.
But a strict code of conduct may, and should, exist for those other types of champions, and it can definitely be made so that their faith CAN be challenged like you do with a standard Paladin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alaryth wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Alaryth wrote:

I think "go and play a Warpriest" is scalling quickly as my most hated sentence on this forums. If Warpriest had 4 spell levels and the necessary full BAB, maybe. As is, Warpriest has nothing mecanically on common with paladin.

As an exemple, recently I made a character whose 3 central points where...
- Highly religious, and with good standing on her religion, even chosen by her deity.
- Centered on being the very best with her weapon.
- The deity was CN.
Finally, I had to take antipaladin and made the character CE. I vastly had prefered some CN holy warrior. But no, CN has not that right. And please...no more "play warpriest", please.
But my problem with that is that you want the mechanics but not the flavor. That's cherrypicking. If I said "I want to play a monk who's lazy and never practiced, I just sit on the couch and have cool monk abilities"... that doesn't make sense. Seems like people want the benefits of being a holy knight without actually being a holy knight. Paladins get their abilities BECAUSE they are LG.

I do not want a "knight on shinning armor, a guide to all" of any alignment. I just want a full-BAB class (or equivalent warrior style, now with no BAB) with some divine powers from the deity. Is that too much to ask?

Edit: Normally I say that I find that the only alignment restriction with some kind of sense is the Paladin. But anytime I see more and more "only the perfect and difficult LG has the right to have divine warriors. The rest, inferior alignment are unworthy". That, or tradition for its own sake.
That kind of arguments, to me at least, only put me on "no alignment restrictions" more and more.

But that's not what I'm saying at all. It has nothing to do with "the perfect and difficult LG" or being superior. As I mentioned, that's not how I've EVER seen it played. Seems to me you want a sack of stats without paying the roleplaying price. A holy knight (or maybe a better term is champion of an ideal?) isn't just "I fight for my goddess, because what she stands for is kinda cool". It's a wholehearted devotion to a singular cause. Someone who is the ultimate martial champion of their faith. Shouldn't there be a place for that in the game? If we water down the concept of "unyielding exemplar of my beliefs", don't we lose more than we gain?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dunno about the "Power of the Paladin is balanced by their strict conduct" is that good of an argument, i mean you basically can lose Your Powers by the drop of a GMs hat for something that is subjective opinion. Though Paladins are powerful they are still outclassed by a lot of other classes with far less extensive means of keeping their Powers or have no conduct to adhere to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dracoknight wrote:

I dunno about the "Power of the Paladin is balanced by their strict conduct" is that good of an argument, i mean you basically can lose Your Powers by the drop of a GMs hat for something that is subjective opinion. Though Paladins are powerful they are still outclassed by a lot of other classes with far less extensive means of keeping their Powers or have no conduct to adhere to.

Agreed again. It's not like Paladins are mechanically superior to all other classes, and so they need the balancing measure that is their code of conduct.

The code is there because it makes sense, it's part of the Paladin class just like ill temper is part of the Barbarian.
So, different alignment/deity = different (but equally harsh) code.

151 to 200 of 407 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / On setting and flavor - Why I oppose some "player choice" options in the core. All Messageboards