True, but certain classes provide more excuses for disruptive behavior than others.Not at all. If I'm attempting to be disruptive, then it is my character's behavior, not their alignment, that causes the disruption.
How would you like to have someone play an airheaded, emotional fighter in your game? Lawful, Good, and gets upset over every little slight and every tree or animal that is harmed. Forgets their basic tactics, always apologizing for daydreaming.
That is disruptive. But it doesn't make them not Lawful, or not Good.
It is not the class, or the race, or the alignment that causes disruption. It is how the player chooses to behave, in character.
Someone who wants to be disruptive has excuses for that behavior no matter what class they are playing. Most commonly heard saying, "But it's what my character would do"!
Okay, to everyone who says no class is inherently problematic, lets say you're running a game and one player sits down and says "my character is a Chaotic Evil Anti-Paladin of Lamashtu." Another player sits down and says to you "My character is a Lawful Neutral Wizard from Absalom." Who do you realistically expect is going to cause more difficulty at the table? The wizard who wants to study and be better at magic, or the champion of the Goddess of Nightmares, Mutilation, Mutation, and Eating Babies?
Fuzzypaws beat me to it, even used a lot of the same names, but:
You don't really need 9 Paladin variants. Just do 4.
*Good (The Paladin)
*Lawful (The Enforcer)
*Chaotic (The Anarchist)
*Evil (The Blackguard)If you really want to do a TN variant you could add that as an order who's goal is just to prevent imbalance, like AD&D Druids, but that could get a little silly. Probably would not give them a Smite ability.
I think I like 4 sides better than 4 corners.
I don't think a champion of Neutrality could work, if only because there's no good reason Good and Evil should be in balance with each other.
Okay, to everyone who says no class is inherently problematic, lets say you're running a game and one player sits down and says "my character is a Chaotic Evil Anti-Paladin of Lamashtu." Another player sits down and says to you "My character is a Lawful Neutral Wizard from Absalom." Who do you realistically expect is going to cause more difficulty at the table? The wizard who wants to study and be better at magic, or the champion of the Goddess of Nightmares, Mutilation, Mutation, and Eating Babies?
The CE Antipaladin of Lamashtu is about as disruptive as the CE Cleric of Lamashtu, or the CE Wizard etc. Arguably less so at high levels because he doesn't have as powerful a spell list.
Not really that it's OP compared to other classes, but if it's OP compared to the other versions of Paladin then you just get tons of TN Paladins running around because it's the "optimal" choice.Well we do already have the Grey Paladins or Grey Wardens or whatever as a archtype per say, and despite all of the "optimal" versions of classes you have seen around we still see a few around. Paladins are good, and even if the TN was better its just a different toolset and concept.
The Gray Paladin is significantly weaker than standard Paladin though. So that would explain that.
So you have the Arcanist, why would you ever play a Wizard or Sorcerer? Why play a Fighter ever when you have Paladins, Barbarians and Rangers?
Why play X class because Y class/variant is "optimal"?
Arcanist is fairly complex, even compared to Wizard. I think that discourages a lot of people. The reduced memorization list is also a turn off for some I think. And I don't know why anyone would play a Fighter. I don't think I've ever seen anyone play a single-classed Fighter for more than a few levels.
The argument of "popularity by power" might have been valid if it wasnt because of the experience of the community and the groups were never picking the "optimal" choices, they picked what they wanted to play. And that "powergamers" is frowned apon quite a bit.
If you say so. I've only played PFS a few times, but I was under the impression powergaming was extremely common in PFS. My home groups have always been pretty heavy on powergaming, though I think we're improving on that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thinking even more on it, if Paladins had to be tied to alignments, rather than a four corner spread I think I'd go for a row spread. So you'd have:
- Paladin: Good, smites Evil
- Blackguard: Evil, smites Good
- Enforcer: Law, smites Chaos
- Liberator: Chaos, smites Law
- Bastion: Neutral, smites LG CG LE CE
But what I really prefer is what I laid out earlier today: a non-magical Cavalier who actually earns his or her paladinhood and thus can optionally become a supernatural holy/unholy warrior at higher levels.
Way I reckon it, the LG Paladin and the CG Paladin both Smite Evil.
The LE Paladin and the CE Paladin smite eachother.
I think I like 4 sides better than 4 corners.I don't think a champion of Neutrality could work, if only because there's no good reason Good and Evil should be in balance with each other.
The sides are a better idea than corners imo, as it gives a bit of leeway.
On the point of reason of balance, well there dont need to be one in reality, but you do have the cults and sects that have their beliefs and the concept that "you need yin to have yang" is no stranger to philosphy in general.
Still a lot of People get extremly stuck on on a SINGLE concept of a true neutral Paladin MUST be opposed to the Extremes, or must be smiting everything, or whatever.
Take a example of a Paladin of Pharasma, Pharasma is a Neutral god after all. So a Paladin in her image could just be a Anti-Undeath armored soldier with Smite undeath and similar, though its very narrow concept, but its one of the concepts that dont need to be good (despite the standard Paladin can do this job with his standard skillset).
You do have the Dwarf Paladin archtype aswell the "StoneLord" which technically dont even have any abilities that need to be good(Except the elemental summon, i totally missed that!), they even replace smite.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know it still seems augmentative and dysfunctional but I think they are actually starting to get somewhere.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know it still seems augmentative and dysfunctional but I think they are actually starting to get somewhere.
Even a tiny bit of progress is still progress.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess it's time to get down to brass tacks.
Narrative Gamers don't actually lose anything as this option is opened up. You don't lose your ability to play your 'classic' Paladin. You don't lose the ability as a GM to tell a player that his concept doesn't fit the campaign setting, even though the option exists in the core rules. And you don't lose the ability to walk away from a table because you feel the GM is too lax with his players. This whole line of argument comes down to an insistence that an Evil character that uses the Paladin's mechanical chassis—even if renamed to Antipaladin, or Blackguard, etc—is an Evil Paladin. It's not. It's something else. It's different from the Paladin but analogous in role and method, therefore it uses analogous mechanics. What people like OP are saying is that the thought of playing in a system that allows Paladin-analogues to use Paladin-analogue mechanics is so repellent as to be unacceptable, and in itself a deal-breaker for PF2. Frankly, I find that so absurd that I'd call it a caricature if I didn't know how earnest the OP really is. And apart from anything else, we already have Paladin-analogues for each of the Evil alignments, and those who adamantly insist that such is impossible in lore / ruins the Paladin / a sin against Gygax are still here.
I'll go even further, and be very daring by bringing this up in a Paladin thread, by pointing out how interesting it is that many of the same people who insist "there is no martial/caster disparity because Rule Zero fixes everything" will apparently refuse to Rule Zero something much simpler.
Specifically in the Golarion setting, I still haven't seen a real answer to why only LG characters can be Paladins—or rather, why a Paladin-like class can only be LG, LE, NE, CE, and (with some unjustifiable neutering) LN and NG. It's always been a vague "the Lore says so" with an implicit circular "it is this way because it is this way". I have the feeling alignment never gets explored in depth because, like a lot of what magic makes possible, no one wants to deal with the enormous setting implications of alignment being not only objective, but tangible and measurable. But alignment is a separate problem in itself. I get it, I'm not a fan of kitchen-sink settings and I know that there can be good reasons for lore-imposed restrictions on some mechanics. But until a specific and non-tautological reason for "Paladin-analogues can be LG only" is provided, "it waters down the lore of the setting" is meaningless.
A popular approach to character creation is that a player comes up with a concept, and then tries to select mechanics that match that concept. Neither aspect of this approach depends on lore (it may or may not fit in well with the setting) or mechanical optimization (the player may adjust character concept to accommodate a stronger set of mechanics, or vice versa). There are many possible, perfectly lore-legitimate concepts that fit between the Fighter, who is purely non-magical, and the Cleric, who (though it can fight competently enough) is a fall spellcaster, for alignments other than LG. Given the PF2 Core Rulebook classes will be Original 11 plus Alchemist, we won't have the come-lately Warpriest (which is still too much of a spellcaster to faithfully match some concepts) to fit in between Paladin and Cleric, and many PF2 tables will use Core Rulebook Only, as some tables do now. It will be especially relevant if, as was hinted, the Paladin will be the primary defense (or at least, armor)-oriented counterpart to the Fighter being more offensive/weapon-oriented.
*has done zany antics as a Kitsune Vigilante before, and as a Catfolk Ranger*
I mean to be fair player choice sees some removal. It just varies from table to table.
A True Neutral Paladin-like class doesn't HAVE to have smite-anything, just give it something different.
Though there is a Paladin archetype that gets a smite-anything if I remember correctly, it's not as powerful as the basic Smite Evil of course.
I mean, writing different versions of Paladins doesn't mean that you only change the code of conduct and the 'axis' of their abilities: you can, and should, reflavor most of them. Keeping some sort of symmetry is good, but not mandatory.
You don't have to call them a Champion of Neutrality. They can be the Champion of Nature, a martial counterpart to the Druid's religious aspect. That could cover any Neutral alignment, potentially. The Green Knight from Arthurian legend would be the model.Fuzzypaws beat me to it, even used a lot of the same names, but:
You don't really need 9 Paladin variants. Just do 4.
*Good (The Paladin)
*Lawful (The Enforcer)
*Chaotic (The Anarchist)
*Evil (The Blackguard)If you really want to do a TN variant you could add that as an order who's goal is just to prevent imbalance, like AD&D Druids, but that could get a little silly. Probably would not give them a Smite ability.
I think I like 4 sides better than 4 corners.
I don't think a champion of Neutrality could work, if only because there's no good reason Good and Evil should be in balance with each other.
They definitely could, but the Pharasmine idea above is also very nice.
I'd go with deities, not necessarily with alignment.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. Deities champions are much more flavourful than those vague, philosophicaly obnoxious alignments
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nevertheless - conviction option allow for non LG paladins.
Now those can be easily joined - most of paladins will fight for their divine patron cause because they think it is right...
I'd prefer if Paladins didn't need a deity. You fight for what you think is right, not what some god thinks is right.
Some classes are not for atheists, nor are some campaign settings. As much as the core rulebook says you can be a Clerric without a deity, I think it's an unspoken rule that it should not ever be done.
Granted Paladin hasn't always been deity-based, but for sure they have always been subject to a lot of restrictions they have no say in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd prefer if Paladins didn't need a deity. You fight for what you think is right, not what some god thinks is right.Some classes are not for atheists, nor are some campaign settings. As much as the core rulebook says you can be a Clerric without a deity, I think it's an unspoken rule that it should not ever be done.
Granted Paladin hasn't always been deity-based, but for sure they have always been subject to a lot of restrictions they have no say in.
Pretty sure if the written rule says you dont need a deity, saying that someone does is a houserule, not an unwritten rule. Table variance and all. Ive personally seen plenty of godless clerics.
Oh if people.would stop using atheist to mean "person who doesnt follow a god" as opposed to "person who doesnt believe in the existence of gods" there would be a lot less confusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh if people.would stop using atheist to mean "person who doesnt follow a god" as opposed to "person who doesnt believe in the existence of gods" there would be a lot less confusion.
I think the official in-game definition of atheism is not worshiping a god, or not believing gods deserve worship. No one actually believes there are no gods. I'm not sure about the source on that, but I'll look for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some classes are not for atheists, nor are some campaign settings. As much as the core rulebook says you can be a Clerric without a deity, I think it's an unspoken rule that it should not ever be done.
Not quite- in the Core Rulebook, clerics don;t need deities... but in Golarion, the specific setting, they do.
That might be the official source for in universe sure, but it gets real muddy in forum discussion is what im saying. Non-worshipper or faithless would make more sense. But thats an aesthetic choice and my own personal bugbear I guess
Okay, to everyone who says no class is inherently problematic, lets say you're running a game and one player sits down and says "my character is a Chaotic Evil Anti-Paladin of Lamashtu." Another player sits down and says to you "My character is a Lawful Neutral Wizard from Absalom." Who do you realistically expect is going to cause more difficulty at the table? The wizard who wants to study and be better at magic, or the champion of the Goddess of Nightmares, Mutilation, Mutation, and Eating Babies?
If the campaign's about storming the bastions of civilization and bringing terror and ruin to the innocent, that wizard is definitely a problem.
Some classes are not for atheists, nor are some campaign settings. As much as the core rulebook says you can be a Clerric without a deity, I think it's an unspoken rule that it should not ever be done.
In Golarion by RAW you cannot.
But for example in Greyhawk adventures of PAIZO long long time ago, there were occassional Philosophy Clerics.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If our society has Flat Earthers I'm sure Golarion has complete atheists.
"That's just what Big Cathedral wants you to think! So-called "remove disease" spells don't work and they turn your children into changelings. Thoughts and prayers can't melt adamantine beams."
If our society has Flat Earthers I'm sure Golarion has complete atheists.Oh if people.would stop using atheist to mean "person who doesnt follow a god" as opposed to "person who doesnt believe in the existence of gods" there would be a lot less confusion.I think the official in-game definition of atheism is not worshiping a god, or not believing gods deserve worship. No one actually believes there are no gods. I'm not sure about the source on that, but I'll look for it.
Lol, OK I'll buy that. Maybe conspiracy theorist wizards who believe all divine casters are really arcane casters who have somehow found new schools of magic and aren't willing to share?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If our society has Flat Earthers I'm sure Golarion has complete atheists."That's just what Big Cathedral wants you to think! So-called "remove disease" spells don't work and they turn your children into changelings. Thoughts and prayers can't melt adamantine beams."
Oh sure the gods exist, man, but like, so do you and I, man, I mean think about it...Sure they have some impressive powers, but like, Aroden was one of us and then "poof" became one of them, man. Does that mean that the gods have some divine right to rule over what happens here on golarion? Dude, come, on? That's just what they want you to think. They are up there doing stuff that we, like, can't quite understand, maybe, but we are doing stuff down here that they totally don't get either. Who says that their existence is inherently divine, man? They do, sure, but that's just to make us worship at their feet and give the power that resides inside of us over to them, man. Its all a hoax the gods have been running on us mortals since we first started giving them our powers of creation, man, and the only way its going to stop, man, the only way its stops is when we say, NO, WAY, man, go back to your outer planes and stopp feeding off the magical energy that runs through each of us, and calling your own, man.
|
Some classes are not for atheists, nor are some campaign settings. As much as the core rulebook says you can be a Clerric without a deity, I think it's an unspoken rule that it should not ever be done.Not quite- in the Core Rulebook, clerics don;t need deities... but in Golarion, the specific setting, they do.
This is true of Clerics. It is not true of Paladins, however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is true of Clerics. It is not true of Paladins, however.Some classes are not for atheists, nor are some campaign settings. As much as the core rulebook says you can be a Clerric without a deity, I think it's an unspoken rule that it should not ever be done.Not quite- in the Core Rulebook, clerics don;t need deities... but in Golarion, the specific setting, they do.
Per the PFS rules, it is true for Paladins in Golarion as well (and Warpriests, Inquisitors and Cavaliers/Samurai of the Order of the Star)
Also I don't think there's even been a published Paladin that doesn't worship a god.
And the class description specifically states Paladins get their powers from Deities they serve.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
>Golarion lore
>consistent
>worth fighting for it's orthodoxy and orthopraxy
pick neither
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we are taking about "how I'd like Paladins to be" I'd prefer it if Paladins did not get power from the deity they serve as a quid pro quo like Clerics, but instead are invested in either by fundamental forces or by beings not inclined to identify themselves as Oracles do.
Since, you know, this is a second edition and some things are changing.
|
|
Per the PFS rules, it is true for Paladins in Golarion as well (and Warpriests, Inquisitors and Cavaliers/Samurai of the Order of the Star)
This is both completely true and completely irrelevant. PFS is a particular game with particular rules, not all of which sync up with the world lore perfectly. Paladins needing a deity, like not allowing crafting feats, is specific to PFS, not Golarion.
Also I don't think there's even been a published Paladin that doesn't worship a god.
I'm not sure if there has been either, but there have been published Inquisitors and other Classes that don't, despite PFS requiring them to. Per James Jacobs (whose word is generally controlling for Golarion world lore) only Clerics (and Warpriests) are actually always associated with a specific God in Golarion.
And the class description specifically states Paladins get their powers from Deities they serve.
Sure, and most of them do indeed serve deities, but the Class Descriptions are advice at best, not binding in any real rules or flavor sense, or all Rangers would be social darwinist psychos and all Alchemists would be reckless nutjobs.