| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I'm not exactly in favor of overpowered classes but...
Unique abilities fill that in. If paladins have unique abilities, this makes them special without pushing them into strictly-OP territory.
Now, I have a pretty big reason to disapprove both removing the LG restriction on paladins and making “upside-down”/carbon copies of the paladin for other alignments:
No matter the choice, it will be a shadow.
In this hypothetical case, it is clear what those classes are. Mere shadows of the former paladin. They won’t have identity by themselves, or be relatable to players in any way other than “that’s a non-LG paladin”. Those other *alignment champions* should be full classes by themselves, with their own tropes and all.
Why? It’s simple: people who have an alignment have it for different reasons than other people have other alignments. People who are good are good for reasons, and people who are evil are evil for different reasons. This works for all 5 cardinal points: Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, Neutrality.
An example of a well-made alignment champion other than the paladin is the old-school druid. Many people may not realize it, but in TSR-era D&D, druids can be described as the TN champions in the same way paladins are the LG champions. However, no one would mistake them as an alternative version of the paladin: they have their own abilities and tropes. TSR-era rangers were also a Good aligned champions, and yet not mistaken for a paladin.
With that said, I will be honest: by far, the most common alternative proposed for the LG-only paladin is the holy warrior for a specific deity/religion. That Is something *unique and flavorful*; something the paladin doesn’t quite has. Because of that, this concept deserves its own class and design space, its own unique abilities and be related to players in its own unique way. Otherwise, this awesome concept will become only a shadow of the paladin, and I don’t want that :)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Light to no spellcasting
Sentinel
Any martial with obedience
Celestial bloodrager
Tons of PRC's
Prestige classes kick in at or around level 6 and are often a jarring transition in theme and mechanics. Celestial Bloodrager is basically an Aasimar arcane caster, not a divine class. All of it is splatbook material that PF2 core may not have. And see the last point about mechanics defining a class.
The fighter IS unabashedly weaker than the paladin, in both survivability and out of combat utility. He doesn't have similar aura buffs, status removal, or the potential for a mount of level relevant power without significant feat investment.
He's stronger than the paladin in fighting style versatility, combat maneuver usage and raw damage output.
Likewise the barbarian is stronger than both of them in raw damage output (though this is primarily due to being the only martial with decent access to a pounce mechanic)
Also the concept of equal mechanical strength at equal levels has never been a design focus in any edition of the game save 4th, and i expect we're going to disagree here but i dont believe it should be.
We are going to disagree here, because levels are pointless if equal-level characters aren't roughly equal in power. While PF1's Paladin is stronger than the Fighter, it shouldn't be in principle, and I'd expect them to be closer to par with each other in PF2. And of course we have people insisting up and down that the Fighter's just as good as the Paladin now, thanks to the (IMO hugely overrated) Advanced Weapon and Armor Training.
4e may have been s!$* overall, but it had a lot more good ideas buried in it than most people are willing to give it credit for.
Here's the thing about the antipaladin. Its pretty clearly a NPC class that can be used by people running a very specific and uncommon to rare game style (the evil campaign). It exists as a foil to the LG paladin.
NPC classes are delineated as such, and generally confined to Dungeon Master's Guide type material rather than the Advanced Player's Guide.
But ryan, what about the grey paladin and tyrant and the NE antipaladinThe tyrant is an unfinished and frankly bad (Due to its being unfinished) archetype. It swaps itself to LE but doesn't adjust the spell list, nor the "divine bond" enhancements to reflect that. It seems hastily thrown together. Its more campaign friendly, but is still obviously intended as an antagonist or rare campaign class
Unfinished and bad, I'll grant you that, but it exists. The reason the Antipaladins keep getting brought up is because their existence neatly skewers two of your side's arguments: One, that Paladin analogues of non-LG alignments cannot exist because The Lore says The Universe won't let them, and two, if Paladin analogues are once allowed for non-LG alignments, it is an abomination unto the Lore, and the game and setting will be ruined, and True LG Paladins will retroactively cease to exist. Grey Paladins and the various Antipaladins prove the first wrong by existence, and the second by the fact that HWalsh plays PF1.
You'll note that the grey paladin is mechanically weaker in exchange for the loosening of rp restrictions, and people hate the idea of it as a replacement (reinforcing that its more about the power of mechanics than that they cant make a champion of a certain god)
Loss of power seems to be confined to the Neutral zone, which is part of why many people advocate for the circle to be rounded out with the possibility of a CG Paladin analogue. As I've said about ten times now, if people were purely interested in mechanical power they'd play a Cleric or a Warpriest, and they would certainly play one instead of a Grey Paladin. Now, since a central part of your side's arguments is that mechanics define a class—not wholly, but necessarily—is it conceivable that people don't like the Grey Paladin because, power concerns to one side, it's so different that it's not really a Paladin anymore?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to say the obvious here, but...
1. Not all traditions are equal.
2. The antipaladin is Not a paladin, as its lore and rules clearly dictates. How he somehow would prove pro LG-only paladin guys wrong is beyond me. Also, exceptions are exceptions, but they do not disprove the rule.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is interesting that the Holy Names of Lore, Tradition and Gygax are brought up and yet there isn't a call to go all the way back to how it was in the "good old days."
Or is there?
No one is taking anything away from anyone. You can play however you desire; however, you get AN opinion. We all get one and maybe it will influence things. Maybe it won't. But the constant complaint that someone is trying to take away something from you (the general you) is getting old.
As for tradition? Not all traditions are great. How about clubs that only allow men because of tradition? We could go on for quite some time in the history of the US alone about traditions that have been removed because they are out of date or do not apply anymore or are just plain wrong.
Maybe wait for the devs to blog about the class before going insane about what might be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, it *is* about their shiny powers, then?
Look, I'll be honest: all the time people claim that their desire for a non-LG paladin is not rooted in its powers or mechanics, saying that the Cleric or whatever is much more powerful than the Paladin.
While balance between classes is certainly changeable, I would agree with you on Pathfinder 1. However, every single suggestion about other ways for the pro-non-traditional paladin guys to have their nice characters with all they need, they discard, saying that they want *specifically* the paladin's powers!
It's a huge contradiction. I'm not sure what is their argument at this point.
No one is taking anything away from anyone. You can play however you desire; however, you get AN opinion. We all get one and maybe it will influence things. Maybe it won't. But the constant complaint that someone is trying to take away something from you (the general you) is getting old.As for tradition? Not all traditions are great. How about clubs that only allow men because of tradition? We could go on for quite some time in the history of the US alone about traditions that have been removed because they are out of date or do not apply anymore or are just plain wrong.
Well, to un-paladin-ize the paladin *is* to take it away from us. We're trying to explain that in many forms, here.
Also, your second point proves another thing: not all traditions are equal! Exactly what I was saying! The Paladin tradition *is* special, and should be kept :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, it *is* about their shiny powers, then?
Look, I'll be honest: all the time people claim that their desire for a non-LG paladin is not rooted in its powers or mechanics, saying that the Cleric or whatever is much more powerful than the Paladin.
While balance between classes is certainly changeable, I would agree with you on Pathfinder 1. However, every single suggestion about other ways for the pro-non-traditional paladin guys to have their nice characters with all they need, they discard, saying that they want *specifically* the paladin's powers!It's a huge contradiction. I'm not sure what is their argument at this point.
No one is taking anything away from anyone. You can play however you desire; however, you get AN opinion. We all get one and maybe it will influence things. Maybe it won't. But the constant complaint that someone is trying to take away something from you (the general you) is getting old.As for tradition? Not all traditions are great. How about clubs that only allow men because of tradition? We could go on for quite some time in the history of the US alone about traditions that have been removed because they are out of date or do not apply anymore or are just plain wrong.
Well, to un-paladin-ize the paladin *is* to take it away from us. We're trying to explain that in many forms, here.
Also, your second point proves another thing: not all traditions are equal! Exactly what I was saying! The Paladin tradition *is* special, and should be kept :)
It isn't all that special. It has been modified and altered from the "old days". Alternate paladins have been suggested over the years in all sorts of ways.
By opening the paladin to different alignments and Gods it gives something to everyone while taking nothing away from those that like Lawful Good alignment .. well, unless they specify that you cannot play a LG paladin. That would be rough.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not about the Paladin's power, it's about the Palaidn's powers.
What your character can do is who your character is. A character that doesn't have the Paladin's powers-- even if they have better powers-- is not a Paladin.
Like I said... I want to be able to smite evil on slavers and lay on hands their former property without Falling because the GM decides using lethal force before I am personally attacked is Evil or because disrupting legal trafficking in humanoid women and children is Chaotic.
I don't want to make the Paladin's Code less strict. I want to make it less arbitrary by giving it actual, objective definitions-- and then providing alternatives for different kinds of Good.
Don't you find it odd that there are more flavors of Evil "Paladin" than there are actual Paladins?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having the Paladin class as a class is special. The Paladin, in order to be the Paladin, needs their ethos - along other things.
Also, I hope I don't have to say it again: *Exceptions do not change the norm*! Paladin variants (although I don't particularly like them, for reasons I've already stated here) do not change the standard Paladin. Removing the alignment restriction on all Paladin-y options *is* changing the class!
Also, go look at the other thread where people are discussing anathema. Apparently, giving "objective" rules about behavior ISN'T enough to stop discussion (although I would say the books give us fairly objective definitions of alignments).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to say the obvious here, but...
1. Not all traditions are equal.
2. The antipaladin is Not a paladin, as its lore and rules clearly dictates. How he somehow would prove pro LG-only paladin guys wrong is beyond me. Also, exceptions are exceptions, but they do not disprove the rule.
1. Clearly not. And not all traditions are worth keeping around for their own sake.
2. A Chaotic Good Paladin-analogue is not a Paladin, as its lore and rules ought to clearly dictate. But according to the fundamentalists here, the very existence of Paladin-like classes which are not LG are a violation of Golarion setting canon, and the Gygaxian tradition, such that it'd be an instant deal breaker for PF2 and cause the traditional LG Paladin to retroactively cease to exist. See the old "5e has no Paladin" saw. Yet, those Paladin-like classes exist and are non-LG. Exceptions certainly can disprove rules—the more inflexibly the rule is held, the more easily it is broken by exceptions—and in this case there happens to be a whole family of fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.So, it *is* about their shiny powers, then?
Look, I'll be honest: all the time people claim that their desire for a non-LG paladin is not rooted in its powers or mechanics, saying that the Cleric or whatever is much more powerful than the Paladin.
While balance between classes is certainly changeable, I would agree with you on Pathfinder 1. However, every single suggestion about other ways for the pro-non-traditional paladin guys to have their nice characters with all they need, they discard, saying that they want *specifically* the paladin's powers!It's a huge contradiction. I'm not sure what is their argument at this point.
At least the last statement is true.
Nothing else that we know of in PF2 occupies the space between Cleric and Fighter. The classes in the CRB are locked in, so there won't be a Warpriest. As far as I know, there is no information on whether Prestige Classes will even exist, let alone smaller things like the Deific Obedience feat. And do I even need to point out the absurdity of claiming that the munchkins are jonesing for the Paladin's shiny powers when no one even knows what the PF2 Paladin's powers will be yet, and that the Paladin should in principle be no more powerful than a Fighter of the same level? The other part of it is that, again, as I said, there are people for whom mechanics are important but mechanical power is not. They exist—some of them are on your side, and it's a fundamental part of their argument. Some of them exist on my side too.
Also, three people in this thread disagree with me, is this where I start throwing out accusations of bandwagoning?
Classes are so much more than their mechanics alone.
Classes have both unique powers and unique lore. To change entirely their lore *is* to destroy the class. They're an entire package, and should be treated as such :)
(Also, I don't know where people got the idea of being lawful meaning "must obey the local lord at all times").
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok. The paladin needs their ethos. Cool. That said, if there are ethos for other "not paladins but really are paladins" of other alignments then what is the issue? Anti-paladins have codes (Inner Sea Gods) like paladins do.
So what is the issue? Does having other people that are holy warriors that represent other ethos somehow make the paladin less special?
Why is changing the class -- which, as an aside, has been changed a number of times over the years -- a bad thing? If it is, should we go back to just humans as paladins? Bring back the limits to how many items they can have and so on?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I hope I don't have to say it again: *Exceptions do not change the norm*! Paladin variants (although I don't particularly like them, for reasons I've already stated here) do not change the standard Paladin. Removing the alignment restriction on all Paladin-y options *is* changing the class!
I don't think I'm arguing with you, then.
I'm not trying to remove the "alignment restriction" on the Paladin. I'm trying to make them multiple choice, with several variations on Lawful Good and maybe two or three Neutral Good or Chaotic Good options.
But the existence of multiple "Evil Paladin" variants and "Good In Name Only" variants absolutely dilutes the Paladin class further than anything I'm proposing-- and paints all of your arguments that Paladins are special as hypocritical nonsense.
Why, exactly, is a Chaotic Good Paladin so much more offensive to the sensibilities of the traditionalists than a Chaotic Evil one?
Ok. The paladin needs their ethos. Cool. That said, if there are ethos for other "not paladins but really are paladins" of other alignments then what is the issue? Anti-paladins have codes (Inner Sea Gods) like paladins do.
So what is the issue? Does having other people that are holy warriors that represent other ethos somehow make the paladin less special?
Why is changing the class -- which, as an aside, has been changed a number of times over the years -- a bad thing? If it is, should we go back to just humans as paladins? Bring back the limits to how many items they can have and so on?
Okay, let's go on once more.
It is COMPLETELY OK to have holy warriors dedicated to other alignments, and even specific deities. It should just go elsewhere.
Also, throughout all editions from OD&D to 3.X, the paladin has changed, yes, but still remained *the paladin*.
Also, I hope I don't have to say it again: *Exceptions do not change the norm*! Paladin variants (although I don't particularly like them, for reasons I've already stated here) do not change the standard Paladin. Removing the alignment restriction on all Paladin-y options *is* changing the class!I don't think I'm arguing with you, then.
I'm not trying to remove the "alignment restriction" on the Paladin. I'm trying to make them multiple choice, with several variations on Lawful Good and maybe two or three Neutral Good or Chaotic Good options.
But the existence of multiple "Evil Paladin" variants and "Good In Name Only" variants absolutely dilutes the Paladin class further than anything I'm proposing-- and paints all of your arguments that Paladins are special as hypocritical nonsense.
Why, exactly, is a Chaotic Good Paladin so much more offensive to the sensibilities of the traditionalists than a Chaotic Evil one?
These variants ARE NOT paladins, both lore and rules state that (and if they do not, it's also bad).
The paladin already supports all Lawful Good variants, and after that, see the first part of my post.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Classes are so much more than their mechanics alone.
Of course they are. Their mechanics are not sufficient but they are necessary.
Classes have both unique powers and unique lore. To change entirely their lore *is* to destroy the class. They're an entire package, and should be treated as such
Adding some Chaotic Good archetype for or Alternative Class to the Paladin isn't changing the lore entirely, let alone destroying the class (which is purely a matter of opinion).
(Also, I don't know where people got the idea of being lawful meaning "must obey the local lord at all times").
From the line that "a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority". Define legitimate, define respect, cue arguments.
Adding some Chaotic Good archetype for or Alternative Class to the Paladin isn't changing the lore entirely, let alone destroying the class (which is purely a matter of opinion).
Well, it is. Its lore depends on the LG-ness :)
(Also, I don't know where people got the idea of being lawful meaning "must obey the local lord at all times").From the line that "a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority". Define legitimate, define respect, cue arguments.
Then I have bad news for you: ANY sort of code will have these problems. See the other thread for any doubts.
Still, respect does not necessarily means "complete obedience". This is the sort of thing GMs and players talk at session-0.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
These variants ARE NOT paladins, both lore and rules state that (and if they do not, it's also bad).
Look, if you want to argue that the Antipaladin isn't really a Paladin because its name is different, even though it gets its eerily similar powers the same way-- that's up to you, I guess.
But this exists.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still, respect does not necessarily means "complete obedience". This is the sort of thing GMs and players talk at session-0.
What page of the CRB do the words "session 0" or "social contract" appear on? Asking for a friend.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok. The paladin needs their ethos. Cool. That said, if there are ethos for other "not paladins but really are paladins" of other alignments then what is the issue? Anti-paladins have codes (Inner Sea Gods) like paladins do.
So what is the issue? Does having other people that are holy warriors that represent other ethos somehow make the paladin less special?
Why is changing the class -- which, as an aside, has been changed a number of times over the years -- a bad thing? If it is, should we go back to just humans as paladins? Bring back the limits to how many items they can have and so on?
Okay, let's go on once more.
It is COMPLETELY OK to have holy warriors dedicated to other alignments, and even specific deities. It should just go elsewhere.
Also, throughout all editions from OD&D to 3.X, the paladin has changed, yes, but still remained *the paladin*.
We can certainly go over a few more times. What I am hearing/reading is that people are emotionally attached to the name paladin. To the idea of "the paladin" as some unchanging paragon that cannot be tampered with.
However everything in this game has changed. We've altered classes. We've redone entire races and their lore. Outside of "but I like it how it is!", there isn't any reason the paladin cannot be changed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adding some Chaotic Good archetype for or Alternative Class to the Paladin isn't changing the lore entirely, let alone destroying the class (which is purely a matter of opinion).
Well, it is. Its lore depends on the LG-ness :)
The relevant part—the part that says weakly implies that only L and G can make something like this—does not; see Antipaladin.
(Also, I don't know where people got the idea of being lawful meaning "must obey the local lord at all times").From the line that "a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority". Define legitimate, define respect, cue arguments.Then I have bad news for you: ANY sort of code will have these problems. See the other thread for any doubts.
Still, respect does not necessarily means "complete obedience". This is the sort of thing GMs and players talk at session-0.
Respecting someone's authority is synonymous with obeying it, otherwise what does it even mean?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These variants ARE NOT paladins, both lore and rules state that (and if they do not, it's also bad).Look, if you want to argue that the Antipaladin isn't really a Paladin because its name is different, even though it gets its eerily similar powers the same way-- that's up to you, I guess.
But this exists.
Again, an exception, as I've already told about. Still, it helps this option is in a splatbook or somethin. Wouldn't like this as the default take on paladins ;)
However everything in this game has changed. We've altered classes. We've redone entire races and their lore. Outside of "but I like it how it is!", there isn't any reason the paladin cannot be changed.
"We like it" or "we don't like it" is pretty much THE reason why we have these discussions, and why we play the game at all. I do not know how this would be useful here, hahaha.
The relevant part—the part thatsaysweakly implies that only L and G can make something like this—does not; see Antipaladin.Respecting someone's authority is synonymous with obeying it, otherwise what does it even mean?
If you want my opinion about the Antipaladin, I'll say it: it is a poorly thought, poorly designed class which shouldn't be in the game, as I have already explained here.
Also, no, respect does not means complete obedience to the point of breaking your own code. Normal obedience, sure, but not complete.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What page of the CRB do the words "session 0" or "social contract" appear on? Asking for a friend.
The Most Important Rule
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These variants ARE NOT paladins, both lore and rules state that (and if they do not, it's also bad).Look, if you want to argue that the Antipaladin isn't really a Paladin because its name is different, even though it gets its eerily similar powers the same way-- that's up to you, I guess.
But this exists.
Again, an exception, as I've already told about. Still, it helps this option is in a splatbook or somethin. Wouldn't like this as the default take on paladins ;)
"We like it" or "we don't like it" is pretty much THE reason why we have these discussions, and why we play the game at all. I do not know how this would be useful here, hahaha.
However everything in this game has changed. We've altered classes. We've redone entire races and their lore. Outside of "but I like it how it is!", there isn't any reason the paladin cannot be changed.
Those are certainly good reasons to have the discussions but unfortunately they are not very good at convincing people. They aren't tangible rationales for leaving this as they traditionally are or altering them. They don't leave room for other opinions, and it is hard to debate "I like X" or "I don't like X".
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if instead of being just LG, they can implement different order types varying on different types of lawful and/or good alignments, then implement anathema to those types of orders, giving oaths and guidelines on what paladins of each orders can or cannot do. It gets rid of the whole vague questions on what is considered lawful or good, it adds more flexibility and customization to the class while maintaining the code of honor that's associated with honorable holy knights.
I'm fine with similar classes for other alignments. I'm also of the opinion that the less they resemble knockoff paladins while filling the role of a religion-affiliated full BAB martial, the better for both game design and lore.
EDIT: Also, maybe this is just me, but I don't think the majority of the paladin-traditionalists are arguing that in terms of design, paladins need to be better mechanically to balance out the difficulty of playing an LG character. But that in terms of lore, the concept revolves around the character gaining strength from sacrificing personal freedom to follow a strict code. IC flavor, not OOC balance, guys.
Regardless of what other people say, I would still love to see Hellknight become a full blown class or at least an archetype that allows for (at least attempting) the smiting of Chaos and terrorizing of Lawbreakers from level one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a bit late in the discussion but I want to address the "you only want the power and mechanics" crowd. Of course I do. The reason many people like PF rather than other RPGs is that it has plethora of significant mechanical choices, character customization and rules about everything. So if I'm choosing a paladin-chassis solely because I want to I should be able to (and yes that means having divine grace, smite something, immunities and lay on hands).
And for the power...in our RoW campaign we just finished, I played spirit guide battle oracle with pre-errata Divine Protection, and Arcane Enlightement that my GM allowed to work on oracles, so idea that something like paladin is too powerful (EDIT: without roleplay restrictions) is just silly.
Why do I want it without restrictions? Because sometimes I just want to have fun and not think about morale choices, it's a game and closer it gets to the real world it makes my enjoyment lesser (yes I play for escapism, sue me). And I said it before, me and my GM just have too many arguments about what is lawful and good in a given situation for me to just give the reins of my character to him. It's not I can't have the responsibility (I'm usually the responsible character in the group the one who stops them from doing crap and pushing the agenda forward) it's just that he is a bit too trigger-happy with restrictions like these.
Tradition for tradition sake is crap, as shown in real world. Does paladin as a tradition have merit? IMO, it does so my proposal of CRB being LG only so people can say core-only and have the restricted paladin. My campaign setting will have only LG paladins, for instance. The next big book of classes should open them up, so people who want to have variation can have it (the specifics to which alignment to open them can be a matter of debate for the next book, some people want all alignments, some want good only, I'm for all extreme alignments).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
And still nobody has given a sensible answer about why only Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil(*) get to generate Paladinoids.
(*)And more recently, the other varieties of Evil, but not the other varieties of Good.
Really, Paladins and the like should be Prestige Classes analogous to Hellknight (and this is the way Kirthfinder actually does it), but unfortunately it appears that cat has already sailed out of the barn for Pathfinder 2nd Edition.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And still nobody has given a sensible answer about why only Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil(*) get to generate Paladinoids.
(*)And more recently, the other varieties of Evil, but not the other varieties of Good.
Really, Paladins and the like should be Prestige Classes analogous to Hellknight (and this is the way Kirthfinder actually does it), but unfortunately it appears that cat has already sailed out of the barn for Pathfinder 2nd Edition.
Minor tangent, but it really does not make sense to me for the Antipaladin to be default Chaotic Evil. If you were to tell me a Golarion deity has conscripted holy warriors designed in parallel and mockery of the traditional LG Paladin my first guess as to whom that god was would be Asmodeus, or maybe Zon-Kuthon.