Another Paladin Suggestion


Prerelease Discussion

201 to 250 of 295 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Neriathale wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Logic:
My enjoyment of the class involves that all core Paladins continue the lawful good tradition.

I will no longer enjoy the class if there are non-Lawful good core Paladins in the game world.

If you open them up, I will no longer enjoy the class because my enjoyment of the class extends beyond what I can personally do with it.

This is because it alters the game lore. The lore is the reason I play. I do not play for total freedom.

If this game lore is altered in a way that makes me no longer enjoy it then I have no reason to play the game. I do not play games I do not enjoy.

Based on you multiple posts on the subject, what you are demanding is the right to dictate how people you have never met and will never meet play the game because you find the mere thought of those people playing the game in a different way to you physically distressing.

Flip that around. How does the person who has a great character idea feel when told 'you can't play that character because someone you have never and will never meet vetoed it in the playtest based on personal prejudice'?

Just saying that's literally every RPG ever. Devs are not beholden to make every single conceivable concept viable and ultimately stuff is going to get left on the cutting board because they either don't like it or can't justify its existence. That person can adjust his concept, find a game that supports it, or just walk away. That's how things go.


Lou Diamond wrote:

I read in up thread that a number of people do not like divine grace. if Paizo gives Paladins +2 to their charisma because most of their class abilities use Charisma then their should be no problem with divine grace.

The reason For Divine Grace in the first place is the Gods protect their own and Paladins are supposed to be in the for front battling evil and the Gods of good do not want their warriors of evil to die..

Some people think all classes need to be balanced that is not the case some classes have things that are far better than others. Paladins have nothing to compare to the wizards Power words, disintegrate or teleport or the Arcanists dimension slide but the have an ability that protects them from hostile magic cast at them.

Are... you aware that what you just described is asymmetric balance? "I can't do X that you can do, but I can do Y instead that you can't and is just as good" is the ideal.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Neriathale wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Logic:
My enjoyment of the class involves that all core Paladins continue the lawful good tradition.

I will no longer enjoy the class if there are non-Lawful good core Paladins in the game world.

If you open them up, I will no longer enjoy the class because my enjoyment of the class extends beyond what I can personally do with it.

This is because it alters the game lore. The lore is the reason I play. I do not play for total freedom.

If this game lore is altered in a way that makes me no longer enjoy it then I have no reason to play the game. I do not play games I do not enjoy.

Based on you multiple posts on the subject, what you are demanding is the right to dictate how people you have never met and will never meet play the game because you find the mere thought of those people playing the game in a different way to you physically distressing.

Flip that around. How does the person who has a great character idea feel when told 'you can't play that character because someone you have never and will never meet vetoed it in the playtest based on personal prejudice'?

Just saying that's literally every RPG ever. Devs are not beholden to make every single conceivable concept viable and ultimately stuff is going to get left on the cutting board because they either don't like it or can't justify its existence. That person can adjust his concept, find a game that supports it, or just walk away. That's how things go.

Pretty much this. A well defined setting and player options that fit within that setting will trump everyone gets to play whatever concept breezes through their head every single time from a sales perspective.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Lou Diamond wrote:
Greystone, The Smite ability of Paladin needs to be keyed on evil enemies of ones church is to specific and would require Paizo to add a whole bunch of fluff to each god about who their enemies are. So that won't happen. Paladins should be warriors of their gods dedicated to fighting evil. So I have no hang up about NG of CG Paladins. I would prefer that they remain LG but I am a die hard old timer that does not like change IF I were to have a poll on the age of the people that want the Paladin to remain LG and largely unchanged I most likely would find that if you are 45 and older you would want Paladin unchanged and if you were 40 and younger you would want the alignment restriction changed. I think this is due to the fact the 40 and younger generation view absoults opposed to us older sticks in the mud do.

I'll answer the poll. I'm over 45 and am quite happy to have the paladin change. In fact, we allowed paladins of different alignments somewhere along in the 80s and it didn't cause the game to explode.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Plethora of Paladins....
Anti-Paladin...
Paladins of different alignments from Dragon magazine and Unearthed Arcana...
The entire 4E game...
The entire 5E game...

All of them have Paladins that aren't forced LG and do/did just fine from both a mechanic and lore-based stand point.


Well, that's it. I'm leaving this discussion, think about it for a little bit, and only come back when Paizo gives us the blog post about the paladin. We reached to a point where I don't think it will be productive to continue. I suggest everyone here to do the same ^^


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Stop trying to claim that a Gray Paladin or Antipaladin proves there are non-LG Paladins...

1. Gray Paladins are SPECIFICALLY weaker Paladins. If you want a non-LG Paladin that is weaker than the Paladin, go to town.

2. Antipaladins aren't Paladins.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What the hell is a "grey Paladin"?

And neither 4/5e Paladins were weak. Heck the Paladin of Freedom in UA was pretty cool and had some good spells and features.

The Paladins of other alignments in Dragon had some cool concepts too but I'm too lazy to go dig it up to have a side-by-side mechanics comparison right now


Grey Paladin A non LG paladin in pf1. Pretty obviously weaker by not being LG and codebound.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are non lawful good paladins. I have three people playing them now.


so I'm kinda wondering. what are you going to do if you don't like the changes to the paladin even if it remains LG?

what ya going to do if they make the paladin any good, but certain orders must be ( insert one of them) good in alignment?


A dragon magazine article is not much of an argument. And those ‘other paladins’ (in dragon)were pretty different. Mechanically different. Arguably not the same class.
Hit dice types, armor and weapon restrictions, weapon proficiency, proficiency penalties, spells gained, attacks per round, special abilities - all different.

So if it supports anything it supports the ‘different classes for different alignment holy warriors’ position.

Also, from the article itself showing the intent so to speak ...

“A distinction must be made here. Like the word "level" in the AD&D(r) game, "paladin" now takes on more than one meaning. The first denotes the lawful good human player character as described in the rules; the second denotes a holy fighter of any alignment (including those characters who might be called anti-paladins). All paladins (second meaning) are fighter subclasses and use the attack and saving-throw matrices for fighters. These paladin types are also exclusively human.”


1 person marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
This a thousand times. If Paladin is going to remain alignment locked to LG, it needs to be turned into a prestige class, or an archetype. Things that are traditionally reserved for restricted playstyles.
That makes sense, I guess. I think at that point I just wouldn't want it to be called by the name of Paladin, but it's not super important to me.

Why wouldn't you want to call it a Paladin anymore?

It'd still have the requirement and all the features and flavor that defines a Paladin. How would it not be a Paladin anymore?

Ah. My bad. I realize that I kind of maybe said the opposite of what I intended. I would rather have the Paladin preserved in full, as a Prestige Class, and replaced with an honorable fighter type armor mastery class called a 'Knight' or some such, for a Core class, than have the Paladin changed so it's fundamentally not the same, but still be the "Paladin" in core.

Did I even make sense?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Stop trying to claim that a Gray Paladin or Antipaladin proves there are non-LG Paladins...

1. Gray Paladins are SPECIFICALLY weaker Paladins. If you want a non-LG Paladin that is weaker than the Paladin, go to town.

2. Antipaladins aren't Paladins.

I'll stop if people will STOP claiming non-LG paladins don't fit in the setting or tradition of the game: they DO. It's NOT against the setting or lore. At all. Not even a little...

It's 100% provable by the existence of non-LG paladins IN the current game. And 3.5. Weaker doesn't matter AT ALL in a 'tradition' or 'setting' debate.


Steelfiredragon wrote:
so I'm kinda wondering. what are you going to do if you don't like the changes to the paladin even if it remains LG?

The thing that draws me to the Paladin is not, and has never been the powers. As long as they are LG only, and retain a code, and retain their status? I'm fine with it.

Quote:
what ya going to do if they make the paladin any good, but certain orders must be ( insert one of them) good in alignment?

I will not play Pathfinder 2nd Edition. This is one of the main reasons I didn't like 4e, and one of the main reasons I don't play 5e. I'll simply find a different game to play.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So if you can still play a lawful good paladin, and they have a code, and whatever you mean by status you will play one.

And if that means that everyone else can play a whatever alignment "paladin" that has a code and a status then everyone is happy.

Sounds like everyone could win in that situation.

However, giving ultimatums to the devs and the company just seems poor form.


HWalsh wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:
so I'm kinda wondering. what are you going to do if you don't like the changes to the paladin even if it remains LG?

The thing that draws me to the Paladin is not, and has never been the powers. As long as they are LG only, and retain a code, and retain their status? I'm fine with it.

Quote:
what ya going to do if they make the paladin any good, but certain orders must be ( insert one of them) good in alignment?
I will not play Pathfinder 2nd Edition. This is one of the main reasons I didn't like 4e, and one of the main reasons I don't play 5e. I'll simply find a different game to play.

So, HWalsh, how do you feel about my statement here:

I would rather have the Paladin preserved in full, as a Prestige Class, and replaced with an honorable fighter type armor mastery class called a 'Knight' or some such, for a Core class, than have the Paladin changed so it's fundamentally not the same, but still be the "Paladin" in core.
Just curious.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mbertorch wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
That makes sense, I guess. I think at that point I just wouldn't want it to be called by the name of Paladin, but it's not super important to me.

Why wouldn't you want to call it a Paladin anymore?

It'd still have the requirement and all the features and flavor that defines a Paladin. How would it not be a Paladin anymore?

Ah. My bad. I realize that I kind of maybe said the opposite of what I intended. I would rather have the Paladin preserved in full, as a Prestige Class, and replaced with an honorable fighter type armor mastery class called a 'Knight' or some such, for a Core class, than have the Paladin changed so it's fundamentally not the same, but still be the "Paladin" in core.

Did I even make sense?

Double checking I have it right, essentially the prestige class would be called paladin, but the base class replacing Paladin would be called Knight (or some such). It makes sense, and I'd be okay with this.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Champion would work better for the 'base' class, and then the Prestige class can be Paladin.

That would:

A: Ensure that 'Paladin isn't watered down'... in fact, it becomes an even more *special* type of class.

B: Allow other alignments to have Champions, without touching the 'sacred' 'Paladin' title.

C: Paladin still appears in the CORE book.

Would this be difficult to implement at this point?


HWalsh wrote:

Stop trying to claim that a Gray Paladin or Antipaladin proves there are non-LG Paladins...

1. Gray Paladins are SPECIFICALLY weaker Paladins. If you want a non-LG Paladin that is weaker than the Paladin, go to town.

2. Antipaladins aren't Paladins.

Antipaladins aren't paladins, they have a different name, different abilities, and different lore. Their existence doesn't mean Paladin stops being a special LG-only club. Similarly, a CG only class which gave abilities similar to the Paladin that had more based on opposing oppressive regimes (a supposed Liberator class) would not be a Paladin in name or abilities or lore. Extrapolate further and we can see 8 classes that aren't Paladin in name or flavor or mechanics, all of which have very similar abilities at similar times.

This is more or less what the OP proposed (though his was only 4 total, the 4 extreme alignments). Does this make Paladins watered down to a point where there game is not worth playing?

What if we resurrected the old tradition of having Paladin be a subclass of a different knightly class called Cavalier, and the other 3-8 options similar to Paladins but not Paladins (Antipaladins, Tyrants, Liberators, etc) so that mechanically there were warriors who existed for each alignment, each with abilities based on their inherently righteous/wicked/orderly/individualistic(? ran out of adjectives) soul which helps them appeal to gods of similar ideals for power. Paladin is still LG-only with a strict code to follow. They still have powers for fighting evil. But they have peers who oppose not evil but law or chaos or even good. Does this water down paladin?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
That makes sense, I guess. I think at that point I just wouldn't want it to be called by the name of Paladin, but it's not super important to me.

Why wouldn't you want to call it a Paladin anymore?

It'd still have the requirement and all the features and flavor that defines a Paladin. How would it not be a Paladin anymore?

Ah. My bad. I realize that I kind of maybe said the opposite of what I intended. I would rather have the Paladin preserved in full, as a Prestige Class, and replaced with an honorable fighter type armor mastery class called a 'Knight' or some such, for a Core class, than have the Paladin changed so it's fundamentally not the same, but still be the "Paladin" in core.

Did I even make sense?

Double checking I have it right, essentially the prestige class would be called paladin, but the base class replacing Paladin would be called Knight (or some such). It makes sense, and I'd be okay with this.

Yes! You got it! And the prestige class Paladin would have all the divine smites and auras and Charisma to saves.

Whereas the Knight(or whatever) would still be Charisma based, and have like some Divine/Code inspired features that might function similarly to smite (like a Cavalier's Challenge but with more flavor), and some other thematically appropriate abilities that would also be potentially somewhat similar mechanically to some Paladin abilities.

Essentially, it would be that most vile of solutions... a compromise. :)


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Champion would work better for the 'base' class, and then the Prestige class can be Paladin.

That would:

A: Ensure that 'Paladin isn't watered down'... in fact, it becomes an even more *special* type of class.

B: Allow other alignments to have Champions, without touching the 'sacred' 'Paladin' title.

C: Paladin still appears in the CORE book.

Would this be difficult to implement at this point?

I can get behind this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Age 53 (54 in less than a month) and want Paladinoids of all alignments, although I still want them as prestige classes (an expanded version of the way Kirthfinder does it) rather than a base class.

And those arguing that Paladins are only Lawful Good because they are champions of righteousness still have yet to give a sensible and honest explanation of why that should exclude other Good alignments.

And those arguing that Antipaladins aren't really Paladins: In 1st Edition Pathfinder, the basic Antipaladin has abilities that are extremely closely related to those of the basic Paladin, in most cases being simple inversions of them -- hence, definitely in the same kind of Holy Champion superclass as Paladins. Yet for some reason, the Antipaladin actually gets to have decent archetypes that are non-Chaotic Evil, whereas the Paladin only gets to have extremely nerfed non-Lawful Good archetypes. Makes No Sense.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Dude i quoted the palpable aura above. Unless your gm is one who keeps the mechanics of being in or out of an aura of courage/despair secret.

Dude, nothing says that anything is palpable. At all. Not even a little.

As to DM, sure he tells me AS A PLAYER that I got bonuses. Why would my CHARACTER know? So... Got any actual quotes/references?

Additionally, lets assume it is palpable. What about the rest of the question? What makes it a PALADIN magic effect? Not a witch aura for instance or a Draconic Manifestation [aura of courage]? Maybe a wizard aura? Or a warpriest one? Or an oracle one? or... I can keep going. Aura's aren't exactly rare and you can find ones with similar effects.

Lastly, let's assume it is palpable AND identifiable... How many people KNOW a paladin aura offhand? Does every person in the world have first hand experience with paladins and enough to KNOW how it's aura's FEEL?

I think before we talk about how immediately and unerringly recognizable a mere mortal Paladin is to the common man, whether by his auras or his Paladin-spell-list-exclusive spells or what-have-you, we should talk about how much more immediately and unerringly recognizable a deity should be.

Starting with how Razmir has almost an entire nation's worth of common folk fooled into thinking he is one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

So what is about the Paladin class that specifically needs to exist separate mechanically from other holy warrior classes like an Inquisitor or Warpriest?

Because to me as long as you have an option to RP (which you would) I'm not sure what the issue is aside from wanting certain mechanics.

Mechanics which may not transfer into 2.0.

Because Paladin isn't really do the "Holy Warrior" thing as well as it does the "Romantic Hero" which you could argue was its original niche.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Spyglass Archon wrote:
Claxon wrote:

So what is about the Paladin class that specifically needs to exist separate mechanically from other holy warrior classes like an Inquisitor or Warpriest?

Because to me as long as you have an option to RP (which you would) I'm not sure what the issue is aside from wanting certain mechanics.

Mechanics which may not transfer into 2.0.

Because Paladin isn't really do the "Holy Warrior" thing as well as it does the "Romantic Hero" which you could argue was its original niche.

Alright but say the mechanics support Romantic Hero fine, and that to allow them to play non-LG they don't alter any of the mechanics that allow them to fill that niche, what would the problem be?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

At 30, I actually delight in doing away with traditions when they get in the way of fun. And the traditional Paladin is not fun. I have never played a Paladin, and have never had one at my table. They weren’t banned, just literally none of my friends in 20 years of playing different forms of D&D wanted to put up with the headache of playing one just for their abilities.

I am 100% in favor of recreating the class to be a more general knightly class with defensive, armor-based abilities like the devs have hinted at so far. But they could easily still have RP restrictions and still be improved. I think Anathema are key to that. With Anathema you can have a Paladin of any alignment but have a code based around not violating your deities anathema.

Would immediately make the class more appealing, and the only people who would lose anything are the ones who get off on the exclusivity of the current version of the class that I and other players/GMs won’t touch with a 100 ft pole. More options and more variety is all upside when it comes to classes in my opinion.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Spyglass Archon wrote:
FaerieGodfather wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Come on. Leave the Paladin alone. Why are you people so insistent to take it away from us?

Nobody is trying to take your f~%@ing Paladins away from you, you self-righteous knob-goblin.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between other people playing with something and you losing it proves that you're too stupid and immature to adjudicate matters of moral reasoning-- which is exactly why class powers shouldn't be subject to the GM's subjective moral opinions.

How is changing something group A finds enjoyable in order to make it palatable by group B in such a way as to spoil the aspects of that thing that group A find enjoyable NOT taking something away from group A?

I think it is important to consider what it is that group A finds enjoyable and whether it is detrimental to others without actually giving any benefit to group A before asking this. And in the case that the only thing being taken away is the exclusivity that kept other people from enjoying the thing being changed then I think it comes down to not being worth any concern. The net benefit outweighs the loss at that point.


Id be 100 percent down for splitting the paladin down the middle so the lawful knight thing people want can be its own class and the holy warrior that has no good reason to be class segregated can be its own class.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Why is Lawful Good the hill to die on, rather than Human/part-Human? That after all changed to "everyone's allowed to be a paladin" with 3.x, so you can't claim that any change to the traditional Paladin isn't acceptable. Before you say that isn't an important part of the identity, I'll point out that I made up a rationalisation for it back in 1979 that's still meaningful in my setting (and they didn't have to be lawful good, but rather devoted to their deities ideals whatever those were). I don't expect or demand that the traditional Human Paladin be respected with nothing else allowed, so the obsession with what "tradition" dictates when it'a already acceptable to throw out parts of it with no protests doesn't seem remotely fair.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

"Tradition" only dates back to 2000 here. Anything before 2000 has no bearing on the One True Way.

I've been hearing that for the past ten years.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Its the "do it for gary" thing I dont get. If that was really the motivation, surely HWalsh and the like would play nothing but Lejendary, since that was the most recent expression of Gygax's vision


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:
Why is Lawful Good the hill to die on, rather than Human/part-Human?

In an uncharacteristic act of charity... I might point out that Lawful Good might be the hill to die on because it's the only hill left after everything you just pointed out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I think HWalsh you are not understanding the core difference between the concepts of "may" and "must." My change doesn't advocate any "musts" to anyone. It only allows "mays." Your position is one of a "must." I can see why you think that reduces things to a black and white binary but nearly every one else is argueing from a different paradigm. I've been a "must" before in some areas (I was deeply against including in depth materials for playing Sabbat characters in V:TM feeling it would dilute the monstrous nature of that faction. I was wrong.)

Incorrect.

Your assertion is that non-LG main Paladins MUST be allowed. Though you try to soften that with, "You may play non-LG Paladins."

It is still a must.

Not at all true. Just your paradigm of binaries. It is an extremely restrictive world view. I mean if it is a "must" it is a lesser "must" than yours as I'm not going to swear off the entire game if I don't get my desires. So really for me it is a double may. They may remove the restriction they may not. One will make me slightly less happy than the other. Therefore at the very least there are more than 2 states of arguement and your position is invalidated.

Once again how in any way does my "may" reduce your options, except that your dogma dissallows it. Logic not emotion arguments.

I believe we have reached a misunderstanding, we see this as an object being moved from its proper position to an improper one, you believe that an object is being moved from an arbitrary position to an equally arbitrary but more personally desirable position. This is significant because to you we must seem completely unreasonable because of our unwillingness to compromise. But you must realize that while moving that object to a halfway point may be a satisfactory comprise for you, we preserve it as equally improper to your position and thus would be an equal loss.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So unless you can have something only your way youve lost and theres no room for compromise or debate? Thats seriously what youre saying. The very ability for other people to play something you dont like, while in no way preventing you from playing your preferred character, is an irreconcilable difference that you will give no ground on?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Apparently so. Hey fun fact by the way, someone said upthread that noone was gonna move position on the issue and everyone would get more entrenched. I switched position from previously wanting to keep Paladin LG only. Because I heard strong aeguments from the other side, and my own side was making some kind of plea to tradition as if thst was ever a good argument literally ever.


graystone wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Ah, gotcha, you're going way back, seemingly into silly-buggers pedantry
I'm not the one that said "every edition of D&D". ;)

Oh, come on now, it's getting embarrassing with the disingenuous pedantic garbage, I mean, I thought we had something special, ya know, bonded over critical tables that result in your butt getting torn off, you don't need to play this game with me.

Once again, I am not advocating for including any class due to legacy, but the fact that the paladin has been in the PHB for AD&D, AD&D second edition, 3rd Ed, 4th Ed, and 5th Ed, is plenty enough for an appeal to legacy, if one wanted to play that game.

Or to really play the game, we only need Fighting Man and Magic-User, the Cleric is some weird Van Helsing type thing designed back in the day to specifically counter Vampires, and Thieves were added later, and could fold into Fighting Man, so really, D&D only needs 2 classes; well, it doesn't need anything, but I guess it could work with one class: Hero.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In 2nd Ed's Legends & Lore book, I always dug the Specialty Priest of Horus: CG Paladin.


knightnday wrote:

So if you can still play a lawful good paladin, and they have a code, and whatever you mean by status you will play one.

And if that means that everyone else can play a whatever alignment "paladin" that has a code and a status then everyone is happy.

Sounds like everyone could win in that situation.

However, giving ultimatums to the devs and the company just seems poor form.

No. You misunderstood.

If they change it so that *other people* can play non-Lawful Good Paladins, as in they change the status of the Paladin in-universe, then I am done. That is where I draw my line in the sand. You can consider that poor form, but I'm deadly serious.

I can play a LG Paladin in 5e - But there are non-LG Paladins in 5e who are just "Paladin" so I don't play 5e, for example. It isn't poor form to decide to play something I won't enjoy.

201 to 250 of 295 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Another Paladin Suggestion All Messageboards