Axis-adins


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 150 of 291 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It depends what you call compromise, I guess. I think a compromise is a solution that allows both of us to play the paladin we want. You can play a PF-like paladin in 5e. As long as I can also play the character I want (for example a paladin of Saerenrae who actually has Saerenrae alignment), I'm cool with it not being named paladin. We already have Antipaladins as a name. I suggest "likeapaladinbutcooler"


4 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
It depends what you call compromise, I guess. I think a compromise is a solution that allows both of us to play the paladin we want. You can play a PF-like paladin in 5e. As long as I can also play the character I want (for example a paladin of Saerenrae who actually has Saerenrae alignment), I'm cool with it not being named paladin. We already have Antipaladins as a name. I suggest "likeapaladinbutcooler"

Seems like you're not listening to why many of us like Paladins. And no, I don't think any definition of compromise fits what you described, because one side gets exactly what they want and the other gets nothing. Would you call that a compromise?

I'm fine with another divine champion class, as long as the Paladin still exists (that's why the warpriest and inquisitor were made). In fact, I've suggested an option similar to that. But 5e's option is not at all a compromise.

Do we have to sacrifice all flavor in the name of universal-ism?


8 people marked this as a favorite.

If your idea of a "compromise" is that the LG Paladin gets to be more powerful and special then no, actually, we're not willing to compromise. The classes should be as balanced and equal as possible.

But as far as only good sacred knights getting to keep the name Paladin from tradition while other varieties take on different names, yeah, I'm totally fine with that.


So your compromise is the warpriest?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:


Seems like you're not listening to why many of us like Paladins. And no, I don't think any definition of compromise fits what you described, because one side gets exactly what they want and the other gets nothing. Would you call that a compromise?

I listen. Just like you listen me.

The thing is, we have different solutions. Mine allows you to control what character you play, so you can play your LG paladin as much as you want. Your solution need to control what character I play, to make sure I play the right way.

It is, in fact, the difference between a CG solution and a LG one.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:

I didn't mean to be demeaning, although in hindsight the way I expressed my example was too much of an exaggeration. But that is kind of what these discussions boil down to. There are many other ways to play the character you described. Problem is, making paladins of any alignment kills the flavor of the paladin. And you're obviously trying to compromise, it's just that the option you presented doesn't give anything to the LG-only side.

And honestly, I think I've been very open to compromise. I'm getting more and more excited about the four corners option. I'd consider making the Paladin a prestige class, and including a different divine champion in the CRB. Really anything that let's me keep this one class as my Round Table knight. Opening it up to any alignment kills that, just like saying a druid doesn't have to be nature themed kills the druid. Yes, I can still play a nature themed druid. But that's no longer what druids are. There would no longer be a nature themed class.

Here is an analogy of how I see this issue, using druids. The paladin class is like a druid class that can only shapeshift into mammals, and only has mammal-related powers. We want the druid class to be allowed to associate at least with other animals as well, but hopefully also plants and elementals.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Malachandra wrote:


Seems like you're not listening to why many of us like Paladins. And no, I don't think any definition of compromise fits what you described, because one side gets exactly what they want and the other gets nothing. Would you call that a compromise?

I listen. Just like you listen me.

The thing is, we have different solutions. Mine allows you to control what character you play, so you can play your LG paladin as much as you want. Your solution need to control what character I play, to make sure I play the right way.

It is, in fact, the difference between a CG solution and a LG one.

Yes, your characterization of the argument through outcomes is very chaotic, as opposed to others' characterization through means.

The difference between "what happens" and "how does it happen" is one of those ways chaotic and lawful alignments differ.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:

If your idea of a "compromise" is that the LG Paladin gets to be more powerful and special then no, actually, we're not willing to compromise. The classes should be as balanced and equal as possible.

But as far as only good sacred knights getting to keep the name Paladin from tradition while other varieties take on different names, yeah, I'm totally fine with that.

I've never suggested this. That is one of the things I like about the four corners option, each corner is balanced, special, and flavorful


4 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Malachandra wrote:


Seems like you're not listening to why many of us like Paladins. And no, I don't think any definition of compromise fits what you described, because one side gets exactly what they want and the other gets nothing. Would you call that a compromise?

I listen. Just like you listen me.

The thing is, we have different solutions. Mine allows you to control what character you play, so you can play your LG paladin as much as you want. Your solution need to control what character I play, to make sure I play the right way.

It is, in fact, the difference between a CG solution and a LG one.

Are you though? I've pointed out what the paladin would lose by switching to any alignment, yet you continue to say that it would be a compromise. To go back to the druid example, if we made druids not nature oriented, they would no longer be druids. Sure, I could play a nature themed druid. But the druid class is no longer nature themed. Now it's just a sack of mechanics. With your "compromise" I can play a LG paladin. But paladins are no longer Round Table knights. They're just some generic armor wearing champion of some random ideal. A sack of mechanics.

I don't care how you play. But you have plenty of other options to play your character. There are options for armor wearing martials, for divine champions, for charismatic warriors, for healing martials. Can't we have one option that keeps an iconic flavor alive?

Serum wrote:
Here is an analogy of how I see this issue, using druids. The paladin class is like a druid class that can only shapeshift into mammals, and only has mammal-related powers. We want the druid class to be allowed to associate at least with other animals as well, but hopefully also plants and elementals.

I get where you're going with this, but to me your scope is off. Switching the druid from mammals to all animals doesn't kill the nature theme.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:

Are you though? I've pointed out what the paladin would lose by switching to any alignment, yet you continue to say that it would be a compromise. To go back to the druid example, if we made druids not nature oriented, they would no longer be druids.

To use your example, I can really see a CG nature themed Druid, without being forced to be neutral.

I don't want to change the paladin theme. Just want to open his alignment.

Quote:
But paladins are no longer Round Table knights

Yes, they still are. Just not all of them are Sir Gallahad.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
So your compromise is the warpriest?

Just curious: Is that problematic?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mbertorch wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
So your compromise is the warpriest?
Just curious: Is that problematic?

It is not a paladin (call it champion, crusader, templar, whatever if you want to reserve Paladin to LG ones).

Warpriest are more castery than paladins, and follow a different theme.

The ideal Not.a.paladin class should wear heavy armor, martial prowess, a dash of divine abilities, Auras, have a code, and follow it. 5e nailed it for me, in this regard.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

Are you though? I've pointed out what the paladin would lose by switching to any alignment, yet you continue to say that it would be a compromise. To go back to the druid example, if we made druids not nature oriented, they would no longer be druids.

To use your example, I can really see a CG nature themed Druid, without being forced to be neutral.

I don't want to change the paladin theme. Just want to open his alignment.

Quote:
But paladins are no longer Round Table knights
Yes, they still are. Just not all of them are Sir Gallahad.

I had a player play a CG Druid. No problem with that. This is the exact same discussion I had just a few posts before. It's the flavor that matters. Being CG doesn't make a druid less nature themed. Making it not nature themed makes it less nature themed. The paladin is unique, because when you change the alignment, you do change the theme. You make it flavorless. For some classes that's OK. We need the basic fighter. But we also need flavorful options, especially for the paladin. Hence the four corners option, or any other compromise I've brought up.

I never said all paladins should be Sir Gallahad. Do you think all LG paladins are the same? A NG paladin is not a Round Table knight. And that's the point.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I disagree that a NG character can't be a Round Table knight. Saerenrae would kick ass as Round Table Knight. I also disagree with the idea that Order of Ancients paladins in 5e are flavorless. So at this point, it is a matter of taste only.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

Are you though? I've pointed out what the paladin would lose by switching to any alignment, yet you continue to say that it would be a compromise. To go back to the druid example, if we made druids not nature oriented, they would no longer be druids.

To use your example, I can really see a CG nature themed Druid, without being forced to be neutral.

I don't want to change the paladin theme. Just want to open his alignment.

Quote:
But paladins are no longer Round Table knights
Yes, they still are. Just not all of them are Sir Gallahad.

I had a player play a CG Druid. No problem with that. This is the exact same discussion I had just a few posts before. It's the flavor that matters. Being CG doesn't make a druid less nature themed. Making it not nature themed makes it less nature themed. The paladin is unique, because when you change the alignment, you do change the theme. You make it flavorless. For some classes that's OK. We need the basic fighter. But we also need flavorful options, especially for the paladin. Hence the four corners option, or any other compromise I've brought up.

I never said all paladins should be Sir Gallahad. Do you think all LG paladins are the same? A NG paladin is not a Round Table knight. And that's the point.

So what about (LG only) Paladin as a subclass of the more generic (any alignment) "Holy Champion" class? That way Paladins are unique and restricted to "Knights of the Round Table" while I can still make a "Holy Champion of Veganism"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
So your compromise is the warpriest?
Just curious: Is that problematic?

It is not a paladin (call it champion, crusader, templar, whatever if you want to reserve Paladin to LG ones).

Warpriest are more castery than paladins, and follow a different theme.

The ideal Not.a.paladin class should wear heavy armor, martial prowess, a dash of divine abilities, Auras, have a code, and follow it. 5e nailed it for me, in this regard.

Okay. I definitely get your point. But I completely disagree with your last statement. The 5e Paladin completely misses the mark for me. I am utterly uninterested in it.


SilverliteSword wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

Are you though? I've pointed out what the paladin would lose by switching to any alignment, yet you continue to say that it would be a compromise. To go back to the druid example, if we made druids not nature oriented, they would no longer be druids.

To use your example, I can really see a CG nature themed Druid, without being forced to be neutral.

I don't want to change the paladin theme. Just want to open his alignment.

Quote:
But paladins are no longer Round Table knights
Yes, they still are. Just not all of them are Sir Gallahad.

I had a player play a CG Druid. No problem with that. This is the exact same discussion I had just a few posts before. It's the flavor that matters. Being CG doesn't make a druid less nature themed. Making it not nature themed makes it less nature themed. The paladin is unique, because when you change the alignment, you do change the theme. You make it flavorless. For some classes that's OK. We need the basic fighter. But we also need flavorful options, especially for the paladin. Hence the four corners option, or any other compromise I've brought up.

I never said all paladins should be Sir Gallahad. Do you think all LG paladins are the same? A NG paladin is not a Round Table knight. And that's the point.

So what about (LG only) Paladin as a subclass of the more generic (any alignment) "Holy Champion" class? That way Paladins are unique and restricted to "Knights of the Round Table" while I can still make a "Holy Champion of Veganism"?

Yup, as long as they have some uniqueness and maintain maximum flavor, that'd be great. The hard part is uniqueness. It'd be a little annoying to have 9 subclasses. But I would listen if Paizo showed an idea for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SilverliteSword wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

Are you though? I've pointed out what the paladin would lose by switching to any alignment, yet you continue to say that it would be a compromise. To go back to the druid example, if we made druids not nature oriented, they would no longer be druids.

To use your example, I can really see a CG nature themed Druid, without being forced to be neutral.

I don't want to change the paladin theme. Just want to open his alignment.

Quote:
But paladins are no longer Round Table knights
Yes, they still are. Just not all of them are Sir Gallahad.

I had a player play a CG Druid. No problem with that. This is the exact same discussion I had just a few posts before. It's the flavor that matters. Being CG doesn't make a druid less nature themed. Making it not nature themed makes it less nature themed. The paladin is unique, because when you change the alignment, you do change the theme. You make it flavorless. For some classes that's OK. We need the basic fighter. But we also need flavorful options, especially for the paladin. Hence the four corners option, or any other compromise I've brought up.

I never said all paladins should be Sir Gallahad. Do you think all LG paladins are the same? A NG paladin is not a Round Table knight. And that's the point.

So what about (LG only) Paladin as a subclass of the more generic (any alignment) "Holy Champion" class? That way Paladins are unique and restricted to "Knights of the Round Table" while I can still make a "Holy Champion of Veganism"?

Veganism is an alignment?? Now things have gone too far!...


gustavo iglesias wrote:
I disagree that a NG character can't be a Round Table knight. Saerenrae would kick ass as Round Table Knight. I also disagree with the idea that Order of Ancients paladins in 5e are flavorless. So at this point, it is a matter of taste only.

I think she (and her champions, more importantly) would certainly be an effective knight... they just wouldn't "fit in" as a Knight. And I don't mean to say that 5e is flavorless, just that it misses the flavor I, at least, associate with paladins (I haven't looked that much into 5e paladins, but alignmentless misses the mark for me).

All that said, I'm OK with your opinion. But are you willing to compromise?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Malachandra wrote:


Seems like you're not listening to why many of us like Paladins. And no, I don't think any definition of compromise fits what you described, because one side gets exactly what they want and the other gets nothing. Would you call that a compromise?

I listen. Just like you listen me.

The thing is, we have different solutions. Mine allows you to control what character you play, so you can play your LG paladin as much as you want. Your solution need to control what character I play, to make sure I play the right way.

It is, in fact, the difference between a CG solution and a LG one.

In your example, wouldn't the selfish rule be LE rather than LG?


Malachandra wrote:


Yup, as long as they have some uniqueness and maintain maximum flavor, that'd be great. The hard part is uniqueness. It'd be a little annoying to have 9 subclasses. But I would listen if Paizo showed an idea for it.

Then there is hope to achieve a compromise. Maybe the 5e orders are not unique enough for you (it is for me), and maybe we need to wait for Paizo take on it, but I agree each order/tenet /champion/code should be flavorful and unique.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mbertorch wrote:
SilverliteSword wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

Are you though? I've pointed out what the paladin would lose by switching to any alignment, yet you continue to say that it would be a compromise. To go back to the druid example, if we made druids not nature oriented, they would no longer be druids.

To use your example, I can really see a CG nature themed Druid, without being forced to be neutral.

I don't want to change the paladin theme. Just want to open his alignment.

Quote:
But paladins are no longer Round Table knights
Yes, they still are. Just not all of them are Sir Gallahad.

I had a player play a CG Druid. No problem with that. This is the exact same discussion I had just a few posts before. It's the flavor that matters. Being CG doesn't make a druid less nature themed. Making it not nature themed makes it less nature themed. The paladin is unique, because when you change the alignment, you do change the theme. You make it flavorless. For some classes that's OK. We need the basic fighter. But we also need flavorful options, especially for the paladin. Hence the four corners option, or any other compromise I've brought up.

I never said all paladins should be Sir Gallahad. Do you think all LG paladins are the same? A NG paladin is not a Round Table knight. And that's the point.

So what about (LG only) Paladin as a subclass of the more generic (any alignment) "Holy Champion" class? That way Paladins are unique and restricted to "Knights of the Round Table" while I can still make a "Holy Champion of Veganism"?
Veganism is an alignment?? Now things have gone too far!...

Are you kidding? The Bacon vs Vegan axis is the most important philosophical discussion we can engage in. Followed closely by Pirates vs Ninjas.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:


All that said, I'm OK with your opinion. But are you willing to compromise?

Again, to compromise what?

This is what I want:
Different options, in Core, for a martial, armored guy, a divine champion, with a code, a dash of divine abilities, and tenets of different flavors, which can be of different alignments, in particular NG, CG, and N (pharasma, at least). That's my minimum. I can give up anything else.

Is that possible in conjunction with your minimum?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
SilverliteSword wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

Are you though? I've pointed out what the paladin would lose by switching to any alignment, yet you continue to say that it would be a compromise. To go back to the druid example, if we made druids not nature oriented, they would no longer be druids.

To use your example, I can really see a CG nature themed Druid, without being forced to be neutral.

I don't want to change the paladin theme. Just want to open his alignment.

Quote:
But paladins are no longer Round Table knights
Yes, they still are. Just not all of them are Sir Gallahad.

I had a player play a CG Druid. No problem with that. This is the exact same discussion I had just a few posts before. It's the flavor that matters. Being CG doesn't make a druid less nature themed. Making it not nature themed makes it less nature themed. The paladin is unique, because when you change the alignment, you do change the theme. You make it flavorless. For some classes that's OK. We need the basic fighter. But we also need flavorful options, especially for the paladin. Hence the four corners option, or any other compromise I've brought up.

I never said all paladins should be Sir Gallahad. Do you think all LG paladins are the same? A NG paladin is not a Round Table knight. And that's the point.

So what about (LG only) Paladin as a subclass of the more generic (any alignment) "Holy Champion" class? That way Paladins are unique and restricted to "Knights of the Round Table" while I can still make a "Holy Champion of Veganism"?
Veganism is an alignment?? Now things have gone too far!...
Are you kidding? The Bacon vs Vegan axis is the most important philosophical discussion we can engage in. Followed closely by Pirates vs Ninjas.

Whoa. Well, you've certainly given me...

Food for thought.


I think we can all agree that the most important alignment is Chipotle vs Qdoba. Although I would also like to mention Marvel vs DC

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Malachandra wrote:


All that said, I'm OK with your opinion. But are you willing to compromise?

Again, to compromise what?

This is what I want:
Different options, in Core, for a martial, armored guy, a divine champion, with a code, a dash of divine abilities, and tenets of different flavors, which can be of different alignments, in particular NG, CG, and N (pharasma, at least). That's my minimum. I can give up anything else.

Is that possible in conjunction with your minimum?

Speaking only for myself, I thank you for so clearly stating what your minimum position is.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Malachandra wrote:


All that said, I'm OK with your opinion. But are you willing to compromise?

Again, to compromise what?

This is what I want:
Different options, in Core, for a martial, armored guy, a divine champion, with a code, a dash of divine abilities, and tenets of different flavors, which can be of different alignments, in particular NG, CG, and N (pharasma, at least). That's my minimum. I can give up anything else.

Is that possible in conjunction with your minimum?

We must contend with physical limitations as well as the conceptual.

If we have room for solid options for two alignments, which would you prioritize? Is middling options for three acceptable? Or would you take space from some other part of the book?

If it came to it, I would want LG and CG represented, and done well. I think that CG should focus on being extraordinarily mobile in armor and be immune to paralysis to distinguish itself from LG.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:
SilverliteSword wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

Are you though? I've pointed out what the paladin would lose by switching to any alignment, yet you continue to say that it would be a compromise. To go back to the druid example, if we made druids not nature oriented, they would no longer be druids.

To use your example, I can really see a CG nature themed Druid, without being forced to be neutral.

I don't want to change the paladin theme. Just want to open his alignment.

Quote:
But paladins are no longer Round Table knights
Yes, they still are. Just not all of them are Sir Gallahad.

I had a player play a CG Druid. No problem with that. This is the exact same discussion I had just a few posts before. It's the flavor that matters. Being CG doesn't make a druid less nature themed. Making it not nature themed makes it less nature themed. The paladin is unique, because when you change the alignment, you do change the theme. You make it flavorless. For some classes that's OK. We need the basic fighter. But we also need flavorful options, especially for the paladin. Hence the four corners option, or any other compromise I've brought up.

I never said all paladins should be Sir Gallahad. Do you think all LG paladins are the same? A NG paladin is not a Round Table knight. And that's the point.

So what about (LG only) Paladin as a subclass of the more generic (any alignment) "Holy Champion" class? That way Paladins are unique and restricted to "Knights of the Round Table" while I can still make a "Holy Champion of Veganism"?
Yup, as long as they have some uniqueness and maintain maximum flavor, that'd be great. The hard part is uniqueness. It'd be a little annoying to have 9 subclasses. But I would listen if Paizo showed an idea for it.

I was thinking Paladin would be the only core subclass, with later books (Paizo or third party) being able to add in others using the more flexible base chassis. That way everything is very modular.

Also the base chassis should be usable as-is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I just want the paladin, the full paladin package with the defensive abilities and the healing and the smiting and the code of conduct and whatever else they decide belongs on the paladin chasis, with an alignment requirement of "Any Good" and no requirement to worship a deity. I don't think Neutral Good and Chaotic Good need their own package of unique mechanics. If the standard paladin mechanics are good enough for LG, they're sure as hell good enough for NG and CG. That's my minimum. Whatever the other alignments get, if I can get "Any Good" paladins who don't need to worship a deity, I'll be happy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neurophage wrote:
I just want the paladin, the full paladin package with the defensive abilities and the healing and the smiting and the code of conduct and whatever else they decide belongs on the paladin chasis, with an alignment requirement of "Any Good" and no requirement to worship a deity. I don't think Neutral Good and Chaotic Good need their own package of unique mechanics. If the standard paladin mechanics are good enough for LG, they're sure as hell good enough for NG and CG. That's my minimum. Whatever the other alignments get, if I can get "Any Good" paladins who don't need to worship a deity, I'll be happy.

For points made many times, this won't work for me. But I think some great compromises are floating around.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'm partial to four corners, myself.

As I've mentioned before, putting a different small bonus on lay on hands for each alignment is a small, but significant way to distinguish the different aligned classes. That and a few alignment exclusive feats in the class list goes a long way toward satisfying my LG protective instinct.


Malachandra wrote:
Neurophage wrote:
I just want the paladin, the full paladin package with the defensive abilities and the healing and the smiting and the code of conduct and whatever else they decide belongs on the paladin chasis, with an alignment requirement of "Any Good" and no requirement to worship a deity. I don't think Neutral Good and Chaotic Good need their own package of unique mechanics. If the standard paladin mechanics are good enough for LG, they're sure as hell good enough for NG and CG. That's my minimum. Whatever the other alignments get, if I can get "Any Good" paladins who don't need to worship a deity, I'll be happy.
For points made many times, this won't work for me. But I think some great compromise are floating around.

Is it the lack of deity aspect, or all good alignments?


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Distant Scholar wrote:
A holy warrior for every alignment sounds great. I would prefer they keep the label "paladin" for Lawful Good ones, though.
Seems fair to me!

coukd work, as long as the divine champions aren't clearly worse (for instance to focused, smite slaver isn't all that useful, neither is hand of freedom that releases handcuffs, if those are the equivalent of smite evil and a mercied up loh) and there anathema and codes are as costly, getting this right will be tricky, but power should have a price.


Malachandra wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
It depends what you call compromise, I guess. I think a compromise is a solution that allows both of us to play the paladin we want. You can play a PF-like paladin in 5e. As long as I can also play the character I want (for example a paladin of Saerenrae who actually has Saerenrae alignment), I'm cool with it not being named paladin. We already have Antipaladins as a name. I suggest "likeapaladinbutcooler"

Seems like you're not listening to why many of us like Paladins. And no, I don't think any definition of compromise fits what you described, because one side gets exactly what they want and the other gets nothing. Would you call that a compromise?

I'm fine with another divine champion class, as long as the Paladin still exists (that's why the warpriest and inquisitor were made). In fact, I've suggested an option similar to that. But 5e's option is not at all a compromise.

Do we have to sacrifice all flavor in the name of universal-ism?

war priests and Inquisitors are not and do not feel like holy champions (plus they get added to faiths that already have paladins, begging the question why they haven't face rolled the other temples with their mechanically and lore wise vastly superior forces) they are gish classes, a divine champion is blessed, has baked in abilities and preferably no casting, they are special, chosen, not ordained, Litanies actually look like a decent system for that, tho linking them to judeo-christian sins that golarion deities may even regard as virtues (ask abadar about greed, or Iomedae about wrath for instance) is kinda problematic, but the concept of a punchy channeled curse is a good one. WPs and Inquisitors on the other hand are flavoured clerics who skipped high level spell training for melee power and investigation skills respectively, they aren't blessed, they are trained. That's the problem (kinda like Unpaladins or the CG paladins of Horus from clerics guide and deities and demigods way back in 2e) you can't say 'this spell caster is actually the holy warrior' because they don't have the flavour of warriors, they don't feel like divine champions and however mechanically solid they are that lack makes them feel half baked, or like an artificial sweetner, almost their but not 'real'. At least imho the best divine champions in literature are the Mortal Swords in the Malazan Book of the Fallen series, by Stephen Erikson, I recommend that series.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:

I'm partial to four corners, myself.

As I've mentioned before, putting a different small bonus on lay on hands for each alignment is a small, but significant way to distinguish the different aligned classes. That and a few alignment exclusive feats in the class list goes a long way toward satisfying my LG protective instinct.

Can we get a list of abilities that you think should be paladin only? Knowing goes a long way towards letting us know what you don't want touched right now we are going back and forth with out knowing what we want to be in a paladin.

Edit: oops meant for that to be a post to Malachandra


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Just dropping my thoughts off here...
LG based around protecting/curing allies. Save others from harm.
CG based around buffing allies. Empower others to go out.
LE based around controlling enemies (and possibly allies). Subjugate or punish others.
CE based around destroying enemies. Be the metaphorical wrecking ball you want to see in the world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mbertorch wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Neurophage wrote:
I just want the paladin, the full paladin package with the defensive abilities and the healing and the smiting and the code of conduct and whatever else they decide belongs on the paladin chasis, with an alignment requirement of "Any Good" and no requirement to worship a deity. I don't think Neutral Good and Chaotic Good need their own package of unique mechanics. If the standard paladin mechanics are good enough for LG, they're sure as hell good enough for NG and CG. That's my minimum. Whatever the other alignments get, if I can get "Any Good" paladins who don't need to worship a deity, I'll be happy.
For points made many times, this won't work for me. But I think some great compromise are floating around.
Is it the lack of deity aspect, or all good alignments?

It's the all good alignments that I have trouble with. I actually don't think paladins should be tied to a deity at all, they are alignment champions for me, not divine champions. I guess that distinction is why there is so much trouble. If you think paladins are divine champions, then every deity should be able to have a champion. But if they are alignment champions, then opening them up to any alignment but LG (without some mechanical differences), means they're just some random class. Which is why the "sack of mechanics" phrase comes up often.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Emeric Tusan wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:

I'm partial to four corners, myself.

As I've mentioned before, putting a different small bonus on lay on hands for each alignment is a small, but significant way to distinguish the different aligned classes. That and a few alignment exclusive feats in the class list goes a long way toward satisfying my LG protective instinct.

Can we get a list of abilities that you think should be paladin only? Knowing goes a long way towards letting us know what you don't want touched right now we are going back and forth with out knowing what we want to be in a paladin.

Edit: oops meant for that to be a post to Malachandra

It's not so much the mechanics that are important to me, just that there are distinct classes. QuidEst's options sound great, and I would need their codes to be vastly different, because the playstyle has to be vastly different. But my post above might help answer that question too?


There were a couple druid posts that I wanted to touch on. Sorry for the multiple posts, they were all kind of different and I wanted them to be in their own posts.

The Sideromancer wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

Perhaps a better example would be:

"I want to be a Druid. But a druid that really doesn't care about the whole nature thing"
"OK... why do you want to be a druid then?"
"Well, I like the druid spell list, and I want to be a full caster with an animal companion"
...

If you're intent on declaring metal as not a part of nature, then I have run into this problem enough to houserule the restriction away. Missing the ability to fulfil a crucial part of their intended concept is painful, and leads to the likes of the class only appearing on villains with little grasp on reality.

But that's enough of my personal war. What say you about paladins?

I kind of like the metal restriction. But I wouldn't mind seeing it go. I don't have a strong opinion, just as long as druids continue to be nature oriented.

Arachnofiend wrote:
Also, for the record, you can totally play an urban druid that focuses on the variety of life found in a city, or a blight druid that venerates disease and pestilence (Nurgle loves you!). There's even undeath-focused druids that hail from a forest where undead creatures spawn naturally (it's in Nidal IIRC).

There are lots of cool archetypes to use druids in unconventional ways, but all of them specifically still revere nature (I checked your examples, although I couldn't find the undeath druid, but I'm willing to bet I'm right here ;) ).

I'm hoping to use the druid example to explain my feelings about paladins. I don't mean to say that people are greedy and just want the mechanics. I mean to say that paladins have a unique flavor that I think should be preserved.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Neurophage wrote:
I just want the paladin, the full paladin package with the defensive abilities and the healing and the smiting and the code of conduct and whatever else they decide belongs on the paladin chasis, with an alignment requirement of "Any Good" and no requirement to worship a deity. I don't think Neutral Good and Chaotic Good need their own package of unique mechanics. If the standard paladin mechanics are good enough for LG, they're sure as hell good enough for NG and CG. That's my minimum. Whatever the other alignments get, if I can get "Any Good" paladins who don't need to worship a deity, I'll be happy.
For points made many times, this won't work for me. But I think some great compromise are floating around.
Is it the lack of deity aspect, or all good alignments?
It's the all good alignments that I have trouble with. I actually don't think paladins should be tied to a deity at all, they are alignment champions for me, not divine champions. I guess that distinction is why there is so much trouble. If you think paladins are divine champions, then every deity should be able to have a champion. But if they are alignment champions, then opening them up to any alignment but LG (without some mechanical differences), means they're just some random class. Which is why the "sack of mechanics" phrase comes up often.

Opening paladins up to Any Good does not make them "just some random class." They're still paragons of virtue and personal nobility. They're still the default goodest of good guys. They're still the ones who swore their oaths, even if they didn't think anyone was listening, to stand against evil and be the brilliant torch shining in the stormy night and all that other stuff. They still embody the ideal hero. But who that ideal hero is means different things to different people. If one person perfectly follows every tenet of the code, but they just happen to believe in personal freedom and the inherent virtue of the unfettered will of mankind (they see their own adherence to the code's tenets as being a personal choice. The behaviors required by the code just happened to be how they wanted to live their life. Yes, even the "respect legitimate authority" part. Part of respecting someone is having enough respect to tell them that that they're wrong) then in what way do they not embody the ideal hero?


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
I was always opposed to the idea before on the basis that non-lawful alignments, by definition, lack the philosophical/intellectual underpinning to their beliefs necessary for a meaningful code of conduct, but after reading the preview of the proposed 2e paladin it doesn't really seem like LG pallis will be held to any sort of standard either so it probably doesn't matter.

I must have missed the part in the nonlawful alignment descriptions about lacking philosophical and intellectual underpinnings.

Even worse, I've been giving my nonlawful characters philosophy and intellect this whole time!

Damn it, I can't believe I did that! I'm so embarrassed. :(


KingOfAnything wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Malachandra wrote:


All that said, I'm OK with your opinion. But are you willing to compromise?

Again, to compromise what?

This is what I want:
Different options, in Core, for a martial, armored guy, a divine champion, with a code, a dash of divine abilities, and tenets of different flavors, which can be of different alignments, in particular NG, CG, and N (pharasma, at least). That's my minimum. I can give up anything else.

Is that possible in conjunction with your minimum?

We must contend with physical limitations as well as the conceptual.

If we have room for solid options for two alignments, which would you prioritize? Is middling options for three acceptable? Or would you take space from some other part of the book?

If it came to it, I would want LG and CG represented, and done well. I think that CG should focus on being extraordinarily mobile in armor and be immune to paralysis to distinguish itself from LG.

If absolutely needed, I guess "any good". However, I think it is possible to build modular options to have more flavors, without too much space. Just being able to move the priority of the tenets give room for more. And 5e manages to allow many kind of alignments in 3 basic oaths, without using more space than you need for, say, wizard specialists of rangers fighting styles


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neurophage wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Neurophage wrote:
I just want the paladin, the full paladin package with the defensive abilities and the healing and the smiting and the code of conduct and whatever else they decide belongs on the paladin chasis, with an alignment requirement of "Any Good" and no requirement to worship a deity. I don't think Neutral Good and Chaotic Good need their own package of unique mechanics. If the standard paladin mechanics are good enough for LG, they're sure as hell good enough for NG and CG. That's my minimum. Whatever the other alignments get, if I can get "Any Good" paladins who don't need to worship a deity, I'll be happy.
For points made many times, this won't work for me. But I think some great compromise are floating around.
Is it the lack of deity aspect, or all good alignments?
It's the all good alignments that I have trouble with. I actually don't think paladins should be tied to a deity at all, they are alignment champions for me, not divine champions. I guess that distinction is why there is so much trouble. If you think paladins are divine champions, then every deity should be able to have a champion. But if they are alignment champions, then opening them up to any alignment but LG (without some mechanical differences), means they're just some random class. Which is why the "sack of mechanics" phrase comes up often.
Opening paladins up to Any Good does not make them "just some random class." They're still paragons of virtue and personal nobility. They're still the default goodest of good guys. They're still the ones who swore their oaths, even if they didn't think anyone was listening, to stand against evil and be the brilliant torch shining in the stormy night and all that other stuff. They still embody the ideal hero. But who that ideal hero is means different things to different people. If one person perfectly follows every tenet of the code, but they just happen to believe in personal...

But it's not just Good I'm interested in. I don't want them to be the "goodest of good". I don't want them to be the only shining torch. I don't want them to embody the ideal hero. I think if any of those things were true, all of the other classes would be meaningless. I mean, I might be a really selfless wizard, but as long as I'm not a paladin, I can't embody the ideal hero?

I just want Paladins to keep their Round Table flavor. That's it. And I think I've stated a few times why "Any Good" doesn't fit that (including the post you quoted...) But there are some great compromises out there.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
. I don't want them to embody the ideal hero,

The difference is I think the ideal hero can have multiple alignments. Thor is an ideal hero.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:

But it's not just Good I'm interested in. I don't want them to be the "goodest of good". I don't want them to be the only shining torch. I don't want them to embody the ideal hero. I think if any of those things were true, all of the other classes would be meaningless. I mean, I might be a really selfless wizard, but as long as I'm not a paladin, I can't embody the ideal hero?

I just want Paladins to keep their Round Table flavor. That's it. And I think I've stated a few times why "Any Good" doesn't fit that (including the post you quoted...) But there are some great compromises out there.

Well now I'm really confused. How does opening the paladin up to NG and CG preclude "Round Table flavor"? More to the point, if they do open up, how does that prevent you from playing that? It doesn't. Keeping it closed just prevents other people from playing it how they want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Quote:
. I don't want them to embody the ideal hero,
The difference is I think the ideal hero can have multiple alignments. Thor is an ideal hero.

My problem is the word ideal. If Thor is the ideal hero, then everyone else is... a hero. They might be pretty great, but they will never be Thor great. The Paladin is not the ideal hero. It's the embodiment of a historical archetype. If we try to make them the ideal hero, the one and only champion of the gods, everyone loses.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:

Do we have to sacrifice all flavor in the name of universal-ism?

No, but we probably should.

Flavor is something players decide about their characters, and something DM's decide about their NPCs. It can even be suggested by text in rulebooks. Mechanics can be thematic, but if making mechanics flavorful limits player creativity, those mechanics are unnecessary.

It is much better game design to say "This is the Paragon class" with a chassis that fits, which allows DMs to place whatever restrictions they like (since it's well within their purview), instead of making a class with less general appeal and mechanical openness to a variety of character concepts. There's no reason an anti-paladin should be a separate class, and no reason a nature-themed Paladin should be a separate class.

What I would do, if I were Paizo, was make a huge list of Class Feats, subgroup them into various "archetypes" (Tyrant, Paladin, Knight, etc.), while maintaining that, mechanically, this class can take whatever class feats it likes (Subject to DM discretion).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

Are you though? I've pointed out what the paladin would lose by switching to any alignment, yet you continue to say that it would be a compromise. To go back to the druid example, if we made druids not nature oriented, they would no longer be druids.

To use your example, I can really see a CG nature themed Druid, without being forced to be neutral.

I don't want to change the paladin theme. Just want to open his alignment.

Quote:
But paladins are no longer Round Table knights
Yes, they still are. Just not all of them are Sir Gallahad.

The thing is, their Alignment, to us is part of the theme. If you take that away, you take away part of the theme, and I don't think that is avoidable.

I don't think any of the Paladin players don't want you to have your own special CG Champion. We just don't want it to be a Paladin or have the Paladin class abilities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

Are you though? I've pointed out what the paladin would lose by switching to any alignment, yet you continue to say that it would be a compromise. To go back to the druid example, if we made druids not nature oriented, they would no longer be druids.

To use your example, I can really see a CG nature themed Druid, without being forced to be neutral.

I don't want to change the paladin theme. Just want to open his alignment.

Quote:
But paladins are no longer Round Table knights
Yes, they still are. Just not all of them are Sir Gallahad.

The thing is, their Alignment, to us is part of the theme. If you take that away, you take away part of the theme, and I don't think that is avoidable.

I don't think any of the Paladin players don't want you to have your own special CG Champion. We just don't want it to be a Paladin or have the Paladin class abilities.

I'll be honest: if that's really where the line is, if that is genuinely the hill to die on, I can't see it as a position worth defending.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Davor wrote:
It is much better game design to say

Hold on.

As a professional game designer. Someone with experience in both tabletop and video games. Someone with well over 10 years of professional experience. Someone who also taught it for over 6 years...

This is not a factual statement.

It is virtually impossible to say with any degree of certainty what is and is not better design.

That is what you feel is better design. I feel a different route is better design.

They are both equally valid stances, but neither one is more valid.

If you ever want to see that one play out, go to the GDC in California, or the IGDC in Texas. Get a buddy to walk down the hallway with you and have one of you, in a loud enough to be heard voice, say to the other:

"Dude, gameplay is more important than story."

Then, have your buddy reply:

"You're crazy. Story trumps gameplay every time."

-----

Watch the entire convention hall erupt into a shouting match. This debate has raged on for decades and we still don't have a clear answer over which is better design. All we have is the fact that people feel very strongly on both sides of the fence.

1 to 50 of 291 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Axis-adins All Messageboards