| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.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.
I keep hearing and answering this question. There are plenty of posts above.
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.
That would be my preference in general as well. I'd like to see a Chaotic Good Exemplar be full of energy, believing in others and empowering them to join their cause. To me its a fascinating look at the difference between a Lawful approach to Good and a Chaotic approach.
The Lawful side is protective because they're maintaining a status quo. Or making slower changes when needed. While 'status quo' can often be interpreted poorly, its maintaining an ideal that the innocent must be protected. The weak must be guarded. Lawful Good protects its own as each is part of the greater whole, and when Lawful Good considers "Any innocent soul, and even most any soul that can still be saved." as part of their mandate, it shows incredible depth of compassion.
The Chaotic side is more about empowering, because they want to bring those changes, take down the obstacles that stand between people and their dreams. It being less about protection could be because its more about participation. Chaotic doesn't think you're part of a greater whole, you're a galaxy of thoughts and desires and dreams all your own, something unique and incredible. Chaotic Good wants to bring out the best you can be, help you become another dazzling star in the Heavens.
I guess that Lawful Good looks at the stars and finds the constellations, how they come together to become something incredible. And Chaotic Good looks at the stars and sees them one at time, somehow finding something different about each of them. I just really want a Chaotic Good equivalent to have real idealism in their views, and showcase that Chaotic doesn't mean "Only cares about self." or even "All about FREEDOM!!! And the rest is semantics." Paladins get to embody all sorts of virtues, their Chaotic Good counterpart should too.
Edit:
Lawful Evil being Domination is something I could get behind.
I think Chaotic Evil should be about Corruption though. Making others like themselves. Chaotic Evil is as focused on individualism as any other Chaotic, but in a selfish way. So it'd make sense to me if they wanted to turn the world into a corrupted mirror of themselves, what they see as a perfect being.
But also, if they're all Charisma based, it would make sense to me if they all fall easily into a Leader role. And just outright destroying things is harder to get followers for. Corrupting and twisting the innocent to be as Evil as you are sounds cool though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Chaotic side is more about empowering, because they want to bring those changes, take down the obstacles that stand between people and their dreams. It being less about protection could be because its more about participation. Chaotic doesn't think you're part of a greater whole, you're a galaxy of thoughts and desires and dreams all your own, something unique and incredible. Chaotic Good wants to bring out the best you can be, help you become another dazzling star in the Heavens.More or less, yes. I'd say the main thing is that Chaotic Good doesn't want to bring out the best you that you can be. They are more concerned making a place where you can be happy and can do what you want to do. They don't want to guide you though, because that would be them influencing you which messes with your freedom.
That would be the actions of Chaotic Good as a whole, I think. Whereas I think a class devoted to it should be the absolute ideal of the alignment. I don't think Chaotics deny that others can influence them, just that it comes down to individual choice. Chaotic Good types, in general, may be satisfied with just giving you a space to grow. But a Chaotic Good character that has as much idealism as a Paladin, in my view, should care more about others than a character less concerned with an 'Ideal World.'
If Chaotic Champion can best help you achieve your dreams and potential by empowering or guiding you, why not? Chaotic characters look to their Gods for guidance, their parents, their loved ones, their friends, their comrades. If anything, a Chaotic character may be more open to those influences than a Lawful character, who already 'knows' what's right and what's wrong.
I think there is a strangely limited view of Chaotic as an alignment that really holds them back. Not even talking about Codes, but that the notion that they are completely and utterly independent of others having any influence on them. It just does not make sense to me. They may not want others to force their views on them, but I think they're absolutely capable of accepting and being influenced by others. It is similar to me how people think that Lawful is for some reason a stilted Alignment without imagination, rigid and unchanging.
I'll admit I quickly interpret arguments that Chaotic is frivolous or Lawful is rigid as attempts to hold those alignments back, or hold them down, to 'prove' that a different alignment is a better idea or option. I really, really want any 'Alignment' class to be all about showcasing everything great (or terrifying, in the case of Evil) about their chosen alignment, focusing on the best they can achieve over a limited scope of what is 'proper' for them.
I... Don't think Paladins have, or should have, a counter part. However I'll say that a character who embodies the Chaotic Good ideal should have the freedom to explore different aspects of Chaotic Good.
I know you don't think Paladins should have a counterpart. Is shorthand for "The Chaotic Good Only Class, That Embodies The Ideals Of That Class, In A Fashion Resembling How A Paladin Is Supposed To Embody The Best Of Lawful Good."
How much they should be similar, I don't know. But my personal focus would be on not limiting them to a view of Chaotic that is just Freedom From Everything. I personally think that Chaotic Good is the alignment of Hope, that anything is possible. Not that Lawful Good can't bring Hope, just that Chaotic Good is the absolute master of bringing Good Feelings into the hearts of the downtrodden and despaired, promising that things can change.
I peg Lawful Good as the absolute masters of Justice. Tyraeal's line from Diablo 3 "You cannot judge me! I AM JUSTICE ITSELF!" being a wonderful example. Being able to actually say that, something that would normally be a sign that someone is delusional at best or Evil more likely, and have it be both true and amazingly cool is how I like to think of Lawful Good.
I tend to consider Neutral Good the Compassion alignment, or the alignment of Love to steal from Shelyn. Just an unending well of adoration and love for existence.
Not that any other alignment is incapable of one thing or another. But I wouldn't never expect a Chaotic character to be able to say they are Justice itself with a straight face, or a Lawful character to embody the Hope for change that a Chaotic crusader could.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A great difference between the 2 positions (if we reduce it to 2 positions, which is probably an oversimplyfication), is that many of us do not see the paladin, and other champions, as champions of the alignment, because the alignment itself is not monolythic.
A paladin of Ragathiel is not like a paladin of Shelyn. A paladin of Erastil is not like a Paladin of Iomedae. A paladin of Torag is not like a Paladin of Apsu. And that's before we start with LG paladins of non LG deities, like paladins of Irori, Saerenrae, or Abadar.
Same goes with CG. CG "champions" of Besmara are not like CG paladins of Desna. Cayden Caylean has differnt goals than Milani or Desna. And CG "champions" of Besmara are not like CG "champions" of Gorum, and CG "champions" of Gorum are not like CG champions of Calistria. Actually, CG champions of Calistria might have more in common with CE champions of Calistria than they have with CG champions of Milani, for example.
So this is one of the contention points. If those "divine champions" or "holy warriors" that Paizo mentioned, including the paladin, are, in fact, divine champions. If they are, then trying to characterize them as "the defenders of everything that is LG" or "everything that is CG", or whatever, misses the point by a lot. Because there is not a clear description of "everything that is LG". Erastil is LG. Iomedae is too. So is Ragathiel. They don't work the same. A paladin that represents "everythign that is LG" cannot represent the three of them at the same time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's my biggest issue with paladins of other alignments. You don't have the same devotion to rules, code, oaths, and order with a chaotic alignment. Any CG character can manage "don't be evil", what sets apart a CG paladin as a divine warrior for their faith?
I'm really curious about chaotic paladin concepts, because I don't have any right now. I can imagine any-Lawful paladin concepts and that helps me think and reason about class options, but I don't have a Chaotic counterpart in mind to help me reason about how the Chaotic version of the class would look.
Chaotic can be quite devoted to their cause. It springs from within and can be inspired by outside examples rather than coming from tradition and following outside strictures
A Chaotic counterpart to the Paladin will be devoted to questioning the status-quo, encouraging people to think for themselves and tearing down any legal structure that helps oppressing the innocent. All the while taking care not to hurt innocent people and not bully people into obedience
"In the name of Milani and mine! DEATH TO ALL TYRANTS!"
"For the greater good is just a pathetic excuse. You sacrifice people to your cause, even ONE person, therefore you are evil. Period.""I can't tell you what to do. It must be YOUR choice. But if you make the wrong choice, beware, for I will be after you."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A great difference between the 2 positions (if we reduce it to 2 positions, which is probably an oversimplyfication), is that many of us do not see the paladin, and other champions, as champions of the alignment, because the alignment itself is not monolythic.
A paladin of Ragathiel is not like a paladin of Shelyn. A paladin of Erastil is not like a Paladin of Iomedae. A paladin of Torag is not like a Paladin of Apsu. And that's before we start with LG paladins of non LG deities, like paladins of Irori, Saerenrae, or Abadar.
Same goes with CG. CG "champions" of Besmara are not like CG paladins of Desna. Cayden Caylean has differnt goals than Milani or Desna. And CG "champions" of Besmara are not like CG "champions" of Gorum, and CG "champions" of Gorum are not like CG champions of Calistria. Actually, CG champions of Calistria might have more in common with CE champions of Calistria than they have with CG champions of Milani, for example.
So this is one of the contention points. If those "divine champions" or "holy warriors" that Paizo mentioned, including the paladin, are, in fact, divine champions. If they are, then trying to characterize them as "the defenders of everything that is LG" or "everything that is CG", or whatever, misses the point by a lot. Because there is not a clear description of "everything that is LG". Erastil is LG. Iomedae is too. So is Ragathiel. They don't work the same. A paladin that represents "everythign that is LG" cannot represent the three of them at the same time.
Fair point, I get wrapped up in my own notion that Lawful Good is being pushed as 'Better' or that Chaotic Good is being intentionally held back with interpretations that seems ridiculously limiting to me.
But given that Besmara could technically have CG Champions, my mind is blown into the stratosphere. I actually have a Pirate character I'm playing right now, who is in love with Besmara, and like a true worshipper has no intend to earn her love in turn. He has honest plans to 'steal' love and affection from her. But the notion of Besmara's followers is crazy to me because I'm really caught up in the "Take what you can, give nothing back!" aspect of it all.
Privateers though, Steel Falcons or Gray Corsairs, I forget what Andoran named them. They could be CG champions of Besmara.
But I'm not that attached to "Must be best this alignment has to offer!" so much as I'm just REALLY against "They are about Freedom." because that is so pointlessly limited compared to Paladins. Paladins oppose all Evil, other 'Champion' classes should have broad enemies and aims as well, so that they're useful in many situations.
Empowering others to act, though, that I'd say is a good base for Chaotic Good. And being led by Passion over Discipline, I think that also fits. I am open to being told I'm wrong though.
If we had to have a CG-equivalent to Paladins, that's the take I'd most favor, Xerres.
|
Frankly every god SHOULDN'T have an option for a divine warrior champion. WTF use does Nethys have for one?
A better version is archetypes of classes that actually work with the deity. Norgorber: rogue/alchemist Calistria Ranger maybe bard. Shelyn Bard, Gorum Fighter, Rovagug Barbarian, nethys wizard, etc etc etc.
edit: or alternately their archetypes can come off paladin, as they're the deities who have them already.
Gorum, Calistria, Norgorber, Shelyn, Gorum and Rovagug already have paladins/antipaladins, with Golarion established codes to exemplify their ideals. This is completely aside from the fact that even the lawful evil deities can have antipaladins now. Your idea necessarily requires these (un)holy champions to be stripped from deities who already have established orders in Golarion.
Just because paladins have heavy armor proficiency does not require that they use it, as Deadmanwalking said earlier, otherwise archer paladins of Erastil would be in trouble. I'm pretty sure antipaladins of Norgorber and Calistria wouldn't necessarily use heavy armor, but antipaladins of Gorum and Rovagug likely would.
The paladin's key themes and mechanics are focused in protecting others and punishing evil-doers. This is a key component for every good deity, to a greater or lesser degree. Good worshipers of Neutral deities are also focused on using the deities' ideals in good ways (like protecting innocents).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A great difference between the 2 positions (if we reduce it to 2 positions, which is probably an oversimplyfication), is that many of us do not see the paladin, and other champions, as champions of the alignment, because the alignment itself is not monolythic.
A paladin of Ragathiel is not like a paladin of Shelyn. A paladin of Erastil is not like a Paladin of Iomedae. A paladin of Torag is not like a Paladin of Apsu. And that's before we start with LG paladins of non LG deities, like paladins of Irori, Saerenrae, or Abadar.
Same goes with CG. CG "champions" of Besmara are not like CG paladins of Desna. Cayden Caylean has differnt goals than Milani or Desna. And CG "champions" of Besmara are not like CG "champions" of Gorum, and CG "champions" of Gorum are not like CG champions of Calistria. Actually, CG champions of Calistria might have more in common with CE champions of Calistria than they have with CG champions of Milani, for example.
So this is one of the contention points. If those "divine champions" or "holy warriors" that Paizo mentioned, including the paladin, are, in fact, divine champions. If they are, then trying to characterize them as "the defenders of everything that is LG" or "everything that is CG", or whatever, misses the point by a lot. Because there is not a clear description of "everything that is LG". Erastil is LG. Iomedae is too. So is Ragathiel. They don't work the same. A paladin that represents "everythign that is LG" cannot represent the three of them at the same time.
I think I actually agree with everything here. I guess "alignment champion" isn't quite what I'm going for, it's just a good distinction from "divine champion". That said, different champions of the same alignment could still look radically different, because there isn't an "everything that is LG". But I think if you were to go the "divine champion" route, these problems would grow beyond control. There is no one class that can champion every deity, no matter how modular it is.
So when people say they want to open up the paladin so that all gods have a champion... I think it's giving up a class with a lot of flavor in an unsuccessful attempt to get something we already have. I mean, pretend that the alignment restriction went away. The paladin would still make zero sense as a champion of Cayden Cailean. And honestly, even with the restriction the paladin makes zero sense as a champion of Erastil.
Using a four corners option would let these deities have paladin orders devoted to them, without the strange responsibility of these orders being the one true champions of their god.
|
|
If anyone wants to see what non-lawful codes can look like, might I suggest reading some that are actually published by paizo? For example, see Shelyn's or Sarenrae's. Remember that these codes replace the default one. We also have an example of how to convert that into P2E, as the edicts and anathemas for Shelyn's clerics line up pretty well with her P1E paladin code.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So when people say they want to open up the paladin so that all gods have a champion... I think it's giving up a class with a lot of flavor in an unsuccessful attempt to get something we already have. I mean, pretend that the alignment restriction went away. The paladin would still make zero sense as a champion of Cayden Cailean. And honestly, even with the restriction the paladin makes zero sense as a champion of Erastil.
Doesn't the fact that Erastil and Irori have paladins not mean that Paizo's paladins already don't fit the stereotypical knight in shining armor that is being idealized here?
The mechanics for the good-aligned paladin (the default shown by Paizo) is focused on protecting others and punishing evil-doers. I believe all good deities can get behind that (as well as good champions of neutral deities), and I believe this is a more directed and martial role than the cleric's. Let the deities' edicts and anathemas direct the paladin's actions outside of the main focus of protecting and punishing. I think edicts and anathemas are way more flavorful than a one-size-fits-one-alignment blanket code.
So when people say they want to open up the paladin so that all gods have a champion... I think it's giving up a class with a lot of flavor in an unsuccessful attempt to get something we already have. I mean, pretend that the alignment restriction went away. The paladin would still make zero sense as a champion of Cayden Cailean. And honestly, even with the restriction the paladin makes zero sense as a champion of Erastil.
Pretty much, yeah. :/
I mean, I'd love to help brainstorm ideas for other champion classes, once we get the 2e rules down and know what we're working with.
I'm less interested in the fighting going on, and watering down a concept that so well embodies the shining, ordered knight. I'd rather develop the shining, ordered knight, see how the rules work, and then make a chaos knight that embodies those elements.
Also, to make ranger that much more awesome, and far beyond the old "favored enemy."
A healthy diet requires at least eight ounces of meat a day.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So when people say they want to open up the paladin so that all gods have a champion... I think it's giving up a class with a lot of flavor in an unsuccessful attempt to get something we already have. I mean, pretend that the alignment restriction went away. The paladin would still make zero sense as a champion of Cayden Cailean. And honestly, even with the restriction the paladin makes zero sense as a champion of Erastil.Pretty much, yeah. :/
I mean, I'd love to help brainstorm ideas for other champion classes, once we get the 2e rules down and know what we're working with.
I'm less interested in the fighting going on, and watering down a concept that so well embodies the shining, ordered knight. I'd rather develop the shining, ordered knight, see how the rules work, and then make a chaos knight that embodies those elements.
Also, to make ranger that much more awesome, and far beyond the old "favored enemy."
This is another point where I think we will have a hard time agreeing. However, probably Paizo's vision is closer to yours.
I disagree with the notion that paladins HAVE to be not only LG, but also a clone of Lancelot. Even if the only option open is LG, I think there should be options to play a skirmisher paladin with scimitar and bow who uses light mail and dances in combat, a paladin with a rapier, a paladin with a pair of revolvers, and so on.
The classic paladin, clad in Knightly Armor, with a Horse, from Gygax era, was (and is) nice and all, but he was also a human-only character, centric on a specific kind of warrior of Europe. Golarion is richer than that. A gnome paladin will not, or should not, look the same than an elven paladin,a stryx paladin, or a kitsune paladin. A human paladin from Varisia should not be the same than a human paladin from alkenstar, or garund, or Tian.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So when people say they want to open up the paladin so that all gods have a champion... I think it's giving up a class with a lot of flavor in an unsuccessful attempt to get something we already have. I mean, pretend that the alignment restriction went away. The paladin would still make zero sense as a champion of Cayden Cailean. And honestly, even with the restriction the paladin makes zero sense as a champion of Erastil.Pretty much, yeah. :/
I mean, I'd love to help brainstorm ideas for other champion classes, once we get the 2e rules down and know what we're working with.
I'm less interested in the fighting going on, and watering down a concept that so well embodies the shining, ordered knight. I'd rather develop the shining, ordered knight, see how the rules work, and then make a chaos knight that embodies those elements.
Also, to make ranger that much more awesome, and far beyond the old "favored enemy."
This is another point where I think we will have a hard time agreeing. However, probably Paizo's vision is closer to yours.
I disagree with the notion that paladins HAVE to be not only LG, but also a clone of Lancelot. Even if the only option open is LG, I think there should be options to play a skirmisher paladin with scimitar and bow who uses light mail and dances in combat, a paladin with a rapier, a paladin with a pair of revolvers, and so on.
The classic paladin, clad in Knightly Armor, with a Horse, from Gygax era, was (and is) nice and all, but he was also a human-only character, centric on a specific kind of warrior of Europe. Golarion is richer than that. A gnome paladin will not, or should not, look the same than an elven paladin,a stryx paladin, or a kitsune paladin. A human paladin from Varisia should not be the same than a human paladin from alkenstar, or garund, or Tian.
Yeah. This is where the argument goes in circles. We can still have hot cocoa together though, right? I mean, that sounds pretty cool. :D
I mean, my biggest issue so far is folks' behavior towards eachother. It's been pretty bad and I just hate that.
|
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.
But paladins are no longer Round Table knightsYes, 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.
Can you expand upon this last part ?
What are the Paladin class abilities that you see as most important to the theme ?
And what abilities would fit the CG Champion in your opinion ?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So when people say they want to open up the paladin so that all gods have a champion... I think it's giving up a class with a lot of flavor in an unsuccessful attempt to get something we already have. I mean, pretend that the alignment restriction went away. The paladin would still make zero sense as a champion of Cayden Cailean. And honestly, even with the restriction the paladin makes zero sense as a champion of Erastil.Pretty much, yeah. :/
I mean, I'd love to help brainstorm ideas for other champion classes, once we get the 2e rules down and know what we're working with.
I'm less interested in the fighting going on, and watering down a concept that so well embodies the shining, ordered knight. I'd rather develop the shining, ordered knight, see how the rules work, and then make a chaos knight that embodies those elements.
Also, to make ranger that much more awesome, and far beyond the old "favored enemy."
This is another point where I think we will have a hard time agreeing. However, probably Paizo's vision is closer to yours.
I disagree with the notion that paladins HAVE to be not only LG, but also a clone of Lancelot. Even if the only option open is LG, I think there should be options to play a skirmisher paladin with scimitar and bow who uses light mail and dances in combat, a paladin with a rapier, a paladin with a pair of revolvers, and so on.
The classic paladin, clad in Knightly Armor, with a Horse, from Gygax era, was (and is) nice and all, but he was also a human-only character, centric on a specific kind of warrior of Europe. Golarion is richer than that. A gnome paladin will not, or should not, look the same than an elven paladin,a stryx paladin, or a kitsune paladin. A human paladin from Varisia should not be the same than a human paladin from alkenstar, or garund, or Tian.
One of the things I like, among many things. about Eberron was that the Silver Flame (Primary Lawful Good religion of the setting.) had its very 'standard' Catholic leaning European Knightly center in Thrane. And they are absolutely dedicated Paladins and all, but in the Demon Wastes, among the Orc tribes dedicated to Kalok Shash (What they call the Silver Flame) you will find Paladins. They do not wear metal armor, any metal weapons they have are priceless heirlooms, and they live among Barbarians in 'primitive' tribes.
But they're still Paladins, doing all they can to stop Fiends from escaping the Demon Wastes. They fight creatures far more powerful than they are, in battles that always cost their tribes many lives, but they do it because its their responsibility to protect the world from Evil.
I'd love to see Paladin archetypes embracing that image as much as the standard embraces Gawain or Lancelot. I mean, my preference would be a specific class for Chaotic Good, then the other alignments. But I'd be fine with just "Paladin is any Good, and the archetypes will be based on cool new fighting methods, not just letting other people play it."
Just got to take whatever I can hopefully get at this point.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to have Divine Champions of all Alignments. I see them as those willing to die to uphold and embody their values. Those who will never ever betray who they really are.
Yet when people talk about opening the range of Alignments for Paladins, I have this image of Zorro and Robin Hood sitting at the Round Table, likely yawning with their feet on the table while the Knights religiously listen to King Arthur
It does not really fit
Just like Batman and Green Arrow cannot stand each other because they do not really think the other guy's method can work in the long term
I still hope we can find a way that gives everyone what they're looking for :-)
Can you expand upon this last part ?
What are the Paladin class abilities that you see as most important to the theme ?
And what abilities would fit the CG Champion in your opinion ?
I won't speak for him, but I can at least answer what I would see. Mark mentioned in the paladin thread an ability that lets you emobody celestial power, or manifest a halo. Ditto to the ability to let your mount grow angel wings or otherwise become a manifested celestial.
Smite evil is another.
The inquisitor/Hellknight ability to discern lies would be another for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A d10, full-BAB Inquisitor with less spells would be a great every-alignment paladin.
Giving her an aura too, of course.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still hope we can find a way that gives everyone what they're looking for :-)
To answer a question you asked earlier, I personally am fundamentally at odds with many, even those that I'm currently arguing alongside. Because I do not want specific, alignment restricted champions, at least not on the class level. I would rather that be an archetype thing (as PF2 does it at least), with you having a code to follow and a slew of alignment specific feats you can pick as a member of any class. At the class level, I want a sack of mechanics that can fit multiple playstyles and character tropes, and let me RP it how I'd like.
I mean, if were eventually going to have an alignment locked class with the full narrative power of a base class, why not now? Lock Monks to LN only. Bards to LE. In fact, let me do this properly:
LG- Paladins
LN- Monks
LE- Bards
NG- Rangers
TN- Druids
NE- Barbarians (tempted to go CN with them, but the other natured-themed classes are N)
CG- Sorcerers
CN- Alchemists
CE- Rogues
Which leaves fighters, wizards, and clerics to freely pick their alignments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things I like, among many things. about Eberron was that the Silver Flame (Primary Lawful Good religion of the setting.) had its very 'standard' Catholic leaning European Knightly center in Thrane. And they are absolutely dedicated Paladins and all, but in the Demon Wastes, among the Orc tribes dedicated to Kalok Shash (What they call the Silver Flame) you will find Paladins. They do not wear metal armor, any metal weapons they have are priceless heirlooms, and they live among Barbarians in 'primitive' tribes.
But they're still Paladins, doing all they can to stop Fiends from escaping the Demon Wastes. They fight creatures far more powerful than they are, in battles that always cost their tribes many lives, but they do it because its their responsibility to protect the world from Evil.
I'd love to see Paladin archetypes embracing that image as much as the standard embraces Gawain or Lancelot. I mean, my preference would be a specific class for Chaotic Good, then the other alignments. But I'd be fine with just "Paladin is any Good, and the archetypes will be based on cool new fighting methods, not just letting other people play it."
Someone mentioned, don't remember if this thread or the other one, a Jaguar Warrior as a divine champion, and since then, I'm bound to make a Jaguar-warrior themed paladin.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know this is mostly you venting and not a serious post, but if I can ask... what bothers you so much about the Paladin?
It's one class, for traditionalists, it's one of the few things for them in the system.
This is again talking in circles, but will repeat it anyways. I have nothing against traditional paladins. I hope you enjoy them as much as you can.
I just don't see why your ability to have fun with them, requires that I play them in the same way. I understand your point of view is different, but mine is that.
I know real life examples sometimes cross some boundaries, so please understand this is only an example, and has no moral implications:
To me, what you are doing is like if I ask for women suffrage, and you ask me why I 'm opposed to men's suffrage. I'm not. I just don't think giving right to vote to women means I don't want men to vote.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Post deleted, because I won't belabor a point I already made.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing about "round table knights" is that they were definitely not all LG, and with only one exception the LG ones were not all flawless Paragons of unsmirchable virtue either. Most of them were flawed individuals, with some very human needs and failings. Like the whole thing with Lancelot and Guenivere. They were mostly portrayed as rounded, well, people, who despite their issues strove to protect their ideals and kingdom. That is not an exclusively LG wheelhouse.
The Eberron orc paladins and what should logically be martial artist paladins of Irori have also been brought up above, and those also definitely fit the theme of what a paladin should be without cleaving strictly to the "knight in shining armor" archetype. And a NG paladin of Serenrae would far better exemplify the all loving "knight in shining armor" than an intolerant combative LG Paladin of Iomedae.
So, the flavor goes both ways. That's why so many of us feel the flavor fully supports the Paladin ideal being manifested outside the LG-only bastion. And there should be a lot of options to manifest both specialist flavor and specialist mechanics beyond and on top of, merged with, the base traditional paladin.
------
Running with my OP again but now refactoring through a different lens, suppose there's just the one class: an any-good paladin. Save the evil / antipaladin for an NPC class or later book.
Say that in addition to the base paladin chassis above, Lawful Good paladins can delve into Warlord abilities like I mentioned for the "Enforcer." Again on top of the base chassis, Chaotic Good paladins can delve into reprisal and endurance abilities like I mentioned for the "Vindicator." And then Neutral Good paladins can delve more into the best light and Healing and Buffing powers.
So, all paladins can guide and protect with auras, all paladins can heal and buff, all paladins can smite and endure. But LG are best at the first and the best leaders and "flag bearers"; NG are the best at channeling the power of light and life and at bolstering rather than directing their allies; and CG are the best at tanking and representing holy fury.
Does that work for people?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know this is mostly you venting and not a serious post, but if I can ask... what bothers you so much about the Paladin?
It's one class, for traditionalists, it's one of the few things for them in the system.
Serious question in turn, not meant to be insulting at all:
Is it difficult to accept the idea that they want something specific from the game, and they don't accept lesser alternatives? Because it comes across to me as a mirror to your arguments.
You will not accept a Non-Lawful Paladin. Full stop, there is no compromise on that. You never accept compromise on that front, you're all or nothing there. Okay.
Why is it a problem to accept that they feel the same about opening the alignment. I think many, many people love the idea of a Champion against Evil, and they want to play one. And Paladin is built from the ground up to be THE Champion who opposes Evil. So that's what they want to play.
They don't want to play Cleric, they want to play the Paladin.
They don't want to play Inquisitor, they want to play the Paladin.
They don't want to play the Warpriest, they want to play the Paladin.
Now I accept that, for you, its basically a scientific fact that Paladins are Lawful Good. Its just a fact of nature for you. "Of course Paladins are Lawful Good. Its metaphysically impossible to be otherwise." and despite my personal beliefs about what that forces the Paladin to then represent, I accept that you don't think it makes you better than other characters/players. "Lawful Good isn't better, its just the one that does this thing. This no more means its superior than lesser gravity giving the Moononites a vertical leap beyond all measure makes them superior. Its just what it is."
But, why can't you accept that other people do not think it has to be a law of nature. They say "The Gods can change the Laws of Nature, lets ask them to." They see the Ultimate Champion of Good and think "I sure love that idea, but I'd like to play my Ultimate Champion this way..." and they can't, because you and other players/designers think "But, that's not how it works."
I think you're wrong, but its a matter of opinion against opinion. Personally, for me its just fairness. I hate the idea that I get something when others don't, I hate the idea that Paladins and Lawful Good are special. I do not like the idea that Lawful Good has to be 'rewarded' for its discipline.
I can still understand your arguments, and accept them for what they are though. I honestly do have sympathy that you have to respond to people constantly saying "You won't lose anything!" when you've made your point very clearly. And just saying you're being unreasonable isn't going to change anything. But you're still taking away the Possibility to play the Paladin their way. A way you despise, a way that seems unnatural to you, but the way they want to. They can't play it that way, officially, and it causes resentment.
I do not find either side of this debate difficult to understand. Difficult to agree with, difficult to compromise with, even difficult to discuss with, but I think I understand people's sides very well. It is an honest question, why does it seem to be harder for you?
Running with my OP again but now refactoring through a different lens, suppose there's just the one class: an any-good paladin. Save the evil / antipaladin for an NPC class or later book.
Say that in addition to the base paladin chassis above, Lawful Good paladins can delve into Warlord abilities like I mentioned for the "Enforcer." Again on top of the base chassis, Chaotic Good paladins can delve into reprisal and endurance abilities like I mentioned for the "Vindicator." And then Neutral Good paladins can delve more into the best light and Healing and Buffing powers.
So, all paladins can guide and protect with auras, all paladins can heal and buff, all paladins can smite and endure. But LG are best at the first and the best leaders and "flag bearers"; NG are the best at channeling the power of light and life and at bolstering rather than directing their allies; and CG are the best at tanking and representing holy fury.
Does that work for people?
I'm kind of surprised that you suggested Chaotic to be the Tanking one. That seems to be opposite what lots of people suggest.
I'm personally satisfied with anything the just says "People can play Paladin how they want, or they can have this thing that is equivalent." This idea is fun and fine. So long as other alignments aren't treated like an afterthought to Lawful Good, I'd be happy.
I would honestly be fine with limiting paladins to LG, NG, and LN with the additional limitation that your deity had to be one of those alignments. This let's me follow closer to my dieties ethos with out changing the goods that paladins are limited to.
The paladin is LG. That doesn't mean other alignments shoud not have their own holy warriors as long as they are different than the paladin.
On the contrary because in D&D cosmology alignments hold equal power and ballance out (yes my dear CE friend, despite what you keep telling yourself the Abyss has not won and there's a reason for that) it's more than fair for other aligments to have warriors tied to them but again, it makes sense those other "aspects" do different things than the paladin because alignments are fundamentally different from one another.
That said:
-The paladin as we know him is LG.
-The antipaladin as we know it is CE, he's basically the opposite of the paladin.
-The "liberator" is the champion of CG. Abilities like freedom of movement, breaking compulsions in others and eventually being immune to all forms of constrictions himself should be some of his powers. He falls when he denies someone his or her freedom for selfish reasons.
-The "tyrant" is the champion of LE. He gains abilities to impose his will on others and compel obedience. Abilities that cause him to control and subjugate people are particularly appropriate for this "aspect".
These are easy. As for NG/N/NE/LN/CN I need to think on them a bit more before suggesting anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still unsure about the liberator thing, in particular, and champions of alignments, in general.
Why should a CG paladin of Groetus have a focus on liberation and freedom?
I'm still unsure about the liberator thing, in particular, and champions of alignments, in general.
Why should a CG paladin of Groetus have a focus on liberation and freedom?
"Liberator" is just a term. Depending on his personality a follower of Groetus embodying the CG ideal enough to get empowered by it won't necessarily fight for "Freedom" itself but will oppose those who want to impose themselves over the fate of others messing with their fate in the process.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I actually agree with everything here. I guess "alignment champion" isn't quite what I'm going for, it's just a good distinction from "divine champion". That said, different champions of the same alignment could still look radically different, because there isn't an "everything that is LG". But I think if you were to go the "divine champion" route, these problems would grow beyond control. There is no one class that can champion every deity, no matter how modular it is.
How are you even espousing the bolded here? "There is no one class that can magically represent every deity, no matter how modular it is." Yes, there is; his name is the Cleric and he does his job quite nicely, no matter the deity. And then they did it all over again with the Oracle. Different take on the specific methodology of the class, but the thing the new class represents (the entire width and breadth of all the deities in the game) did not change. "There is no one class that can guard every deity's interests from the shadows, no matter how modular it is." Impossible class, thy name is Inquisitor. Why is tweaking the spellcasting down to its minimum level over the course of 20 levels and subbing in real martial-y goodness so bewildering?
I really doubt Groetus will have CG clerics in PF2.I'm still unsure about the liberator thing, in particular, and champions of alignments, in general.
Why should a CG paladin of Groetus have a focus on liberation and freedom?
I could ask the same for Besmara, Gorum, etc.
The point is: liberation and anti tyranny is Milani's portfolio. It is not a cause common to every CG God (much less for CG champions of CN gods) , despite the assumption it is because 3.5 made Liberator a class. Just like not every LG paladin is Iomedae-like. A LG paladin of ersstil has a very different vibe, shown in his vows
I really doubt Groetus will have CG clerics in PF2.I'm still unsure about the liberator thing, in particular, and champions of alignments, in general.
Why should a CG paladin of Groetus have a focus on liberation and freedom?I could ask the same for Besmara, Gorum, etc.
The point is: liberation and anti tyranny is Milani's portfolio. It is not a cause common to every CG God (much less for CG champions of CN gods) , despite the assumption it is because 3.5 made Liberator a class. Just like not every LG paladin is Iomedae-like. A LG paladin of ersstil has a very different vibe, shown in his vows
Gorum and Besmara will definitely have CG worshipers. Gorum will bless those who fight for any reason, so long as they will fight. Besmara is already established in the lore as being popular among privateers and other "noble" pirate-types.
I'd probably expect deities where their alignment is a core of their portfolio to be limited (Abadar and Asmodeus will probably not have Neutral or Neutral Evil followers, for example).
Contributor
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gorum will bless those who fight for any reason, so long as they will fight.
By this logic, he should be willing to sponsor clerics of any alignment.
This isn't even really a critique of your point... what if you really could have a cleric of Gorum of any alignment? (Technically speaking, you could even have paladins of Gorum.)
That'd actually be kind of awesome. ^_^
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly? I'd love that. That's one of the things I was hoping they would do by moving away from the "one step" alignment rules. Another deity I could see accepting worshipers from every alignment is Nethys. Maybe Norgorber takes the full "Jerk Square" of Neutral, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Neutral, and Chaotic Evil?