| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I approve of the designation “jerk square”. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I just reread the article on Nethys (someone asked a rhetorical question "What would Nethys even DO with a paladin, so I wanted an answer), he defintely would be fine with clerics of any alignment. He explicitly does not give a damn what his worshippers get up to, and is mentioned to have paladins within his church's ranks.
Chaotic Good Groetian follower is a fun idea.
"The world is ending, nothing is permanent. Let me help you enjoy life together so we can welcome the end happy!"
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Geez, I tried to take a break yesterday because I was feeling frustrated at not being listened to. Since then, I've been compared to a heinous thief and a sexist who doesn't want women to have suffrage in this thread and a racist party host in another.
What's even more frustrating is that I think there is room for compromise. We can open the class up without it losing all flavor. But we aren't even trying to discuss that. Every time I try to bring up a compromise, I get the question "Why do we even need one? I'm not sure you understand, but my character being CG doesn't mean yours can't be LG". If I'm not being clear in my position, can we just accept that this is my position, and move on?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tried to be clear that my example did not imply that you were against women vote, but to illustrate how I see the issue of giving something to a group meaning the other group loses what they have. I understand your feeling is different, but as I said, there is no other moral issue implied.
Compromise is a half measure, a middle ground.
The compromise between "I don't want to move the status quo" and "I want a revolution", is "we can change the status quo a bit, but not that much as to have a revolution". Keeping the status quo is not compromise, and starting a revolution is not compromise.
So, what is the bare minimum you are abke to change the status quo in order to compromise?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tried to be clear that my example did not imply that you were against women vote, but to illustrate how I see the issue of giving something to a group meaning the other group loses what they have. I understand your feeling is different, but as I said, there is no other moral issue implied.
Compromise is a half measure, a middle ground.
The compromise between "I don't want to move the status quo" and "I want a revolution", is "we can change the status quo a bit, but not that much as to have a revolution". Keeping the status quo is not compromise, and starting a revolution is not compromise.So, what is the bare minimum you are abke to change the status quo in order to compromise?
I understand that, but there were so many other examples you could have used. Off the top of my head "You can drive a Ford while I drive a BMW", or "I'm not saying we stop airing the NFL. I just think there is room for other sports too". And the thing is, I've been getting a lot of analogies that use an obviously bigoted or otherwise wrong alternative to describe the LG-only crowd. Even if every one of those posters didn't mean to imply that I am bigoted, when you take them all together how can I not get frustrated?
My minimum is that there is a class (or subclass in the four corners option or a prestige class) that is LG only, has a few unique mechanics and is the only one named Paladin. I am willing to wait till the next book and switch out the paladin for a divine champion in Core (although I think the divine champion idea is an impossible standard). An "any good" option doesn't work, because all of the alignments would be the same, and the paladin would lose its flavor for me. But even with that, I think my position leaves plenty of room for compromise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand that, but there were so many other examples you could have used. Off the top of my head "You can drive a Ford while I drive a BMW",
fair point. I understand your frustration because I feel the same when people in your side talk about "sacks of mechanics" for example. Will try to look for examples with less moral charge
My minimum is that there is a class (or subclass in the four corners option or a prestige class) that is LG only, has a few unique mechanics and is the only one named Paladin. I am willing to wait till the next book and switch out the paladin for a divine champion in Core (although I think the divine champion idea is an impossible standard). An "any good" option doesn't work, because all of the alignments would be the same, and the paladin would lose its flavor for me. But even with that, I think my position leaves plenty of room for compromise.
I am not sure I follow you.
Let's call that divine champion who is not a paladin the "warpriest".
How did that change the current status quo?
Remember, in order to compromise, you have to sacrifice points from your position. For example, my preferred outcome is something like 5e, with tenets, but no required Alignment. I understand that is too much change for some people, so I give up that. I also give up some alignment based champions, like CN, to go for some easier ones, which I listed. That is what I give up, from my "this is a revolution" position. I am not sure I see what do you sacrifice from your "status quo is fine" position? Not saying there is none, but I missed it
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My minimum is that there is a class (or subclass in the four corners option or a prestige class) that is LG only, has a few unique mechanics and is the only one named Paladin. I am willing to wait till the next book and switch out the paladin for a divine champion in Core (although I think the divine champion idea is an impossible standard). An "any good" option doesn't work, because all of the alignments would be the same, and the paladin would lose its flavor for me. But even with that, I think my position leaves plenty of room for compromise.I am not sure I follow you.
Let's call that divine champion who is not a paladin the "warpriest".
How did that change the current status quo?
Remember, in order to compromise, you have to sacrifice points from your position. For example, my preferred outcome is something like 5e, with tenets, but no required Alignment. I understand that is too much change for some people, so I give up that. I also give up some alignment based champions, like CN, to go for some easier ones, which I listed. That is what I give up, from my "this is a revolution" position. I am not sure I see what do you sacrifice from your "status quo is fine" position? Not saying there is none, but I missed it
It changed the status quo because the paladin is not a divine champion for me. So we took out the Round Table knight class and introduced a class with an entirely different flavor, if that makes sense. Similar mechanics, different flavor.
In a four corners option, I sacrifice the 100% unique paladin. I'd be up for a subclass for each alignment, I just think that's a lot of work and space, and I kind of like the idea of paladins (or exemplars maybe?) being hard-line (two non-neutral aspects) for alignment.
For the warpriest plus paladin prestige class option, I'm trading in a base class for a prestige class. That's a LOT to give up. But I also offered to let the paladin wait a book. That's also huge (not sure whether it gives up more or less than making the paladin a prestige class).
So I've given my minimum, and offered multiple options that would meet that minimum and take steps toward opening the class up. One of them (the prestige class option) would be very painful for me. So I think I can say in confidence that I've sacrificed points from my position and made a solid attempt at compromise.
Problem is, I've been at this point of the conversation before. Previously, what I've heard in reply is "No, those compromises don't work, we want any-Good and that's not to much to ask". And we go around in circles as I explain why that won't work for me. So my urge is to simply not compromise. I have what I want in PF1, and I have what I want in the PF2 Playtest (sort of, I'd like to see other options tested). I don't like the balance of the other options in PF1 (Antipaladin, Gray Paladin, etc.), but that's not my problem to solve (because if everyone thought like I thought, there would be no need for those options). I want to compromise, because I want people to have fun options and enjoy the game and because I accept that not everyone feels the way I do, but with the way the conversation has been going, why should I?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My minimum is that there is a class (or subclass in the four corners option or a prestige class) that is LG only, has a few unique mechanics and is the only one named Paladin. I am willing to wait till the next book and switch out the paladin for a divine champion in Core (although I think the divine champion idea is an impossible standard). An "any good" option doesn't work, because all of the alignments would be the same, and the paladin would lose its flavor for me. But even with that, I think my position leaves plenty of room for compromise.
It does not. We know it does not, because variations of that solution have been proposed by at least six different people that I've seen, on various sides of this debate. Each time, it is rejected. There are several loud voices (one VERY loud) on your side of the debate that would see and do see even the suggestion of a paladin subclass instead of a full class with wholly unique mechanics as something to quit the game over. The loudest has said that if CG or any other alignment have a champion that is even equivalent to paladins in core, they'll quit the game. So...yeah.
Also, a divine champion could be a warpriest, inquisitor, or oracle class
Edit: To be clear, either your subclass or prestige class ideas would work for me. Mostly anyways, enough that I would agree to it. But, like you, I would not be able to get everyone on my side to the table with that proposal, even assuming I'm truly on the same side as the people I'm arguing with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It changed the status quo because the paladin is not a divine champion for me. So we took out the Round Table knight class and introduced a class with an entirely different flavor, if that makes sense. Similar mechanics, different flavor.
Ah, this make sense, I didn't understood it the first time. So your position would be that LG paladin will also be one of these Divine Champions, which will follow the same frame, more or less (like, full martial, dash of divine spells, etc), with every Divine champion gaining slightly different unique things (such as smite evil for LG paladins, and freedom of movement or whatever for CG, and hold person for LE, or whatever other things that make sense and seem balanced).
That's fair. Yes, that's compromise. It's different from the proposition I've read often, which is that the LG "champion" is a paladin, then the rest are like variants of Inquisitors or Warpriests. That's exactly the current status quo (I can play a warpriest of Desna right now), so I did not see the point of it.
In a four corners option, I sacrifice the 100% unique paladin. I'd be up for a subclass for each alignment, I just think that's a lot of work and space, and I kind of like the idea of paladins (or exemplars maybe?) being hard-line (two non-neutral aspects) for alignment.
That's interesting.
What would you think about adding also a NG one? I don't mean a single tenet that will work for "all good". But an specific NG one, with a slightly different code than the LG or the CG.I say that because I always feel that Saerenrae herself should be able to be a paladin, ando followers of her should be able to be paladins without being either more zealot than she is (ie: more lawful) or more free-spirit than she is (ie: more chaotic, if CG champions make it into the book)
And while we are at it... what would you think about a N one? Specifically, around Pharasma. Do you think it's doable a code for it?
But I also offered to let the paladin wait a book. That's also huge (not sure...
Yes I missed that. It's a huge concesion, true. I hope it's an unnecesary concesion, I want paladins in the CRB. I have played Paladins before, and I like the class and I think it's important to have the core classes in the core book. I would like to have more flavors of it ASAP, but not at the cost of giving up the LG one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It changed the status quo because the paladin is not a divine champion for me. So we took out the Round Table knight class and introduced a class with an entirely different flavor, if that makes sense. Similar mechanics, different flavor.Ah, this make sense, I didn't understood it the first time. So your position would be that LG paladin will also be one of these Divine Champions, which will follow the same frame, more or less (like, full martial, dash of divine spells, etc), with every Divine champion gaining slightly different unique things (such as smite evil for LG paladins, and freedom of movement or whatever for CG, and hold person for LE, or whatever other things that make sense and seem balanced).
That's fair. Yes, that's compromise. It's different from the proposition I've read often, which is that the LG "champion" is a paladin, then the rest are like variants of Inquisitors or Warpriests. That's exactly the current status quo (I can play a warpriest of Desna right now), so I did not see the point of it.
In a four corners option, I sacrifice the 100% unique paladin. I'd be up for a subclass for each alignment, I just think that's a lot of work and space, and I kind of like the idea of paladins (or exemplars maybe?) being hard-line (two non-neutral aspects) for alignment.That's interesting.
What would you think about adding also a NG one? I don't mean a single tenet that will work for "all good". But an specific NG one, with a slightly different code than the LG or the CG.
I say that because I always feel that Saerenrae herself should be able to be a paladin, ando followers of her should be able to be paladins without being either more zealot than she is (ie: more lawful) or more free-spirit than she is (ie: more chaotic, if CG champions make it into the book)And while we are at it... what would you think about a N one? Specifically, around Pharasma. Do you think it's doable a code for it?
But I also offered to let...
I'm trying to think of a way to say this without sounding cheesy, but I think I owe you an apology. One of the recent posts put me on edge, and I ended up lashing out (especially in my post before this one), and there was no need for that to be directed at you. That said, thank you for keeping with this discussion, I'm really excited about some of the options we've got.
For the divine champion, it's more like I'd like to see the two separate. Maybe a warpriest-like class with adjustments to keep it distinct from the paladin but also give it the martial feel that people are wanting. Maybe some more divine champion-esque abilities rather than smiting, while moving the paladin to more Round Table ablities. Not sure how that would work, it just seems like Paizo would need to keep them distinct to avoid repetition.
For the four corners (which is my favorite option), I kind of like the idea, for symmetry purposes, of having four subclasses with two non-neutral alignment components. But that's a minor thing, and one I'd be willing to give up to make room for NG. I'd be concerned about the space requirements to make 9 distinct sub-classes, but I think with some creativity and game design savvy it could be done. A neutral code would be tough, since neutral is so often defined by being NOT good/evil/law/chaos, and since neutral probably has more interpretations than any other alignment. But it could be done, and Pharasma feels like a deity that would be well served by a champion-esque class.
| 1 person 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...
Yes. Yes, yes yes.
EDIT: mostly because this way everyone is compromising. The only addendum I would add, is that the lawful good Paladin is most similar in its abilities to the current playtest Paladin/the way the Paladin was in pf1.
I'd be concerned about the space requirements to make 9 distinct sub-classes
I don't feel the urge to make everything symetric, and I have no problem if some of the aligments are left out (I think NE and CN are the ones I have more problems envisioning a paladin archetype for), and I agree it's a waste of space to design 9 full classes in the way Antipaladins are, for example. That said, I think a savvy game designer (and Paizo have those a plenty) might find the way to fit those 9 "flavors" in not much more space you need for, say, the 8 specialty wizards, which I'm absolutely positive will find space in the CRB.
So the problem for 9 kinds of paladins, one for each aligment, is not as much "book space", like pages and words, as "design space", like "what the hell do we give this particular alignment as tennet, to make it different enough from the two alignments it's closer to". If Paizo finds a way to write 9 codes that make sense, cool. If not, drop a few, it's not the end of the world if in the end it's not symetric.
I'd be concerned about the space requirements to make 9 distinct sub-classesI don't feel the urge to make everything symetric, and I have no problem if some of the aligments are left out (I think NE and CN are the ones I have more problems envisioning a paladin archetype for), and I agree it's a waste of space to design 9 full classes in the way Antipaladins are, for example. That said, I think a savvy game designer (and Paizo have those a plenty) might find the way to fit those 9 "flavors" in not much more space you need for, say, the 8 specialty wizards, which I'm absolutely positive will find space in the CRB.
So the problem for 9 kinds of paladins, one for each aligment, is not as much "book space", like pages and words, as "design space", like "what the hell do we give this particular alignment as tennet, to make it different enough from the two alignments it's closer to". If Paizo finds a way to write 9 codes that make sense, cool. If not, drop a few, it's not the end of the world if in the end it's not symetric.
I could easily leave out NE, although it seems like a lot of people would want CN. And if we're going to do most of them, we might as well do all of them. I agree, it could definitely be done in less space than the wizard section. I'm just not design savvy enough to know how to do it myself ;) I wonder if they could take the axis approach for the codes? Then a LG paladin would take the law and good codes. That might be harder for the neutral alignments though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my shower thoughts yesterday, I brainstormed up "paladin" variants for each of the good and evil alignments, complete with unique themes and playstyles. They still need a lot of refining, but I think I had enough for proof of concept. ^_^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my shower thoughts yesterday, I brainstormed up "paladin" variants for each of the good and evil alignments, complete with unique themes and playstyles. They still need a lot of refining, but I think I had enough for proof of concept. ^_^
I'd love to see them when you get the chance to type them up :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-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 LG variant would need to gain actual lawful abilities.
I approve of the designation “jerk square”. :)
I get that this is funny, but do you perhaps see that attitudes like this are exactly why some feel that lawful good is treated as the best good? Because the jerk square somehow includes CN but not LN or even LE. Lawful is somehow more good than chaotic, and therefore lawful good is the greatest good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
hmm spitball here: for alignment instead of 9 lists for 9 alignments 6 lists Chaotic, Lawful, neutral on that axis, Good, Evil, Neutral on THAT axis, pick 2, so paladin gets law and good, tyrant gets law and evil, adjudicator gets law and neutral etc bolt this on to a warrior chasis, so all martial weapons, heavy armour and shields, assume all get divine health, and away you go, make them feat lists so you can fine tune things (classic paladin doesn't really have much linked to law, one who focused on justice and followed Damerrich could very well go more into that side, for instance) codes become combi deals, choas demamds this of its champions, neutrality demands this, add a deities anathema for flavour and away you go, 6 lists, and the synthesis between them makes the class(es)
I don't remembr where I found this, I lost the bookmark in a computer transfer, but here's an interesting variant on that:
Alignment Breakdown Options:
Law:
1 Justus: Fairness, Justice, the things that really matter in the Law. These are the virtues of this portion of the Alignment.
2 Canonicus: The Law is the Law. All who do not realize this are lawbreakers. It is about fair, not right: everyone plays by the same rules as everyone else.
Chaos:
1 Immunis: When someone knows who they are and what really matters, the rules just don’t matter.
2 Discord: From sun up to sun down, laws are the lies we tell ourselves to sleep at night. Only true freedom will set you free.
Good:
1 Virtuous: Valor, courage, virtue, all of these things are not only words to live by, but the salvation of the world!
2 Ius Iurus: This is you holding yourself to higher ideals.
Evil:
1 Pravus: Corruption is the name of the game, and the game pays so well. After all, there is no such thing as evil really.
2 Pessimus: When they say evil, they mean you. At the end of the day, you will do things others would pale at.
Neutral:
1 Quietus: This is the neutral of neutral, it is not that you don’t care about things but you have better things to worry about than some artificial construct of morality.
2 Pondera: This is about what really keeps the world going, Balance. To have this in either the good/evil or law/chose is to be very aware that balance between the two is best.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I approve of the designation “jerk square”. :)I get that this is funny, but do you perhaps see that attitudes like this are exactly why some feel that lawful good is treated as the best good? Because the jerk square somehow includes CN but not LN or even LE. Lawful is somehow more good than chaotic, and therefore lawful good is the greatest good.
I don’t see the name of jerk square as related to whether law is more good than chaotic, just that it’s less favoured by jerk players.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know this whole thing is nuanced, but one important thing to remember is that it can't just be a compromise between LG only crowd, and... Not LG only? But also needs to take into account (as a few have) the workload for Paizo.
What if (and I'm sure this has kind of been said/shot down already) the word Paladin is replaced by, say, Champion. Then in the CRB, there are three codes, one for LG, one for NG, and one for CG.
LG = Code of the Paladin: "These Champions are known by all as Paladins"
NG = Code of the 'Not-Paladin'
CG = Code of the (other) 'Not-Paladin'
Then in later books, codes for other alignments.
They would have some abilities in common,
and some unique.
This seems at least semi-reasonable, right?
Unfortunately, it's not about being reasonable.
In the fullness of hardcover releases, I think there will be alternate paladin oaths released, with more flexible and varied alignment requirements. A Hellknight code that encompasses all of L- seems obvious, but also the antipaladin. Because you're right, why do extra work when Paladins are going to be around, being basically the same thing with a different flavor. But until then, there's always homebrew.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
put the paladin in another book with the alts...... and more stuff
Y'all understand that that's not going to happen right? i keep seeing it over and over again. Its being playtested as core, the books are at the printers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I agree its not going to happen, but it is technically possible that something as contentious as paladins might be in the playtest but not make it into the actual Core. They could replace it with something nice and non-controversial, like Summoners, Kineticists, Vigilantes, or Gunslingers.
I mean, I agree its not going to happen, but it is technically possible that something as contentious as paladins might be in the playtest but not make it into the actual Core. They could replace it with something nice and non-controversial, like Summoners, Kineticists, Vigilantes, or Gunslingers.
Assuming any other classes have reached alpha much less beta design at this point.
They do have a solid year to pull it off, and no real reason besides money to not pull in more people into the design team, but I was joking in any case.
They do have a solid year to pull it off, and no real reason besides money to not pull in more people into the design team, but I was joking in any case.
Yeah, I was gonna say...
But to be serious, what exactly was wrong with what I suggested? Just so I know.
They do have a solid year to pull it off, and no real reason besides money to not pull in more people into the design team, but I was joking in any case.Yeah, I was gonna say...
But to be serious, what exactly was wrong with what I suggested? Just so I know.
Oh, I'm (mostly) fine with it. So are probably the seven or so other people that have proposed something along these lines. I would be quite shocked if this never occurred to the Devs themselves, since it IS reasonable.
But there are people that would quit the game if the paladin isn't a core class, and if that paladin didn't have LG exclusive alignment. That's why I said it's not about being reasonable. Anything less than total victory, at least within core, is a complete loss for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I agree its not going to happen, but it is technically possible that something as contentious as paladins might be in the playtest but not make it into the actual Core. They could replace it with something nice and non-controversial, like Summoners, Kineticists, Vigilantes, or Gunslingers.Assuming any other classes have reached alpha much less beta design at this point.
Well, now that you mention it, they DID do this in all but name for the Medium. The Occult Adventures Playtest Medium and the actual released Occult Adventures Medium don't seem very similar. The first was an awesome concept that was missing much of its Harrow Deck due to time and writing constraints; the second had some cool ideas, but they are only slightly related to the first, and DIDN'T get playtested, and the implementation definitely leaves something to be desired even when it has all its pieces. So it would be just 1 more step to make the above joke a reality: Be willing to drop Paladin from the Core Class list in name as well as in actuality.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The compromises listed would create a ton of work for Paizo, which makes them very unlikely to be implemented. Ideas need to account for that.
Building alternative alignments in the vein of the Tyrant archetype is reasonable. Building 3-8 alternatives that have distinct balanced mechanics is not reasonable.
Quoting for emphasis, not to reply to.
The reason that my position is to share the Paladin chassis with other alignments/codes is not because I want to take the fun parts of the Paladin and leave the parts I don't like, but because Paizo is absolutely not going to devote the development resources to build X different mechanically-similar-yet-thematically-distinct classes.
And we all know it.
Because this is "Pathfinder: The TTRPG." It's not "Paladins: The TTRPG."
tl;dr - A reasonable compromise among the fanbase that the developers definitely won't go for is not, in fact, a reasonable compromise.
|
We will get LG Paladin in Core so that people who play Paladins in PF1 can play the same characters in PF2 from the start
I think the best thing to do would be to include ONE other fully-fleshed Divine Martial class in the CRB
And the others in later books so that the devs have enough time to build them well and not just as re-hash of the Paladin with mostly another alignment and another name
What alignment and concept would be chosen for inclusion in the CRB should be clarified early for example through surveys so that the devs have time to build a strong chassis that can get some CRB playtest time before it ends
BTW : I still want ex-class archetypes in the vein of the excellent ex-class archetypes' type that appeared in the Antihero's Handbook, but that can come later :-)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But there are people that would quit the game if the paladin isn't a core class, and if that paladin didn't have LG exclusive alignment. That's why I said it's not about being reasonable. Anything less than total victory, at least within core, is a complete loss for them.
I do not see this as a matter of total victory (an absolute and warlike word I do not like when talking about RPG design) , but that they want the Paladin to be in core and they do not want a dilution of what the PF1 (and older) LG Paladin is. Especially the Lawful part of the Alignment that I believe many people see as typical of the Paladin
That said I personally wish for additional classes that would be equivalent to the Paladin but for other alignments. If possible the 9, but at least the 4 extreme corners
And I want these new classes to be well-designed and innovative so that they will be fan-favorites and thus well-supported in future Paizo products just like the APG classes mostly were
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My perspective of the issue is this:
The people who want to have non-LG "Paladins" have noticed that only 3 classes have a divine power source and are also primarily martial classes - Paladin, Antipaladin, and Ranger - and of the three the Ranger isn't granted powers by a deity or required to uphold a code or alignment, meaning that only LG and CE characters can access that specific type of class (with archetypes such as Grey Paladin, Tyrant, and Insinuator generally being seen as poor compromises for other alignments). These people want to be able to play a martial character devoted to an alignment or deity other than the ones currently allowed. Opinions on the ideal solution vary from person to person, but the unifying theme is that such players both A) wish to play non-LG or non-CE holy warriors who exemplify the other alignments without being arbitrarily less powerful than the existing paladins, and B) don't think it's right or fair for deities within 1 step of said alignments to be represented by such holy warriors but not others. It is generally agreed upon that this is a perceived inbalance between the alignments and the deities in-setting, as some are capable of empowering paladins/antipaladins as well as warpriests, inquisitors, and clerics while others lose out on the most martially-inclined class for seemingly no reason.
I personally reeeeeeally want to be able to play a holy warrior of non-LG alignments and deities, specifically CG and CN ones. I'm not content with the PF1 Warpriest as a solution, as my ideal class focuses primarily on martial combat and only has some limited magical capabilities. I feel that the concepts of Axis-adins (holy warriors of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos), Four Corners, or ideally one per alignment. I'm not opposed to separate classes for each, I just think that method would be the least workable for the poor designers who'd need to make so many classes.
I think what is causing this topic to become circular and toxic is that so many people are treating it as an argument to be won or a chance to convince others that their stance is wrong - as if there is a side which is objectively correct rather than a large disorganized group of posters with subjective opinions and perceptions. The best way to go about having the discussion on how to satisfy both groups is to start by recognizing that everyone has an opinion and everyone's opinion is just as valid as anyone else's (barring extreme circumstances, naturally, but that's rare as is).
They do have a solid year to pull it off, and no real reason besides money to not pull in more people into the design team, but I was joking in any case.Yeah, I was gonna say...
But to be serious, what exactly was wrong with what I suggested? Just so I know.
Oh, I'm (mostly) fine with it. So are probably the seven or so other people that have proposed something along these lines. I would be quite shocked if this never occurred to the Devs themselves, since it IS reasonable.
But there are people that would quit the game if the paladin isn't a core class, and if that paladin didn't have LG exclusive alignment. That's why I said it's not about being reasonable. Anything less than total victory, at least within core, is a complete loss for them.
Ah. Okay. That makes sense. So, would it be possible for someone who is LG-only for paladins to comment on what I wrote, and tell me what specifically they don't like about it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
NE has the Four Horsemen and Szuriel at least having paladin analogues makes way to much sense to leave out as a possibility. CN.. I can't think of, off the top of my head, but something to do with the Elder Gods or Slaad is a possibility.I could easily leave out NE, although it seems like a lot of people would want CN. And if we're going to do most of them, we might as well do all of them. I agree, it could definitely be done in less space than the wizard section. I'm just not design savvy enough to know how to do it myself ;) I wonder if they could take the axis approach for the codes? Then a LG paladin would take the law and good codes. That might be harder for the neutral alignments though.I'd be concerned about the space requirements to make 9 distinct sub-classesI don't feel the urge to make everything symetric, and I have no problem if some of the aligments are left out (I think NE and CN are the ones I have more problems envisioning a paladin archetype for), and I agree it's a waste of space to design 9 full classes in the way Antipaladins are, for example. That said, I think a savvy game designer (and Paizo have those a plenty) might find the way to fit those 9 "flavors" in not much more space you need for, say, the 8 specialty wizards, which I'm absolutely positive will find space in the CRB.
So the problem for 9 kinds of paladins, one for each aligment, is not as much "book space", like pages and words, as "design space", like "what the hell do we give this particular alignment as tennet, to make it different enough from the two alignments it's closer to". If Paizo finds a way to write 9 codes that make sense, cool. If not, drop a few, it's not the end of the world if in the end it's not symetric.
Wouldn't Gorum want his Paladin-analogues too? He's been granting significant divine powers to his Warpriests and Clercs and Inquisitors all this time, and he's probably chomping at the bit to grant only just enough for his servants to make up most of the difference with their own martial skill.
Ah. Okay. That makes sense. So, would it be possible for someone who is LG-only for paladins to comment on what I wrote, and tell me what specifically they don't like about it?They do have a solid year to pull it off, and no real reason besides money to not pull in more people into the design team, but I was joking in any case.Yeah, I was gonna say...
But to be serious, what exactly was wrong with what I suggested? Just so I know.
Oh, I'm (mostly) fine with it. So are probably the seven or so other people that have proposed something along these lines. I would be quite shocked if this never occurred to the Devs themselves, since it IS reasonable.
But there are people that would quit the game if the paladin isn't a core class, and if that paladin didn't have LG exclusive alignment. That's why I said it's not about being reasonable. Anything less than total victory, at least within core, is a complete loss for them.
Look in the main (currently locked) Paladin blog discussion thread . . . Be careful what you wish for.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah. Okay. That makes sense. So, would it be possible for someone who is LG-only for paladins to comment on what I wrote, and tell me what specifically they don't like about it?They do have a solid year to pull it off, and no real reason besides money to not pull in more people into the design team, but I was joking in any case.Yeah, I was gonna say...
But to be serious, what exactly was wrong with what I suggested? Just so I know.
Oh, I'm (mostly) fine with it. So are probably the seven or so other people that have proposed something along these lines. I would be quite shocked if this never occurred to the Devs themselves, since it IS reasonable.
But there are people that would quit the game if the paladin isn't a core class, and if that paladin didn't have LG exclusive alignment. That's why I said it's not about being reasonable. Anything less than total victory, at least within core, is a complete loss for them.
I'd be up for what you suggested (assuming uniqueness between the subclasses). That'd be a nice way of "spreading out" the paladin subclasses, I think, and keep a lot of people happy while giving everyone else a good chance of getting what they want in later books.
The compromises listed would create a ton of work for Paizo, which makes them very unlikely to be implemented. Ideas need to account for that.
Building alternative alignments in the vein of the Tyrant archetype is reasonable. Building 3-8 alternatives that have distinct balanced mechanics is not reasonable.
Quoting for emphasis, not to reply to.
The reason that my position is to share the Paladin chassis with other alignments/codes is not because I want to take the fun parts of the Paladin and leave the parts I don't like, but because Paizo is absolutely not going to devote the development resources to build X different mechanically-similar-yet-thematically-distinct classes.
And we all know it.
Because this is "Pathfinder: The TTRPG." It's not "Paladins: The TTRPG."tl;dr - A reasonable compromise among the fanbase that the developers definitely won't go for is not, in fact, a reasonable compromise.
Honestly, I doubt any of our compromises will make it into the CRB. But there's a chance. More importantly, my hope is that the designers will see our compromises and implement more options in later rulebooks. And if our compromises are good enough, it could lead to balanced, flavorful options for the paladin that open it up to other alignments while keeping the LG-only flavor for LG subclass. I think we've shown that the existing archetypes for paladin are not what we need them to be, and we've given some good ways for the paladin to be better.
But really, we, as a community HAVE to find compromises. If our only options are the two extremes, then there is no point in discussing. If that's the case, we are best served by giving our opinion and reasoning to Paizo, and leaving it at that. Discussing compromises is worthwhile for it's own sake, because we can start to see the validity of the other side's (assuming two sides, which isn't true) point of view and work to make the situation better. We become a more mature and understanding community if we can work through things like this. But without hope of compromise we lose that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I agree its not going to happen, but it is technically possible that something as contentious as paladins might be in the playtest but not make it into the actual Core. They could replace it with something nice and non-controversial, like Summoners, Kineticists, Vigilantes, or Gunslingers.
lol, you are funny.
|
|
Wouldn't Gorum want his Paladin-analogues too? He's been granting significant divine powers to his Warpriests and Clercs and Inquisitors all this time, and he's...NE has the Four Horsemen and Szuriel at least having paladin analogues makes way to much sense to leave out as a possibility. CN.. I can't think of, off the top of my head, but something to do with the Elder Gods or Slaad is a possibility.I could easily leave out NE, although it seems like a lot of people would want CN. And if we're going to do most of them, we might as well do all of them. I agree, it could definitely be done in less space than the wizard section. I'm just not design savvy enough to know how to do it myself ;) I wonder if they could take the axis approach for the codes? Then a LG paladin would take the law and good codes. That might be harder for the neutral alignments though.I'd be concerned about the space requirements to make 9 distinct sub-classesI don't feel the urge to make everything symetric, and I have no problem if some of the aligments are left out (I think NE and CN are the ones I have more problems envisioning a paladin archetype for), and I agree it's a waste of space to design 9 full classes in the way Antipaladins are, for example. That said, I think a savvy game designer (and Paizo have those a plenty) might find the way to fit those 9 "flavors" in not much more space you need for, say, the 8 specialty wizards, which I'm absolutely positive will find space in the CRB.
So the problem for 9 kinds of paladins, one for each aligment, is not as much "book space", like pages and words, as "design space", like "what the hell do we give this particular alignment as tennet, to make it different enough from the two alignments it's closer to". If Paizo finds a way to write 9 codes that make sense, cool. If not, drop a few, it's not the end of the world if in the end it's not symetric.
Also Besmara
Elite pirate champions FTW