| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As expected the recent blog about the PF2 paladin stirred up quite the debate.
Personally I fall in the camp of those who believe the Paladin should be LG, BUT I also think there's no good reason other alignments should not have their own specific champions, "Aspects" of an alignment if you want.
I believe that the game is made better by specific classes doing specific things and I don't think the paladin turning into a generic "holy warrior" would be an improvement for the game, quite the opposite imo. On the other hand the cosmology of the game makes it clear that alignments are equal. Why should only LG and CE have champions empowered by it? It makes no sense. I think the best solution is to give a specific class to every alignment. That way you can preserve the Paladin as the LG champion and also give other alignments their own champions as well.
Here's my take on the 9 alignment "aspects" then:
LG → The Paladin → This is basically the guy we all know and love. He fights evil, defends law, respects authority, and generally speaking he tries to lead by example.
If an evil king rules the land... The paladin fights against him and his regime until they are defeated in a very flashy and bold way so that they know good won't allow them to do as they please. Once that's accomplished he helps choose a new king that is good for the land and his subjects, possibly training him himself. The paladin may choose to stay in the kingdom working within the system to make it better or leave on a quest against evil.
NG → The Benefactor → This guy aims to do good above all. Whenever he encounters evil he fights it. He may not be as obvious or as bold in his actions as the Paladin is, he may even choose stealth in order to accomplish evil's defeat because making good is the most important thing. He doesn't have strong feelings towards law or authority. If they are good he follows them, if not he opposes them but the system holds a limited appeal for him, obviously evil laws need to go but having good people are more important than having good laws.
If an evil king rules the land... The Benefactor opposes him and his goons and does what is needed to defeat them but doesn't feel compelled to lead people against the evil king unless that's needed in order to accomplish his defeat. Once the king has been defeated the Benefactor vanishes into the night. He might move on searching for new evils to vanquish or just lay low and keep fighting evil without joining the new hierarchy.
CG → The Liberator → To the Liberator Freedom is Good and Good is Freedom. This aspect fights against evil but he's suspicious of the system, doesn't care about laws and does not respect authority even if those in power are good people, because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. He may trust people who shared his battles but this has to be earned with actions he will never put faith in someone because of his title or social position.
If an evil king rules the land... The Liberator gives him and his minions no respite. He ambushes them whenever he has the chance and conducts guerrilla warfare against their regime. To the Liberator the problem is not the man per sé, the problem is the system's corrupting influence so he takes action against it, often inciting people not to respect laws and to stand up for themselves in defiance of unjust rules. When the evil regime falls the Liberator rejoices but doesn't want anything to do with building a new, better system. He might even advise against forming a new government, believing that it will inevitably get corrupted.
LN → The Enforcer → Law is absolute and must be obeyed without question says the Enforcer. He doesn't care for good or evil, just for following the law to the letter because for him that's its own reward. The Enforcer will work for the system and violently oppose those who threaten it. Morality is an alien concept for the Enforcer unless the act of following the rules and authority figures could be considered moral, which he probably does.
If an evil king rules the land... The Enforcer works for him and helps see that his laws are upheld. A village may starve to death because the king's tax collectors takes everything the villagers have and the Enforcer might be one of them. He does not enjoy seeing the people die yet to him respecting the law is simply more important than people's lives.
N → The Equalizer → Excesses of any kind are bad, moderation in all things is the way to go. The Equalizer sees himself as something of a necessity, someone tasked with stopping extremist alignments to unbalance creation. If good or evil, law of chaos rule the land he will oppose them and try to establish balance between opposing forces by whatever means necessary. Once the scales are balanced he will try to keep them that way even if this could very well be a futile endeavor and his work never truly done.
If an evil king rules the land... The Equalizer asks himself "Has he gone too far?". If the answer to that question is "yes" then he will take action against the king and until some kind of balance is established again and then he will try to keep things that way, stopping excesses of law, chaos, good and evil from taking over.
CN → The Anarchist → The Anarchist embodies absolute freedom of the self and resents those who would try to impose rules on others. The Anarchist is not malevolent, he does not go out of his way to hurt people in order to get what he wants but he does not feel compelled to help others as well. The Anarchist believes governments, laws, authority figures are wrong by themselves, that they are dangerous and need to be erased, so he will violently oppose them whenever possible.
If an evil king rules the land... The Anarchist will fight him he will resort to terrorist tactics targetting the infrastructure of the realm as well as prominent minions of the king. Once the kingdom has fallen and he stands victorious he will try to make sure no new State raises from its ashes and then possibly move on to spread his brand of anarchy to the next country.
LE → The Tyrant → Laws are needed and authority must be respected. A working, functional system is something precious that should be cherished... and exploited for personal gain by those that can master it. Superiors should be respected... until you can prove yourself better than them and take their place within the system. Subjects are inferior because they deserve it, their lot is unquestioning obedience. They should be grateful for being allowed to be a cog in the Machine you keep well oiled and functional. Rebellion and defiance must be stomped out and punished severely. The Tyrant will make use of other people in order to increase his personal power with little regard for their safety. To him they exist to serve but as long as they know their place he will not act against them although he Tyrant will feel the need to put them in their place. He will also prove a relentless foe to those who threaten the system he works within.
If an evil king rules the land... Unless the Tyrant is the king himself, he's at the very least part of his regime. He enforces laws against subjects and takes advantage of them to aggrandize himself and his position whenever he can get away with it. He will raise because he deserves to and if the king slips... he might just be in the right place at the right time to give the land a more deserving ruler after all...
NE → The Malefactor → The Malefactor will go out of his way not only for personal gain but also to make sure other people suffer and the conditions are right for evil to triumph. This aspect actually worships evil and wants its malevolent rule to spread. In order to do so he tries to cause people to suffer and to work against each other rewarding the most heinous and depraved of acts. To further this agenda rules and laws may be useful but ultimately the system is not important by itself. What counts is that people do evil onto each other. Fortunately the Malefactor is there to ensure this will happen. The Malefactor can be subtle or flashy with his actions, he's a pragmatist and will do things the way he thinks is best to get to his goals.
If an evil king rules the land... The Malefactor works to make sure his evil truly flourishes and sweeps the land away. If laws help make people's lives worse he will enthusiastically uphold them. If not he will take matters in his own hands. If he convinces himself the king is "not doing enough" the Malefactor may very well decide to remove him and install himself at his place so that "things can be done the right way".
CE → The Antipaladin → To the Antipaladin life is simple. The strong shall do as they please and the weak shall suffer the consequences. Law and order are just lies, chains forged to keep the strong to rule and therefore they need to be destroyed. A true sociopath, the Antipaladin doesn't care for anyone else but himself and proves no remorse for his actions, no matter how heinous. The Antipaladin may solemnly give his word to an ally and then betray him an hour later because he thinks he will gain something by doing so. The Antipaladin rules and leads others because of his personal strength and the fear he inspires. He knows and enjoys this and may resort to torture and murder just to remind everyone why he's boss.
If an evil king rules the land... The Antipaladin fights against him, slaughters his men and his subjects and if he attracts followers he uses them as a band of marauders not caring at all for them. If the Antipaladin topples the king he kills him in a very public showing of force and then orders his men to do the same with anyone tied to the old regime. His rule will be brutal and may very well end in widespread bloodshed.
This is what I think these "aspects" should be thematically. It goes without saying everyone of them should have different mechanics and different ways to "fall".
Why should they be separate classes though? What is wrong with having a single class with different archetypes for each alignment. Say a "Crusader" class that has the base mechanics which are then modified to match the particular alignment. This would allow overlapping abilities with minimal writing.
I think the best solution is to give a specific class to every alignment.
So, 9 classes for Paladins.
How many classes of Wizards?How many classes of Clerics?
How many classes of Alchemists?
How many classes of Rogue?
Your suggestion would result in 90 different classes for just the core rule book. That's way too many classes.
Or are you suggesting that there should only be 18 classes, with half of them Paladins.
we already have atleast 8 classes of wizards.
1 for each school
As far as I can tell that's only one "class", with different schools.
The OP is suggesting that there be 9 different "classes" with different names for each class.So that the core rule book would have
Wizard
Cleric
Rogue
Fighter
Barbarian
Bard
Druid
Monk
Ranger
Sorcerer
LG Paladin
LN Paladin
LE Paladin
NG Paladin
N Paladin
NE Paladin
CG Paladin
CN Paladin9
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or are you suggesting that there should only be 18 classes, with half of them Paladins.
I think this is why many of us who want more Paladinesque concepts represented aren't particularly hopeful that Paizo will give them a real attempt. They're not building a modular alignment champion class from the get go and aren't likely to make 9 classes.
I prefer the alignment system that Palladium and Rifts used myself.
They're not building a modular alignment champion class from the get go and aren't likely to make 9 classes.
I don't think that's necessarily true. The option to have a 'modular alignment champion' still seems to be on the table.
If or when we do make more paladins and antipaladins, having constructed a solid foundation for how an alignment-driven champion functions will be a crucial step to making all of them engaging and different in play.
If there is sufficient rational feedback during the playtest, then they can absolutely have a modular alignment champion in the PF2 Core Rulebook.
If there's any rational feedback during the playtest, they'll just make the paladin's required alignment Any Good.
Nonsense.
You aren't a Paizo designer, or even a Paizo employee. You have no idea what they will or won't do with the feedback.
we already have atleast 8 classes of wizards.
1 for each school
As far as I can tell that's only one "class", with different schools.
Sorcerers have bloodlines. Clerics have domains.
You could easily take this same approach with eh Paladin. At creation, they pick their Aspect / Alignment, then they get unique abilities tailored to the related ideals.
Thanks for the effort you put in working this up Rogar. Looks like you put a lot of time and thought into it.
I for one a happy that Paizo chose to keep alignments baked into the game. The fight between Good/Evil and Law/Chaos are very real, and are hard to ignore. (since you know, they each have their own planes of existence) Makes for some compelling storytelling...
Now, to comment on the opening post: One of the reasons that the Paladin and its alignment is such a hot button issue is because we all come to the discussion with presuppositions. (understatement of the week) Upon reading a lot of the recent debate, I came across a question that might help narrow down our viewpoints (perhaps even a little):
CAN A CHAOTIC (OR EVEN A NEUTRAL) CHARACTER LIVE BY A STRICT CODE OF CONDUCT? Y/N
If your answer is yes, then you have many options working with the Paladin Chassis. And there have been many good suggestions and thoughts as to how to accomplish this.
If your answer is no, then the Paladin should stay at LG. And we should find other chassis if we are to make more alignment classes. I'd even go as far to say that the Anti-Paladin should be moved from CE to LE... (if I held that position, I'm not saying I do or don't)
What do you guys think? I myself doubt they will do 9 aspects. But the 4 corners (LG, CG,LE,CE) is very possible...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for reading and commenting everyone.
I feel like I need to clarify some things: I do not think these classes should all be included in the CRB, on the contrary I believe Paizo should pubblish a book dedicated to alignment, its place in the games cosmology, tips for roleplaying or including characters and NPCs of a certain alignment and so on. This book should also include the 9 aspects. The Paladin and probably the Antipaladin would have been published already but this book should cover all the other aspects, estabilishing them as their own class.
As stated above I don't see these aspects as variants of the Paladin but rather as their own different classes, embodying different alignments than LG.
Edit:
@ Iron_Matt17: Yes a Chaotic character can "fall" (or "raise" in certain cases). For example the "Liberator" outlined above would fall if he forced someone to do something against his or her will, if he could free slaves but chose not to do it and so on. The matter is these aspects embody and are powered by an alignment. The moment they start acting against it they start losing their powers. Since a character can act contrary to the Chaotic ideal he can also lose the power bestowed upon him. Yet the Paladin is not a "chassis" is a very specific class. Reducing it to a "chassis" is just making the Paladin generic instead of specific and I for one absolutely don't want that.
Thanks for reading and commenting everyone.
I feel like I need to clarify some things: I do not think these classes should all be included in the CRB, on the contrary I believe Paizo should pubblish a book dedicated to alignment, its place in the games cosmology, tips for roleplaying or including characters and NPCs of a certain alignment and so on. This book should also include the 9 aspects. The Paladin and probably the Antipaladin would have been published already but this book should cover all the other aspects, estabilishing them as their own class.
As stated above I don't see these aspects as variants of the Paladin but rather as their own different classes, embodying different alignments than LG.Edit:
@ Iron_Matt17: Yes a Chaotic character can "fall" (or "raise" in certain cases). For example the "Liberator" outlined above would fall if he forced someone to do something against his or her will, if he could free slaves but chose not to do it and so on. The matter is these aspects embody and are powered by an alignment. The moment they start acting against it they start losing their powers. Since a character can act contrary to the Chaotic ideal he can also lose the power bestowed upon him. Yet the Paladin is not a "chassis" is a very specific class. Reducing it to a "chassis" is just making the Paladin generic instead of specific and I for one absolutely don't want that.
I heartily agree Rogar, I do not want Paladins to become just a chassis. I'm just using the same language that the devs used. Also to be clear, I'm talking about more than just falling. Any Chaotic cleric can fall by not heeding it's tenets. I like the image you used of the class acting against their ideal then falling. No, my point is can a Chaotic character live by a Code of Conduct that in itself seems to be very Lawful. So however one answers that question tells me if they want a solely LG Paladin or an any alignment Paladin. But in a way I am relieved to see that you want something more than multi alignment Paladin. Each alignment class should be flavourful in its own way.
No, my point is can a Chaotic character live by a Code of Conduct that in itself seems to be very Lawful. So however one answers that question tells me if they want a solely LG Paladin or an any alignment Paladin. But in a way I am relieved to see that you want something more than multi alignment Paladin. Each alignment class should be flavourful in its own way.I say the answer is yes. A Chaotic character absolutely can abide by a Code of Conduct, even one as strict as the paladin's. I think that a Chaotic Good character who swore the oath would consider it a cause worthy of them. Yes, even the "Respect legitimate authority" part. You can respect someone's authority while still thinking they're wrong. You can respect them while telling them they're wrong. I even think you can respect them while breaking their laws (naturally, the cause would have to be really important), so long as you respect their right to enforce them and surrender peacefully once the deed's been done. (this doesn't reflect my thoughts on the Code of Conduct as it applies across the board. It's just the sort of thing I wouldn't rule provokes a fall as a GM) Others may disagree with me, but I also see paladins as paragons of moral courage, and moral courage means taking action for moral reasons in spite of possible consequences.
I don't think they'd swear an oath to a king or a god or anyone else, but they'd swear one to themselves. Chaos is about owning yourself, so betraying themselves by breaking their oath is something they'd never dream of doing. For the record, I support opening up the paladin, with all of its abilities and Code of Conduct, to any character of a Good alignment. I don't want multiple paladin variants for multiple alignments. One chassis applicable to any hero who swears the oath.
Intriguing, very intriguing... I wonder how different your CG Paladin would be to my LG Paladin?
Now, there's the difference between CG to LG. I've noted that most people who support playing CG Paladins do it for that reason exact... Individuality. They swear the oath to themselves, and are champions of Personal Freedom.At the most, I'm willing to open it up to any Good alignment. But I'll push hard against the idea on non-Good Paladins.