Can a Paladin follow its deity's code without being LG?


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 150 of 280 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

willuwontu wrote:
Let me ask you this, if paladin as a class didn't exist but LG warpriest did, would you be satisfied?

Well, can I play a warpriest who is somewhere in the agnostic/atheist space or who honors a whole bunch of gods instead of one? Since being able to do this with a Paladin is pretty important to me. But otherwise, sure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is why I wish we had the champion class. It would be easy to have the Holy Champion, Unholy Champion, Champion of X (Freedom, Order, Nature...etc.) in other words a way more open design space.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
willuwontu wrote:

I hate coming into these threads, but I feel the need. People keep pointing out warpriest as a perfectly fine alternative to the paladin chassis.

Let me ask you this, if paladin as a class didn't exist but LG warpriest did, would you be satisfied?

Nope but thats because paladin has a decades long history with small changes but remaining roughly the same.

You aren't going to logic me into enjoying or accepting a change that at its fundamental level is opinion on game metaphysics based. I just wont pay for it and will let my FLGS they can order fewer books.

If by small changes, you mean changes to every ability and the removal of a bunch of restrictions, then you'd be correct.

Thanks for your insightful response.

Bonus to saves, check

Lay hands, check
LG with a code, check
Aura of courage, check
Access to a divine steed? Check
Smite evil? check

Tons of options to make a non lg champion of a god? Clearly not good enough, gotta water down something other people like or you cant be happy.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Let me ask you this, if paladin as a class didn't exist but LG warpriest did, would you be satisfied?
Well, can I play a warpriest who is somewhere in the agnostic/atheist space or who honors a whole bunch of gods instead of one? Since being able to do this with a Paladin is pretty important to me. But otherwise, sure.

Philosophies!

Also you're gonna hate pf2 then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:


Bonus to saves, check
Lay hands, check
LG with a code, check
Aura of courage, check
Access to a divine steed? Check
Smite evil? check

Tons of options to make a non lg champion of a god? Clearly not good enough, gotta water down something other people like or you cant be happy.

This is a good start for understand. Which of these options need to be exclusive to the lawful good holy champion? LG with a code? Sure? Could the rest be class or feat options that build differently for the LG holy champion over levels, while the other ones build a little differently?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

Some players actually want to play the LG Paladin as the knight in shining armor who strives to uphold his code even though he is a failible mortal. They love the class as it is in the PF1 CRB

How does your dismantling the class with the ardor you describe helps them telling the tale they want ?

You wanna play a 'knight in shining armor'? No problem! You want a code? No problem either!

My question would probably be…
why this code? why shouldn't you have the ability to, well role-play, and make your own? Doesn't have to be complicated.
Just write up 4-5 "rules" that your character follows (don't steal/lie/punch below the belt/etc or what every your character wants to focus on). Heck you could even make your code stick strictly to an "alignment concept" (ie your old fashioned paladin code cleaves closely to LG. You just smack on the "alignment tag" that you feel your particular code represents the most closely…).
Heck we can even sit down and discuss how your character came to his/her powers. If they are a part of a group of likely minded champions or a solitary loner or a 'chosen one' or whatever!

What I'm trying to communicate here is that your idea for your character should be supported, by making the rules, requirements and restrictions wide enough to incorporate those ideas with a little fuss as possible.

I wanna be able to say to the player, who hands me this code:

1. Clarity in mind and action - “To say” and “to do” is the same thing; once one's word is given the act must follow.

2. Never betray your trust – One's word is a sacred and unbreakable bond that should be kept to the point of death.

3. Never leave an ally nor the undeserving bystander to die – You are a protector first and foremost and laying down your life for the sake of others your sworn duty.

4. Be ever vigilante – Never let down your guard and be ever mindful of your surroundings, but do so in a manner that never disrespects your words or action.

5. Never invite betrayal – Never honor the dishonorable nor give your word to an known oath-breaker, for their lies have made them anathema to trust.

6. Speak plainly and with dignity – One's words are sacred and should not be fouled by unnecessary and frivolous use, such as boasting, cursing nor outright lies.

7. Treat others with courteous manners – Everyone has a place and function in the world and should as such be treated honorably.

8.Speak out against wasteful excess, decadence, unnecessary deceit or mindless cruelty – The self must be guided and nurtured and its actions carefully considered , not left to wallow empty promises of hedonism or violence for its own sake.

9.Never strike the first blow, except in honorable duel – Let your foe's intent be clear for all to see and stay your hand until then, for it is better to err on the side of caution then to spill the blood of the undeserving.

10. Be never vain nor wasteful - You should posses your trapping, not be possessed by them.

And asked if he could play a paladin like that… Yes, Yes you can! or at the very least you should be able to do so!

Its basically giving the Players and GM's the rough tools to facilitate play, while making their choices on "how to play" matter. You wanna go alignment free? here's how… You don't like Golarion flavour? here's how you make your own…

*Yawn*
too tired to continue rambling…
So I'll just add that MC got it right with this too:

Malk_Content wrote:


Because they can write LG on their character sheet, play the character that way and literally nothing has changed. The Paladin class doesn't "help" you play that way, it punishes you for not. That is a big distinction

oh and T-man too:

Tectorman wrote:


Because his "dismantling" only goes so far as to take out the "your Paladin MUST behave this way or lose class features". Nothing about it takes away the "your Paladin CAN behave this way".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
Philosophies!

No, I'm not trying to fill in a box on a character sheet, I'm trying to play a character and there are tons of ways to play the incorruptible nigh-impossibly good and disciplined character that aren't "I'm super into this one god."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
willuwontu wrote:

I hate coming into these threads, but I feel the need. People keep pointing out warpriest as a perfectly fine alternative to the paladin chassis.

Let me ask you this, if paladin as a class didn't exist but LG warpriest did, would you be satisfied?

Nope but thats because paladin has a decades long history with small changes but remaining roughly the same.

Uh...

are we talking about the BECMI Paladin who was a Lawful Fighter until 9th level, and then got the casting and turn undead abilities of a cleric of 1/3 his level + detect evil?

Or the first edition paladin who was either a fighter or cavalier subclass at various points, with a grand assortment of knock-on effects?

the 2nd edition paladin with a cap on magical items, and could never accumulate wealth?

or the divine grace/smite evil paladin of 3rd edition?
The pathfinder tinkering of that iteration?

1st to 2nd kept a fair amount of stuff consistent (except the cavalier period), but overall, there were a lot of changes, every time.

Personally, my original paladin experience was with the first one, and at this point I've got very little idea why 'deity code,' 'paladin' and 'LG' would be associated at all. They're just yet another divine class (of frankly too many) with the sword to spell slider pointed more towards swords.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kjeldorn wrote:

oh and T-man too:

Tectorman wrote:
Because his "dismantling" only goes so far as to take out the "your Paladin MUST behave this way or lose class features". Nothing about it takes away the "your Paladin CAN behave this way".

*blinks*

*cleans glasses*

*reads again*

I have a nickname, now? Holy crap, you just made my day!!


Deadmanwalking wrote:

As for why, it's just a thematic thing. Lawful characters stand strong and resist temptation, they're inherently conservative in the technical sense, preferring to maintain tradition rather than pushing for change. Chaotic characters, meanwhile, tend to be a tad more proactive, actively striving to change things.

Those are tendencies rather than absolute rules, but they're common enough that having the Lawful version be better at standing firm while the Chaotic version is a tad better at the proactive stuff has some thematic resonance.

...Okay that actually is quite reasonable. Thank you for the excellent explanation. Still somewhat bites that the best armor would still be locked behind Lawful for the most part (personal issues prevent me playing Lawful, but that's it's own topic) but at least I'll probably have the Grey Maidens for that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
1 name that overarches the four Classes would be good (or going with Paladin for the Good ones and Antipaladin for the Evil ones...but a lot of people wouldn't like that). The issue is that if Paladin is 'demoted' to the name of one of the four versions (the LG one), I suspect people will be upset about that as well.

If it is a base class that services each of the 4 alignment extremes I'd go with Exemplar. With Paladin, Liberator, Tyrant and Reaver for the four alignment extremes.

I'd rather Anti-Paladin not be used. As I noted elsewhere in the post, the origins of the class relate to dedication, in this case it seems we're talking about dedication to the alignment extremes (and not specific deities, who are more patrons for Paladin orders/sects). I recommended Reaver because the CE version tends to represent slaughter and destruction. Blaggard/Black Guard has some legacy value but might also warrant use as a (prestige) archetype.

With something like the exemplar you'd have your base class chassis for things like armour/skill/save progression and whatever common features you'd warrant (e.g. +cha to saves reaction). That'd then allow a suite of class feats to grant those aligned abilities. You'd have entry level, with feats aligned to only one axis. This is your Lay on Hands (Good) vs Corrupting Touch (Evil). More advanced feats would specialise the basic abilities toward your extreme or grant novel abilities (like unique auras for each extreme).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like a second pass at the Warpriest would make it a reasonable "divine champion" workable for any alignment. Since mostly people were annoyed at the WP was not full BAB (no longer an issue), inherited a lot of the fighter's problems (no longer an issue), and lacked the Paladin's tremendous defenses (which are somewhat muted in PF2 seemingly.)

Like in PF1 the Paladin was an incredibly strong mechanical chassis, and the WP really wasn't. We can fix that with new versions of these classes.

I mean, I don't want the Paladin to be a *divine* champion, I want it to be a champion of goodness and law. Let's make another class for divine champions, and have it be a good class.

I agree, though for my money the Cleric was always the 'divine champion' of yore. I appreciate that the focus on spell-casting sort of dulls the champion side of things for some people. Until there is that Warpriest class in 2e, people will once again have to multiclass to Fighter to achieve some approximation (noting here that the Warpriest was a Fighter/Cleric hybrid class). Certainly not as satisfying as a comprehensive class.

I've offered a couple of takes on Paladins in the past. With setting lore featuring the Runelords and ties to sin magic, a logical direction for Paladins and their evil counterparts in 2E would be to align with the seven Virtues and Sins respectively. Shed some of the D&D baggage and make it PF interpretation.


Unicore wrote:
We just need someone to travel back in time and change the 2nd edition Paladin to the name "holy knight" or "holy champion" and then we could be looking at a champion (or knight) class with many different flavors and we wouldn't be stuck on people getting upset because the character that they played 20+ years ago now has a different name for their class then it had when they first made it.

Now you've got me thinking of an AP in which some dread entity in the future is sending deadly Constructs back in time to try to wipe out all the Paladins . . . .


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing that I've noted arround the contention of Paladin alignment seems to be that it's restriction to Lawful Good draws more scrutiny on those characters than any other class had they chosen that same alignment. And this comes down to DM adjudication (read: their bias).

ENHenry wrote:

I think if you were actually following the Paladin's code as written in Mark Seifter's blog, then it wouldn't matter what you wrote in the "Alignment" blank on your character sheet, you'd be Lawful Good, anyway, no matter what you called yourself.

I think this is a good point to be made. One thing that removing the alignment restriction from the class but leaving the LG aligned Code would achieve is permitting the character to be however they like in much of their behaviour but when it comes down to them doing their job (i.e. applying their class abilities) in given situations those interactions would be measured against the code.

Reflecting on this with regard to the Paladin's class features, there is a heavy focus on a single pillar of play: Combat. Given the 'Moral Quandary - Paladin Falls' stigma, giving them some tools in the Social pillar would be a wlecome addition to the tool set. Maybe that can be achieved by skill feats, I don't know. Previously some of the best non-violent options were high-level spells, which were never going to be available or effective given MAD. Curious to see how this is addressed.

Liberty's Edge

Shinigami02 wrote:
...Okay that actually is quite reasonable. Thank you for the excellent explanation. Still somewhat bites that the best armor would still be locked behind Lawful for the most part (personal issues prevent me playing Lawful, but that's it's own topic) but at least I'll probably have the Grey Maidens for that.

You're quite welcome. I'm hopeful that there will eventually be several ways to get to that level of Armor Proficiency.

Felinus wrote:
If it is a base class that services each of the 4 alignment extremes I'd go with Exemplar. With Paladin, Liberator, Tyrant and Reaver for the four alignment extremes.

I might go with something other than Liberator ('Chevalier' has some legacy stuff, being a Cayden Cailean affiliated Prestige Class from Pathfinder's 3.5 stuff that got Smite Evil), but yeah, something like that sounds fine to me.

Retiring Paladin as the name of a core class has presentation issues, though.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
Unicore wrote:
We just need someone to travel back in time and change the 2nd edition Paladin to the name "holy knight" or "holy champion" and then we could be looking at a champion (or knight) class with many different flavors and we wouldn't be stuck on people getting upset because the character that they played 20+ years ago now has a different name for their class then it had when they first made it.

Now you've got me thinking of an AP in which some dread entity in the future is sending deadly Constructs back in time to try to wipe out all the Paladins . . . .

This is great! The forces of Mechanus don't like Paladins because their 'goodness' taints the lawfulness?

Thinking on Unicore's comment: Surely this'd be solved if they went back in time and made a role-playing game from scratch instead of adapting a tabletop miniatures wargame.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
...Okay that actually is quite reasonable. Thank you for the excellent explanation. Still somewhat bites that the best armor would still be locked behind Lawful for the most part (personal issues prevent me playing Lawful, but that's it's own topic) but at least I'll probably have the Grey Maidens for that.

You're quite welcome. I'm hopeful that there will eventually be several ways to get to that level of Armor Proficiency.

Felinus wrote:
If it is a base class that services each of the 4 alignment extremes I'd go with Exemplar. With Paladin, Liberator, Tyrant and Reaver for the four alignment extremes.

I might go with something other than Liberator ('Chevalier' has some legacy stuff, being a Cayden Cailean affiliated Prestige Class from Pathfinder's 3.5 stuff that got Smite Evil), but yeah, something like that sounds fine to me.

Retiring Paladin as the name of a core class has presentation issues, though.

To prevent the presentation issues, could they not keep the Paladin Core then introduce the rest in the APG. I know it's not ideal, but it keeps the Core classes together. While giving another book with more room to introduce the "Exemplars".

I also prefer Chevalier over Liberator.


Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Felinus wrote:
If it is a base class that services each of the 4 alignment extremes I'd go with Exemplar. With Paladin, Liberator, Tyrant and Reaver for the four alignment extremes.

I might go with something other than Liberator ('Chevalier' has some legacy stuff, being a Cayden Cailean affiliated Prestige Class from Pathfinder's 3.5 stuff that got Smite Evil), but yeah, something like that sounds fine to me.

Retiring Paladin as the name of a core class has presentation issues, though.

To prevent the presentation issues, could they not keep the Paladin Core then introduce the rest in the APG. I know it's not ideal, but it keeps the Core classes together. While giving another book with more room to introduce the "Exemplars".

I also prefer Chevalier over Liberator.

Yeah, that is a name I derived from the Paladin of Freedom, the CG variant in the 3.0 Unearthed Arcana. Just a suggestion based on what was more familiar to me.


Hypothetically, if they were to strip out the 'divine champion' element of the Paladin identity, I think Grit would be a great replacement for a source of power.


Felinus wrote:


Reflecting on this with regard to the Paladin's class features, there is a heavy focus on a single pillar of play: Combat. Given the 'Moral Quandary - Paladin Falls' stigma, giving them some tools in the Social pillar would be a wlecome addition to the tool set. Maybe that can be achieved by skill feats, I don't know. Previously some of the best non-violent options were high-level spells, which were never going to be available or effective given MAD. Curious to see how this is addressed.

I do believe they are addressing this with skill feats. Don't know exactly how, but I'm not sure I would like to lose some violent class feats for non-violent class feats. Also, I've never heard of players choosing non-combat spells for their spell slots in PF1. I'm sure some did, but I thought it was mostly combat or healing type spells...


Felinus wrote:

This is great! The forces of Mechanus don't like Paladins because their 'goodness' taints the lawfulness?

Ever since the Harmonium accidentally shifted a whole third of Arcadia into Mechanus, things just haven't been the same down in the gears.


Felinus wrote:
Hypothetically, if they were to strip out the 'divine champion' element of the Paladin identity, I think Grit would be a great replacement for a source of power.

As I mentioned above, I don't think you can strip the "divine" from a Paladin. And I do believe that's the direction the designers are taking them as well...


I'd love to see Chevalier come back.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Steelfiredragon wrote:

oh and on a different post:

Robin Hood wore one of the following leather, Hide or ring mail.( not too likely on the latter though)

You are right. I should have written no heavy armor for paragons of CG such as Zorro and Robin Hood


Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
...Okay that actually is quite reasonable. Thank you for the excellent explanation. Still somewhat bites that the best armor would still be locked behind Lawful for the most part (personal issues prevent me playing Lawful, but that's it's own topic) but at least I'll probably have the Grey Maidens for that.

You're quite welcome. I'm hopeful that there will eventually be several ways to get to that level of Armor Proficiency.

Felinus wrote:
If it is a base class that services each of the 4 alignment extremes I'd go with Exemplar. With Paladin, Liberator, Tyrant and Reaver for the four alignment extremes.

I might go with something other than Liberator ('Chevalier' has some legacy stuff, being a Cayden Cailean affiliated Prestige Class from Pathfinder's 3.5 stuff that got Smite Evil), but yeah, something like that sounds fine to me.

Retiring Paladin as the name of a core class has presentation issues, though.

To prevent the presentation issues, could they not keep the Paladin Core then introduce the rest in the APG. I know it's not ideal, but it keeps the Core classes together. While giving another book with more room to introduce the "Exemplars".

I also prefer Chevalier over Liberator.

..and the class still might not even come then. split them.... that is just me


Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
...Okay that actually is quite reasonable. Thank you for the excellent explanation. Still somewhat bites that the best armor would still be locked behind Lawful for the most part (personal issues prevent me playing Lawful, but that's it's own topic) but at least I'll probably have the Grey Maidens for that.

You're quite welcome. I'm hopeful that there will eventually be several ways to get to that level of Armor Proficiency.

Felinus wrote:
If it is a base class that services each of the 4 alignment extremes I'd go with Exemplar. With Paladin, Liberator, Tyrant and Reaver for the four alignment extremes.

I might go with something other than Liberator ('Chevalier' has some legacy stuff, being a Cayden Cailean affiliated Prestige Class from Pathfinder's 3.5 stuff that got Smite Evil), but yeah, something like that sounds fine to me.

Retiring Paladin as the name of a core class has presentation issues, though.

To prevent the presentation issues, could they not keep the Paladin Core then introduce the rest in the APG. I know it's not ideal, but it keeps the Core classes together. While giving another book with more room to introduce the "Exemplars".

I also prefer Chevalier over Liberator.

Why would CG Paladins be required to be French Knights?

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Why would CG Paladins be required to be French Knights?

Paladins are French knight already, if we're going by etymology. Why shouldn't the CG version be too?


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Voss wrote:
Why would CG Paladins be required to be French Knights?
Paladins are French knight already, if we're going by etymology. Why shouldn't the CG version be too?

Because we've got a better understanding of culture and identity, and a better thesaurus than 1970s Gary Gugax?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Gygax*

Liberty's Edge

Voss wrote:
Because we've got a better understanding of culture and identity, and a better thesaurus than 1970s Gary Gugax?

Chevalier also sounds good. It rolls off the tongue. What's your alternative suggestion?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
And as it stands now (in PF1), the any alignment "divine champion" character is very doable.

I think this is the big problem a lot of people are having. Yes it can be done already in PF1, with many of those options being a Paladin so your flavour is already diluted, but that shouldn't have any bearing in PF2E. How long do other players wait to get to play what they want in PF2E? 1 year, 2 years, maybe never because it hasn't been promised? How long do you think they should wait for something to come out that for all intents and purposes just removes LG from the Paladin page. This is why it hurts them.

Some good points here. I don't see alternate classes or archetypes as diluting the paladin's flavor. That's why I'm so big on the "4 corners" compromise. It opens the class up while still keeping the flavor. That said, I am also open to other compromises. I could make the Paladin a prestige class, or even wait a book for it. In either case, that would open up design space for a Warpriest class in Core.

That said, I don't think taking flavor away from a class fixes the problem of people having to wait. It just makes the problem worse, because now people like me will never get the class they want.

Malk_Content wrote:
And the flavour can still be 100% there. The LG Paladin can have the exact same restrictions and code as it does now while still letting others play with it.

Not gonna lie, seeing this come up over and over is a little frustrating. There seems to be this idea that making all classes universal and modular can only improve them. But it doesn't. Taking away flavor hurts the class for some players. Again, it doesn't matter if I can play the one, universal race and pretend it's a dwarf, there would no longer be a dwarf race. It's not the same thing. And even if we can't understand why I feel that way, can we at least stop trying to explain to me how making a class more bland doesn't take away my flavor? Can we just accept that I have this opinion, and that it's valid?

Now, I understand that the Paladin is a pretty specific flavor. But it's a very iconic flavor in English-speaking mythology. And I'm certainly not saying all classes have to be flavorful. The vanilla fighter is great, and leaves room for people to add their own flavor. But not all classes have to be that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Malachandra wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
And as it stands now (in PF1), the any alignment "divine champion" character is very doable.

I think this is the big problem a lot of people are having. Yes it can be done already in PF1, with many of those options being a Paladin so your flavour is already diluted, but that shouldn't have any bearing in PF2E. How long do other players wait to get to play what they want in PF2E? 1 year, 2 years, maybe never because it hasn't been promised? How long do you think they should wait for something to come out that for all intents and purposes just removes LG from the Paladin page. This is why it hurts them.

Some good points here. I don't see alternate classes or archetypes as diluting the paladin's flavor. That's why I'm so big on the "4 corners" compromise. It opens the class up while still keeping the flavor. That said, I am also open to other compromises. I could make the Paladin a prestige class, or even wait a book for it. In either case, that would open up design space for a Warpriest class in Core.

That said, I don't think taking flavor away from a class fixes the problem of people having to wait. It just makes the problem worse, because now people like me will never get the class they want.

Malk_Content wrote:
And the flavour can still be 100% there. The LG Paladin can have the exact same restrictions and code as it does now while still letting others play with it.
Not gonna lie, seeing this come up over and over is a little frustrating. There seems to be this idea that making all classes universal and modular can only improve them. But it doesn't. Taking away flavor hurts the class for some players. Again, it doesn't matter if I can play the one, universal race and pretend it's a dwarf, there would no longer be a dwarf race. It's not the same thing. And even if we can't understand why I feel that way, can we at least stop trying to explain to me how making a class more bland doesn't take away my...

I think 4 corners is a great compromise. Its not as far as I would like but goes far enough without removing everything you would like. The problem isn't really with your arguements at all. They aren't the hardliners. I feel however that the approach of the last 18 years (and now more than likely going forward into PF2E) is one that holds every one else back in fear of alienating those hardliners. And really my only problem is one of timeline and logistics.

The Paladin is a focus for the argument because it is currently the closest thing we've got to a proper divine champion. I would never want you to lose your option of what it means to be a Paladin but I still think that can be achieved through a more open class. Either with the four corners you suggest, or making it an archetype that can be picked right from the very beginning.

Sorry for frustrating you!


Because it's the act of zealously embracing and loving the deity's teachings that empowers the Paladin. Simply paying lip-service doesn't cut it.

While the player might view some aspects of the class as a burden/restriction, etc It shouldn't feel that way to the Paladin who by any reasonable definition of the Class believes in the values embodied by the Code with all her heart


Kjeldorn wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

Some players actually want to play the LG Paladin as the knight in shining armor who strives to uphold his code even though he is a failible mortal. They love the class as it is in the PF1 CRB

How does your dismantling the class with the ardor you describe helps them telling the tale they want ?

You wanna play a 'knight in shining armor'? No problem! You want a code? No problem either!

My question would probably be…
why this code? why shouldn't you have the ability to, well role-play, and make your own? Doesn't have to be complicated.
Just write up 4-5 "rules" that your character follows (don't steal/lie/punch below the belt/etc or what every your character wants to focus on). Heck you could even make your code stick strictly to an "alignment concept" (ie your old fashioned paladin code cleaves closely to LG. You just smack on the "alignment tag" that you feel your particular code represents the most closely…).
Heck we can even sit down and discuss how your character came to his/her powers. If they are a part of a group of likely minded champions or a solitary loner or a 'chosen one' or whatever!

What I'm trying to communicate here is that your idea for your character should be supported, by making the rules, requirements and restrictions wide enough to incorporate those ideas with a little fuss as possible.

I wanna be able to say to the player, who hands me this code:

1. Clarity in mind and action - “To say” and “to do” is the same thing; once one's word is given the act must follow.

2. Never betray your trust – One's word is a sacred and unbreakable bond that should be kept to the point of death.

3. Never leave an ally nor the undeserving bystander to die – You are a protector first and foremost and laying down your life for the sake of others your sworn duty.

4. Be ever vigilante – Never let down your guard and be ever mindful of your surroundings, but do so in a manner that never disrespects your words or action....

That's all well and good if you're working with a GM who is willing to go through this kind of a character creation process.

If you're playing PFS, any kind of convention game, a game at a gaming shop, or a game with a DM who just doesn't care that much about character-driven stuff, you're SOL. However, when you walk in with a Paladin, all this stuff is canned and supported by the rules.

TL;DR Most GMs won't go for that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
Because it's the act of zealously embracing and loving the deity's teachings that empowers the Paladin. Simply paying lip-service doesn't cut it.

I disagree. A paladin's power comes from their uncompromising devotion to goodness, the lengths they will go to do the right thing, and their supreme and admirable discipline in doing so. The whole "god" thing is secondary.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Crayon wrote:

Because it's the act of zealously embracing and loving the deity's teachings that empowers the Paladin. Simply paying lip-service doesn't cut it.

You mean a certain very limited selection of deities teachings. Zealously embracing Torag's teachings can't empower you to be a divinely inspired champion, despite arms and armour, battle and glory kind of being Torag's thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
Because it's the act of zealously embracing and loving the deity's teachings that empowers the Paladin. Simply paying lip-service doesn't cut it.

That is what empowers the cleric. If zealously embracing and loving a deity's teachings empowers paladins, there would be paladins of Desna or Cayden Cailean because people zealously embrace and love the teachings of Desna and Cayden Cailean in golarion. As a result, everyone gets clerics, only lawful good and any evil gods can have paladins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Voss wrote:
Because we've got a better understanding of culture and identity, and a better thesaurus than 1970s Gary Gugax?
Chevalier also sounds good. It rolls off the tongue. What's your alternative suggestion?

Paladin.

I don't have much use for two-letter distinctions (LG vs NG vs LN vs.. etc, etc, etc) between divine murderhobos that favor swords over spells.

Especially with feats carrying most of the weight for class design in PF2. There's clearly a bunch for each class (and in general) and each subsequent splatbook is going to bring more and more to the table. The PH2.0 can bring the white bricks, the APG2.0 can bring the blue bricks, the ACG2.0 can bring the grey bricks, and so on and so on. Eventually you can Voltron up whatever theme Lego divine warrior you like.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Voss wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Voss wrote:
Because we've got a better understanding of culture and identity, and a better thesaurus than 1970s Gary Gugax?
Chevalier also sounds good. It rolls off the tongue. What's your alternative suggestion?

Paladin.

I don't have much use for two-letter distinctions (LG vs NG vs LN vs.. etc, etc, etc) between divine murderhobos that favor swords over spells.

Especially with feats carrying most of the weight for class design in PF2. There's clearly a bunch for each class (and in general) and each subsequent splatbook is going to bring more and more to the table. The PH2.0 can bring the white bricks, the APG2.0 can bring the blue bricks, the ACG2.0 can bring the grey bricks, and so on and so on. Eventually you can Voltron up whatever theme Lego divine warrior you like.

If such happened to be the case in PF2, would it matter much then if the class' name was for example Divine Champion rather than Paladin ?


yes it would, and its called possible copyright infringements....
remember divine champion is a prc in 3.x.

thus:
Holy/unholy champion
Exemplar
Templar
Crusader
Chevalier
Cavalier
Divine Guardian
Celestial Knight
and these would be a good start for names


The Raven Black wrote:
Voss wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Voss wrote:
Because we've got a better understanding of culture and identity, and a better thesaurus than 1970s Gary Gugax?
Chevalier also sounds good. It rolls off the tongue. What's your alternative suggestion?

Paladin.

I don't have much use for two-letter distinctions (LG vs NG vs LN vs.. etc, etc, etc) between divine murderhobos that favor swords over spells.

Especially with feats carrying most of the weight for class design in PF2. There's clearly a bunch for each class (and in general) and each subsequent splatbook is going to bring more and more to the table. The PH2.0 can bring the white bricks, the APG2.0 can bring the blue bricks, the ACG2.0 can bring the grey bricks, and so on and so on. Eventually you can Voltron up whatever theme Lego divine warrior you like.

If such happened to be the case in PF2, would it matter much then if the class' name was for example Divine Champion rather than Paladin ?

Eh... kinda? The problem with 'Divine Champion' is divine is a source of power, so it's not really clear if people would be referring to paladins, clerics, warpriests, oracles, inquisitors, one of a (fairly large) number of archetypes or something else entirely. It's just too generic while pointing at a specific game term- it narrows the field, but only to about a quarter of the classes.


Alternately, as there are no generic divine powered classes in 2.0, they could just create archetypes for each god, allowing them to be champions while being classes that more reasonably fit that gods interests, rather than simply trying to shoehorn the variety of golarion into a single class or "four corner" class.


Voss wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Voss wrote:
Because we've got a better understanding of culture and identity, and a better thesaurus than 1970s Gary Gugax?
Chevalier also sounds good. It rolls off the tongue. What's your alternative suggestion?

Paladin.

I don't have much use for two-letter distinctions (LG vs NG vs LN vs.. etc, etc, etc) between divine murderhobos that favor swords over spells.

Especially with feats carrying most of the weight for class design in PF2. There's clearly a bunch for each class (and in general) and each subsequent splatbook is going to bring more and more to the table. The PH2.0 can bring the white bricks, the APG2.0 can bring the blue bricks, the ACG2.0 can bring the grey bricks, and so on and so on. Eventually you can Voltron up whatever theme Lego divine warrior you like.

This made me realize the LG-only/not-just-LG argument strongly resembles Lord Business and Emmet in the Lego Movie. There's nothing wrong with having Batman team up with a robot pirate on an 80's spaceship *SPACESHIP!!* They were able to put the Piece of Resistance on the Kragle; so can we.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Alternately, as there are no generic divine powered classes in 2.0

Did they change their minds and remove clerics and paladins? I'm pretty sure I remember previews for those.

But yeah, 'make it a dedication feat' (with or without follow up feats) is a pretty obvious route for PF2 if you want more of a specific god all up inside you.


Voss wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Alternately, as there are no generic divine powered classes in 2.0

Did they change their minds and remove clerics and paladins? I'm pretty sure I remember previews for those.

But yeah, 'make it a dedication feat' (with or without follow up feats) is a pretty obvious route for PF2 if you want more of a specific god all up inside you.

Clerics and paladins have to pick a god. There's no "paladin" You're a paladin OF someone.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Voss wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Alternately, as there are no generic divine powered classes in 2.0

Did they change their minds and remove clerics and paladins? I'm pretty sure I remember previews for those.

But yeah, 'make it a dedication feat' (with or without follow up feats) is a pretty obvious route for PF2 if you want more of a specific god all up inside you.

Clerics and paladins have to pick a god. There's no "paladin" You're a paladin OF someone.

And while they're picking a god, they're using the same base chassis. A Cleric of Shelyn uses the same generic divine powered class as a Cleric of Lamashtu and a Cleric of Nethys and a Cleric of Gorum. Even adding an archetype won't change that (depending, of course, on how extensive P2E archetypes are). So while a P2E Inner Sea Gods book may have one or two archetypes per primary deity, Paizo is not going to be printing 20 different Cleric base classes.


No, but they create 1 archetype per god that works with the classes they view most in line with that particular deity that turns that class into a "divinely powered" version of itself.

Are you intentionally pretending i'm suggesting 20 different cleric classes?

The point is that there is no "generic powered by good and law" paladin in golarion, they are powered by a specific god.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:

No, but they create 1 archetype per god that works with the classes they view most in line with that particular deity that turns that class into a "divinely powered" version of itself.

Are you intentionally pretending i'm suggesting 20 different cleric classes?

The point is that there is no "generic powered by good and law" paladin in golarion, they are powered by a specific god.

But they have the same class and same abilities from the class.

Picking a god is just flavor text and some random restrictions inside the class, along the lines of picking hair color and height for a dwarf.

It will/may matter a lot to the player, and it will matter when roleplaying, but nothing shown suggests it makes a blind bit of difference when it comes to spell casting, healing, turning undead or other class abilities.

A divine patron seems to be required, yes, but from a class perspective it doesn't matter which one. In theory as written Norgorburgerbegggarbar could sponsor a paladin as long as the paladin was LG and followed the code of Paladins. Edit: ok, he can't. But AbadarMart can.


Voss wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:

No, but they create 1 archetype per god that works with the classes they view most in line with that particular deity that turns that class into a "divinely powered" version of itself.

Are you intentionally pretending i'm suggesting 20 different cleric classes?

The point is that there is no "generic powered by good and law" paladin in golarion, they are powered by a specific god.

But they have the same class and same abilities from the class.

Picking a god is just flavor text and some random restrictions inside the class, along the lines of picking hair color and height for a dwarf.

It will/may matter a lot to the player, and it will matter when roleplaying, but nothing shown suggests it makes a blind bit of difference when it comes to spell casting, healing, turning undead or other class abilities.

A divine patron seems to be required, yes, but from a class perspective it doesn't matter which one. In theory as written Norgorburgerbegggarbar could sponsor a paladin as long as the paladin was LG and followed the code of Paladins. Edit: ok, he can't. But AbadarMart can.

Is it just flavour text? Because how they are building the mechanics now is that the Anathema is EQUAL to the Code of Conduct. As in the Paladin must be Good (the first tenet) AND follow the Anathema. (which comes above the 3 other tenets, including the not harming innocents tenet...) So I see it being a lot more important than hair colour and height. (Unless of course you believe that the Code is just flavour text...)

That being said I don't know what the repercussions are of breaking the Anathema. But I imagine them being big, maybe even falling big... And again, from what we've seen, the Anathemas are not that difficult. A Shelynite Paladin can't strike first, can't refuse to accept surrender, and even has permission (through her Anathema mind you) to allow a piece of art to be destroyed to save a life.
I'm interested in seeing how these changes play out during the Playtest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Is it just flavour text? Because how they are building the mechanics now is that the Anathema is EQUAL to the Code of Conduct. As in the Paladin must be Good (the first tenet) AND follow the Anathema. (which comes above the 3 other tenets, including the not harming innocents tenet...) So I see it being a lot more important than hair colour and height. (Unless of course you believe that the Code is just flavour text...)

That being said I don't know what the repercussions are of breaking the Anathema. But I imagine them being big, maybe even falling big... And again, from what we've seen, the Anathemas are not that difficult. A Shelynite Paladin can't strike first, can't refuse to accept surrender, and even has permission (through her Anathema mind you) to allow a piece of art to be destroyed to save a life.
I'm interested in seeing how these changes play out...

This makes me wonder. Why not replace the Code with Deity Anathema? I guess the reason why Paladins can't be deity-less now is because they have to follow both code and anathema, but one of the main points of flavor for the paladin for me was that they weren't a champion of a deity but of an ideal. But if they wanted to stretch their design muscles with anathema, why not just make the class both? You could be a divine champion of a deity, or of an ideal, taking an Anathema if you're the first, and a code if you're the second.

Maybe it's that the Anathema isn't felt to be as strict as the code, so people might abuse it for mechanical gain, but I'm not sure that that's the case. Comparing the Code, to the only anathema we know, we can see:

-You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell: This isn't strictly in the anathema, but the Paladin blog does mention that actions opposed to the deity's alignment are verboten, so with Shelyn, yep, covered.
-You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent: For this, Shelyn's anathema of allowing a work of art to be destroyed is a parallel. It gives both the same immediacy as this, though admittedly for something less likely to come up. Though, if you're playing a Paladin of Shelyn (or hell, even any sort of devout follower, this tenet of the Paladin's code is almost a gimme, anyway)
-You must act with honor, never cheating, lying, or taking advantage of others.: This is covered by the other two parts of the anathema, namely never refuse surrender, and never strike first. It's not as broad as the Paladin's version, but potentially more limiting, given how important going early in combat is.

Only the last tenet of respecting lawful authority is neglected, and I'd be ok with that. That could be a LG-Paladin only thing, while Deity-Paladins (or Exemplars, or whatever you'd call them), only have their anathema, and other Alignment 'Exemplars' (or, again, whatever) would have their own ideals.

Edit/Note: To preemptively clarify, I'm not saying the Code and Anathema are a 1-to-1 match, but I'm saying I don't think having either a Code or Anathema would necessarily be more restrictive than the other, at least for someone who gets into the flavor of their deity. Maybe flesh out Anathema some more, if you feel it's still not enough. But I think, rather than Paladins being LG-Only, and Must-Worship-A-Deity, you make the Deity part not rely on being a champion of an alignment-ideal, and the alignment-ideal part not rely on being a follower of a deity.

101 to 150 of 280 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Can a Paladin follow its deity's code without being LG? All Messageboards