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


Prerelease Discussion

151 to 200 of 280 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Mark has clearly said that Anathemas are not very restrictive. While the Code is known for its restrictiveness. So I don't see those jiving as an either/or... And I think you're bang on about people abusing the Anathemas for mechanical reasons. Paladins need the Code. Shelyn's code looks like it could cover three of the four tenets, but what of the other deities? We just don't have the info. I can see where you're going with this, and it's a cool concept. But I'm not sure if it'll work...

PS- One thing that I like about the Anathemas is that it flavours (funny I just argued that it did MORE than just flavour, but it does flavour nonetheless) the Paladin. Paladins of Abadar or Iomedae have a more of a Lawful bent than a Paladin of Shelyn or Sarenrae. Which of course was the case in PF1, but now the deities are not a sort of arbitrary decision. The Anathemas make it so.


And as for the whole "not going to make 20 different versions of the same thing" argument.

They already did, Just about everything your character could worship has 12 separate abilities specific to them via the obedience feats and PRC associated with them. It is not a big leap to archtyping at that point.

It just makes more sense to me that a divine champion of caiden is a modified fighter/rogue/swashbuckler, and a divine champion of Nethys is a wizard, sorceror or magus, and a divine champion of calistria is a rogue ranger or bard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

unfortunately Ryan , that is just you and is the problem. its the problem with everything... it is just someone( whether its you, me, or someone else)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelfiredragon wrote:
unfortunately Ryan , that is just you and is the problem. its the problem with everything... it is just someone( whether its you, me, or someone else)

No the problem is that there are people who are bent out of shape that alignment exists at all, so they continually create disingenuous threads attacking anything that uses it rather than simply playing games that don't use it, or being ok with the idea that it can be modified out, to the point that they'd rather have absolutely generic base classes representing divine champions rather than classes that fit the deity.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:
unfortunately Ryan , that is just you and is the problem. its the problem with everything... it is just someone( whether its you, me, or someone else)

No the problem is that there are people who are bent out of shape that alignment exists at all, so they continually create disingenuous threads attacking anything that uses it rather than simply playing games that don't use it, or being ok with the idea that it can be modified out, to the point that they'd rather have absolutely generic base classes representing divine champions rather than classes that fit the deity.

But that's just it. YOU can make that call for YOU in YOUR gaming group. And there should be no obstacles infringing on your ability to make that call how you see fit for the gaming group that IS your purview. And simple courtesy says we get that same call for what's in our purview AND the same lack of obstacles. And that is exactly and only what the exclusivity adds: it doesn't bolster how you play your Paladin (since you can already play your Paladin the way you see fit), it limits everyone else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:
unfortunately Ryan , that is just you and is the problem. its the problem with everything... it is just someone( whether its you, me, or someone else)

No the problem is that there are people who are bent out of shape that alignment exists at all, so they continually create disingenuous threads attacking anything that uses it rather than simply playing games that don't use it, or being ok with the idea that it can be modified out, to the point that they'd rather have absolutely generic base classes representing divine champions rather than classes that fit the deity.

But that's just it. YOU can make that call for YOU in YOUR gaming group. And there should be no obstacles infringing on your ability to make that call how you see fit for the gaming group that IS your purview. And simple courtesy says we get that same call for what's in our purview AND the same lack of obstacles. And that is exactly and only what the exclusivity adds: it doesn't bolster how you play your Paladin (since you can already play your Paladin the way you see fit), it limits everyone else.

Exclusivity is a part of world building. And no one is stopping any player from playing a paladin, its just people mad that an orange isn't an apple and unwilling to accept alternatives except that oranges disappear.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:

Exclusivity is a part of world building. And no one is stopping any player from playing a paladin, its just people mad that an orange isn't an apple and unwilling to accept alternatives except that oranges disappear.

Or we could just have many different breeds of orange. Mandarins, Floridas, Bloods, and Tangelos all exist, and nobody complains about Mandarins loosing their identity because Tangelos exist.


I will again propose this idea. It's not perfect, but it's... Alright.

Class in Core: Champion - gets Smite, Auras, Legendary Armor proficiency, regardless of Code chosen

Choose a Code:
Code of the Paladin: LG only, Divine Grace, traditional Auras
Code of the Guardian (or whatever): NG only, other features
Code of the Vindicator (or whatever): CG only, other features


Mbertorch wrote:

I will again propose this idea. It's not perfect, but it's... Alright.

Class in Core: Champion - gets Smite, Auras, Legendary Armor proficiency, regardless of Code chosen

Choose a Code:
Code of the Paladin: LG only, Divine Grace, traditional Auras
Code of the Guardian (or whatever): NG only, other features
Code of the Vindicator (or whatever): CG only, other features

An interesting proposition... I'd prefer the Paladin to be a class rather than a Code. But I could live with this. I like that it's not taking the 5e route of calling the class a Paladin, then making it open to any alignment.

But if I were to be picky, I'd tweak a few things...
Mbertorch wrote:


Class in Core: Champion - gets Smite, Auras, Legendary Armor proficiency, regardless of Code chosen

I'd focus on the niche that Paizo is making with the Playtest Paladin. They are focusing on Retributive Strike, Lay on Hands and other Spell Point Powers (Litanies, etc..), Righteous Ally, and Armour proficiency. These seem to be the abilities that each Paladin gets automatically. (so should the "Champion") Everything else is fluff.

Mbertorch wrote:


Choose a Code:
Code of the Paladin: LG only, Divine Grace, traditional Auras
Code of the Guardian (or whatever): NG only, other features
Code of the Vindicator (or whatever): CG only, other features

I'd keep all the same feats from the Playtest Paladin, but then I'd reflavour the Oaths, (make these do the same thing without an oath or changing the Code) the auras, and combat feats. (if the Paladin gets any) Finally I'd change the Armour Proficiency for each alignment (though I don't know if it'd work) to:

LG=Heavy
NG=Medium
CG=Light
It kinda fits the themes. I also have ideas as to how to reflavour CG Code to be more well... Chaotic. But that is for another time and discussion.
But again, I'm doubtful that they'll do this and it's not my first choice for the final Core layout... But I hope this gives some food for thought!


would definitely agree to use the pf2ept paladin as a base, so that all good aligned paladins get the same base toys and create new ones that would make a CG or NG paladin/champion stand out from the others.

btw....
a pf2 paladin with

aura of freedom, aura of courage, and justice and whatever the other was. if there was a pf2 paladin like that, would it be overpowered??? defensively speaking?

and as for any other code.

mind you word count, might want to see about how one would jsut make said code good aligned and in the apg2 expand on it there.... along with new sets of paladin goodies for lg,ng, and cg..

otherwise.....


Davor wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:

Exclusivity is a part of world building. And no one is stopping any player from playing a paladin, its just people mad that an orange isn't an apple and unwilling to accept alternatives except that oranges disappear.

Or we could just have many different breeds of orange. Mandarins, Floridas, Bloods, and Tangelos all exist, and nobody complains about Mandarins loosing their identity because Tangelos exist.

Except they have a contract for oranges already, and to fill out the produce section they're gonna need bananas and limes and lemons and apples and pears and plums, and also some vegetables and there's a limited budget for fruit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which is what more books and the (inevitable) more feats are for. You're straining the fruit metaphor. They've got a base class and several really easy ways to bolt on new (or re-built PF1) stuff.

Variations of paladin are trivially easy to do, especially since the theme work is already done.


Steelfiredragon wrote:


btw....
a pf2 paladin with

aura of freedom, aura of courage, and justice and whatever the other was. if there was a pf2 paladin like that, would it be overpowered??? defensively speaking?

Here are the 2e Paladin auras that we know about so far:

Aura of Courage: Reduce the Frightened condition for the Paladin and Allies. Level 4
Aura of Righteousness: Resistance to Evil damage. Level 14
Aura of Justice: Take penalty to Retributive Strike, all allies within 10 feet and in reach of monster strike themselves. This one is the only one that every Paladin gets.
Aura of Vengeance: Remove penalty of Aura of Justice
Aura of Faith: Nearby Good allies 1st attack each turn deal 1 extra Good damage against Evil.

Nothing overpowered here defensively or offensively as far as I can tell. Though we don't have enough info on many of them.
Furthermore, is the Aura of Freedom the Clerical Liberation Domain ability or the 3rd party equivalent for a Paladin? That ability is overpowered IMO...


Voss wrote:

Which is what more books and the (inevitable) more feats are for. You're straining the fruit metaphor. They've got a base class and several really easy ways to bolt on new (or re-built PF1) stuff.

Variations of paladin are trivially easy to do, especially since the theme work is already done.

Yeah, and i've offered one, that fits better with the concept of divine champion of a god and is more thematic than trying to slap a champion of caiden on the same chassis as a champion of milani or desna.


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

Exclusivity is a part of world building. And no one is stopping any player from playing a paladin, its just people mad that an orange isn't an apple and unwilling to accept alternatives except that oranges disappear.

Or we could just have many different breeds of orange. Mandarins, Floridas, Bloods, and Tangelos all exist, and nobody complains about Mandarins loosing their identity because Tangelos exist.

Except they have a contract for oranges already, and to fill out the produce section they're gonna need bananas and limes and lemons and apples and pears and plums, and also some vegetables and there's a limited budget for fruit.

Well, you know what they say. When life gives you oranges make a complicated extended metaphor involving variations in breeds of oranges and logistical planning of vegetables and fruits to try and explain your issue with the oranges to a group of people on the internet. Or possibly orange juice instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I think people need to use the whole metaphor argument thing less.
It breaks down kind of quickly and leaves everyone confused and usually barely connects to the point.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea of Divine Champion archetypes for deities, I think that's a great idea. Still want to see Chaotic Good 'Paladins' as a Core option because Lawful Good gets a class built around its ideals. We can be sure the Anti-Paladin will do that for Chaotic Evil, and since they stretched that to Lawful Evil last time there's a reasonable position to say they'll likely do it again.

Lawful Good is my favorite alignment, but I really don't like it getting special treatment or being the only alignment that gets the "Super Good at being Super Good" class. I don't want Chaotic Good to only get a token archetype to make the 'Chaotidin' supporters shut up, so the idea can be abandoned to continue funneling more support into the Lawful Good Paladin.

I mean, I'd overall prefer four separate classes for the four corner alignments. But at best, that'd be Paladin first, and then the others... eventually. And never receiving the same support the Paladin does, so just continuing the standard of Lawful Good living by the "All alignments are equal, but some alignments are more equal than others." mantra. The Paladin being some unique phenomenon that only Lawful Good can produce is so set against the very idea of Paladins and Lawful Good to my thoughts. I've never liked it, even though it doesn't technically affect me because I like playing Lawful Good more anyway.

I understand that other people really, really care about the tradition they're used to, and I won't argue up or down about it. Just think that more people overall would be happy if it were opened up, and it'd be a more fair approach to the alignments. Lawful Good getting more stuff just irks me.


Xerres wrote:


I mean, I'd overall prefer four separate classes for the four corner alignments. But at best, that'd be Paladin first, and then the others... eventually.

First of all, Hi Xerres! Long time no see.

Now, I want to address this concern that I hear from the CG group time and again.
When I was at Paizocon, I had an enlightening conversation with Mark (and others) about Paladins. The topic came up because of two reasons: One, the Gauntlet Blog unexpectedly (for Mark anyways) was posted during Paizocon. And two, I love Paladins. Plain and simple. Anyhoo... Mark spoke about the design process behind the Paladin. He spoke about his "quest for the Holy Grail" from the Paladin blog, but he gave further info that was not revealed in the blog. Mostly everyone agreed that Paladins should be at LEAST LG, but he mentioned a close second to the LG-only stance. The Four Corner Alignment stance. There's serious backing to the 4 corner alignment classes at Paizo. And I can confidently say that Mark was onboard with that. (Mark if you're reading correct me if I'm wrong please) So to me it's not a question of if, it's a question of when... Yeah, they can't officially say that. They can't promise anything; but why would they straight jacket themselves with a promise?
Warning: Potential Future Predictions incoming...
Ok, so let's be honest here guys. (in a logistical way) The Paladin is not going anywhere. The class is too iconic, and has too much D&D/Pathfinder history. (even with Seelah) They are not taking the class out of Core, even if it's a "Prestige Archetype" in the Core book. You don't take classes away from the Core. That'd be too catastrophic. So what does that leave? Opening the class to other alignments, or keeping it closed. Picking one or the other is going to cause a lot of strife. (I'm including Paizo internally as well) So how do you prevent that and appease the two sides?

The Four Corner Alignment System.

Keep the Paladin in Core as is. (LG included) Make the class as best as they can. Later, add the other three classes to another book. They already have a basic framework, the three classes should be easy. The LG-only fans get their Paladin as they like. The open group gets the Paladin-like class with the flavour they've wanted for years. Minimizes ostracizing one group or the other. Win/win. There's already support of this internally, and it fits the language of the "Chassis system" that the designers are throwing around. (including Jason!)
So yes, I feel strongly that the 4-Corner Alignment Classes is the way to go. And I want to encourage the CG group that it's more than an "eventually" or a big fat "maybe". Your time is coming...


and what wait 2 to 3 years for something that might never come?

that is the drawback of the 4 corners deal.
that is the drawback for the all alignment deal.

no so much with an any good only paladin class, and atleast this way it could open up for another book to make each paladin of said alignment to stand out different more

other wise PAizo still has the option to yoink the class out of the crb2.0 after the playtest. Despite what anyone wants to think or what they say, Paizo's IP and they are free to do whatever they want with it..

if one has to wait, then in all fairness the other group should be able to wait too.

edit: 4 corners excludes ng and ne.... and puts those ones out ot pasture


If we're going to do 4 corner alignment analogues, which is fine, let's keep druid-folk restricted to the remaining 5 alignments as there's a nice symmetry there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Xerres wrote:


I mean, I'd overall prefer four separate classes for the four corner alignments. But at best, that'd be Paladin first, and then the others... eventually.

First of all, Hi Xerres! Long time no see.

Now, I want to address this concern that I hear from the CG group time and again.
When I was at Paizocon, I had an enlightening conversation with Mark (and others) about Paladins. The topic came up because of two reasons: One, the Gauntlet Blog unexpectedly (for Mark anyways) was posted during Paizocon. And two, I love Paladins. Plain and simple. Anyhoo... Mark spoke about the design process behind the Paladin. He spoke about his "quest for the Holy Grail" from the Paladin blog, but he gave further info that was not revealed in the blog. Mostly everyone agreed that Paladins should be at LEAST LG, but he mentioned a close second to the LG-only stance. The Four Corner Alignment stance. There's serious backing to the 4 corner alignment classes at Paizo. And I can confidently say that Mark was onboard with that. (Mark if you're reading correct me if I'm wrong please) So to me it's not a question of if, it's a question of when... Yeah, they can't officially say that. They can't promise anything; but why would they straight jacket themselves with a promise?
Warning: Potential Future Predictions incoming...
Ok, so let's be honest here guys. (in a logistical way) The Paladin is not going anywhere. The class is too iconic, and has too much D&D/Pathfinder history. (even with Seelah) They are not taking the class out of Core, even if it's a "Prestige Archetype" in the Core book. You don't take classes away from the Core. That'd be too catastrophic. So what does that leave? Opening the class to other alignments, or keeping it closed. Picking one or the other is going to cause a lot of strife. (I'm including Paizo internally as well) So how do you prevent that and appease the two sides?

The Four Corner Alignment System.

Keep the Paladin in Core as is. (LG included) Make the class as...

The biggest issue I have with this is it means I can play a (rules-supported) CG, LE, AND CE Paladin before I can play a NG one... Which to me just feels wrong


PossibleCabbage wrote:
If we're going to do 4 corner alignment analogues, which is fine, let's keep druid-folk restricted to the remaining 5 alignments as there's a nice symmetry there.

What does this grant apart from aesthetics? Admittedly, I've never understood the logic behind Neutral-Druidism (the "Everything must be balanced" is some loony golden-mean garbage), but the only purpose to this would be aesthetics. If they were two sides of the same coin, I could maybe see it, but they're only vaguely similar, even if you squint, especially now that druids are no longer divine casters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mbertorch wrote:
The biggest issue I have with this is it means I can play a (rules-supported) CG, LE, AND CE Paladin before I can play a NG one... Which to me just feels wrong

I don't want to have NG "Paladins" period, since one of the best things about the Paladin class is the built-in tension between Good and Law, where "doing the right thing" and "following the rules" come into conflict. Each of the four corner versions have similar tensions between unrelated extremes. For NG/LN/NE/CN there's no tension it's just "do whatever creates the most good/law/evil/chaos."

Plus if every NG deity allows LG or CG worshippers, you can be a divine champion of whatever good deity you want and a Paladin-of-sorts.

Tholomyes wrote:
What does this grant apart from aesthetics? Admittedly, I've never understood the logic behind Neutral-Druidism (the "Everything must be balanced" is some loony golden-mean garbage), but the only purpose to this would be aesthetics. If they were two sides of the same coin, I could maybe see it, but they're only vaguely similar, even if you squint, especially now that druids are no longer divine casters.

I feel like part and parcel to being a druid is being able to see both sides as valid in some natural conflict- both the wolf and the rabbit are correct in their own way, both the fire and the forest are correct in their own way, etc. Extreme alignments are prone to excesses like "let's kill all the wolves and put out all the fires" which a druid should be too wise to consider.

From where I sit the only value of alignment period is aesthetics and RPing cues that come from said aesthetics, though.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
If we're going to do 4 corner alignment analogues, which is fine, let's keep druid-folk restricted to the remaining 5 alignments as there's a nice symmetry there.

Might as well make two mistakes in keeping alignment restrictions instead of one?

Quote:
I feel like part and parcel to being a druid is being able to see both sides as valid in some natural conflict- both the wolf and the rabbit are correct in their own way, both the fire and the forest are correct in their own way, etc. Extreme alignments are prone to excesses like "let's kill all the wolves and put out all the fires" which a druid should be too wise to consider.

Part and parcel of being a druid would be understanding that there isn't a conflict between the wolf and rabbit... and that's got nothing to do with alignment anyway. Crazy excesses don't either, nor wisdom. A Neutral person is just as likely to chop down a forest as a LG, they'd just have different reasons for doing so. [For example, expanding farmland or selling lumber vs. building fortifications for a vulnerable population near a city]


PossibleCabbage wrote:


Tholomyes wrote:
What does this grant apart from aesthetics? Admittedly, I've never understood the logic behind Neutral-Druidism (the "Everything must be balanced" is some loony golden-mean garbage), but the only purpose to this would be aesthetics. If they were two sides of the same coin, I could maybe see it, but they're only vaguely similar, even if you squint, especially now that druids are no longer divine casters.

I feel like part and parcel to being a druid is being able to see both sides as valid in some natural conflict- both the wolf and the rabbit are correct in their own way, both the fire and the forest are correct in their own way, etc. Extreme alignments are prone to excesses like "let's kill all the wolves and put out all the fires" which a druid should be too wise to consider.

From where I sit the only value of alignment period is aesthetics and RPing cues that come from said aesthetics, though.

I'm afraid I don't get this line of thought. I get that nature can have opposed and equally valid ways of doing something, but Druids have been so bent to one side on an issue where this applies that I've deliberately avoided putting ranks in Knowledge (nature) on non-houseruled Druids because having those ranks would imply knowing better than what their class forces on them.


Load of bull there cabbage

not what you want, not what I want. not even what the community wants.

I don't want a 4 corners

I want good only and don't care about what you or anyone else likes, just like anyone else wont care about what I or anyone else wants.

and what you said about if ng deities an have cg and lg followers...

is insulting and just as bad as insisting we play a warpriest.

have a nice day, and if you don't that is your own fault.

Resist and Bite


Malk_Content wrote:
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.

Have the alignment options for Torag's clerics in PF2E been revealed anywhere yet? I mean, the dude was stated as LG in PF1E...

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...)

Did where Anathema fell in the fall priority get confirmed somewhere? Last I heard we still weren't sure where it ranked.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
dysartes wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
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.

Have the alignment options for Torag's clerics in PF2E been revealed anywhere yet? I mean, the dude was stated as LG in PF1E...

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...)
Did where Anathema fell in the fall priority get confirmed somewhere? Last I heard we still weren't sure where it ranked.

My bad, no idea how I got it messed up, probably because I was playing a Cleric of Torag earlier in the week and the name got stuck in my head. I meant Gorum!


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

Which is what more books and the (inevitable) more feats are for. You're straining the fruit metaphor. They've got a base class and several really easy ways to bolt on new (or re-built PF1) stuff.

Variations of paladin are trivially easy to do, especially since the theme work is already done.

Yeah, and i've offered one, that fits better with the concept of divine champion of a god and is more thematic than trying to slap a champion of caiden on the same chassis as a champion of milani or desna.

But it DOESN'T fit better with the concept of a divine champion of a god and it ISN'T more thematic than trying to slap a champion of Caiden on the same chassis as a champion of Milani or Desna. Or it indeed might fit better and/or be more thematic. Obviously it is to you. And that's your call. It isn't to me. Champion of Caiden IS Paladin minus "Righteous Ally" and "Spell Points" plus "something replacing Righteous Ally" and "something replacing Spell Points (or keeping the Spell Points and tweaking what they can be spent on)". That's my call, and as long as we're not in the same gaming group, you are as much a nonentity when it comes to having a say on what hoops I should have to jump through to express a character I have in mind as I am when it comes to having a say on how you should or shouldn't be able to express one of your characters.

After all, except for the RA and the SP, you keep EVERYTHING the P2E Paladin class has when you "fall", and therefore, ALL of those other class features ARE the class features of the not-LG Paladin. We already, right now, this very minute, have in print (or will have in print once it's printed) 95% of the not-LG Paladin. And it DOES use that much of the same chassis as the LG Paladin.

You want to talk about being disingenuous? Alright, it's disingenuous to say the LG and the not-LG Paladins cannot be expressed by the same base chassis when they factually already are.


This is maybe a little unrelated to the ongoing discussion, but do we know how Paizo plans to handle Paladin post-Playtest, beyond the somewhat vague statement of "we want only the LG Paladin in the Playtest but we're open to Paladins of other alignments for later down the line"?

I feel like knowing what their plan for the class is (whether it's leaving it as-is, making alternate classes/archetypes for other alignments a'la Anti-Paladin, making the base class more generic or modular, or something else entirely) would be very helpful to have...


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
RiverMesa wrote:

This is maybe a little unrelated to the ongoing discussion, but do we know how Paizo plans to handle Paladin post-Playtest, beyond the somewhat vague statement of "we want only the LG Paladin in the Playtest but we're open to Paladins of other alignments for later down the line"?

I feel like knowing what their plan for the class is (whether it's leaving it as-is, making alternate classes/archetypes for other alignments a'la Anti-Paladin, making the base class more generic or modular, or something else entirely) would be very helpful to have...

That answer fills me with very little hope for getting them in Core. Its a very different answer for example from the Monk only having one Ki access Feat. In the full core they plan to have more. One speaks of an assurance, the other speaks of nothing.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tectorman wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:
unfortunately Ryan , that is just you and is the problem. its the problem with everything... it is just someone( whether its you, me, or someone else)

No the problem is that there are people who are bent out of shape that alignment exists at all, so they continually create disingenuous threads attacking anything that uses it rather than simply playing games that don't use it, or being ok with the idea that it can be modified out, to the point that they'd rather have absolutely generic base classes representing divine champions rather than classes that fit the deity.

But that's just it. YOU can make that call for YOU in YOUR gaming group. And there should be no obstacles infringing on your ability to make that call how you see fit for the gaming group that IS your purview. And simple courtesy says we get that same call for what's in our purview AND the same lack of obstacles. And that is exactly and only what the exclusivity adds: it doesn't bolster how you play your Paladin (since you can already play your Paladin the way you see fit), it limits everyone else.

People who care about the exclusivity have said repeatedly why and it has never been just so that other people cannot have what they want


dysartes wrote:


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...)
Did where Anathema fell in the fall priority get confirmed somewhere? Last I heard we still weren't sure where it ranked.

Mark confirmed this in the Paladin Twitch Stream.

Tectorman wrote:


After all, except for the RA and the SP, you keep EVERYTHING the P2E Paladin class has when you "fall", and therefore, ALL of those other class features ARE the class features of the not-LG Paladin. We already, right now, this very minute, have in print (or will have in print once it's printed) 95% of the not-LG Paladin. And it DOES use that much of the same chassis as the LG Paladin.

I'm not sure you understand how much the 2e Paladin loses when he falls... Spell points effect all your Lay on Hands abilities. So no healing of any kind. (including Mercies) Spell points effect Litanies as well or anything else that's "Magicky". Righteous Ally has a feat tree attached to it that you can choose but that could potentially be 3 good feats to lose. Not forgetting the sweet bonus to your Mount, Shield, or Weapon. That's 4 out of 12 class abilities (that we know of) and around 14 feats. So yeah, falling effects more than 5% of the Paladin.

That being said, I am particularly interested in Playtesting the Paladin to iron out the Falling mechanics. (I'm not making my character fall, just want to see what's tied to RA and SP) It's ridiculous to me that a Paladin can fall and still benefit from Auras, Divine Grace, Sense Evil, Holy Smite, and an Angelic Aspect type feat. These are blessings of the Divine, and he shouldn't have access to them if he's cut the connection to the divine by Falling. I think that when a Paladin falls, he should have his Armour Proficiency and Retributive Strike. (and maybe combat feats if they have any) That should be it.


Hmm I think we need two different threads for this. one for people with Extreme uncompromising views and one for people more casually open to compromise and change.

I say this because I read people trying to work out something reasonable and the interests me then I see some people Hard balling it and I just want to ignore the thread and let them argue at different walls.

I actually feel fairly neutral about the whole time. As long as the OG paladin remains an option to play I'm fine.


Vidmaster7 wrote:

Hmm I think we need two different threads for this. one for people with Extreme uncompromising views and one for people more casually open to compromise and change.

I say this because I read people trying to work out something reasonable and the interests me then I see some people Hard balling it and I just want to ignore the thread and let them argue at different walls.

I actually feel fairly neutral about the whole time. As long as the OG paladin remains an option to play I'm fine.

You aren't going to get that here with any thread about paladins. Many with the uncompromising views feel any openness to compromise and change is in itself an extreme view.

The 'OG paladin' looks to be a given, assuming by 'OG' you mean the 3e/PF one (LG-only divine champion with healing, smiting and some measure of save bonus). The BECMI and 1e/2e paladins aren't really recognizable anymore, beyond some vestigial outgrowths that became full-fledged abilities later on in 3e (notably fixed save bonuses in 2e, lay on hands and not a hint of smiting).


I don't think any one class ability really comprises what I would call the OG paladin. the things that make the OG paladin to me would be heavy armor use, martial skill, divine powers of some sort but not as spell casty as the cleric, the code of conduct. Also holy avengers should be more effective in there hands. Also some sort of divine companion like the mount or weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It makes me wonder why you even need to take a Deity and it's Anathema. It's not like picking one opens up Domain Feats for you. Can you just be a Champion of Virtue?

They really need to pick the core identity for the Paladin and only build to that. You need to separate the deity worship and focus on virtuousness for the Paladin or keep it but drop alignment/code of conduct and make it a souped-up Warpreist.

But if Paizo are building the former, please make the core class able to absorb the other corners at a later date using the base class.

Dark Archive

Thing is, flavor wise majority of paladins in 1e had a deity, but rules wise 1e paladins didn't actually need a god despite being divine casters and all.

Like with ranger and druid it makes sense since they get their divine power from nature itself, but with paladins apparently they just got divine powers from being uber goody two shoes?

Anyway, yeah, I've always preferred "Warrior of deity" paladin to "I'm super knight of goodness" paladins. I do gotta admit that warpriest is bit weird in that it overlaps flavorwise a lot with clerics and such, like idea is that warpriest are militant priests, but clerics depending on build and domains can also be mainly melee characters instead of mainly wizard like "stay afar to cast spells" characters.


CorvusMask wrote:
Anyway, yeah, I've always preferred "Warrior of deity" paladin to "I'm super knight of goodness" paladins.

Yeah, Planescape plays that up, all paladins serve a god, some planars even view them as "sinister agents" of gods.


Chest Rockwell wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Anyway, yeah, I've always preferred "Warrior of deity" paladin to "I'm super knight of goodness" paladins.
Yeah, Planescape plays that up, all paladins serve a god, some planars even view them as "sinister agents" of gods.

They should. Paladins make the best murderhobos- extra defenses, built in healing, targeted, discriminatory bonus damage. Perfect for killing infidels and committing genocide (and given that the classic paladin argument revolves around that, there must be some sort of reason for it). ;)


CorvusMask wrote:

Thing is, flavor wise majority of paladins in 1e had a deity, but rules wise 1e paladins didn't actually need a god despite being divine casters and all.

Like with ranger and druid it makes sense since they get their divine power from nature itself, but with paladins apparently they just got divine powers from being uber goody two shoes?

Anyway, yeah, I've always preferred "Warrior of deity" paladin to "I'm super knight of goodness" paladins. I do gotta admit that warpriest is bit weird in that it overlaps flavorwise a lot with clerics and such, like idea is that warpriest are militant priests, but clerics depending on build and domains can also be mainly melee characters instead of mainly wizard like "stay afar to cast spells" characters.

With the new Cleric chassis, there may not be a need for a separate Warpriest class. I, for one, am going to attempt to build the "knight of a specific deity" concept with a cleric. If it works, I may never play a Paladin, four corners or otherwise. I'll be a "priest of the order of battle" or something like that, which is really more where I feel like Paladins should fit anyways (members of of the church that focus on fighting).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

Thing is, flavor wise majority of paladins in 1e had a deity, but rules wise 1e paladins didn't actually need a god despite being divine casters and all.

Like with ranger and druid it makes sense since they get their divine power from nature itself, but with paladins apparently they just got divine powers from being uber goody two shoes?

Anyway, yeah, I've always preferred "Warrior of deity" paladin to "I'm super knight of goodness" paladins. I do gotta admit that warpriest is bit weird in that it overlaps flavorwise a lot with clerics and such, like idea is that warpriest are militant priests, but clerics depending on build and domains can also be mainly melee characters instead of mainly wizard like "stay afar to cast spells" characters.

And I wholeheartedly disagree. I prefer the "Champions of Virtue" to "I fight for a god... But not in the way a Cleric does... Or a Warpriest. I'm different and special!"

But I don't think you're wrong to prefer what you do. And I don't think my preference is wrong. But it is part of the reason the Paladin is so complicated and controversial.

It's... Hmm. I don't know. But I sure as heck don't envy Paizo as they try to figure out what to do with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelfiredragon wrote:

Load of bull there cabbage

not what you want, not what I want. not even what the community wants.

I don't want a 4 corners

I want good only and don't care about what you or anyone else likes, just like anyone else wont care about what I or anyone else wants.

and what you said about if ng deities an have cg and lg followers...

is insulting and just as bad as insisting we play a warpriest.

have a nice day, and if you don't that is your own fault.

Resist and Bite

I mean, if you're not willing to compromise then why even discuss? Then the conversation just degrades into both sides digging in, not even admitting that the other camp's opinion has any value. That's the thing with a compromise, both sides are slightly unhappy.

I do in fact care what other people want. I'd prefer no compromises at all, but I feel the "any-good" camp has valid concerns and I'd like to see Paizo react to those concerns.

Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Xerres wrote:


I mean, I'd overall prefer four separate classes for the four corner alignments. But at best, that'd be Paladin first, and then the others... eventually.

First of all, Hi Xerres! Long time no see.

Now, I want to address this concern that I hear from the CG group time and again.
When I was at Paizocon, I had an enlightening conversation with Mark (and others) about Paladins. The topic came up because of two reasons: One, the Gauntlet Blog unexpectedly (for Mark anyways) was posted during Paizocon. And two, I love Paladins. Plain and simple. Anyhoo... Mark spoke about the design process behind the Paladin. He spoke about his "quest for the Holy Grail" from the Paladin blog, but he gave further info that was not revealed in the blog. Mostly everyone agreed that Paladins should be at LEAST LG, but he mentioned a close second to the LG-only stance. The Four Corner Alignment stance. There's serious backing to the 4 corner alignment classes at Paizo. And I can confidently say that Mark was onboard with that. (Mark if you're reading correct me if I'm wrong please) So to me it's not a question of if, it's a question of when... Yeah, they can't officially say that. They can't promise anything; but why would they straight jacket themselves with a promise?
Warning: Potential Future Predictions incoming...
Ok, so let's be honest here guys. (in a logistical way) The Paladin is not going anywhere. The class is too iconic, and has too much D&D/Pathfinder history. (even with Seelah) They are not taking the class out of Core, even if it's a "Prestige Archetype" in the Core book. You don't take classes away from the Core. That'd be too catastrophic. So what does that leave? Opening the class to other alignments, or keeping it closed. Picking one or the other is going to cause a lot of strife. (I'm including Paizo internally as well) So how do you prevent that and appease the two sides?

The Four Corner Alignment System.

Keep the Paladin in Core as is. (LG included) Make the class as...

I'm extremely happy to hear this. I kinda wish they had playtested the four corners option, but I really hope it comes in during Core, or very soon after. If they choose to add more options, I have a hard time believing it takes them longer than a year with the rate of books they publish.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
The biggest issue I have with this is it means I can play a (rules-supported) CG, LE, AND CE Paladin before I can play a NG one... Which to me just feels wrong

I don't want to have NG "Paladins" period, since one of the best things about the Paladin class is the built-in tension between Good and Law, where "doing the right thing" and "following the rules" come into conflict. Each of the four corner versions have similar tensions between unrelated extremes. For NG/LN/NE/CN there's no tension it's just "do whatever creates the most good/law/evil/chaos."

Plus if every NG deity allows LG or CG worshippers, you can be a divine champion of whatever good deity you want and a Paladin-of-sorts.

I fully agree with this. I could live with additional sub-classes for each alignment to make people happy, but I prefer the sub-classes to reflect the extremes of alignment (i.e. two alignment components)


SilverliteSword wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

Thing is, flavor wise majority of paladins in 1e had a deity, but rules wise 1e paladins didn't actually need a god despite being divine casters and all.

Like with ranger and druid it makes sense since they get their divine power from nature itself, but with paladins apparently they just got divine powers from being uber goody two shoes?

Anyway, yeah, I've always preferred "Warrior of deity" paladin to "I'm super knight of goodness" paladins. I do gotta admit that warpriest is bit weird in that it overlaps flavorwise a lot with clerics and such, like idea is that warpriest are militant priests, but clerics depending on build and domains can also be mainly melee characters instead of mainly wizard like "stay afar to cast spells" characters.

With the new Cleric chassis, there may not be a need for a separate Warpriest class. I, for one, am going to attempt to build the "knight of a specific deity" concept with a cleric. If it works, I may never play a Paladin, four corners or otherwise. I'll be a "priest of the order of battle" or something like that, which is really more where I feel like Paladins should fit anyways (members of of the church that focus on fighting).

That's not entirely true. It really depends on whether or not there exists a point between "Full 9-or-10-level" casting and "just spell points" casting, if not now then in the future, and how prevalent that kind of casting is. If 1/2 casters come out in New!APG and become extremely common like they were in PF1e (I'm not sure what the chances of that are or how well that would even work given PF2e's magic system, but that's why there's a standing "if" on this) then there could totally be room for a 1/2-casting Divine caster, which is basically what the Warpriest was in PF1e.


not too true.

I just would not play a CG paladin. I do not have a character build in mind for one.
I do have a NG one.

allow me a NG and I wont care if they add the 4 corners one.

again I do not care if you get if you like, and Im sure that you are not alone in this/
makes you happy if you get it, then Im happy for you.

I do not if you do not care if I get I'd like .

If I get it Im happy, and I may or may not be alone in that.

if we get both and I will be ecstatic.( hope that is the right word)


Why can't you just play your NG character as CG? I find that there's almost no practical difference between these alignments. Both are just "do good, and follow the rules when it suits you."

I don't really find enough contrast on the law/chaos axis to really justify delineating three distinct good alignments period, since it's really just a continuum between "Follows rules, values institutions" to "does not follow rules, devalues institutions." I assert that any NG character could be played as CG or LG depending on which extreme of that spectrum they are closest to.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Why can't you just play your [alignment] character as [different alignment]?

No.

No.

Noooooooooo.


Rysky wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Why can't you just play your [alignment] character as [different alignment]?

No.

No.

Noooooooooo.

In honesty, I do this all the time. I'll come up for a concept and a backstory for a character, then before statting them out I'll run them through 3 or 4 different alignments as in "what is this person like if they were LN or CG" seeing how their personalities change and figuring out which one I like best. This is all in parallel to how I have characters go through a variety of permutations of race, ancestry, gender identity, sexual orientation, class, etc. before I put pen to paper.

I do this mostly to avoid NG since it's the easiest "generic hero" autopilot there is. Only alignments less worthy of "special things for this alignment" are the alignments primarily for antagonists and I would balk at any NE special thing either.


Me, personally, I think the Paladin can learn from 4th ED. No joke, I said it, 4th ed... I know the edition isn't popular, I didn't exactly like it myself, but... It did have some concepts that were actually worth looking into. The paladin alignment was one of them, (can ignore the fact they only have 5 alignments in 4ed instead of nine) The paladin there, was same alignment as deity. Which makes sense, I mean, this way, they can be of ANY deity instead of just certain ones. Which in turn, would open up character concepts for them, for not everyone has the same ideas and concepts. Which is good, otheriwse this would be a drab and boring world if everyone was the same... But yeah, it also answers paladin - anti paladin - even a nuetral paladin, as they could be any alignment now. Yeah, they can still be goodie goodies, I mean if it's an good only campaign, that's fine, players are simply relegated to using deities of good alignment for their paladin choices. But at same time, it opens windows of opportunities for players at home for own campaigns. Plus it makes sense, as a class that dependant on a deity, that they as a champion of said deity, would follow the deities alignment. Maybe champion wasn't the best name, but for lack of a better term atm, it fits. I mean hey, what are we talking about here? it's about players options. What do players want from the class. Right? so lets drop the "but company" bomb and just let players speak to decide what they want from the class. I myself don't play paladins anymore, but that's simply personal choice, especially in a game where there's 50+ classes (PF1) to choose from. (not including archtypes).


I honestly really like the 4e alignment system where you basically had "principled good" and "generic good" (also "principled neutrality" and "DGAF neutrality" as well as "evil you could maybe reason with" and "evil you absolutely cannot reason with.").

Paladins should honestly only belong to principled versions of alignments.

151 to 200 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