If no, then why do we need an alignment restriction?
Feels like needlessly tying yourself up on building up a core class. You could use it to make NG, CE, etc. Paladins too.
Yes, this is the 5E treatment, which has some issues – namely, dealing Radiant damage even with Evil Paladins – but nothing that couldn't be solved with the right mechanics and a thesaurus to rename everything that has been slapped with "..of Justice".
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
If no, then why do we need an alignment restriction?
Feels like needlessly tying yourself up on building up a core class. You could use it to make NG, CE, etc. Paladins too.
Yes, this is the 5E treatment, which has some issues – namely, dealing Radiant damage even with Evil Paladins – but nothing that couldn't be solved with the right mechanics and a thesaurus to rename everything that has been slapped with "..of Justice".
Please, don't - we've been here before ...
Read the gazillion other threads for arguments for, or against.Good gaming to you all
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like we just need a different word since I can't see "Paladin" applying to anything that's not LG, since the word is almost definitionally "the hero who always does the right thing in the right way."
It's fine to have a deific champion of any alignment, but that isn't (to me) a Paladin, even the champions of LG deities. Personally, I think of a Paladin as someone who values fundamental goodness and order more than any particular deity. A "you are the chosen warrior for whatever god" should be a totally different class, just don't call it a Paladin.
I would rather see "Warpriest" become a core class and have the Paladin go away entirely than see non-LG Paladins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Gruzom and PossibleCabbage on their points.
I think that everything has been said on the topic and I doubt anything new will be brought up.
I am glad that the Paladin is going to be a test bed for alignment empowered warriors and that it seems likely that other classes will be in the design queue for the future.
However if we are going to wind up with a generic class for divine champions I'd rather they be called divine champions, Templars, warpriests, or whatever new name than have a specific flavor of hero bleached out for dyeing.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like we just need a different word since I can't see "Paladin" applying to anything that's not LG, since the word is almost definitionally "the hero who always does the right thing in the right way."
It's fine to have a deific champion of any alignment, but that isn't (to me) a Paladin, even the champions of LG deities. Personally, I think of a Paladin as someone who values fundamental goodness and order more than any particular deity. A "you are the chosen warrior for whatever god" should be a totally different class, just don't call it a Paladin.
I would rather see "Warpriest" become a core class and have the Paladin go away entirely than see non-LG Paladins.
This. A pally is more than a deity following fighter guy to me. Though many folks these days would disagree. I'm a little shocked the alignment wasnt dropped in favor of anathema.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, there's no way that this would happen, but I personally just wish that Paladins were Prestige Archetypes. I'm so done with Paladin alignment garbage, that just getting rid of them as a core class is my go to. If no other core class is alignment restricted, just let that be the domain of prestige.
But if we're not going that route, I'd want at least the other corners' divine champions represented as classes, if not all alignments. If the name 'paladin' is such a hot-bed issue, the call them something else, but I want them to basically fill the same design space as the paladin. Whenever they've tried to do this in the past, it's been so weak-willed that it might as well not even bother.
But on the particulars of this initial question, the flavor that I've always held for the paladin is one where the gods aren't necessary. Maybe some paladins follow a deity, but in my mind that's neither necessary nor sufficient for a paladin. The key to a paladin is that they gain their divine power from devotion to an ideal. The problem is that the only ideals we've ever seen as allowed are essentially "Good and Order" and "Burn down a puppy orphanage." I don't want them to be champions of a deity, by necessity, I just want other ideals be open for this design space. (Edit: and Ideally, I'd rather it not be "one-size-fits-all one-ideal-per-alignment, but even that might be one sacred cow too many)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If no, then why do we need an alignment restriction?
Feels like needlessly tying yourself up on building up a core class. You could use it to make NG, CE, etc. Paladins too.
Yes, this is the 5E treatment, which has some issues – namely, dealing Radiant damage even with Evil Paladins – but nothing that couldn't be solved with the right mechanics and a thesaurus to rename everything that has been slapped with "..of Justice".
Please, don't - we've been here before ...
Read the gazillion other threads for arguments for, or against.
Good gaming to you all
Even with all the changes PF2 is doing, it's always nice to have something that's consistent.
Wizards cast spells, Rogues gets Skills, Paladins get 50+ Topics at the same time...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point alignment/paladin threads should really be considered trolling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like we just need a different word since I can't see "Paladin" applying to anything that's not LG, since the word is almost definitionally "the hero who always does the right thing in the right way."
It's fine to have a deific champion of any alignment, but that isn't (to me) a Paladin, even the champions of LG deities. Personally, I think of a Paladin as someone who values fundamental goodness and order more than any particular deity. A "you are the chosen warrior for whatever god" should be a totally different class, just don't call it a Paladin.
I would rather see "Warpriest" become a core class and have the Paladin go away entirely than see non-LG Paladins.
Great stuff here guys. I especially like this quote here: (which I'll paste it again for emphasis)
I feel like we just need a different word since I can't see "Paladin" applying to anything that's not LG, since the word is almost definitionally "the hero who always does the right thing in the right way."
I really like this summation of a Paladin. That's exactly how I feel. But funny enough, I differ with most of you on the whole don't need a deity thing...
It has never made any sense to me for a Paladin to get his powers from an "Ideal" or from a generic Lawful Goodness domain. The Paladin needs a "sponsor" for his DIVINE powers in my mind. (I could see Angels doing it for the whole Lawful Goodness domain thing tho...) He needs to tap into some particular type of power source. The "Ideal" plays a different part than his source of power. The ideal (or Code of Conduct) specifies what type of Holy Warrior (or if you prefer Divine Champion) he is. I think there is design space for more than one type of Divine Champion in the game. Cleric, Inquisitor, Warpriest, Paladin, etc could all be classified as Divine Champion of some sort or the other. The problem is that the lines between the classes get muddled very easily. That's why I think that the LG/Code/Ideal is Core to the Paladin. It differentiates him from the others, because he pursues his deities wishes though an Ideal. That's his method. So if a deity would like to "sponsor" the Paladin, he/she needs to be in line with the "Ideal". Because the two, person and ideal, are inseparable. (this brings up a fascinating discussion of where the Code originally comes from, but that's totally off topic) This way the Paladin can be the Alignment champion AND a Divine Champion at the same time. You can also see this on how the designers made Anathemas equal to the first tenet of the Code. So yeah, I'm a big fan of the direction they're taking with Paladins...Huh, look at that... I guess I inadvertently answered the OP. No, I don't think so. ;^)
PS- I tried not to use the whole "make Paladins Golarion friendly by making Anathemas Core" argument through this. Though I find that argument pretty strong. I'm also sure they'll make a splat book or APG where they'll give you the option to to make a nondeific Paladin...
Yeah, when I first saw this thread, my first thought was "oh no, not again". And that's coming from me who enjoys the Paladin/Alignment threads. (as long as they stay civil... don't laugh!!) But I guess I can't help myself. Though I have to say I enjoy Paladin Mechanics threads... Wouldn't mind more of those myself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's important to be able to have a dialogue in paladins - a minority of posters (some of which I suspect have been banned?) has tended to drag these discussions into arguments in the past, but our goal is to make PF2 the best game it can be and the best way to reach that goal is to keep the conversation going. Each and every one of us have to do our best to keep the boards positive and productive, and trust Paizo to do their part by removing any overly argumentative elements. :)
As for the topic... I think some kind of alignment restriction is pretty much unavoidable, it's too heavily tied to the class identity to be removed. That said, it feels strange that a class that's presented as "the armor master" has such a specific flavor and concept, and that "the divine champion" can only champion about a third of Golarion's pantheon. That the god of farming has a martial divine champion and the god of battle does not seems a self-contradiction. I hope that they include a martial divine champion in Pathfinder 2's CRB* that offers more alignment options than just LG, one that can represent all the gods in Golarion. That said, I'd be perfectly happy if they break the class down into alignment-restricted sections and call the LG version Paladin. That seems the best compromise to me. :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the big things I see driving the more heated discussions about classes is their identity. Monks and Paladins in particular. I think Paladin alignment needs to considered in regards to the identity of that class.
IRL Paladins better align with the Cavalier, warriors dedicated to a cause. Yes that cause may be holy but the distinction is the dedication. I don't think they need to be dedicated to a deity, nor that they be Lawful Good (though a general lawful bent would need to be acknowledged). The later is sufficiently covered with the Code of Conduct and Anathema.
Paladin is a class I carry a torch for but I'd be equally happy with it being served with the Cavalier and (prestige) Archetype feats.
If the identity they want to push is the holy warrior, I agree with others that you're better off going with a name change.
Felinus is a wise cat.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm almost positive they've indicated that they want to do Paladins of other alignments, but are sticking to LG solely for the playtest to make sure the class works structurally.
Other than that, I don't really care about paladin alignment. I care about the core class chassis. You could make Paladin an archetype for all I cared, as long as what we know as the chassis is playable from the get-go.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's important to be able to have a dialogue in paladins - a minority of posters (some of which I suspect have been banned?) has tended to drag these discussions into arguments in the past, but our goal is to make PF2 the best game it can be and the best way to reach that goal is to keep the conversation going. Each and every one of us have to do our best to keep the boards positive and productive, and trust Paizo to do their part by removing any overly argumentative elements. :)
As for the topic... I think some kind of alignment restriction is pretty much unavoidable, it's too heavily tied to the class identity to be removed. That said, it feels strange that a class that's presented as "the armor master" has such a specific flavor and concept, and that "the divine champion" can only champion about a third of Golarion's pantheon. That the god of farming has a martial divine champion and the god of battle does not seems a self-contradiction. I hope that they include a martial divine champion in Pathfinder 2's CRB* that offers more alignment options than just LG, one that can represent all the gods in Golarion. That said, I'd be perfectly happy if they break the class down into alignment-restricted sections and call the LG version Paladin. That seems the best compromise to me. :)
** spoiler omitted **
They got free reign with barbarians and monks, leave paladins alone.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
They got free reign with barbarians and monks, leave paladins alone.I think it's important to be able to have a dialogue in paladins - a minority of posters (some of which I suspect have been banned?) has tended to drag these discussions into arguments in the past, but our goal is to make PF2 the best game it can be and the best way to reach that goal is to keep the conversation going. Each and every one of us have to do our best to keep the boards positive and productive, and trust Paizo to do their part by removing any overly argumentative elements. :)
As for the topic... I think some kind of alignment restriction is pretty much unavoidable, it's too heavily tied to the class identity to be removed. That said, it feels strange that a class that's presented as "the armor master" has such a specific flavor and concept, and that "the divine champion" can only champion about a third of Golarion's pantheon. That the god of farming has a martial divine champion and the god of battle does not seems a self-contradiction. I hope that they include a martial divine champion in Pathfinder 2's CRB* that offers more alignment options than just LG, one that can represent all the gods in Golarion. That said, I'd be perfectly happy if they break the class down into alignment-restricted sections and call the LG version Paladin. That seems the best compromise to me. :)
** spoiler omitted **
"They already replaced three blown out tires. Can't they let the fourth one just stay flat?"
|
"They already replaced three blown out tires. Can't they let the fourth one just stay flat?"They got free reign with barbarians and monks, leave paladins alone.I think it's important to be able to have a dialogue in paladins - a minority of posters (some of which I suspect have been banned?) has tended to drag these discussions into arguments in the past, but our goal is to make PF2 the best game it can be and the best way to reach that goal is to keep the conversation going. Each and every one of us have to do our best to keep the boards positive and productive, and trust Paizo to do their part by removing any overly argumentative elements. :)
As for the topic... I think some kind of alignment restriction is pretty much unavoidable, it's too heavily tied to the class identity to be removed. That said, it feels strange that a class that's presented as "the armor master" has such a specific flavor and concept, and that "the divine champion" can only champion about a third of Golarion's pantheon. That the god of farming has a martial divine champion and the god of battle does not seems a self-contradiction. I hope that they include a martial divine champion in Pathfinder 2's CRB* that offers more alignment options than just LG, one that can represent all the gods in Golarion. That said, I'd be perfectly happy if they break the class down into alignment-restricted sections and call the LG version Paladin. That seems the best compromise to me. :)
** spoiler omitted **
But nobody wants Paladins of any alignment, as opposed to Monks and Barbarians.
The debate is always about the Chaos-Law axis and never about the Good-Evil axis
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The existence of this thread very clearly shows that sentiment to be false.
Yet, there are a lot of us who think that Paladins would lose their identity if they lost their "Goodness". That's why I see them as a Holy Warrior rather than a Divine Champion...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want "Deific Champions" of all alignments, since there are deities of all alignments.
I do not want "Champions of Goodness and Law" of all alignments since that makes no sense.
I see the Paladin as the latter, and the former to be a different class entirely
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yet, there are a lot of us who think that Paladins would lose their identity if they lost their "Goodness". That's why I see them as a Holy Warrior rather than a Divine Champion...
That's like saying that the Anti-Paladin loses its identity if they lose their "Evilness", but really all Anti-Paladins and Paladins are is two sides of the same coin: in this case, two archetypes of the exact same class. There's no reason you couldn't just lump them all together into a single class with various abilities. You could even make certain abilities dependent on Alignment (For example, a generic Smite ability that deals additional damage based on your personal alignment, etc.). That way alignment remains relevant to the class without removing options from players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They got free reign with barbarians and monks, leave paladins alone.
Do we know if Druids still have to be partly neutral? I feel like most people want that to stay, even though it's just a flavor thing.
Perhaps the most symmetrically satisfying thing is to make alternate classes for the 4 alignments druids can't be: Paladin, Anti-Paladin, Tyrant, and Liberator or something. Completely different classes, but they can share mechanics and feats as appropriate.
They got free reign with barbarians and monks, leave paladins alone.Do we know if Druids still have to be partly neutral? I feel like most people want that to stay, even though it's just a flavor thing.
Perhaps the most symmetrically satisfying thing is to make alternate classes for the 4 alignments druids can't be: Paladin, Anti-Paladin, Tyrant, and Liberator or something. Completely different classes, but they can share mechanics and feats as appropriate.
I believe they've removed that from the druid, or at least it wasn't mentioned on the druid's page that was revealed at Paizocon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want "Deific Champions" of all alignments, since there are deities of all alignments.
I do not want "Champions of Goodness and Law" of all alignments since that makes no sense.
I see the Paladin as the latter, and the former to be a different class entirely
Perhaps the most symmetrically satisfying thing is to make alternate classes for the 4 alignments druids can't be: Paladin, Anti-Paladin, Tyrant, and Liberator or something. Completely different classes, but they can share mechanics and feats as appropriate.
I agree with Cabbage here. Paladins are not the "Deific Champion" of all alignments. The 4 alignments warriors is the most likely direction Paizo will be taking. (I think)
Yet, there are a lot of us who think that Paladins would lose their identity if they lost their "Goodness". That's why I see them as a Holy Warrior rather than a Divine Champion...That's like saying that the Anti-Paladin loses its identity if they lose their "Evilness", but really all Anti-Paladins and Paladins are is two sides of the same coin: in this case, two archetypes of the exact same class. There's no reason you couldn't just lump them all together into a single class with various abilities. You could even make certain abilities dependent on Alignment (For example, a generic Smite ability that deals additional damage based on your personal alignment, etc.). That way alignment remains relevant to the class without removing options from players.
Interesting... I believe an Anti-Paladin would lose its identity if they lost their "Evilness". Ask someone to define an Anti-Paladin. Evil will most likely come up in the description. That's why calling your character a "Good Anti-Paladin" is an oxymoron. Same as an "Evil Paladin"; it's an oxymoron. Call it a Blackguard, Death Knight, Tyrant, Anti-Paladin or whatever you want. Just don't call it a Paladin. Good/Holy are part and parcel with the name and class. So yes, I absolutely disagree that you can just lump them together to make the same class...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting... I believe an Anti-Paladin would lose its identity if they lost their "Evilness". Ask someone to define an Anti-Paladin. Evil will most likely come up in the description. That's why calling your character a "Good Anti-Paladin" is an oxymoron. Same as an "Evil Paladin"; it's an oxymoron. Call it a Blackguard, Death Knight, Tyrant, Anti-Paladin or whatever you want. Just don't call it a Paladin. Good/Holy are part and parcel with the name and class. So yes, I absolutely disagree that you can just lump them together to make the same class...
/looks at anti-paladin
/notices almost all of its abilities are virtually identical to the Paladin, but with opposite themingWhat I'm saying is, fundamentally (i.e., at the very core), Anti-Paladin and Paladin are the same class. Touch of Corruption is just a damaging version of Lay on Hands, instead of disease immunity they become disease spreaders, instead of bolstering their allies against fear they weaken their enemies to it, smite good is almost a carbon copy of smite good... I could keep going.
They're the same class. Now, the different archetypes of the class may fill different narrative roles, but at the foundation they're so similar it wouldn't make sense to separate them, and at that point why wouldn't you just make options for all alignments? Smite becomes: "You deal bonus damage against creatures whose alignments oppose your own". Bam. Smite evil, smite law, smite chaos, smite good, all covered, and we don't need to print an entirely separate class to do it.
Alternately they could leave paladin the hell alone as its own thing. and implement divine champion archetypes that slot in well with specific classes that are more in theme with the specific gods interests.
Interesting... I believe an Anti-Paladin would lose its identity if they lost their "Evilness". Ask someone to define an Anti-Paladin. Evil will most likely come up in the description. That's why calling your character a "Good Anti-Paladin" is an oxymoron. Same as an "Evil Paladin"; it's an oxymoron. Call it a Blackguard, Death Knight, Tyrant, Anti-Paladin or whatever you want. Just don't call it a Paladin. Good/Holy are part and parcel with the name and class. So yes, I absolutely disagree that you can just lump them together to make the same class.../looks at anti-paladin
/notices almost all of its abilities are virtually identical to the Paladin, but with opposite themingWhat I'm saying is, fundamentally (i.e., at the very core), Anti-Paladin and Paladin are the same class. Touch of Corruption is just a damaging version of Lay on Hands, instead of disease immunity they become disease spreaders, instead of bolstering their allies against fear they weaken their enemies to it, smite good is almost a carbon copy of smite good... I could keep going.
They're the same class. Now, the different archetypes of the class may fill different narrative roles, but at the foundation they're so similar it wouldn't make sense to separate them, and at that point why wouldn't you just make options for all alignments? Smite becomes: "You deal bonus damage against creatures whose alignments oppose your own". Bam. Smite evil, smite law, smite chaos, smite good, all covered, and we don't need to print an entirely separate class to do it.
I see where you are coming from. Anti-Paladins were designed to be the mirror image of the Paladin. That is its mechanics. I'm coming from a thematical (is that a word?...) angle. If you divorce the mechanics from the thematics, then sure I'd be with you. But I can't. It's already been mentioned multiple times, but Paladins are directly tied to an Alignment. That alignment at the very least is Good. Same goes for the Anti-Paladin. At the very least its Evil. So what I'm saying is, fundamentally (i.e., at the very core), Anti-Paladin and Paladin are different classes.
|
|
I see where you are coming from. Anti-Paladins were designed to be the mirror image of the Paladin. That is its mechanics. I'm coming from a thematical (is that a word?...) angle. If you divorce the mechanics from the thematics, then sure I'd be with you. But I can't. It's already been mentioned multiple times, but Paladins are directly tied to an Alignment. That alignment at the very least is Good. Same goes for the...
But why shouldn't we divorce mechanics from thematics? Theme, or flavor, or whatever, can easily be built into the system in regards to world-building and roleplay. Mechanics are simply how class X accomplishes task Y. By allowing the players and DM to build flavor around mechanics, you let the mechanics speak for themselves, i.e., an Anti-Paladin is obviously more inclined towards doing evil because his very touch can injure, or even kill, the average person. This communicates intent to harm far more effectively than slapping "Must be Chaotic Evil" on the class. If the mechanics are thematic, they should do the talking, not a sidenote about alignment restrictions.
But why shouldn't we divorce mechanics from thematics? Theme, or flavor, or whatever, can easily be built into the system in regards to world-building and roleplay. Mechanics are simply how class X accomplishes task Y. By allowing the players and DM to build flavor around mechanics, you let the mechanics speak for themselves, i.e., an Anti-Paladin is obviously more inclined towards doing evil because his very touch can injure, or even kill, the average person. This communicates intent to harm far more effectively than slapping "Must be Chaotic Evil" on the class. If the mechanics are thematic, they should do the talking, not a sidenote about alignment restrictions.
I see where you are coming from. Anti-Paladins were designed to be the mirror image of the Paladin. That is its mechanics. I'm coming from a thematical (is that a word?...) angle. If you divorce the mechanics from the thematics, then sure I'd be with you. But I can't. It's already been mentioned multiple times, but Paladins are directly tied to an Alignment. That alignment at the very least is Good. Same goes for the...
I don't know that Touch of corruption is necessarily the best example, because everyone wants to do damage, since combat is such a core of the game, but I will say, paladin does seem weirdly unique in the extent of flavor tied directly to the class. You can be a Bard who doesn't sing or have clerics of diametrically opposed deities, and even urban rangers and druids were some of the first archetypes of those classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Thematics vs Mechanics debate is still raging all over the internet and beyond. So I'm not sure it's beneficial (for both of us) to go down that rabbit trail. I doubt we'll change each others mind.
But I find that 5e has filled the "Divorce Mechanics from Thematics" niche. (Hence why there are Evil Paladins in the game) Perhaps Pathfinder can fill the "Blend Mechanics and Thematics together" niche?...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Shouldn't we divorce mechanics and thematics?
No, No we should not because pathfinder isn't GURPS and isn't trying to be. 2.0 is not trying to be the next big generic game system and it shouldn't be because generic game systems don't sell, and trying to be setting neutral caused all kinds of problems in PF 1.0.
Theme and Mechanics should have a nice balance and compliment each other.
I don't care what you call them, but I think an equally Good and powerful CG champion is definitely warranted (along with LE and CE versions of the Antipaladin).
I'm with you there DMW, but I would love it if they called the other two classes something other than Paladin and Anti-Paladin. I think it would be the most balanced approach for all sides of the debate. Though I am willing to acquiesce to Any Good and Any Evil at the MINIMUM...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Shouldn't we divorce mechanics and thematics?
No, No we should not because pathfinder isn't GURPS and isn't trying to be. 2.0 is not trying to be the next big generic game system and it shouldn't be because generic game systems don't sell, and trying to be setting neutral caused all kinds of problems in PF 1.0.
Theme and Mechanics should have a nice balance and compliment each other.
Well that's a bit of an out-of-context reach.
Yes, theme and mechanics should compliment each other. But should we REALLY think that having 9 different Paladin-like classes is a feasible design goal? Should every archetype be its own class to make sure that the flavor of the class is preserved and unique? That's what I'm arguing here: That when the mechanics of two different classes are too similar, something has gone wrong, and we need to be dealing in archetypes, not classes.
|
|
I don't care what you call them, but I think an equally Good and powerful CG champion is definitely warranted (along with LE and CE versions of the Antipaladin).I'm with you there DMW, but I would love it if they called the other two classes something other than Paladin and Anti-Paladin. I think it would be the most balanced approach for all sides of the debate. Though I am willing to acquiesce to Any Good and Any Evil at the MINIMUM...
The only issue with this is logistical (they're all gonna mechanically be variations on the same Class, so you need to give them an overarching name). But that's not an insoluble problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Shouldn't we divorce mechanics and thematics?
No, No we should not because pathfinder isn't GURPS and isn't trying to be. 2.0 is not trying to be the next big generic game system and it shouldn't be because generic game systems don't sell, and trying to be setting neutral caused all kinds of problems in PF 1.0.
Theme and Mechanics should have a nice balance and compliment each other.
Well that's a bit of an out-of-context reach.
Yes, theme and mechanics should compliment each other. But should we REALLY think that having 9 different Paladin-like classes is a feasible design goal? Should every archetype be its own class to make sure that the flavor of the class is preserved and unique? That's what I'm arguing here: That when the mechanics of two different classes are too similar, something has gone wrong, and we need to be dealing in archetypes, not classes.
No but an archetype for a divine champion for each god is absolutely an achievable goal. Something that could be released in say Gods of the Inner Sea 2.0. Because there is never going to be a 1 class thematically fits all for every god but thanks to the archetype system, divinely empowered wizard champions of nethys and divine rogues of Norgorber are not out of reach.
The only issue with this is logistical (they're all gonna mechanically be variations on the same Class, so you need to give them an overarching name). But that's not an insoluble problem.I don't care what you call them, but I think an equally Good and powerful CG champion is definitely warranted (along with LE and CE versions of the Antipaladin).I'm with you there DMW, but I would love it if they called the other two classes something other than Paladin and Anti-Paladin. I think it would be the most balanced approach for all sides of the debate. Though I am willing to acquiesce to Any Good and Any Evil at the MINIMUM...
Though, did they not have relatively the same issue when they created the Anti-Paladin? Two mechanically similar classes with different names to fit their Thematical differences? Do you think Paladin should be in each of the 4 classes names?
|
|
Though, did they not have relatively the same issue when they created the Anti-Paladin? Two mechanically similar classes with different names to fit their Thematical differences? Do you think Paladin should be in each of the 4 classes names?
They did, but it never expanded beyond two, and they weren't in the corebook. I'm very hopeful for the CG version to be in the Corebook.
So are you saying they should give the CG a name, and the LE an Anti-<insert name here> to follow suit? Or a name that overarches all the 4 classes?
|
|
So are you saying they should give the CG a name, and the LE an Anti-<insert name here> to follow suit? Or a name that overarches all the 4 classes?
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.
It's a tricky issue.
So are you saying they should give the CG a name, and the LE an Anti-<insert name here> to follow suit? Or a name that overarches all the 4 classes?I 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.
It's a tricky issue.
A solution could be to only have the core book one be the stereotypical LG paladin, but have it have something like Druid orders, the only one of which, in the CRB, is the standard LG-Paladin. Then in the APG or whatever, add in a class section for the others that are titled in their own "version's" name, but state in the text, "this functions as an order of the Paladin, but is treated as an alternative class, called [x name]"
But I'd probably prefer separate classes, since I can see there being distinctions beyond simply the "order" aspect. For example, I could see if a CG-paladin-equivolent is all about freedom (which has traditionally been associated with stuff like freedom of movement), maybe getting to Legendary in armor, akin to the paladin, is still a design goal, but only with Light armor, and stuff like that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But nobody wants Paladins of any alignment, as opposed to Monks and Barbarians.
The debate is always about the Chaos-Law axis and never about the Good-Evil axis
That is completely false, but I'll chalk it up to you being genuinely that unaware.
I want "Deific Champions" of all alignments, since there are deities of all alignments.
I do not want "Champions of Goodness and Law" of all alignments since that makes no sense.
I see the Paladin as the latter, and the former to be a different class entirely
Okay, why do those have to be different classes if 95+% of the chassis is going to be the same for both? Clerics of Desna get their divine empowerment from just about as opposite a source as you can get as Clerics of Asmodeus. Now how many separate classes do we need for a Cleric of Desna as opposed to a Cleric of Asmodeus? Heck, P1E had the Cleric class used for those gaining their powers specifically from deities and those drawing from a concept; the Paladin is nothing more than the "less castery, more combaty" version of the LG-concept Cleric. How many other concepts were out there, all being represented by one class?
We don't have twenty different classes for all the different Clerics of the Inner Sea deities. We don't have eight different classes for each school of Wizard. Why MUST LG-concept Cleric get its own separate class when it becomes "less castery, more combaty"? It's the same difference between a two-weapon Fighter and a two-handed-weapon Fighter at best; something distinguished by an archetype at the max (and before the APG, not even that).
And for the record,
Alternately they could leave paladin the hell alone as its own thing. and implement divine champion archetypes that slot in well with specific classes that are more in theme with the specific gods interests.
We have been leaving your Paladin alone. When we're not in your gaming group, forcing you to bear witness to our not-LG Paladins or preventing you from playing your LG Paladin, that's leaving your Paladin alone. When we're not on these boards, asking Paizo to make every other kind of Paladin but to take the LG Paladin out of the game, that's leaving your Paladin alone. That's just common courtesy, and I'd dearly love to see it returned by you leaving our Paladins alone.
No but an archetype for a divine champion for each god is absolutely an achievable goal. Something that could be released in say Gods of the Inner Sea 2.0. Because there is never going to be a 1 class thematically fits all for every god but thanks to the archetype system, divinely empowered wizard champions of nethys and divine rogues of Norgorber are not out of reach.
I addressed this overall point above, but I have to ask again: how does the Cleric not qualify exactly for the bolded and why would dialing the casting down and the mundane fighting ability up change that?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the concept would be better served with different classes with different names and different abilities for each alignment
Or at the very least each extreme alignment and True Neutral
And the abilities should exemplify the theme of the Alignment
I feel that a generic Divine Warrior with standard abilities would be bland and somewhat meaningless, similar to what the Cleric would become if you took from the class all the features that link the character to their specific deity : a bland sanitized Divine Worshipper
I guess that the underlying notion is that I see being a personification of an alignment as part and parcel of what the Paladin is beyond serving a deity
As if the Paladin as a Divine Warrior was the mortal counterpart to Outsiders who are for their vast majority defined by a specific alignment
Maybe then the Paladin chassis could be based on how Outsiders are built : abilities linked to the generic concept, similar to the generic abilities granted by the outsider type, and a suite of specific abilities linked to the kind of Divine Warrior one is, similar to the abilities of an Outsider's subtype
I think the Paladin should embrace being a specific alignment rather than shy away from it