Paladin once again forced to be LG

[CommanderCoyler]

Darkorin wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

If Paizo opens the class, I'm gone. If they don't I'll be staying.

I don't think they are going to open the class in the core book.

Except that you are completely disregarding what some of us are saying. Please take the time to read it carefuly.

Most people here do not want to have a Paladin class with non-LG. What people want, is a class that is larger than Paladins but includes it, and part of that class would be alignment gated. What would be behind the LG gate alignment would be what is currently called the Paladin class.

Nowhere in that explanation we are saying that Paladins shouldn't be LG or to open them up (at least most of us here, I can't speak to everyone). What we are asking is to have a class enabling different Knights of different Order/Alignment, and that Paladins would be the LG version of that class.

See it as a "Knight Class" with "Paladin Order", "Hellknight Order",etc. The Paladins would live as they currently are as the Knight Class of the Paladin Order. We take NOTHING away from you.

Except losing the "Class" term, how does that affect Paladins and you?

Paladins would still get lots of support with the martials abilities of that class being open to all and the power abilities specific to each order.

I'm cool with whatever form it takes.

I just don't like alignment restrictions, especially on a base class.
What you've suggested seems like it would be the most agreeable option, but as I said before: some people won't accept any change from 3.5 (and the lick of paint that was pf1) and those people should just continue playing 3.5/pf1

[ikarinokami]

Paladins should absolutely remain LG only.
I have never had a GM change that.

Paladins are special people. they ought to remain that way, the game mechanics should represent the realities of the world the game takes place in. In the world of Golorion Paladins are instruments of Law and Goodness. Paizo should not change that, one of the best lines I ever read in campaign setting book, was something about how a LG good fighter of iomedae might be questioned because why isn't his faith strong enough to be a paladin.

those little nuances are what make the world of Golorion feel real.

[SwordOfTheLaw]

As much as I don't like Paladins being only LG, that is easily the least of the class' problems. The PF2 Paladin as it stands is a dumpster fire mechanically.

[Dragonborn3]

In the world of Golorian no one was restricted by an arbitrary aura of magic, spells didn't need prepared in higher level slots to increases their effects, Paladin's could SMITE EVIL, Wild Shape was actually useful, and no one got better not getting hit while not wearing armor unless they had a class feature.

Until the playtest. The game mechanics change the setting, not the other way around. If EVIL deities can now hand out Positive Energy, why can't they hand out Paladins of their religion? It makes no sense at all aside from "but legacy!" arguments.

Paladin Alignment Restrictions need to go. So do druid metal armor restrictions too, but that's another thread.

[Rysky]

There's Antipaladins in Doomsday Dawn.

[Darkorin]

Rysky wrote:

There's Antipaladins in Doomsday Dawn.

One more reason it's really strange that the Ordered Knights of other alignments aren't core...

Edit: If the player option isn't there, I won't call the option core, since players normally shouldn't be built with monsters options.

[master_marshmallow]

I want a special metal for druids.

[Rysky]

master_marshmallow wrote:

I want a special metal for druids.

Kevlar

[Pandora's]

ikarinokami wrote:

Paladins are special people. they ought to remain that way, the game mechanics should represent the realities of the world the game takes place in. In the world of Golorion Paladins are instruments of Law and Goodness.

You are making a compelling argument for Paladins to be removed from core and stuffed in a campaign setting book down the road. People play in other settings. The playtest is nowhere near Golarion-only. If their special role is in Golarion, they shouldn't pollute a more general book. If they're a generic part of the genre, and therefore belong in the core book, their design should allow for significant variety in roleplay opportunities and flavor.

[Dragonborn3]

Actually the Playtest has merged the setting into Core. Going forward all the books are just as likely to be setting-infused and not setting-neutral.

[Tholomyes]

Bronzemountain wrote:

The Archetype/Class swap between Cavalier and Paladin is an elegant solution.

A bit behind on this due to site maintenance, but I wanted to comment; This notion only solves the desire for a mounted knight of any alignment. Now, I'm not super against making a paladin an archetype, but the reasons that I'd want to play a CG paladin are not solvable by the introduction of the cavalier. Hell, it took until the introduction of the Daring Champion for me to even think about playing a cavalier in 1e.

To me, they operate in fundamentally different circles, despite having a couple overlapping features, in the form of both having options (or actually not having options, in the case of most of the life of the cavalier) for mounted combat, and having a form of anathema, in their order and code, for cavs and paladins respectively. But the reason I'd play a cavalier, is for the tactician-style buffing ability on a non-magical character, and the reason for playing a paladin is a divinely powered non(-traditional) spellcaster, with the flavor of divine power from championing an ideal (notably, an ideal broader and more core than found in a cavalier's order's edicts). A cavalier was never a substitute for a paladin of non-LG alignment, even in 1e, and is incapable of serving the same purpose in any edition, even if it were made a class instead of an archetype.

[Bronzemountain]

Tholomyes wrote:

Bronzemountain wrote:

The Archetype/Class swap between Cavalier and Paladin is an elegant solution.

A bit behind on this due to site maintenance, but I wanted to comment; This notion only solves the desire for a mounted knight of any alignment. Now, I'm not super against making a paladin an archetype, but the reasons that I'd want to play a CG paladin are not solvable by the introduction of the cavalier. Hell, it took until the introduction of the Daring Champion for me to even think about playing a cavalier in 1e.

To me, they operate in fundamentally different circles, despite having a couple overlapping features, in the form of both having options (or actually not having options, in the case of most of the life of the cavalier) for mounted combat, and having a form of anathema, in their order and code, for cavs and paladins respectively. But the reason I'd play a cavalier, is for the tactician-style buffing ability on a non-magical character, and the reason for playing a paladin is a divinely powered non(-traditional) spellcaster, with the flavor of divine power from championing an ideal (notably, an ideal broader and more core than found in a cavalier's order's edicts). A cavalier was never a substitute for a paladin of non-LG alignment, even in 1e, and is incapable of serving the same purpose in any edition, even if it were made a class instead of an archetype.

You're right, and I agree with you actually. What I meant with Cavalier/Paladin swap was more in line with what others have been saying - have a Knight or Champion (I like Champion, personally) class that covers smiting on behalf of grand powers and defending the party. And make the lawful-good-only version either a subset, or an archetype.

Subclass/subset/class feat path allows for Paladin to be more integrated as a version of the Champion. Archetype makes Paladin a function of spirit, virtue, and intent, more than of skills, and that has some really interesting narrative possibilities.

[PossibleCabbage]

Dragonborn3 wrote:

Actually the Playtest has merged the setting into Core. Going forward all the books are just as likely to be setting-infused and not setting-neutral.

As someone yet to run a game *in Golarion* (Doomsday Dawn will be my first), though I have played there quite a bit, I honestly prefer it this way. Since now the default will be "okay, reskin or rejigger everything which doesn't fit" rather than trying to artificially insist on a barrier between mechanics and flavor.

[Pandora's]

Dragonborn3 wrote:

Actually the Playtest has merged the setting into Core. Going forward all the books are just as likely to be setting-infused and not setting-neutral.

In the playtest, at least, there is very little setting material. Some racial descriptions, the deities, and the Gray Maiden. Probably missed a few small things. After the 2nd edition and Golarion-infused announcement, some were complaining very loudly about Golarion being inseparable from Pathfinder, and a Paizo employee rushed to clarify that the rules would still work well for other settings and that the flavor wouldn't be overbearing or mandatory. I think it's safe to say that Paizo is still interested in the money of people who like their system and don't care for their campaign setting.

[Steelfiredragon]

1: Please STOP bringing up that Abomination from the tapestry and the Far Realms both known as the Warpriest. ?IT was garbage to me and others. Sub par offense and worst defensive abilities.

a tank healer the hunter did better job of even with out plate

2: I am still in the paladin should be "any Good" instead of LG. To me and maybe others the definition of paladin in 1e clearly could mean a paladin could get its powers from the heavens, Elysium , and nirvanna; the 3 celestial realms.
each of its powers still do not scream Lawful to me. and until the smite evil becomes smite chaotic evil...... or its defenses against evil becomes against CE... it never will scream lawful good.

4: should they open the paladin up to any good. sont make it so that only LG ones get powers like divine grace and lay on hands as it is kind of dumb. Make original powers that one mus be LG to get as well as the other 2 good alignments.

5: dont come and quote me and say its an opinion and not fact.
I and everyone else already knows that.

6: as they say elsewhere ( like on youtube),' If you dont like it, vote with your wallet or make your own."

7: and this is REALLY important. Do have a great day.

[LordVanya]

I find myself more intrigued by the actual origins of the Paladin term than the blind refusal to let go of pop culture.

The word itself derives from Latin and means basically a governmental official.

The connection to law is obvious, the connection to good I'd wager lies in the connection to Charlemagne and his Six Peers.

Now depending on your allegiances at the time, you could have seen the Paladins as good, evil, or neutral.

Arguably, I see how they should be locked out of chaotic alignments, but not necessarily locked into good. For that matter, an argument can be made for neutral alignments as they can be considered a form of law/order as well.

Just my two cents + a little research.

[PossibleCabbage]

I don't know why we shouldn't bring up the warpriest, since it's not like a PF2 version of such would have much mechanically in common with the PF1 version. If anything, porting it as close as possible would be an amazing class since the class's schtick was "action efficient self-buffing" and now everybody is full BAB and every class is modular.

I see a good chance that a PF2 version of the Warpriest would be mechanically much stronger than the Paladin, which has gone from an exceptionally strong class to a fairly weak one I think.

[HWalsh]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I don't know why we shouldn't bring up the warpriest, since it's not like a PF2 version of such would have much mechanically in common with the PF1 version. If anything, porting it as close as possible would be an amazing class since the class's schtick was "action efficient self-buffing" and now everybody is full BAB and every class is modular.

I see a good chance that a PF2 version of the Warpriest would be mechanically much stronger than the Paladin, which has gone from an exceptionally strong class to a fairly weak one I think.

Warpriest in PF2 would probably just be Cleric with Fighter Dedication, or Fighter with the Cleric Dedication or possibly Paladin with the Cleric Dedication.

[Isabelle Lee]

Voss wrote:

Or become part of a treacherous, exiled group of women that dabble in slaving. Whichever. It's probably the same thing.

It's worth noting that not all Gray Maidens are ruthless mercenaries or Erinyes Company zealots. The Scarlet Rose was built by Gray Maidens seeking to turn away from their cruel origins, giving a heroic option for such characters. ^_^

[Isabelle Lee]

Arachnofiend wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think it's pretty likely we get the 4 corners knights in this edition, since it seems like the best compromise solution. I just hope we don't call the CG one a Paladin (I like "Elysium Knight" or something).

Give the CG one more offensive and fewer defensive powers too- Chaos gets to break stuff, it's Law that's invested in keeping it from falling down.

Frankly, if Paizo was ever open to CG Paladins then the Virtuous Bravo would have been it. They're doing a very careful job of not particularly lying about it but they are definitely stringing us along by pretending that alternatives to the LG Paladin are a possibility.

So I couldn't really talk about this before, but now that Planar Adventures is out...

I approached the design of the swashbuckler archetype in that book, the azatariel, from the perspective of "how would I want a chaotic good paladin equivalent to be portrayed and to fight?" It's not perfect, as the swashbuckler chassis is very different from the paladin, but the combat styles and special abilities should give you a good idea of what I mean. (The four style feat chains from that book are also good references for this.)

This largely sums up my philosophy on paladins of other alignments - they shouldn't exist as a generic, one-size-fits-all chassis, but a set of distinct designs that exemplify a vision for each alignment. The paladin is lawful good, a knight in shining armor; the chaotic good azatariel darts recklessly among foes and tricks them into striking each other down; and so on.

Of course, this presupposes enough space for nine different classes... something we certainly can't presume will be available. It's a nice thought, though, and it's my preferred solution. ^_^

[HWalsh]

Isabelle Lee wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think it's pretty likely we get the 4 corners knights in this edition, since it seems like the best compromise solution. I just hope we don't call the CG one a Paladin (I like "Elysium Knight" or something).

Give the CG one more offensive and fewer defensive powers too- Chaos gets to break stuff, it's Law that's invested in keeping it from falling down.

Frankly, if Paizo was ever open to CG Paladins then the Virtuous Bravo would have been it. They're doing a very careful job of not particularly lying about it but they are definitely stringing us along by pretending that alternatives to the LG Paladin are a possibility.

So I couldn't really talk about this before, but now that Planar Adventures is out...

I approached the design of the swashbuckler archetype in that book, the azatariel, from the perspective of "how would I want a chaotic good paladin equivalent to be portrayed and to fight?" It's not perfect, as the swashbuckler chassis is very different from the paladin, but the combat styles and special abilities should give you a good idea of what I mean. (The four style feat chains from that book are also good references for this.)

This largely sums up my philosophy on paladins of other alignments - they shouldn't exist as a generic, one-size-fits-all chassis, but a set of distinct designs that exemplify a vision for each alignment. The paladin is lawful good, a knight in shining armor; the chaotic good azatariel darts recklessly among foes and tricks them into striking each other down; and so on.

Of course, this presupposes enough space for nine different classes... something we certainly can't presume will be available. It's a nice thought, though, and it's my preferred solution. ^_^

I can only like this once, and that makes me sad.

[Steelfiredragon]

LordVanya wrote:

I find myself more intrigued by the actual origins of the Paladin term than the blind refusal to let go of pop culture.

The word itself derives from Latin and means basically a governmental official.

The connection to law is obvious, the connection to good I'd wager lies in the connection to Charlemagne and his Six Peers.
snip
Just my two cents + a little research.

and if that is all there is to bind it to being Lawful, then its not really a god reason to keep it as such

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I don't know why we shouldn't bring up the warpriest, since it's not like a PF2 version of such would have much mechanically in common with the PF1 version. If anything, porting it as close as possible would be an amazing class since the class's schtick was "action efficient self-buffing" and now everybody is full BAB and every class is modular.

I see a good chance that a PF2 version of the Warpriest would be mechanically much stronger than the Paladin, which has gone from an exceptionally strong class to a fairly weak one I think.

because its returning powers would likely be reaction abilities which is just as bad as it was in 1e with its must activate to use defense and its offense powers......

it doesnt seem like it would work to be a viable alternative. it wasnt then and its not now.

[Isabelle Lee]

Before you get too excited, Henry... if they can't manage the space for a full set of nine (or even four), I think expanding the present paladin to include more options might have to happen. I may prefer lawful good paladins, but I can't say it'd be a deal-breaker for me and Pathfinder Second Edition.

As always, that's just my feeling... your mileage may vary. ^_^

[Rysky]

Isabelle Lee wrote:

Voss wrote:

Or become part of a treacherous, exiled group of women that dabble in slaving. Whichever. It's probably the same thing.

It's worth noting that not all Gray Maidens are ruthless mercenaries or Erinyes Company zealots. The Scarlet Rose was built by Gray Maidens seeking to turn away from their cruel origins, giving a heroic option for such characters. ^_^

*looks fondly and forlornly at Osveta's character sheet*

One day I'll get to play Hell's Rebels...

[HWalsh]

Isabelle Lee wrote:

Before you get too excited, Henry... if they can't manage the space for a full set of nine (or even four), I think expanding the present paladin to include more options might have to happen. I may prefer lawful good paladins, but I can't say it'd be a deal-breaker for me and Pathfinder Second Edition.

As always, that's just my feeling... your mileage may vary. ^_^

And that's fine.

You don't need to feel as I do.

Just because it is a deal breaker for me does not mean it has to be for everyone. My worst case scenario is I find another game to play. Heck I already have the bare bones together for a backup game book and setting built off of the ogl as an on-demand digital protest product called Elysia (based on my upcoming novel series).

(And if people think Lawful Good Paladin restrictions in PF2 are harsh they'll have a full on aneurysm over Elysia. Straight up old school. I mean LG only, setting hard coded, no room for compromise, no multiclassing into it, leaving it is permanent, no mercy restrictions.)

This is just not something that I feel comfortable compromising on. That doesn't mean that I bear any ill will toward those on the other side of the battle. If I lose, then I lose, won't be the first time, probably won't be the last.

[Darkorin]

HWalsh wrote:

This is just not something that I feel comfortable compromising on. That doesn't mean that I bear any ill will toward those on the other side of the battle. If I lose, then I lose, won't be the first time, probably won't be the last.

I would like a lot if you could react to my previous post about how to create a new class that includes the Paladin and keep it as it is. I am genuinely interested in your response and your opinion.

In fact if Paizo was going to go that way, I would be fine if there was only two options in the core rulebook since other alignment orders would be an organic growth of that class. And the strange thing is that the antipaladin in the playtest adventure is built on the Paladin template, and creating support for X classes instead of 1 seems like so much work that we'll never really get them.

[Grave Knight]

I just wish they would change the restriction from Lawful Good only to any Lawful or Good. Cayden should have Paladins, Pharasma should have Paladins, Asmodeus should have Paladins (the Hell Knights should be considered Paladins).

[Pain in the Backside]

yawn.

someone lock this.

yes it sucks to keep it as LG.

when all the examples of law that is claimed as to why is the origin of its name. which was a government worker of some sorts. Which is not a good reason at all as anyone can tell you is that government can be chaotic as they come.

other examples that get used as to why are the knights of the round table and Charlemagne's paladins.
both of which are a drinking straw made from cotton.

Charlemagne's were not much more than thugs.

Not all of Arthur's knights would be considered PAladin like so....

and the most popular used involves the late Gygax and his reasons as to why hte paladin should remain LG. In any event if he was still even alive he would tell you that beyond his own table, it is not his game anymore.

also:
the reasons why it should be opened up to any good:
its description of its abilities can come from any of the Celestial planes. also if the paladin will chose Good over than Law most of the time then why keep it LG only.

and some in the community are willing to die on this hill to keep it LG too.

the bottom line:
they could still make it any good after the playtest and they could have a champion paladin like class( with some of the paladin powers{ smite evil, divine grace, and a modified wings feat]) that is opened to all alignments.

my final remark:
PF 2.0 will more than likely keep and lose fans and regardless on how the paladin or anyone's favorite class ends up. The rules are all questionable at this point. but thats what the playtest is for

Now for the Glory of the 3 Celestial Planes, someone please lock this thread.... or just stop necromancy on it

[Commander Crisp]

Why is there so much salt about this?

The paladin is an artifact of ye olde times. It's a deliberately restricted class, that simply is not for everyone and it doesn't have to be.

Why should it be opened to other alignments? The system provides you (meaning no one in particular, just people in general) with options to play any flavor of holy warrior with an agenda, right now. No additional rule books needed. If you (same as before) want the paladin package, you have to commit to it. Same as clerics.

I find it's actually a good thing, that these two classes at least are bound to some sort of guideline. No, you can't be the champion of justice and goodness and eat a kitten for breakfast. No, you can't be a servant of the god of freedom and be in support of a slaving despot.

Also it is not like you can't play different characters with the same alignment. From obsessed vigilante, to wide eyed idealist to the cynic going through the motions. These all can be lawful good characters - to name a few.

I'm all in favor for more champions of alignment, but I don't think you can really merge them all in a single class. How would you cater to the differents needs of such a diverse group. A champion of Neutrality (aka Balance) will be very different from a Hellknight (Lawful Evil) to an Agent of Chaos (Chaotic Neutral).

[LordVanya]

The class survey asks about this very specifically.
3 options.
1) Keep Paladins exclusively LG.
2) Make a new class, Champion/Knight/Whatever, and the LG members are Paladins and get all the powers there of.
3) Other, write text.

I gave my opinion. Hell, on every class.
That's the place to go if you want to be heard on this subject with more weight than on here.

[Vidmaster7]

Rysky wrote:

CoeusFreeze wrote:

Arrow17 wrote:

Its a glorious tradition worth defending. Not every class has to have a "me too" option. Paladins stand alone as defenders of justice and righteousness. If you want to play a watered down divine fighter just play a fighter/cleric multiclass and your problem is solved

This mentality doesn't really work anymore because the paladin now has a specific mechanical niche; it can do things that a fighter/cleric couldn't but that a great deal of players and parties would definitely want to utilize.

That's more a problem of bolting that mechanical niche onto the Paladin than the Paladin itself. Which I think should be removed. The Heavy armor stuff for the record, not the Retributive Strike, it's very fitting.

In fact, aside from maybe the Fighter, I'm all for removing all Equipment based effects and Feats from the Classes, too much pigeonholing.

Yeah I don't like the forced gear thing even though their is a precedence for it I'd still prefer it to go.

[Matthew Downie]

Commander Crisp wrote:

The paladin is an artifact of ye olde times. It's a deliberately restricted class, that simply is not for everyone and it doesn't have to be.

Why should it be opened to other alignments?

Non-LG Paladins have been allowed in D&D for the last ten years. By now they're a widely accepted tradition. Players coming from D&D might not like that they can't reproduce an approximation of their favorite characters from Eberron or Greyhawk campaigns...

(Personally I'm rather fond of ye olde times version; if Paladins can't fall for violating Lawful Good, then some of the jokes from Order of the Stick don't work so well.)

[Marc Radle]

LordVanya wrote:

The class survey asks about this very specifically.

3 options.

1) Keep Paladins exclusively LG.
2) Make a new class, Champion/Knight/Whatever, and the LG members are Paladins and get all the powers there of.
3) Other, write text.

That's the place to go if you want to be heard on this subject with more weight than on here.

Absolutely correct!

If you feel strongly about this one way or the other, go and voice that opinion in the class survey(s)! That seems to be the best way to give Paizo quantifiable data on where the majority of fans fall on this.

[Rob Godfrey]

dragonhunterq wrote:

Far from 'across the board'. It is quite rightly LG only.

Also not a surprise, they spoke about this and if they do paladins of other alignments they want the time to do them properly and not just a lazy switcheroo of "evil" to "good" or "chaos" or "mercy" to "cruelty". Which can only be a good thing, because the only thing worse than a non-LG paladin is a non-LG paladin with bad and lazy mechanics.

because LG is ofc the one true alignment, the only one capable of empowered holy warriors, whose detect/smite subroutine and demands to dictate what everyone else plays aren't a huge malignant sore on the hobby at all.... Oh wait, honestly at this point they are, if paladins stay LG only, remove them from core, stop wasting valuable CRB pages on such a game distorting blight of a class, and drop war priest or Inquisitor into the holy fighter slot. Seriously they have been nothing but trouble, every edition they have been in, and the passionate defence of them remaining such a party dominanting class says alot about the people defending the current situation with party alignment and actions having to pass muster with the guy playing the paladin.

[dragonhunterq]

Rob Godfrey wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

Far from 'across the board'. It is quite rightly LG only.

Also not a surprise, they spoke about this and if they do paladins of other alignments they want the time to do them properly and not just a lazy switcheroo of "evil" to "good" or "chaos" or "mercy" to "cruelty". Which can only be a good thing, because the only thing worse than a non-LG paladin is a non-LG paladin with bad and lazy mechanics.

because LG is ofc the one true alignment, the only one capable of empowered holy warriors, whose detect/smite subroutine and demands to dictate what everyone else plays aren't a huge malignant sore on the hobby at all.... Oh wait, honestly at this point they are, if paladins stay LG only, remove them from core, stop wasting valuable CRB pages on such a game distorting blight of a class, and drop war priest or Inquisitor into the holy fighter slot. Seriously they have been nothing but trouble, every edition they have been in, and the passionate defence of them remaining such a party dominanting class says alot about the people defending the current situation with party alignment and actions having to pass muster with the guy playing the paladin.

Ah! so of course we should all defer to your opinion, as you put it so eloquently...

Paladins are cool and deserve a place front and centre. If you don't like them, there are 11 other classes to play. It's all good. There are at least 4 classes I have no interest in (Alchemist, Barbarian, Ranger and Sorceror for those who need to know) and will never play - I'm not calling for their removal.

[Data Lore]

I honestly care very little about whether or not they are limited to LG. I will say that they should have to fit the exact alignment of their god though.

For example, I disliked how in the Glass Cannon stream the dude was a LG Paladin of Abadar. I dont see how being LG and following a money grubbing god is even possible. If you are a herald of Abadar, you should be LN and strict adhere to your diety's ethos (STRICTLY!).

In that way, they can be whatever alignment but still have to follow an uber strict code.

[Rob Godfrey]

dragonhunterq wrote:

Rob Godfrey wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

Far from 'across the board'. It is quite rightly LG only.

Also not a surprise, they spoke about this and if they do paladins of other alignments they want the time to do them properly and not just a lazy switcheroo of "evil" to "good" or "chaos" or "mercy" to "cruelty". Which can only be a good thing, because the only thing worse than a non-LG paladin is a non-LG paladin with bad and lazy mechanics.

because LG is ofc the one true alignment, the only one capable of empowered holy warriors, whose detect/smite subroutine and demands to dictate what everyone else plays aren't a huge malignant sore on the hobby at all.... Oh wait, honestly at this point they are, if paladins stay LG only, remove them from core, stop wasting valuable CRB pages on such a game distorting blight of a class, and drop war priest or Inquisitor into the holy fighter slot. Seriously they have been nothing but trouble, every edition they have been in, and the passionate defence of them remaining such a party dominanting class says alot about the people defending the current situation with party alignment and actions having to pass muster with the guy playing the paladin.

Ah! so of course we should all defer to your opinion, as you put it so eloquently...

Paladins are cool and deserve a place front and centre. If you don't like them, there are 11 other classes to play. It's all good. There are at least 4 classes I have no interest in (Alchemist, Barbarian, Ranger and Sorceror for those who need to know) and will never play - I'm not calling for their removal.

except I have never been micro managed by any person playing the other classes you list, I have by the majority of people playing paladins, they immediately try to dominate any party, because the code requires them to, and that fact appeals to the LG tyranny mindset we see on these forums, LG is somehow special and super deserving, and a class named after genocidal nut jobs must be the pinnacle of heroism, to the extent of enforcing those rules on other players... Want to be a rogue? To bad paladin says no, rough house barbarian? Paladin says no, mercenary fighter... Paladin says no the list goes on, and until and unless the myth of paladin divine right is purged, they will be by far the most problematic characters for ruining the play experience of everyone else at the table. The fact that only LG having Divine champions also makes no in setting sense also helps with this argument, are the non-LG gods so weak and foolish that this hugely beneficial idea never occured to them? But it is mostly the 'requirement to be a complete asshat and fully signed up member of the no fun patrol' that bugs me.

[HWalsh]

Rob Godfrey wrote:

except I have never been micro managed by any person playing the other classes you list, I have by the majority of people playing paladins, they immediately try to dominate any party, because the code requires them to, and that fact appeals to the LG tyranny mindset we see on these forums, LG is somehow special and super deserving, and a class named after genocidal nut jobs must be the pinnacle of heroism, to the extent of enforcing those rules on other players... Want to be a rogue? To bad paladin says no, rough house barbarian? Paladin says no, mercenary fighter... Paladin says no the list goes on, and until and unless the myth of paladin divine right is purged, they will be by far the most problematic characters for ruining the play experience of everyone else at the table. The fact that only LG having Divine champions also makes no in setting sense also helps with this argument, are the non-LG gods so weak and foolish that this hugely beneficial idea never occured to them? But it is mostly the 'requirement to be a complete asshat and fully signed up member of the no fun patrol' that bugs me.

Full stop.

I have seen jerk players of every class.

I have seen Rogue jerk players who throw a fit if the party isn't cool with them stealing things. I have seen Rogue jerk players who steal from the party and yet nobody is advocating the removal of Rogues from the core.

I have also seen jerk Rogue players who insist on sneaking all the time and scouting out solo to the point that they took hours of play away from the other characters and were so optimized that they could take out multiple enemies in the first round of the combat from "surprise" because they were practically always stealthed. It got to the point that I left the group because I got sick of hearing the Rogue player say, "I stealth."

I have seen Barbarian jerk players who act like they are in charge of the group and who will (in character and out) intimidate and bully other players into doing what they want because they are, "playing in character" and yet nobody is advocating the removal of the Barbarian from the core.

I have seen Alchemist jerk players who insist on blowing up other members of the party with AoE bombs and blaming it on them being Chaotic Neutral and "Crazy" and telling the player hit by the blast that they shouldn't be stupid and get into melee. Yet I am not advocating the removal of the Alchemist from the core... Well... Okay I actually am advocating the removal of the Alchemist from the core, but not for that reason.

I have also played a Paladin who had a rogue in the party and my exact in character response to his theft was as follows:

"I am opposed to this and shall not be directly involved in any such action, and I do not think that you should do it either. I, however, also cannot force you to act in a moral manner, because to force someone to do the right thing has no value. Your free will in this matter must be considered, and I shall not stop you, but know that I am disappointed in you and if I am asked I shall not speak false words to defend you either."

Guess what... The Rogue was able to steal... Just fine... They just stopped telling the Paladin that they were going to do it. Thankfully Paladins don't usually have a good Sense Motive.

The only thing a Paladin really "stops" in a group are evil PCs and since they aren't usually something allowed in most groups that is fine. They weren't intended to be player alignments usually anyway.

[Tectorman]

HWalsh wrote:

"I am opposed to this and shall not be directly involved in any such action, and I do not think that you should do it either. I, however, also cannot force you to act in a moral manner, because to force someone to do the right thing has no value. Your free will in this matter must be considered, and I shall not stop you, but know that I am disappointed in you and if I am asked I shall not speak false words to defend you either."

Did your account get hacked? How are these words even coming from you? Because this, this right here, in words you yourself are articulating, is one of the many myriad reasons to open up the Paladin.

"I am oppoased to the Paladin being something besides LG without the player having to move Heaven and Earth to achieve it, and shall not be directly involved in any gaming group where such an activity takes place, and I do not think that you should do it either. I, however, also cannot force you to only play Paladins that are LG, because to force someone to play a class in what I consider to be the only right way has no value. Your free will in this matter must be considered, and I haven't the right to stop you, but know that I am disappointed in you."

Your fictional Paladin character can show this respect to a fictional Rogue character. Why can't you do likewise for a real person?

[HWalsh]

Tectorman wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

"I am opposed to this and shall not be directly involved in any such action, and I do not think that you should do it either. I, however, also cannot force you to act in a moral manner, because to force someone to do the right thing has no value. Your free will in this matter must be considered, and I shall not stop you, but know that I am disappointed in you and if I am asked I shall not speak false words to defend you either."

Did your account get hacked? How are these words even coming from you? Because this, this right here, in words you yourself are articulating, is one of the many myriad reasons to open up the Paladin.

"I am oppoased to the Paladin being something besides LG without the player having to move Heaven and Earth to achieve it, and shall not be directly involved in any gaming group where such an activity takes place, and I do not think that you should do it either. I, however, also cannot force you to only play Paladins that are LG, because to force someone to play a class in what I consider to be the only right way has no value. Your free will in this matter must be considered, and I haven't the right to stop you, but know that I am disappointed in you."

Your fictional Paladin character can show this respect to a fictional Rogue character. Why can't you do likewise for a real person?

Because you keep ignoring a central point of it and I will not discuss it with you further. You have always, and constantly ignore, the point that I have made, numerous times, that, and I quote:

"Making Paladins not Lawful Good in the setting *takes an element away from the setting for me* and that makes the setting less enjoyable *for me* and I *will not* play a game that I do not enjoy the setting of."

If Paizo decides to open the Paladin up, I cannot stop them, I will *however* stop playing Pathfinder. I have been clear on that from day one. To me the Paladin issue isn't about what you play at your personal table, it is about what the Paladin *is* in universe.

You do not respect that reasoning though so this discussion is moot.

[Tectorman]

HWalsh wrote:

Tectorman wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

"I am opposed to this and shall not be directly involved in any such action, and I do not think that you should do it either. I, however, also cannot force you to act in a moral manner, because to force someone to do the right thing has no value. Your free will in this matter must be considered, and I shall not stop you, but know that I am disappointed in you and if I am asked I shall not speak false words to defend you either."

Did your account get hacked? How are these words even coming from you? Because this, this right here, in words you yourself are articulating, is one of the many myriad reasons to open up the Paladin.

"I am oppoased to the Paladin being something besides LG without the player having to move Heaven and Earth to achieve it, and shall not be directly involved in any gaming group where such an activity takes place, and I do not think that you should do it either. I, however, also cannot force you to only play Paladins that are LG, because to force someone to play a class in what I consider to be the only right way has no value. Your free will in this matter must be considered, and I haven't the right to stop you, but know that I am disappointed in you."

Your fictional Paladin character can show this respect to a fictional Rogue character. Why can't you do likewise for a real person?

Because you keep ignoring a central point of it and I will not discuss it with you further. You have always, and constantly ignore, the point that I have made, numerous times, that, and I quote:

"Making Paladins not Lawful Good in the setting *takes an element away from the setting for me* and that makes the setting less enjoyable *for me* and I *will not* play a game that I do not enjoy the setting of."

If Paizo decides to open the Paladin up, I cannot stop them, I will *however* stop playing Pathfinder. I have been clear on that from day one. To me the Paladin issue isn't about what you play at your personal table, it is about...

Your fictional Paladin character can recognize that enforced goodness sullies the very good being enforced. How do you not see how that same enforcement sullies the Paladin itself? How does "what the Paladin *is* in-universe" outweigh that sullying?

It wasn't that I was ignoring your point; it was that your point doesn't justify itself and you never justified it, either. It fundamentally tears itself down before I even get involved. So, yeah, you're right in that I don't respect that so-called reasoning, but in thread after thread, you never provide a reason to respect it, by your own criterion.

[HWalsh]

Tectorman wrote:

Your fictional Paladin character can recognize that enforced goodness sullies the very good being enforced. How do you not see how that same enforcement sullies the Paladin itself? How does "what the Paladin *is* in-universe" outweigh that sullying?

It wasn't that I was ignoring your point; it was that your point doesn't justify itself and you never justified it, either. It fundamentally tears itself down before I even get involved. So, yeah, you're right in that I don't respect that so-called reasoning, but in thread after thread, you never provide a reason to respect it, by your own criterion.

It damages the setting in my opinion and damages my enjoyment of the game.

That is all you need to know and accept.

Please do not speak to me on this topic again. Thank you.

[Tectorman]

So it damages the setting and the above poster's enjoyment of the game, even though by the admission of one of his own Paladin characters, enforced good is sullied good and thereby not worthwhile (readers will please note I'm not saying a word to the above poster, as per his wish). Anyone else want to or capable of explain(-ing) that?

[Data Lore]

Suggestion:

Rename the class something generic like the "Champion," the "Herald" or the "Scion." Then give the PC a special name for each alignment choice.

LG = Paladin
LN = Justicar
LE = Blackguard

Etc, etc.

Powers would need a total revision, etc.

[pauljathome]

Personally, I think the Paladin alignment issue became almost irrelevant with the creation of Warpriests (PF1) and Fighter/Cleric multiclasses (PF2).

There is now a very good chassis to build your Holy Warrior with. I just don't see the niche that its attempting to fill any more.

At this point I pretty much think that paladin should just go away as a core class. Its not worth the bother. Its not worth all the alignment arguments or all the Paladin falling arguments.

If a Paladin remains at all I think it should transition to something a lot closer to the PF1 Cavalier. An armored warrior who follows a Code of Honour. Probably with Mounted and unmounted variants.

Hmm. Making it an archetype would work very well in PF2

[Steelfiredragon]

the warpriest of PF1 is an almost worthless joke.
its base abilities all had to be activated for use and they also stunk.

well if it had a full bab, had say a form of divine grace, and a not so full spell casting ability .could have made up for it being a poc is a good deal amount of people/

[Rob Godfrey]

pauljathome wrote:

Personally, I think the Paladin alignment issue became almost irrelevant with the creation of Warpriests (PF1) and Fighter/Cleric multiclasses (PF2).

There is now a very good chassis to build your Holy Warrior with. I just don't see the niche that its attempting to fill any more.

At this point I pretty much think that paladin should just go away as a core class. Its not worth the bother. Its not worth all the alignment arguments or all the Paladin falling arguments.

If a Paladin remains at all I think it should transition to something a lot closer to the PF1 Cavalier. An armored warrior who follows a Code of Honour. Probably with Mounted and unmounted variants.

Hmm. Making it an archetype would work very well in PF2

In both cases I disagree, their isnl a fundamental difference between a blessed and empowered champion, with a few divinely granted powers, and a cleric who casts greatsword a bunch, I like that paladins don't cast spells, because flavour wise them doing so didn't make sense, they are the Mortal Swords of a God, not scholars and theologians using sacred ritual and prayers to call down a rote effect, it is a different and mote personnel relationship with the deity (and actually writing this shows something to me, the archtype Paladin invokes for me is that of Mortal Sword from Steven Erikson's Malazan series, the war leaders and champion of a god, who live, die and kill by that Deities whim)

Also for people who want a more historic inspiration for Paladins, I do not see why the Jomsviking are less valid than Templars, even in the white washed mythical version of both.

[Milo v3]

I dislike the idea that non-LG Paladins should have a different theme to their class abilities, like making a CG Paladin a swashbuckler. What if you want to play a holy tank character who just happens to be CG?

[Nox Aeterna]

The funny part is that this discussion has been going on since before the playtest, the people in it are mostly the same even and literally nobody changed an inch from where we started.

To me paladins also remain LG on a must basis.

Disagree? Fine, i know many do. Go to the surveys like everyone is doing.

Honestly, this is one pointless thread at this point. People got their opinions, nobody is willing to change them based on threads, it will be what the devs decide at the end, cause the community clearly remains divided and it will remain so even after the release most likely, the difference is that then there will be rules one way or the other.

[Steelfiredragon]

that is true Nox.

and nobody is going to budge an inch either.

there is no compromise either save to ditch the class all together and make a new holy warrior type class.... which at this point still doesnt look too likely