|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...That they would still restrict them to LG, CG, LE and CE only to make them reverse druids :P I'm not really fan of the "9 paladins for each alignment" thing or "Paladins without alignment restriction at all" since I do like the flavor of warrior really devoted to specific alignment plus latter options would change setting so that now every god has paladins apparently.
That said its kinda moot point because druids don't have alignment restrictions in 2e anyway. Still, I prefer the flavor of extreme aligned without neutrality to "everyone is free game" if I had to choose.
(I don't really care whether paladins remain LG only though, especially since other alignment restrictions were already removed. Still yeah, considering how acting in certain way is part of paladin flavor, thats why I think it would be more interesting to have extreme alignment paladins than neutral something paladins)
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think the real solution is to create a Paragon class that is the Paragon of whatever deity is selected, and depending on the alignment that opens up "paths". Which can be anything from Paladin, to Anti Paladin, to Crusader, etc.
This leaves paths, or archetypes, open so that you can really make whatever alignment you want and pick and choose just how restrictive your character is for a given reward.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plus the Playtest Druids aren't alignment restricted like in 1e.
I also prefer the idea of a Paragon class with Paladin, Crusader, etc being options.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just hope the name ‘anti paladin’ gets dropped forever.
Black guards make sense. Anti paladins just feel like a bad swap.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want non-deific Paladins, honestly. So if the "Champion of a Deity" (for which there should be 9 variants as every deity) could be separated from "Paragon of Alignment" (for which there need not be) that would be ideal.
Like there's kind of an issue cramming-
- the "Defender" class
- the "Divine Champion" class
- the "Deeply Committed to a code of ideals" class
into a single package, since all of those could be their own thing without either of the other two.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...That they would still restrict them to LG, CG, LE and CE only to make them reverse druids :P I'm not really fan of the "9 paladins for each alignment" thing or "Paladins without alignment restriction at all" since I do like the flavor of warrior really devoted to specific alignment plus latter options would change setting so that now every god has paladins apparently.
That said its kinda moot point because druids don't have alignment restrictions in 2e anyway. Still, I prefer the flavor of extreme aligned without neutrality to "everyone is free game" if I had to choose.
(I don't really care whether paladins remain LG only though, especially since other alignment restrictions were already removed. Still yeah, considering how acting in certain way is part of paladin flavor, thats why I think it would be more interesting to have extreme alignment paladins than neutral something paladins)
IIRC, one of the devs said the second most popular paladin alignment choice behind LG Only was the Four-Corner Compromise, so odds are good that if they ever include non-LG paladins they probably will be 4-corner. Of course, there is no promise that they ever will, but if they do it seems like your preference will also be theirs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's been anti-paladin for so long I forget how stupid it really sounds. Dark Knight is also a good option. Having different names and abilities for the various sorts of zealots is probably a good way to go.
All the same, I don't really mind the lawful good restriction. The paladin's immunity to disease and fear being born from his lawful/good nature springs from the classist belief that those who were sick, weak, and poor brought it on themselves due to their own evil. It's an entertaining and pervasive fantasy but it doesn't make much sense to reverse it. The ideals of a chaotic good ethos would be unlikely to land on some sort of armored crusader. And I'd expect the ethos of a chaotic evil to produce something closer to a devil channeling berzerker.
It's been anti-paladin for so long I forget how stupid it really sounds.
But, I mean an "Antipope" is a thing, but it would sound silly if we started calling an Alt Pope "the Antipope".
I guess the historical analogue would be for everybody to say "I'm a Paladin" then call everybody opposed "Antipaladin", then the winners write history as per usual.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd prefer if Paladin's were tied to knightly orders and their Oaths. Such orders and oaths could be tied to the deities, countries or alignments. Even Hellknights could be factored in that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect that if and when Hellknights appear, they will most likely be a prestige archetype like the Grey Maidens.
The four corners idea does sound like a good compromise for most.
I'd also add a non-aligned, deity-free option along the lines of how Barbarians can choose the Fury Totem if they don't really want one at all.
I think something like this would be cool:
Class: Paragon
Alignment Variants:
LG - Paladin
CG - Crusader
LE - Dark Knight
CE - Ravager (I support the renaming of Antipaladins!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have founded the Anti-Anti-Paladins!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always found the reasons why Paladins exist is the reason why legions of good guys don't summon mass Angels, whereas cultists summon mass demons. The nether planes bring themselves to "do it themselves" while the upper planes empower mortals.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always liked the 'Four Corners' model for Paladins (or whatever you wind up calling the base Class if Paladin is for LG) because an important part of the Paladin has always been the behavioral restrictions created by the intersection of two non-Neutral Alignments. Moral quandaries are to some degree the heart of the Class.
While I've never felt that LG-only was the way to go, I do feel that retaining the inherent conflicts between the two parts of their Alignment is important in any Paladin-style Class, and the only good and easy way to achieve that is the Four Corners model.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having multiple versions of the Paladin class would be no more tedious or difficult for Paizo to put together than the Barbarian is with it's Totems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Piazo's IP. They don't owe any of us anything on it anyway.
If that were true there would be no need for a play test at all.
The most basic principal in business: keep your customers happy.All our opinions are important.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well if you want to slaughter the holy cow, then go all the way. No reason to hold back.
Personally I like my paladins to be one alignment only, but that's just what they are to me. I see the appeal for them to be more varied.
If they really do go that direction, I'd hope they divest them from divine patrons all together. Paladins embody an ideals, dedicate themselves to a code. No deity required for that. Optional yes, but not required.
Would call them something else though. "Champions of" or "Paragon of".
Paragon of Justice
Paragon of Altruism
Paragon of Liberty
Paragon of Law
Paragon of Balance
Paragon of Chaos
Paragon of Tyranny
Paragon of Selfishness
Paragon of Injustice
You guess, which alignment they are.
Cheers!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm I haven't seen a post from a certain paladin fanatic yet. *waits*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The argument of paladins being of alignment extremes is tempting in its simplicity. On the surface, it seems logical.
But the fact of the matter is, a chaotic-evil antipaladin-blackguard-whatever is such an unplayable concept that I doubt it's worth the time to develop it or the pagecount to print it.
Unplayable, perhaps (at least in most cases), but that hasn't stopped page counts being spent on it before, and at least for folks who like using NPCs built as PCs (or at least layering on some PC features, which is more my take), it can be useful. Maybe though, more like something 5e did, where they kept their Antipaladin in the DMG, so as not to crowd the PHB, PF2e could keep it in a supplement. And Honestly, I wouldn't really mind if they did something like make a base class of "Champion" or whatever, and have the only PHB option be the Paladin, and have all other options be in supplements, if page space is an issue, just so long as they design it in such a way that it's easy to fit other class-ideals in the place of the LG Paladin.
Though, again, if there's anything I'm most concerned with, it's that Deity-Free is an option (Second most would be that the "Iconic" vision of antipaladin becomes more to the LE corner, rather than CE, as that's far more compelling for me, but I'm getting a bit off track)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the fact of the matter is, a chaotic-evil antipaladin-blackguard-whatever is such an unplayable concept that I doubt it's worth the time to develop it or the pagecount to print it.
Lots of things are primarily for NPCs. I will probably never sit at a table with a CE Antipaladin PC, but I might want to build one as an antagonist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have argued long and hard for the abandonment of the LG only alignment restriction, enough to the point that a thread or two I was arguing in got shut down.
But I'm not opposed to them being restricted to the corners of the alignment chart as a compromise position, and it was one I proposed multiple times, myself.
I understand the mentality & logic behind barbarians being non-lawful, monks being lawful only, and druids requiring a neutral element. I don't necessarily agree with that logic, but I understand it.
I understand the logic that a druid's spiritual connection to nature requires some element of detachment & objectivity that is represented by requiring a neutral element to their alignment.
I understand the mentality that a barbarian's rage comes from unbridled and uncontrolled emotions that are incompatible with a lawful alignment(compared to a bloodrager who's rage is the result of unstable magic within them & is independent from their personality & actual emotional state).
I understand the mentality that a monk's abilities come from a level of rigid self discipline that requires a lawful element to their alignment.
I don't necessarily agree with all of those mentalities, but I understand them and find them to be logically consistent & non-arbitrary.
I don't see that when I see the paladin. A paladin is a divinely empowered warrior, proficient in martial weapons & heavy armor, who can smite an opposing alignment, who projects an aura that buffs their allies(harms their enemies in the case of the anti paladin), can heal(or harm) with a touch, and can cast spells up to the 4th level, and looses their supernatural powers if they stray from their deity's code of conduct.
Nothing about that says LG exclusive to me. Sure, there's the code of conduct, but that applies to the (initially) CE exclusive anti-paladins as well, and many of the evil deities have anti-paladin codes as strict as any of the LG deity paladin codes. And a cleric or inquisitor or warpriest of any deity can lose their powers if they stray too far from their deity's teachings, even if they're offered a bit more leeway than a paladin is.
And it never made sense to me why a deity of another alignments aside from LG and CE wouldn't want to empower mortal servant to have those aforementioned abilities given that they're usefulness. And it does frankly make some of them look incompetent or impotent; Cayden Cailean could empower a cleric, an inquisitor, an oracle, and a warpriest to take the field on the fight against evil, but Iomedae can empower all of those, plus a paladin. It's often doesn't even make thematic sense, when you have gods like Cayden Cailean, the god of Courage, and Milani, the goddess of Hope & Devotion, who apparently can't or don't empower paladins while several LG deities who are a lot less thematically appropriate for a knight in shining armor can & do.
For me that's the two key sticking points on the paladin that separate it from the other alignment-restricted classes are that it's restriction is so much tighter than the others, and that it is a divinely empowered caster in a way that the others, even the druid, really aren't.
So all of that being said, I can see an internal logic of, a paladin's connection with their god requires a zeal & extremism that precludes those with a neutral element to their alignment, restricting it to LG, CG, LE, & CE. It's still an arbitrary restriction, but it's an internally consistent & logical one that doesn't fall into the trap of casting LG as the best, goodest good & CE as the worst, evilest evil.
And if people just have to have some restriction, that's an acceptable one to me.
Personally I would prefer the restriction be, you have to be the same alignment as your specific deity, every deity comes with a code of conduct & you have to follow it, and various limitations on spells & powers similar to what clerics & warpriests already have. But I'm not unwilling to compromise.
Its easy enough to see you just track the history. Whether or not we should be chained to history I think is the more pertinent question.
Its easy enough to see you just track the history. Whether or not we should be chained to history I think is the more pertinent question.
If the departure that is the PF2 playtest is any indication, we aren't chained to history much at all.
Its easy enough to see you just track the history. Whether or not we should be chained to history I think is the more pertinent question.If the departure that is the PF2 playtest is any indication, we aren't chained to history much at all.
I find this confuseing since in the past the paladin was LG and in the play test the paladin is LG.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea behind the lawful good limitation is that the power isn't coming entirely from their god, but is a natural consequence of goodness and righteousness. It's the old "Only the pure of heart" trick.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea behind the lawful good limitation is that the power isn't coming entirely from their god, but is a natural consequence of goodness and righteousness. It's the old "Only the pure of heart" trick.
Which sort of is undermined by how Paladins need to be devoted to a god now.
|
|
I would love for "Paladins" to embrace their alignment
One solution I would greatly enjoy would be "Paladins" getting powers akin to those of outsiders that share their alignment
Archon Knights, Devil Knights, Demon Knights ...
This way when designing a race of outsiders, you can pretty easily design a new variant of "Paladins"
Barring that, I prefer the 4 corners with relevant names and abilities for each corner
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as paladin is the "Tanky Armour Master" class, I'll be removing alignment and deity requirements from paladins in my games
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they should of divide paladin into paladin classic with abilities that seem strongly paladin and a knight class which would cover Tanky Armour Master. If you like this idea spread the word.
No no I like knight better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care for a lot of the armor (not including the armor companion thing) and defensive stuff but I like a lot of the other paladin class abilities. IMO just divide them up make some new ones and make 2 classes out of what they have.
Also whoever said paladins should get more abilities that copy outsider abilities. I love that idea. yes that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would love for "Paladins" to embrace their alignment
One solution I would greatly enjoy would be "Paladins" getting powers akin to those of outsiders that share their alignment
Archon Knights, Devil Knights, Demon Knights ...
This way when designing a race of outsiders, you can pretty easily design a new variant of "Paladins"
Barring that, I prefer the 4 corners with relevant names and abilities for each corner
I like where you are coming from with this idea. I always thought that paladins were empowered more by their code, their believe structure, than any deity directly.
If I recall correctly back in 3 or 3.5 clerics could worship a general faith or ideological concept rather than a deity and still draw their divine powers.
This could be applied to paladins as well. It would also open up the class to any alignment (if people so wanted).
I'd find it to be a much more appealing character concept, than what we have now. Instead of being a generic holy warrior / zealot of a deity (that supports the alignment) we have a martial character that is so dedicated to a particular cause, that they transcend their mortal limits. Like barbarians getting so angry, they defy physics, paladins are so dedicated to their ideals that the universe itself empowers them.
Also there are already plenty other options available to build a martial character dedicated to a deity already. Cleric, Cleric/Any Martial Class Combo, Inquisitor, War priest to name a few. Going that direction the paladin would get a whole new class identity.
Going that direction, we obviously can't have all variants in the CRB. For me (cause I like them that way) I'd go with the classic paladin being dedicated to the concept of Justic (itself) and other variants coming later through supplementary books.
Just my two cents.
I find this confuseing since in the past the paladin was LG and in the play test the paladin is LG.Its easy enough to see you just track the history. Whether or not we should be chained to history I think is the more pertinent question.If the departure that is the PF2 playtest is any indication, we aren't chained to history much at all.
I found it confusing as well since aside from it and cleric/deity all other alignment restrictions went away.
I was referring more to the near total revamp of systems though.
I find this confuseing since in the past the paladin was LG and in the play test the paladin is LG.Its easy enough to see you just track the history. Whether or not we should be chained to history I think is the more pertinent question.If the departure that is the PF2 playtest is any indication, we aren't chained to history much at all.I found it confusing as well since aside from it and cleric/deity all other alignment restrictions went away.
I was referring more to the near total revamp of systems though.
Oh so you went of topic to throw some shade eh?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still think this is the best solution:
Knight Class: Has an Allegiance feature.
Order Allegiance: any alignment, no deity requirement, no alignment powers, defender/armor specialists.
Paladin Allegiance: change class name to Paladin, LG only, holy powers focused on smiting evil.
Crusader Allegiance: change class name to Crusader, CG only, holy powers focused on fighting heretics and protecting pilgrims.
Dark Knight Allegiance: change class name to Dark Knight, LE only, unholy powers focused on draconian application of laws.
Ravager Allegiance: change class name to Ravager, CE only, unholy powers focused on smiting good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still think this is the best solution:
Knight Class: Has an Allegiance feature.
Order Allegiance: any alignment, no deity requirement, no alignment powers, defender/armor specialists.
Paladin Allegiance: change class name to Paladin, LG only, holy powers focused on smiting evil.
Crusader Allegiance: change class name to Crusader, CG only, holy powers focused on fighting heretics and protecting pilgrims.
Dark Knight Allegiance: change class name to Dark Knight, LE only, unholy powers focused on draconian application of laws.
Ravager Allegiance: change class name to Ravager, CE only, unholy powers focused on smiting good.
As long as the Order Allegiance's "no alignment powers" isn't "no auras or anything supernatural of any kind", that could work.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do kind of wish that Paladins were less "Defender Tank" and more "Scourge of Evil" as they were in Pathfinder 1e.
Indeed, it's increasingly clear that Paizo's Paladin is not my conception of the Paladin, which is specifically a hero who is so righteous and disciplined that they receive magic powers from the universe itself whose continuance is contingent of maintaining a standard of conduct.
"Defender Tank" and "Champion of Deity" are fine ideas for classes, but they should probably be something other than the Paladin