Ya know, if they ever actually get rid of "Paladins are LG only", I would prefer...


Classes

51 to 82 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

CorvusMask wrote:
And I always thought paladins were supposed to have gods until one of my players pointed out nothing in rules said that <_< I do wonder how many different flavors of paladins exist in different preferences

Until PF2 there was never a version of Paladin that needed a God or Goddess.


HWalsh wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
And I always thought paladins were supposed to have gods until one of my players pointed out nothing in rules said that <_< I do wonder how many different flavors of paladins exist in different preferences
Until PF2 there was never a version of Paladin that needed a God or Goddess.

Archetype 1

Archetype 2


Obscure citations wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
And I always thought paladins were supposed to have gods until one of my players pointed out nothing in rules said that <_< I do wonder how many different flavors of paladins exist in different preferences
Until PF2 there was never a version of Paladin that needed a God or Goddess.

Archetype 1

Archetype 2

Archetypes are different - Base Paladins I should have said.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My understanding is that Paladins *usually* followed at least one deity because in a world where "Law" and "Good" are elemental forces, it's not as though a Paladin could not find at least one deity who they consider a positive force and a good example.

But there should be no reason you couldn't have a Paladin who finds something praiseworthy in Grandmother Crow, Apsu, Angradd, Erastil, Falanaya, Iomedae, Neshen and Wahdjet and keep all of their rituals. Likewise there's no reason there could not be a Paladin who views many gods as positive role models or forces for good, but who draws the line at "actual worship."

Like the sheer amount of monotheism in the game mechanics in these fantasy settings with a whole menagerie of gods is something we inherited from the assumptions of Gygax, Arneson & co. but we should probably try to scale it back for classes which are not clerics.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Paradozen wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

...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.

did we get the survey reault then?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I didn't notice the deity requirement in the paladin class. I wasn't expecting such an oddball change, so I guess I wasn't looking for it. I much prefer paladins who avoid deities and worship, putting their ethics above everything else always seemed more correct. That said, following a common god in order to connect with the people wouldn't be too out there.

As a requirement though, it sucks. I don't think I recognize this class.


I didn't even notice it until now that it was mentioned.
I just assumed it was the case that they had that requirement always.
Never played a Paladin myself, either.

---

Tectorman wrote:
LordVanya wrote:

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.

That was my intent, yes.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
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.

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?

I'm not up on the lingo the kids use these days, but I don't think "shade" means pointing out clear differences. To use some outdated slang, be cool.


Scythia wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
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.

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?
I'm not up on the lingo the kids use these days, but I don't think "shade" means pointing out clear differences. To use some outdated slang, be cool.

Well I'm 32 but I do still feel young at heart so ill take it.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
did we get the survey reault then?

No. The comment that the 4 Corners model was second is in relation to them asking various people in-house. We'll see what the survey says...eventually, maybe.

For the record, I would like to state my agreement that I prefer Paladins not needing a deity. I'm fine with that being a flat (minor) mechanical disadvantage (can't take Domain Feats, no free Favored Weapon), but in my mind Paladins have always been powered by their own righteousness (and Antipaladins their own wickedness), with a deity being a common addition, but not an inherently necessary one.

This actually strengthens the argument for the 'Four Corners' model, since you can then say that you need 'extreme' beliefs (on the Alignment scale) in order to gain such power.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
did we get the survey reault then?

No. The comment that the 4 Corners model was second is in relation to them asking various people in-house. We'll see what the survey says...eventually, maybe.

For the record, I would like to state my agreement that I prefer Paladins not needing a deity. I'm fine with that being a flat (minor) mechanical disadvantage (can't take Domain Feats, no free Favored Weapon), but in my mind Paladins have always been powered by their own righteousness (and Antipaladins their own wickedness), with a deity being a common addition, but not an inherently necessary one.

This actually strengthens the argument for the 'Four Corners' model, since you can then say that you need 'extreme' beliefs (on the Alignment scale) in order to gain such power.

I can dig the four corners the argument that your beliefs need to be to an extreme is interesting, not gonna lie though anything that isn’t lawful good would make me happy I’ve always preferred neutral good where I try to do the most good not what is good AND lawful.

After all goodness and lawfulness aren’t always the same thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've always thought LG was the trickiest tightrope for the hero who lives by a code to walk, since it requires always doing the right thing and always doing it in the proper way.

If we can come up with something similarly limiting for CG (the evil ones are for NPCs) I would be fine with the 4 corners, but I'm not sure since "I'm willing to break the rules/cut corners in order to get the right result" is sort of the sine qua non of chaotic good.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I've always thought LG was the trickiest tightrope for the hero who lives by a code to walk, since it requires always doing the right thing and always doing it in the proper way.

If we can come up with something similarly limiting for CG (the evil ones are for NPCs) I would be fine with the 4 corners, but I'm not sure since "I'm willing to break the rules/cut corners in order to get the right result" is sort of the sine qua non of chaotic good.

Chaotic good is doing what you believe is right regardless of the opinions of others, neutral good is doing what you believe is right for the MOST people meaning that you may break the rules if you HAVE to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like "never considering the opinions of anyone except possibly the 4 or so folks you share a campsite with" is the baseline player character experience.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like "never considering the opinions of anyone except possibly the 4 or so folks you share a campsite with" is the baseline player character experience.

I think that’s because most groups can’t be bothered caring about what non essential NPC’s think, if it doesn’t push the story or create an interesting story then why should they care, that’s just my theory though.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
If we can come up with something similarly limiting for CG (the evil ones are for NPCs) I would be fine with the 4 corners, but I'm not sure since "I'm willing to break the rules/cut corners in order to get the right result" is sort of the sine qua non of chaotic good.

I've actually proposed pretty restrictive CG codes previously with their restrictions specifically invested in respecting the personal autonomy of others to a nearly fanatical degree. It's actually pretty restrictive when you think through the implications.

For reference, my version of the Code is as follows:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

1) You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.

2) You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.

3) You must always defend the autonomy of innocents from those who would violate it. If one person is forcing an innocent to do anything against their will, you must attempt to stop this act, using words if possible and force if necessary.

4) You must personally respect the autonomy of others, never forcing them to engage in any particular course of behavior. You may advise and admonish, but never actually force them to do as you wish them to. Except as necessary to fulfill the higher tenets, of course (ie: jailing a criminal who harmed or violated the autonomy of innocents is acceptable in order to prevent such behavior).

Link to discussion found here, which you were even involved in, and another discussion you weren't in here (though both, like all pre-playtest release threads in the playtest area, are now locked).


I think I'd want a chaotic good paladin a bit further in the pro-chaos camp.
-Reject currency both as payment and gifts, barter only.
-Don't rely on the power of authorities, no cops, no jail, no temples.
-Show no forbearance to evil, and don't bother waiting for evil creatures to take their evil actions before punishing them.
-Put more faith in your intuition and gut feelings than you put in scholars.
-ignore crime and the breaching of social mores.

Something along those lines.


If I had to write a code for a CG character that had to be as restrictive as a Paladin code (I will never say CG Paladin code) it would be a chaotic mirror of the LG code:

1. You may never break Anathema.

2. You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.

3. You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.

4. You must use subterfuge, deception, and misdirection whenever possible. Never face an opponent honorably unless there is no other way.

5. You must never work with members of the lawful authority of the legitimate ruler or leadership in whatever land you may be, you will not follow their laws, in fact you must actively break them unless doing so would violate a higher tenet.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

...

4. You must use subterfuge, deception, and misdirection whenever possible. Never face an opponent honorably unless there is no other way.

5. You must never work with members of the lawful authority of the legitimate ruler or leadership in whatever land you may be, you will not follow their laws, in fact you must actively break them unless doing so would violate a higher tenet.

Ah, this makes total sense. It is an inevitability that with Chaotic Paladins comes Chaotic Stupid, and this is pretty Chaotic Stupid. Glad to see the cycle of Paladin Stupidity continuing.

On a more serious note, a hypothetical "Chaosodin" might not be Lawful, but they are still Good. Subterfuge, deception and misdirection aren't inherently chaotic (see Devils, who are literally made of Law but are oh so very manipulative). The Paladin's Stalwart honesty embodies both Law and Good together. Hence a simple code flip is not appropriate. That is the sort of thing that is more appropriate for the Anti-Paladin (who should be a mirror of the Paladin). Deadmanwalking's code is a much better approach. Just as the conventional Lawadin's code is Good viewed through the lens of Law, Deadmanwalking's code is Good viewed through the lens of Chaos.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:

I think I'd want a chaotic good paladin a bit further in the pro-chaos camp.

-Reject currency both as payment and gifts, barter only.

This is ridiculous. We're talking currency made of precious metals here, which is to say objects of inherent value. It's basically barter but more convenient, with the fact that it's government minted entirely incidental.

If we were talking fiat currencies, maybe you'd have a point, but it'd be a silly restriction even then. Equivalent to Lawful Paladins not being allowed to read fiction because fiction is all lies. It's that absurd a statement.

ErichAD wrote:
-Don't rely on the power of authorities, no cops, no jail, no temples.

Again, this isn't Chaos, it's stupidity. Chaos is flexible and this is the opposite. It's a far more restrictive behavioral limitation than anything LG Paladins have, and in the most absurd way.

ErichAD wrote:
-Show no forbearance to evil, and don't bother waiting for evil creatures to take their evil actions before punishing them.

Please show me where the rules say Chaos is less merciful and inclined to redemption than Good. Because all the stuff I've seen says quite the reverse (the least merciful Good deities are Lawful, and one of the Chaotic ones is currently in a relationship with Sarenrae, the Goddess of Redemption).

That doesn't make LG worse (mercy isn't always the best choice), but it makes this idea absurd.

ErichAD wrote:
-Put more faith in your intuition and gut feelings than you put in scholars.

Chaos has a connotation of emotion sometimes, sure, but LG Paladins are not required to always prize logic over emotion (they aren't Vulcans), why would the Chaotic version have the inverse of something a Lawful one doesn't even have?

ErichAD wrote:
-ignore crime and the breaching of social mores.

Non-evil crimes and breakings of social mores that don't hurt anyone? Why yes, they should be unable to stop those sorts of crimes. And indeed, by my version of the Code, cannot do so.

Evil and harmful acts are different, but the top few tenets would be above them and prevent that anyway .

HWalsh wrote:
If I had to write a code for a CG character that had to be as restrictive as a Paladin code (I will never say CG Paladin code) it would be a chaotic mirror of the LG code:

As Snowblind notes, no, this makes little sense. Chaos is in opposition to Law, but not in a 'We do the opposite no matter what!' way. The core principles are just divergent and approach things in very different ways.

Chaos isn't about always breaking laws in all circumstances, or always being dishonorable. That's every bit as ordered a world view as always obeying them and always being honorable, after all. Chaos is about prizing the freedom of the individual over society's rules (for CG, this is usually altruistic, prizing the freedom of others, while Evil is selfish and focused on one's own freedom), and a proper CG Code should thus focus on that aspect of things.


I wouldn't expect chaotic good and lawful good to be the inverse of one another on any particular issue. You have one end that feels that an orderly society is the best way to create the best life for the most people, and the other who feels that structure obscures moral choices.

Sarenrae is neutral good, as a god of redemption should be. I'd expect a lawful good paladin to defend the same quality of life for evil creatures as good creatures and to give both the opportunity to show their morality through their actions. I'd expect a neutral good paladin to encourage redemption, forgiveness and reform. Chaotic good I'd expect to go for immediate gratification, fighting against evil directly with no need to justify their actions.

With the anti-authority stuff, this is about a threat of power used to coerce or imprison others. Taking someone to the authorities would seem to run against the idea that law was unnecessary for the pursuit of good.

Rules wise, I don't know. You're clearly more passionate on the topic than I am, so I'll assume you have greater expertise on the issue. Is it really common for lawful good deities and paladins to ignore the rights of others due to their evil nature? That seems odd.


I think for a Good-aligned character it's better to exhort them to uphold individual freedom, with the proviso that one's freedom ends where another's nose begins (Chaotic and Good) rather than simply to undermine lawful authority (Chaotic only).

One hopes that presenting an absurd set of rules for radicals, and then declaring them a "mirror" of the LG tenets, isn't a setup for an easy "gotcha!" down the road.

ErichAD" wrote:
I'd expect a lawful good paladin to defend the same quality of life for evil creatures as good creatures and to give both the opportunity to show their morality through their actions. I'd expect a neutral good paladin to encourage redemption, forgiveness and reform. Chaotic good I'd expect to go for immediate gratification, fighting against evil directly with no need to justify their actions.

According to Gygax Himself (PBUH) the Paladin was supposed to massacre baby goblins, because nits make lice. He was supposed to kill surrendered enemies, even the genuinely repentant, to send them to their reward before they could backslide. And he was supposed to uphold lex talionis (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life) as nothing other than Lawful And Good, Period. The Man even found the time to hint at the righteousness and effectiveness of cruel and unusual punishment as a deterrent to would-be criminals.

Anyone have a copy of BECMI handy? What's the Avenger like?


ummmm you do know why Hwalsh said as strict as the LG one right????

I still want the ability to play a NG paladin.....


Athaleon wrote:

I think for a Good-aligned character it's better to exhort them to uphold individual freedom, with the proviso that one's freedom ends where another's nose begins (Chaotic and Good) rather than simply to undermine lawful authority (Chaotic only).

One hopes that presenting an absurd set of rules for radicals, and then declaring them a "mirror" of the LG tenets, isn't a setup for an easy "gotcha!" down the road.

ErichAD" wrote:
I'd expect a lawful good paladin to defend the same quality of life for evil creatures as good creatures and to give both the opportunity to show their morality through their actions. I'd expect a neutral good paladin to encourage redemption, forgiveness and reform. Chaotic good I'd expect to go for immediate gratification, fighting against evil directly with no need to justify their actions.

According to Gygax Himself (PBUH) the Paladin was supposed to massacre baby goblins, because nits make lice. He was supposed to kill surrendered enemies, even the genuinely repentant, to send them to their reward before they could backslide. And he was supposed to uphold lex talionis (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life) as nothing other than Lawful And Good, Period. The Man even found the time to hint at the righteousness and effectiveness of cruel and unusual punishment as a deterrent to would-be criminals.

Anyone have a copy of BECMI handy? What's the Avenger like?

You are misrepresenting Gygax, and that isn't something I can really allow to pass without comment.

Gygax never said Paladins kill Goblin babies. The Goblin babies thing is an old, played out, absurd argument. What Gygax said on the topic was, and I quote:

"Any DM who tries to create such a scenario just to try to force a Paladin to fall, to prove a point out of pettiness, should not be a DM anymore."

And he never said they were supposed to kill repentant people. What he said was he could see a Paladin doing so, while he was basically saying there was a lot of flexibility in playing Lawful Good.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:
I wouldn't expect chaotic good and lawful good to be the inverse of one another on any particular issue.

And yet that's exactly what you suggested.

ErichAD wrote:
You have one end that feels that an orderly society is the best way to create the best life for the most people, and the other who feels that structure obscures moral choices.

That second half isn't quite right. CG dislikes structure, sure, but that's not because it 'obscures moral choices' it's because they believe in freedom as an inherent positive for both the individual and society, as it lets people realize their full potential.

ErichAD wrote:
Sarenrae is neutral good, as a god of redemption should be.

Sure. Her girlfriend Desna, however, is CG and directly helped redeem a succubus in one AP. Torag meanwhile, is the least forgiving Good god around.

ErichAD wrote:
I'd expect a lawful good paladin to defend the same quality of life for evil creatures as good creatures and to give both the opportunity to show their morality through their actions. I'd expect a neutral good paladin to encourage redemption, forgiveness and reform. Chaotic good I'd expect to go for immediate gratification, fighting against evil directly with no need to justify their actions.

CG is not less good than LG, and redemption is not either Lawful or Chaotic. As I said, it's actually the Lawful God who seem to go more scorched earth, of the main pantheon anyway, but the core concept of redemption is Good, rather than Lawful or Chaotic.

ErichAD wrote:
With the anti-authority stuff, this is about a threat of power used to coerce or imprison others. Taking someone to the authorities would seem to run against the idea that law was unnecessary for the pursuit of good.

Having (small 'l') laws in the technical sense as unnecessary is not the only way to be Chaotic. Indeed, enshrining Chaotic principles into law is very possible, and I can think of several examples. The United States Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, which was created specifically to sharply limit the government's authority in various ways, is in many ways a very Chaotic legal document by Pathfinder's definitions.

Not all Chaotic characters, even those who are philosophically Chaotic, are anarchists. And not all anarchists feel that using the law as a means to an end is morally wrong. Nor should they.

ErichAD wrote:
Rules wise, I don't know. You're clearly more passionate on the topic than I am, so I'll assume you have greater expertise on the issue. Is it really common for lawful good deities and paladins to ignore the rights of others due to their evil nature? That seems odd.

Certainly not. I never said it was. I said that LG deities were the least invested in redemption. None would turn down a legitimately repentant person or harm an innocent, but there's a matter of priorities and both Iomedae and Torag are much less invested in redemption and giving second chances than any other Good deities in the main 20, being more focused on direct action against the Evil.

Heck, Torag's Anathema (and Paladin Code in PF1) actually include 'show mercy to an enemy of your people', so a Paladin of Torag can actually fall for showing mercy in some circumstances. I'd argue that someone legitimately repentant might not be an enemy any more, but inviting such repentance is definitely not a priority.


A few points to add.

I'd imagine that the chaotic good paladin would be all about fighting social injustice and freeing slaves. Not destroying lawful institutions.
If they do work and do good, he/she would be doing harm to the community, which would be completely against what they set out to do. Fighting a law that is unjust. Perfect target. Fighting the power just for the sake of sticking it to the man? Not so sure. Unless they're evil of course. We play characters, not fools or automatons (unless that is your choice to play your character like).

About the lawful good being being too strict and inflexible. With this edition they stated it outright, that if law and good ever comes into conflict, doing good is always preferable.
Which makes kind of sense. If you argue that laws are created to provide the people justice and thus can be considered good, this when you disregard laws that do not serve justice you are actually doing the good and lawful thing.

Lawmakers may or may not agree. Fun ensues.


I like the CG "Paladin" as an anarchist who wants to do away with all authority and power dynamics, dismantling the kyriarchy, personally. I mean, they do this for good reasons, but it's still an extremist position which may clash with darn near everyone around you... this is supposed to be a Paladin after all.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I like the CG "Paladin" as an anarchist who wants to do away with all authority and power dynamics, dismantling the kyriarchy, personally. I mean, they do this for good reasons, but it's still an extremist position which may clash with darn near everyone around you... this is supposed to be a Paladin after all.

I feel like this is a totally reasonable CG Paladin position, but it's on the extreme end of the Chaos part of the alignment (in the same way that a Paladin of Abadar is a bit more hardcore on the 'Lawful' part than one of Shelyn) and should not be built into the code or required of all CG Paladins.

LG Paladin behavior can cause conflicts, but not all the time with everyone, and CG Paladin behavior shouldn't either.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
did we get the survey reault then?

No. The comment that the 4 Corners model was second is in relation to them asking various people in-house. We'll see what the survey says...eventually, maybe.

For the record, I would like to state my agreement that I prefer Paladins not needing a deity. I'm fine with that being a flat (minor) mechanical disadvantage (can't take Domain Feats, no free Favored Weapon), but in my mind Paladins have always been powered by their own righteousness (and Antipaladins their own wickedness), with a deity being a common addition, but not an inherently necessary one.

This actually strengthens the argument for the 'Four Corners' model, since you can then say that you need 'extreme' beliefs (on the Alignment scale) in order to gain such power.

Here we get an edge case: I see the LN, CN, NE, and NG as 'extreme' or rather being useful to characters who are so utterly devoted to one ideal that they do not have space to care about the other Axis, so Judge Dredd is LN (some times depending on the writer etc) , so utterly and totally devoted to the law at all costs that he has no space to care about good and evil, (for instance) their is only and can only be Law or Chaos, motive does not matter only compliance.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I like the CG "Paladin" as an anarchist who wants to do away with all authority and power dynamics, dismantling the kyriarchy, personally. I mean, they do this for good reasons, but it's still an extremist position which may clash with darn near everyone around you... this is supposed to be a Paladin after all.

I was thinking more Illuminati conspiracy nut rather than patriarchy conspiracy nut, but close enough.

Deadmanwalking wrote:


I feel like this is a totally reasonable CG Paladin position, but it's on the extreme end of the Chaos part of the alignment (in the same way that a Paladin of Abadar is a bit more hardcore on the 'Lawful' part than one of Shelyn) and should not be built into the code or required of all CG Paladins.

LG Paladin behavior can cause conflicts, but not all the time with everyone, and CG Paladin behavior shouldn't either.

It could just be the sort of games I've run and played in, but the paladin code is pretty challenging. For instance, it makes subterfuge based solutions almost completely impossible without cutting the paladin out of the loop. The newer codes aren't as bad as the old one, which required immediately charging certain monsters for glory, donating all your unneeded wealth, and always wearing the heaviest armor, but even the current version doesn't work well in more than a few world types. I like paladins, but everyone needs to buy in on a game that works with them. I feel like an equally weighty restriction would be needed for the other types.

Looking at the current code, and the types of games I'd expect to be played at organized play tables, I have to agree. That sort of scenario is a smooth enough fit for paladins that making an awkward fit for other sorts of alignments wouldn't be right.

I do miss the old "cheerfully do good" bit from the old paladin oath though.

Liberty's Edge

Emn1ty wrote:

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.

I suggested this very thing. The framework of PF2 makes it possible to open up the Paladin for other alignments without having to rework every class ability, such as was done with the Anti-Paladin. The name though is problematic; it evokes the “holy knight” from previous editions. I propose the name “Champion” instead of “Paragon” though. Champion is far more open-ended in concept, while paragon means “the best”... a label that should not be applied to any one class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arnim Thayer wrote:
Emn1ty wrote:

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.

I suggested this very thing. The framework of PF2 makes it possible to open up the Paladin for other alignments without having to rework every class ability, such as was done with the Anti-Paladin. The name though is problematic; it evokes the “holy knight” from previous editions. I propose the name “Champion” instead of “Paragon” though. Champion is far more open-ended in concept, while paragon means “the best”... a label that should not be applied to any one class.

that could work. Also for the benefit of the LG is special heritage, possibly have a LG ability to be the only Patronless Champions, (still called Paladin, as the LG version would be), so all champions must have a patron deity, Ephemeral Lord, Deamon etc, except LG ones....

51 to 82 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / Ya know, if they ever actually get rid of "Paladins are LG only", I would prefer... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.