1.6 Paladin Change is a good start


Classes


I've always seen the Paladin class as the Divine Enforcer if you will. The Knight who went out and enforced the laws and righted wrongs in the name of his God. The biggest downfall to this idea is the fact that a Paladin always had to be Lawful Good. So does that mean that only Lawful Good deities (or one step away) can have an Enforcer running around the world.

In the latest Errata they introduced the idea that a Paladin could be of other Alignments but they still restricted it to Lawful. I would like to see this taken one step further. Lets open the class up to all alignments and Deities. This way each Deity is on an "equal playing field" in the world.

Mechanically some things would have to change. I get that. My proposal to this is one of two options.

Option 1: Build upon what has been introduced in Errata 1.6. Give an ability tied to each and every Alignment. This can be done either by allowing the player to choose between the ability of the Law vs Chaos or the Good vs Evil side. This would reduce the number of possible powers to choose from to 5 (Law, Chaos, Good, Evil, and Neutral). Or you can create 9 different abilities that correspond to the strict alignment the character chooses. This would be more work for the developers and give the player less options even though 9 is more than 5. The ability to choose the option you want with the alignment or deity you want would be reduced I think.

Option 2: Create a Deity Specific power that is granted to all Paladins on that Deity. This power should be similar to the martial powers introduced in Errata 1.6 but be designed to follow one or more of the aspects of the Deity it belongs too. Of course this could also be done by listing Martial Powers for every Domain that way if a Cleric takes Paladin Dedication or a Paladin takes Cleric Dedication, their Deity and Domain are already selected and they gain both the Spell casting powers and martial power of that selection.

I would love to see what other people think about this idea. And if you do like one of these options (even though I guess there are technically 4 options there) please let me know which one. I'm hoping this post will help the developers progress in what appears to be a fluid concept with this class.


jakjr15 wrote:
but they still restricted it to Lawful

You mean "Good" here, I think.

As to the rest:
I'd be curious what Option 2 would result in and really think that could be neat.

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's restricted to good...for now. ;)

We worded it in such a way to easily expand to more alignments, but pagecountwise that won't all fit, for now.


Building something into the Champion class specific to each deity would also create space to put something there for Paladins & co. who do not follow a specific deity- like the fury totem for Barbarians.

Not only would this allow us to us a comparable mechanic for two classes, but this would also carve out space for "Paladins who do not follow a specific deity" which is my #1 desire for the PF2 champion class.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I had read it and was actually worried the wording wasn't as modular as most of the playtest wording - which is something I thought was a great strength - makes me excited to see what you can build on it with in the years to come. The new paladin wording didn't seem to do that to me & worried me a bit when I read it.

The way there was multiple items which actually listed out the different Causes (Divine Smite, Mighty Aura & Aura of Vengeance) made me think you'd actually painted a bit of a corner with broadening them where you'd have to essentially errata these features with every splat book that added causes.

I was hoping the wording was just for the errata & in the real book would be a bit more like bloodlines to make a standard Cause template that declared the cause-specific items so it's easier for you to add more later without making a confusing set of "For cause X, Y, Z it's in the feat, but for B, C and D it's in the cause's rules, oh and cause A worded it wrong so RAW it has no aura but obviously it should have this thing.".

Maybe I'm just not seeing how you plan to expand it and will be wow'd when I see it...


Mark Seifter wrote:

It's restricted to good...for now. ;)

We worded it in such a way to easily expand to more alignments, but pagecountwise that won't all fit, for now.

Thanks for reviewing my comment and responding. I'm glad to hear that expanding to all alignments is a potential intent.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:

It's restricted to good...for now. ;)

We worded it in such a way to easily expand to more alignments, but pagecountwise that won't all fit, for now.

Something that struck me while re-reading the Update 1.6 is how Good is the Paladin actually ?

If you take the tenets away and consider only the abilities, there are clear differences between Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic from level 1 and up. But things like the Chaotic Good abilities read like they could just as easily be Chaotic Neutral.

And checking further, abilities that are centered on fighting Evil are few and far between and not things the Paladin starts with.

Though it is nothing new in PF2 by itself, the differing 1st-level abilities between the various Alignments makes this lack of exclusive to Good abilities from the start stand out more

Here is hoping the final version of the Paladin will strenghten the Agent of Good feel that abilities should IMO give you right away


Yeah, I'm not a fan in the slightest of the mechanical restrictions imposed on alignment. I don't want there to have to be "balance" between Lawful and Chaotic paladins. I want them to have access to the exact same options, with anything involving the Law-Chaos axis being up to the player's interpretation. The only alignment-related thing truly core to the idea of a Paladin is morality, good or evil.

Not that I'd particularly mind if good, neutral, and evil "paladins" are mechanically identical as well in the final version, but in those cases the moral alignment is much more important thematically.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I also really dislike having class features attached to a very specific alignment. Basically for two reasons:

One is that some options will be very good, some will be usable, and some will be bad, that's... unavoidable. Attaching them to alignment makes so that, let's say, they release a Lawful Neutral Paladin and their abilities are really bad. So now the entire concept of a Lawful Neutral Paladin will almost not be played, ever.

The second one is that sometimes the player likes the mechanical concept of one alignment and the tenets of another one. Actually I had this happen in one of my games. The player loved the concept of a Liberator, but he really disliked Liberating Step. I don't blame him, it's so situational. I ended up homebrewing that you can choose any one of the reactions (and subsequential upgrades and Feats) regardless of your alignment, as long as it makes sense for the character. I'll probably do the same when the game comes out if it stays that way.


dmerceless wrote:

I also really dislike having class features attached to a very specific alignment. Basically for two reasons:

One is that some options will be very good, some will be usable, and some will be bad, that's... unavoidable. Attaching them to alignment makes so that, let's say, they release a Lawful Neutral Paladin and their abilities are really bad. So now the entire concept of a Lawful Neutral Paladin will almost not be played, ever.

The second one is that sometimes the player likes the mechanical concept of one alignment and the tenets of another one. Actually I had this happen in one of my games. The player loved the concept of a Liberator, but he really disliked Liberating Step. I don't blame him, it's so situational. I ended up homebrewing that you can choose any one of the reactions (and subsequential upgrades and Feats) regardless of your alignment, as long as it makes sense for the character. I'll probably do the same when the game comes out if it stays that way.

I'd extend that to Clerics with gods. Not that I dislike the idea of certain gods having particular domains, so long that the gods have various appropriate domains and you have a reasonable choice of who your character worships while still having the playstyle you want, but when there's a ranking of various Golarian gods based on who is the most optimal based on the skills, weapon proficiencies, and spell lists they grant, I think there's a problem. It makes it much harder to create reasonable, balanced custom settings if you have to balance your custom pantheon against each other based on what spells you'll be granting them, and if your pantheon maybe doesn't line up exactly with Golarian's pantheon (one god, two gods, no gods and instead having a more philosophical connection to the divine, all gods are evil but most clerics draw power from a divine concept instead, et cetera) then you actually have a balance problem on your hands.

5e did good by putting everything into domains, so that your choice of god only needs to be related to what your cleric does rather than defining precisely what your cleric does. The same concept should be applied to Paladins, I feel.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / 1.6 Paladin Change is a good start All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Classes