Contributor
|
I have mixed feelings about the paladin (or whatever it winds up being) and the changes brought by 1.6. I love the idea of more alignments. It's what I've been hoping for since the playtest began and they mentioned that it might expand beyond lawful good. Personally I was hoping the end product would incorporate all alignments, maybe forcing you to exactly match your deity's alignment. Either that or the four corner alignments to be the pinnacle of ideals, though that would still leave true neutral deities paladin-less.
Regardless, more alignments are open. Coupled with an eventual name change, the class we know as paladin has huge potential for change and growth. Which lead me to an idea late last night I figured I would throw on the forums:
What if 2e's "Paladin" merged with and became an updated Inquisitor?
Both have the divine warrior aesthetic to them. Both judge the masses and enact their deity's will. Both augment their weapons, detect alignment, and get to do things that normal mortals can't because of their faith.
Mixing paladin and Inquisitor together would really flush out what non-lawful-good paladins can do. I'm not suggesting replacing paladin with Inquisitor so much as reinforcing the class with themes and powers from the other. This way we could have a chaotic neutral worshipper of gorum that leads the charge into battle smiting all that oppose them, or a lawful evil priest of asmodeus that judges the meek and delivers their master's decrees. Even if the class is still limited on alignments in the end, there's a lot of cool, fun, flavorful stuff Inquisitor did that would fit well into the new, broader paladin. Or whatever the class gets called.
I'm against this idea, mostly because I feel like Paladin and Inquisitor move in very different directions thematically. Paladins are all about leading by example and being the best of their alignment, while Inquisitors are about breaking the rules and exploiting gray areas to get what needs to be done, done.
If anything, I would say that Paladins and Inquisitors are almost opposites.
Plus, I feel like Lawful Good Inquisitors are a thing that should exist.
|
To give the pf2 "Paladin" some inquisitor-like abilities would really fit. But I don't think the "Paladin" should replace the Inquisitor.
I don't think this is a good idea. Inquisitors live from their spells, from their ability to ignore alignment restrictions and restrictions of their deity almost completely, from their versatility, from their divine infused offensive and defensive powers, and from their skills.
The pf2 Paladins have almost none of this.
Would a Warpriest variation be a tad more viable than an Inquisitor? Paladins to me always seemed lawful because they had behavior guidelines. The paly already gets the dieific weapon which to me always stood out as the main Warpriest thing...
Would a Warpriest variation be a tad more viable than an Inquisitor? Paladins to me always seemed lawful because they had behavior guidelines. The paly already gets the dieific weapon which to me always stood out as the main Warpriest thing...
It does feel to me that the PF2 paladin/champion is essentially a "warpriest with a code of conduct" anyway.