Do you like PE Paladin class concept?

[Valsuelm]

Question:

Do you like PE Paladin class concept?

 

 

The stated concept:

 

Paladins are extremely devoted, often fanatical, soldiers who have pledged themselves to a chosen cause, combining the zeal of a priest with the ascetic discipline of a monk. They have founded many elite fighting forces, from the original Darcozzi Paladini, a two thousand year-old order of palace guards, to the fledgling Fellows of St. Waidwen Martyr, zealous defenders of the Godhammer pilgrim trail. Often found at the vanguard of many conflicts, paladins are natural leaders and have the ability to quickly assist their allies with targeted commands. A paladin's commands can stave off impending death, overcome fatigue, or hasten the charge to close breached defenses. And though they are not always pledged to the service of a god or gods, paladins are so singularly focused on their chosen cause that their souls are continually creating a wellspring of spiritual energy from which they can blast groups of foes in their immediate vicinity. Despite their often stoic presence and explosive combat style, paladins work best alongside allies. When isolated, they can be vulnerable, especially against singular powerful foes.

 

Answer:

 

Yes

[jezz555]

Yeah I think its like that one guy said, where priests are more or less your typical paladins and paladins are something new, which I think it probably for the best.

[PsychoBlonde]

Paladin is pretty much my least-favorite pnp class. I don't really care how they implement it for P:E--if it looks interesting, I'll play one, if not, I won't. I do tend to like charismatic characters in games, though, so I may give it a shot.

 

As for whether their concept matches up with some concept I have in my head--I don't care. Nothing ruins a gaming experience like building up a bunch of irrelevant expectations beforehand. I'd rather see what Obsidian does with it and decide whether I like it or not based on whether it works well or poorly as a part of their overall class dynamic. Everything doesn't have to use the tired old D&D tropes in order to be good.

[clippedwolf]

The Song of Roland defined the classical paladin. A warrior, a leader of men whose faith and religious devotion attracts the attention of the divine at his moment of death.

 

Personally I think Roland sounds like an arrogant idiot who led his men into an ambush and got them all killed. But someone wrote an epic poem instilling all popular virtues of the time into a fictional character and attached Roland's name to it.

 

I want Obsidian to run with their idea. I want to see their take on the archetypal religious warrior. And of course I want to play as him...or her...whatever strikes my fancy at character creation.

Edited November 25, 2012 by clippedwolf

[Monte Carlo]

PE Paladin's sound like Commissars or WH 40K inquisitors. Which is cool.

 

[jezz555]

PE Paladin's sound like Commissars or WH 40K inquisitors. Which is cool.

 

 

I believe that's a warrior-priest...

[Rostere]

PE Paladin's sound like Commissars or WH 40K inquisitors. Which is cool.

 

 

I believe that's a warrior-priest...

This would be more like it: (also my favourite WH40K piece)

[Calmar]

 

This would be more like it: (also my favourite WH40K piece)

 

I believe that's a witch hunter...

[Rostere]

This would be more like it: (also my favourite WH40K piece)

 

I believe that's a witch hunter...

 

A "witch hunter" in WH40K is a member of the Ordo Hereticus, which is one of the three main branches of the Inquisition.

 

Here's the piece in question on their site - "Inquisitor with Inferno Pistol & Power Sword".

[general_azure]

Ah, another paladin topic. I'll try and make my stay short this time.

 

Yes, I do like the current concept of paladins in this game. As a non-paladin (formerly rather "chaotic") type, having them described as "armed and dangerous fanatics" fits my view quite nicely. =P

[Adhin]

I like it, just not a fan of the paladin title used for wildly generalized stuff but I guess it still fits. Kind of depends what options they have available with in that in the end. I also don't really think of paladins are 'religious' though it often fits heavily. That being, not tied to a god. I like the whole tied to a group and heavy morals and all that non-sense... I can't stand 'playing' them but I like that it exists and, ultimately, that's kinda what they got in PE.

 

Like I said though depends what options they have available to you as a 'Paladin' when you make one. That's one thing that always bugged me when they have classes heavily associated with an order or something then such an option never really exists.. always just kinda feel like a pretender running around saying your something you don't actually get to be. Could be one reason I generally never play Paladins.

 

Was a NWN module someone made along time ago though, back in 03 I think... had a lot of fun as a paladin in that but the whole game revolved 'around' you playing a paladin.

 

Anyway, options, need more info, blah blah blah, but probably yes?

[Sylvius the Mad]

I never really liked the D&D Paladin (even though my very first AD&D character was one), so I'm excited to see Obsidian try something different.

[morrow1nd]

I do like the Obsidian's approach to Paladin Class.

 

Well, may be this time there'll be a Paladin in my group!.. My vote for the WH 40 K warrior-priest type Paladin!

Edited November 26, 2012 by morrow1nd

[Brannart]

Question:

Do you like PE Paladin class concept?

 

 

The stated concept:

 

Paladins are extremely devoted, often fanatical, soldiers who have pledged themselves to a chosen cause, combining the zeal of a priest with the ascetic discipline of a monk. They have founded many elite fighting forces, from the original Darcozzi Paladini, a two thousand year-old order of palace guards, to the fledgling Fellows of St. Waidwen Martyr, zealous defenders of the Godhammer pilgrim trail. Often found at the vanguard of many conflicts, paladins are natural leaders and have the ability to quickly assist their allies with targeted commands. A paladin's commands can stave off impending death, overcome fatigue, or hasten the charge to close breached defenses. And though they are not always pledged to the service of a god or gods, paladins are so singularly focused on their chosen cause that their souls are continually creating a wellspring of spiritual energy from which they can blast groups of foes in their immediate vicinity. Despite their often stoic presence and explosive combat style, paladins work best alongside allies. When isolated, they can be vulnerable, especially against singular powerful foes.

 

Answer:

 

Yes

 

Yeah me to. I sometimes enjoy playing the character who has a cause, something he or she has absolute faith and conviction in, because real life is so darn convoluted.

[TrashMan]

Meh...

 

I really don't like it. It just feels wrong.

[NerdBoner]

i think what pissed me off most about Paladins was the alignment restriction...Lawful f*cking good, the alignment that causes facepalms around the world.

 

How does LG make ANY sense? especially if the patron deity doesn't even have a "good" alignment, as in the case of Helm?

 

Terrible class concept that was half-assed by WotC...hopefully Obsidian can update and fix the many things wrong with it.

[Merlkir]

Meh...

 

I really don't like it. It just feels wrong.

 

You said so a couple of times. We know.

[Andhaira]

No I do NOT like the PE Paladin concept. Specifically, I most dislike the fact that they are supposed to be team players and weak against singular powerful foes.

 

If anything, Paladins should be the opposite, i.e. they call out and challenge the most powerful of the enemy in a single combat to death. It is the Fighter that should deal with the weaker, trash mobs while the Paladin takes on the leader.

[Ywerion]

No I do NOT like the PE Paladin concept. Specifically, I most dislike the fact that they are supposed to be team players and weak against singular powerful foes.

 

If anything, Paladins should be the opposite, i.e. they call out and challenge the most powerful of the enemy in a single combat to death. It is the Fighter that should deal with the weaker, trash mobs while the Paladin takes on the leader.

 

That is certainly a fair point Andhaira and I agree, but from what I understand from the way Obsidian plans for classes to be, i.e. not bound to one particular stereotype and allowing freedom in their playstyle, I think there will be way to build just that exact Paladin you are describing, after all PE is supposed to be beaten with single character just aswell as with full party. So don't put your hopes down yet

As for me, so far I like PE Paladin concept, especially since PE world isn't all high and goody setting, the palladins will not be stereotypical shinig do-gooders nor necessary religious fanatics, unmovable Determinator seems to me more accurate.

 

On a side note, those of you who know Alexander Anderson, how did you like this Paladin?

[Umberlin]

No I do NOT like the PE Paladin concept. Specifically, I most dislike the fact that they are supposed to be team players and weak against singular powerful foes.

 

If anything, Paladins should be . . .

 

If anything Paladins in P:E should be . . . what? What you decide? What you think they should be? Why? Who are you? What exactly makes your visions of what they should be more appropriate than the vision of the people actualy making the game? What's more fitting than their reimaginings of the various fantasy elements, such as classes? What you're saying "should" be might be appropriate for Paladins of another setting, but, why would it be appropriate for P:E if that's not the vision of the world, its peoples and so on?

 

I'm not making a statement, nor am I telling you that you're wrong. I'm not even saying that another viewpoint is right. I'm simply asking a series of relevant questions.

[Merlkir]

*I have this idea of what a paladin is and that is what it always should be because I feel entitled to it*

 

There, summed it up for a bunch of you good people.

[Gavinfoxx]

No matter what we decide on paladins to be... I do not want falling mechanics which cause a loss of powers to be present in this game!

 

Nor do I want the idea of a Paladin to be restricted to only one alignment / moral code. Both Jedi and Sith are Paladins! Consider the 3.5e Crusader (imo the best Paladin class in all editions of D&D, bar none), which simply said (I'm paraphrasing), 'You have to take some moral stance, and have some strong belief, some extreme of alignment, to be a Crusader. It doesn't matter what that belief is, but there are no True Neutral Crusaders.' I also like Ruleofcool's Legend concept of a Paladin. Those are a group of people who draw strength from the concept of Justice, be it apprehending criminals, or being vigilantes or renegades against whatever group they feel as offending their morality. I also liked that they have an always-on emanation of awareness of basic moral and ideological predilections of anyone in close proximity to them, and of likely major moral consequences of their actions...

Edited January 12, 2013 by Gavinfoxx

[Malevolent]

I actually like the direction that they're taking Paladins in, as it personally defines them as more of a separate class to me than the cleric/fighter hybrid they were in game. It also gives you a great deal more range in character alignment than those of the traditional Baldur's Gate Paladins. If I want to play a character who is extremely devoted to a god and ready to kick ass in His/Her name, I'll just do a priest/ess. So far nothing mentioned by the devs suggests that priests aren't capable in battle. I'm curious to see what kind of buffs or passive abilities they get? Perhaps something like a Bard's Song/Aura of Heroism/Inspiration? Benefits to damage through tactical or strategic abilities? I also can't help but assume their very nature will make their build lean in favor of heavier social skills.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Malevolent

[Tauron]

There is more issues with this, Paladin is a fighter with a title, yes. I would rather that we have opportunity to earn those titles. If we start game as paladin class, than we have to have entire backstory for that. How did we become paladins in first place? Will PE reflect on that, will every class have different starting positions and stories? What is difference betwean fighter and paladin, one prays to God and serves some order while fighter might do the same, yet is not paladin. So an Church/Temple/Order we have to pick from the start and our backstory and to call ourself paladins we have to officially serve that particular order?

[ArkhanTheBlack]

For me the typical Paladin is pretty much my favourite warrior class since it has a strong historical background (Crusaders) and is the most believable since he's supposed to have some magical powers to increase his fighting strength. Since RPG parties usually develop in a bunch of demi gods capable of slaying entire countries by themselves Paladins at least have some logical background explaining there super human powers. They are like mages who put their magic powers into melee combat instead of spell casting.

 

On the other side, I really hate fighter and barbarian classes. The fighter is pretty much a Joe Normal soldier and the barbarian a Joe Normal savage. Usually they are not supposed to have magical powers, but for some reason they usually develop into superhuman slaughter machines able to wipe out entire armies on their own. And the best thing about those classes it that the 'rules' only apply to the protagonist, his companions and certain 'boss opponents'. Why do the fighters in a typical army or the city guard don't have such super human powers? They train every day and are often more battle hardened veterans like the protagonist.

 

I think the Paladin is fine but I'd really like Obsidian to replace the fighter and barbarian classes with something more believable. For example the Barbarian class could be made a Berserker who is able to use shamanic powers. That would explain why not every savage turns into a demi god after a while. Fighter is more difficult, since they usually have no special background or education at all except "Fighters are men and women trained to use a wide variety of traditional weapons in brutal combat." is nowadays considered an accurate description of a class. So the other warrior classes are not trained to use a wide variety of traditional weapons in brutal combat?! I wonder... I think they should remove the class or replace it with something more believable. Maybe Warlord, Sword Master, Chosen One, Pretorian, whatever, just SOMETHING that isn't your Joe Normal city guard or soldier you usually meet (and kill) in every fantasy RPG by the thousands.

Edited January 13, 2013 by ArkhanTheBlack