
KDNash |

Before I start I must say I have nothing against paladins or people who wish to keep the alignment system black and white. I however have an issue with the simple ideals that alignment presents, for I believe it to be in most cases fickle and false at best. Alignment has done nothing but get in the way of my games, and has even caused entire party disputes on more than one occasion. The eventual question is simply "What is good and evil?" and since I am a mortal being I do not have the power to answer this question readily.
I know that the easiest way to do this would simply be to pick out an ethos and use its ideas of good and evil. The Pathfiner cosmology is pretty black and white (granted, more gray tinted than most tabletop games) and I have been using that for quite some time. But the clear cut dualism really has begun to bother me. I dont believe in good and evil being as simple as black and white, and I also dont believe that any mortal human has the ability to judge acts as good or evil. With that I would like to propose a different way to handle alignment.
So a ranger's favored enemy only works against one type of creature, as does several other abilities (detect undead, etc. ) and yet they are not labeled as "underpowered". The biggest issue with altering the alignment system is that it will statistically effect the game, for smite evil and detect (alignment) spells work pivotally on this function. But what if the paladin's smite was limited only to the "super evil" creatures that are listen in the ability (Evil dragons, evil outsiders, and undead) with maybe a few other types thrown i based on session or belief system (for example, the god of dwarves may allow his worshipers to smite goblins regardless of alignment). In a similar way, detect evil spells would ONLY work if something actually has an evil aura such as an undead or evil outsider. In addition to these creature types, any priest of an opposed religion would also be considered "evil" for the purpose of detect spells and smite abilities.
Now this may seem like it hurts paladins, and it does, but not as much as many would think. The paladin will be significantly gimped if the Game Master does not use enemies that he can smite on a frequent basis. But in the same breath one could say that a ranger's favored enemy ability is worthless if the game master enver throws the party against creatures that are on his list, and entire classes can be made worthless if the GM does not put specific encounters for them to be made useful (Skill Monkey Rogue comes to mind). What I am trying to say is that any GM worth his or her salt would be able to make a paladin seem just as awesome and badass as he has always felt in any other campaign.
I am posting this here to hear from your input. I understand that altering this mechanic has dire consequences, but in my group leaving it unaltered could have the same consequences (AE: no group staying together). This system is made with a more ambigous setting in mind.

Dabbler |

But what if the paladin's smite was limited only to the "super evil" creatures that are listen in the ability (Evil dragons, evil outsiders, and undead) with maybe a few other types thrown i based on session or belief system (for example, the god of dwarves may allow his worshipers to smite goblins regardless of alignment). In a similar way, detect evil spells would ONLY work if something actually has an evil aura such as an undead or evil outsider. In addition to these creature types, any priest of an opposed religion would also be considered "evil" for the purpose of detect spells and smite abilities.
I can see your point, but there are a lot of very evil, nasty creatures that are Evil but not Super Evil. I am thinking of the cannibalistic ogres of Hook Mountain, for example: if they don't qualify as Evil, nothing does. As a paladin will not waste Smites in creatures that are not seriously dangerous, I don;t think you have too much to worry about allowing these kinds of powerful, but non-supernaturel evil creatures to be smitten.