True Neutral Paladin?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 398 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

SquirrelyOgre wrote:

The TN concept for a paladin I'm having trouble wrapping my head around, because: "What does a TN paladin stand FOR?"

You'd need to outline something and craft a goal for them. At that point, I'd suggest that their abilities aren't in line with what you're wanting the character to stand for, because objectively, what a TN character wants and what a LG character wants are fundamentally different.

That is at the heart of it: a paladin stands FOR something and TN just...doesn't seem to in the same way. Not unless you sat down and took the time to define it. Then, you're stuck with a chassis which stood FOR something very different.

TN sounds more like a kind-of justicar, or an inquisitor. Possibly a warpriest.

The inquisitor's class flavors could be more easily adjusted to your goals. It already exists. I would go that direction.

That's only true as long as Class = Concept. The Paladin CONCEPT, regardless of what it stands for, does stand for something. Whether it's the actual Paladin standing for Law-abiding Good or a variation like the Anti-Paladin or Insinuator standing for something Evil, the act of taking a stand for something is intronsic to the CONCEPT.

Which is (or should be, at least in the case of a setting-neutral game like Pathfinder) 100% an entirely separate matter from the Paladin CLASS. All that class is is the same thing as what any other class is: a collection of abilities in a package to be divvied out over time in order to allow a player to, as closely as he can, realize the character he's wanting to play. That these packages of mechanical abilities are inspired by certain specific concepts isn't the problem. The problem isn't when certain people want to force their characters to conform to concepts being the same as classes.

The problem is this insistence that everyone else do the same thing. Whether it's a poster on an Internet forum or the developer of a game who's missing the point of said game (or just as bad, misadvertising the game as something that it's not), it's the same malfunction.

In truck terms, it's insisting that all F-150s, just because they're F-150s, MUST be painted red. That an F-150 with any other color is somehow a perversion of the exalted holiness that is the red F-150.

Of course, I'm not a truck guy, so I don't know whether that insanity even comes up.


Still doesn't answer the question of if you are giving it almost entirely new mechanics and a new name even, why is there this need to still call it a paladin? If you are going through that much effirt to retweak paladin, why not just make a new class with about the same effort that fits it perfectly?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Tectorman wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

And what do those levels mean of his?

That he learned something while forcibly having monk levels imposed on him, i.e. he leveled up under the aegis of the magic, got monk levels, reverted back to his normal alignment, and now can't level as a monk.

It's still a case of Wish-level magic coming in and altering the rules. Again, he has none of the greater powers of the monk, only the little dribs he could actually figure out on his own.

And he's a story character, they bend the rules. He's also a synthesist summoner of one kind or another, and REALLY powerful, despite not having any levels in that class, either.

==Aelryinth

So he learned two levels of Monk while not being any manner of Lawful. There was an implied forced alignment change from his being trapped in that form, but it was of the good-to-evil variety. He remained non-Lawful while he was learning those two levels of Monk that he kept.

Unless you're saying that a CG character, slowly becoming CE, while trapped in the body of a Lawful subtype Outsider, will register as Lawful, not non-Lawful, for the purposes of meeting class requirements. I wasn't under the impression that an imposed alignment subtype was recognized as the character's actual alignment.

And it's not a matter of what specific explanation allowed a non-Lawful character to take levels in some manner of ki-using Monk. It's that it happened at all. That it happened at all means that it is something that serves to inspire players with regards to their own characters. In a game, they should not then have to jump through hoops of the "Specific Level of Tired" variety just to play what they've been inspired to play.

he gained xp while being forced by mythic level magic into a body not his own and with twenty class levels not his own, qualifying for the latter purely by epic magic, I.e. story fiat.

When it all goes away, he had still gained xp, and it went into the onlt class it was permitted to go at the time.

And now he is an ex-monk, has forgotten virtually all the monk powers except the ones his xp earned, and no, he is not Lawful.

And novels bend the rules, they don't establish them. The excuse here is epic level magic. If you want to spend wishes to replicate the effect, it is up to the GM if you get to be the exception to the rules everyone else has to live by.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Having a TN character who simply ignores alignment and is engaged in material/mortal pursuits is fairly standard. Merchants are the poster boy of this, with pursuit of wealth, and irreligious nobles totally concerned with furthering the status and power of their clan would be the same.

That is not a paladin, however, who are intimately involved in the struggle of opposing alignments. Even anti-paladins, regardless of archetype, are still representatives of their alignment.

If you want to make a paramander, start with the code, and build up from there.

I can personally see paramanders who manipulate alignment extremes, others who try to stabilize elemental imbalances, and still others who regard undead as total disruptions of balance. All are highly suitable for variatio s on their code, but the way you would play them would be very different from a LG Paladin. Paramanders would be hunters in the shadows, not defiance in the light, and operate very differently.


Aelryinth wrote:
Having a TN character who simply ignores alignment and is engaged in material/mortal pursuits is fairly standard. Merchants are the poster boy of this, with pursuit of wealth, and irreligious nobles totally concerned with furthering the status and power of their clan would be the same.

Does seem like we keep going over this point in a constant circle.

"TN Characters generally have goals that aren't centered on morals/alignment."

"But what do they take a moral stand on?"

"They don't. TN Characters don't care about the grand struggle of good an evil, they have other goals."

"But what do they believe in?"

"They don't believe in things, they just want to pursue their goals."

"But what are their moral drives?"

"They don't have moral drives. That's why they're True Neutral!"


RDM42 wrote:
Still doesn't answer the question of if you are giving it almost entirely new mechanics and a new name even, why is there this need to still call it a paladin? If you are going through that much effirt to retweak paladin, why not just make a new class with about the same effort that fits it perfectly?

Honestly, I don't care if the name gets changed and/or it's a new class. The only reason to call it a True Neutral Paladin is to sum up the basic mechanical concept in a simple, easy to convey manner. Even a lot of RPG buffs have no idea what a Paramander is, and calling it "A True Neutral Full-BAB character class with four levels of charisma-based prepared divine spellcasting, proficiency with martial weapons and heavy armor, two skill points per level, and and number of additional supernatural and spell like abilities with a generally self or group-buffing divine+martial flavor" takes up way too much space.


Knott C. Rious wrote:

HWalsh being extremely condescending and dismissive of differing opinions while trying to tell other people what are their own arguments and reasoning?

I'm shocked...

Knott - You do know that these aren't just me telling people what their reasoning may or may not be. These are fact-based understood accepted statements of behavior.

You may not like it, but its not condescending.

Unless you find pretty much all of psychology and the study of human behavior condescending. We all have underlying behaviors and reasons for doing everything.

Its not condescending.

Condescending would be statements like, "Oh yes. He's just being dismissive."

If I had said, "Some people just want to shove a square peg through a round hole." Then you would have been correct. I'm stating a common behavior.

That of, when we see someone else that we feel is less deserving get something, we want it as well. This is pretty basic.

-----

However to be more politically correct, I can say it like this:

"People want the mechanical benefits of the Paladin without the mechanical penalties of the Paladin."


HWalsh wrote:


However to be more politically correct, I can say it like this:

"People want the mechanical benefits of the Paladin without the mechanical penalties of the Paladin."

Pretty much sums it up.

All the perks, none of the costs.


BackHandOfFate wrote:

Peasant: Help Mr. Paladin! Orcs are raiding my village to the east!

Paladin of Neutrality: Orcs have been doing these things for ages! Who am I to put a stop to it? It's just the way things are. Also you're not from around here so I don't owe you anything.

Peasant: My Hero!

Paladin of Neutrality: All in a day's work, stranger. Onward, towards Status Quo! *rides off into the sunset*

It's almost as laughable as the Gray Guard.

Be careful, or the Paladin will detect your Neutrality (his opposite alignment) and then Smite Neutral you! (which doesn't work on Evil or Good)


Shifty wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


However to be more politically correct, I can say it like this:

"People want the mechanical benefits of the Paladin without the mechanical penalties of the Paladin."

Pretty much sums it up.

All the perks, none of the costs.

Perhaps. Or at least some people want different perks and different costs. You don't have to follow the format of the paladin exactly but rather the idea it represents.


The problem with really making the "True Neutral" Paladin, or the:

Full BAB possessing 4 Level divine Spellcasting Class that also receives special divine bonuses in exchange for behavioral requirements.

Is that, you end up with a: "Why?"

-----

Now, I am going to go more Lore-ist here, than mechanical talk.

Mechanical people often seem to have the same argument, the class abilities are class abilities and as such should be available to any player regardless of role-playing choice or flavor.

Generally the argument being that to do otherwise mechanically penalizes players who chose to engage in a different form of roleplaying and that roleplaying and class mechanics should remain separate.

I can't argue that.

Why?

Because when looking at things from a rules-based standpoint this is a valid argument. I disagree at the core idea of looking at the classes from a rules-based position.

From a Lore Perspective is where I have an issue.

-----

First:

Why the Antipaladin is a bad idea:

An Antipaladin is a complete self-serving being. This is a selfish monster who acts for his or her own best personal interests without care or regard for the interests of another. The idea that a Chaotic Evil, or even Neutral Evil, deity would share power with someone that they know isn't going to act in the deity's best interests unless they align and will always act in their own best interests if there is ever a conflict between the two. A Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil deity is just as selfish and as such the two beliefs wouldn't be compatible and thus empowerment through deific intervention would be far less likely.

So the only way the Antipaladin could work is if their own self-green, their own inner evil as it were, somehow was the sustaining source for their powers.

-----

Second:

Why the True Neutral Paladin is similarly a bad idea:

The TNP could only work in the grounds that the God that empowered them had a vested interest in keeping the balance between Good and Evil. They can't be the typical self-focused person, like Iori, who seeks self-perfection is diametrically opposed to granting power in the manner of a Paladin as it goes against the concept of self-perfection. No self-focused deity could empower a being who was similarly self-focused.

This narrows the kind of deity who could create such a Paladin.

Then we have to have the same kind of behavior in the form of the empowered being.

Meaning a God that is focused not-on-the-self or self-interests but is still True Neutral would have to share power with another being that is focused not-on-the-self or self-interests but is also still True Neutral.

So the only logical option would be that person who is interested in the balance for the balance. Thus the deity would give power, and the person's goals align with it.

-----

Third:

Why the Lawful Good Paladin works:

The Lawful Good Paladin does what they do, specifically for the case of promoting the cause of Lawful Good and not on the self. The Lawful Good deity has similar interests. Thus they align.

The LG Deity has no problem giving power.
The LG Paladin's goals align with that deity's goal.

So you have a Paladin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shifty wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


However to be more politically correct, I can say it like this:

"People want the mechanical benefits of the Paladin without the mechanical penalties of the Paladin."

Pretty much sums it up.

All the perks, none of the costs.

Yes. Remember, anyone who disagrees with HWalsh is inherently evil! How dare someone have a different opinion from him! What scum! I wish someone was brave enough to execute all of them, so that we could live in a pure state of goodrightfun as the Divine HWalsh dictates!


The closest thing we're probably ever going to see to a Neutral Paladin is the Insinuator Antipaladin archetype. They can be Neutral Evil.

They're essentially the Objectivist version of a Paladin.


HWalsh wrote:
A lot of words that sum up to I REALLY like LG paladins!

My question for this all is .. how do they deal with clerics? They may or may not totally act in the exact way a deity desires .. for that matter paladins (the LG variety) don't always act how their deity wants; this is why atonement spells exist, no?

The idea that every anti-paladin is some mustache twirling stereotypical idea of evil is ludicrous. They know where they draw power from just as much as their LG counterpart does. Why wouldn't Rovagug grant an anti-paladin power? What do you think they'll do that is against their master's desires, build houses and plant flowers?

A neutral "paladin" might not be the best word for what people are thinking of; that said, why wouldn't a neutral deity have some sort of champion? Why wouldn't any of the alignments? I mean, one can see the merits given what is going on with Lawful Good. Do we think that the others just say "Aw shucks!" and go mope in the corner?


Shifty wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


However to be more politically correct, I can say it like this:

"People want the mechanical benefits of the Paladin without the mechanical penalties of the Paladin."

Pretty much sums it up.

All the perks, none of the costs.

Right, Pathfinder striving for mechanical balance is why the paladin has so many moronic costs.

At this point I'd just roll up a Cleric with a level or 2 of Fighter and smoke pretty much all Paladin builds and just call yourself a Paladin in the narrative.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Still doesn't answer the question of if you are giving it almost entirely new mechanics and a new name even, why is there this need to still call it a paladin? If you are going through that much effirt to retweak paladin, why not just make a new class with about the same effort that fits it perfectly?
Honestly, I don't care if the name gets changed and/or it's a new class. The only reason to call it a True Neutral Paladin is to sum up the basic mechanical concept in a simple, easy to convey manner. Even a lot of RPG buffs have no idea what a Paramander is, and calling it "A True Neutral Full-BAB character class with four levels of charisma-based prepared divine spellcasting, proficiency with martial weapons and heavy armor, two skill points per level, and and number of additional supernatural and spell like abilities with a generally self or group-buffing divine+martial flavor" takes up way too much space.

'Champion of Neutrality' easy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
A neutral "paladin" might not be the best word for what people are thinking of; that said, why wouldn't a neutral deity have some sort of champion? Why wouldn't any of the alignments? I mean, one can see the merits given what is going on with Lawful Good. Do we think that the others just say "Aw shucks!" and go mope in the corner?

Quite so. I like the Lawful Good Paladin just fine for the role he occupies, but it seems a bit odd to me that no other alignment has some sort of divinely empowered martial champion. The idea that deities like Cayden Calien don't want to empower people to kick ass and smite their enemies just seems off to me.

And yes, Warpriest, Cleric, and Inquisitor exist, but none of those are martial classes. They're 3/4 BAB casters that can make up the difference and do decently at melee with enough buffs. That's not the same thing as a martial.

If folks want an alignment-neutral term like Zealot or Champion for divinely empowered martials while reserving the term Paladin for LG only, then whatever. It's only a label.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But why would their champions have the same power suite as a paladin?


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Doomed Hero wrote:

The closest thing we're probably ever going to see to a Neutral Paladin is the Insinuator Antipaladin archetype. They can be Neutral Evil.

They're essentially the Objectivist version of a Paladin.

Objectivism is neutral evil? Interesting view.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:

I like the Lawful Good Paladin just fine for the role he occupies, but it seems a bit odd to me that no other alignment has some sort of divinely empowered martial champion. The idea that deities like Cayden Calien don't want to empower people to kick ass and smite their enemies just seems off to me.

...
If folks want an alignment-neutral term like Zealot or Champion for divinely empowered martials while reserving the term Paladin for LG only, then whatever. It's only a label.

That's pretty much what I do in my home game, except the various holy knights are devoted to specific gods rather than alignments. They're usually called 'Champions of <deity name>'. Each deity essentially has their own specific spin on the 'Paladin' class with minor rules variations... the equivalent of different bloodlines for Sorcerers.


RDM42 wrote:
But why would their champions have the same power suite as a paladin?

CBDunkerson's setup sounds pretty good to me, if you want to open the class up to multiple alignments. Then again, I'm a sucker for classes that give you big lists of class features to pick from, whether its packages like the Sorcerer Bloodlines and Mysteries or a la carte like Rage Powers or Alchemist discoveries.


As I was asked, by one of my players, after reading the thread based on my last one, how I would make a "Champion of Balance" I sat down and looked into it as a Paladin Archetype.

I look at it, personally, as something that would be on the whole slightly weaker than the traditional Paladin (like the Empyreal Knight) but more flexible.

So without further adieu:

1. Alignment Restriction
Champions of Balance must remain True Neutral and any deviation rendering them any other alignment causes them to lose access to all powers save for base attack bonus and feats.

2. Aura of Good - Champions of Balance do not have this.

3. Detect Good/Evil - This replaces Detect Evil -
Each time the Champion of Balance uses this power they must choose if they will Detect Good or Detect Evil, otherwise it works as the Paladin/Anti-Paladin power of the same name.

4. Balanced Smite - This Power Replaces Smite Evil -
This power works exactly like Smite Evil save for it can be targeted against any non-Neutral Evil or Good target. The Champion of the Balance gains a bonus equal to 1/2 (minimum 1) of their Charisma Bonus to Attacks and that same bonus as a Deflection Bonus to their AC against the target of their smite. They also gain a damage bonus equal to 1/2 their level in Champion of Balance and may ignore up to 5 of the target's DR.

5. Divine Grace - The Champions of Balance do not have this.

6. Conduit of Balance - This ability replaces Lay on Hands
Beginning at 2nd level, a CoB can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. Each day she can use this ability a number of times equal to 1/2 her CoB level plus her Charisma modifier. With one use of this ability, a CoB can heal 1d6 hit points of damage for every four CoB levels she possesses. Using this ability is a standard action, unless the CoB targets herself, a CoB only needs one free hand to use this ability.

Alternatively, a CoB can use this power to deal damage to living or undead creatures, dealing 1d6 points of damage for every four levels the CoB possesses. Using Conduit of Balance in this way requires a successful melee touch attack and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. Undead do not receive a saving throw against this damage.

7. Aura of Courage - CoB's do not get this ability.

8. Divine Health - As normal.

9. Mercy - CoB's do not get this ability.

10. Channel Positive or Negative Energy - This ability replaces Channel Positive Energy

This ability works exactly like the Paladin's Channel Positive Energy class feature but uses two uses of Conduit of Balance instead of Lay on Hands. Also the CoB may channel positive OR negative energy, chosen each time this ability is used.

11. Spellcasting - This replaces Paladin Spellcasting

The CoB can choose any spell available to the Paladin/Antipaladin but may not cast any spell with the evil or good descriptor.

12. Bond of Balance - This replaces Divine Bond

This works exactly like the Paladin/Anti-Paladin version with the exception of, should the CoB choose to bond with a weapon, the CoB may not empower their weapon with the Chaotic, Axiomatic, Holy, or Unholy properties.

13. Aura of Resolve - This is altered
The CoB is only protected from Charm Effects from Evil or Good targets.

14. Aura of Justice - CoB's do not get this.

15. Aura of Balance - This replaces Aura of Faith

At 14th level, Any attack made against an Ally within 10 feet of her is treated as non-aligned for the purposes of overcoming Damage Reduction.

This ability functions only while the CoB is conscious, not if she is unconscious or dead.

16. Aura of Righteousness - CoB's do not get this.

17. Champion of Balance - This ability replaces Holy Champion

At 20th level, a CoB becomes a conduit for the power of her god. Her DR increases to 5/--. Whenever she channels positive or negative energy or uses Conduit of Balance to heal or harm a creature, she heals/deals the maximum possible amount.


HWalsh wrote:

As I was asked, by one of my players, after reading the thread based on my last one, how I would make a "Champion of Balance" I sat down and looked into it as a Paladin Archetype.

I look at it, personally, as something that would be on the whole slightly weaker than the traditional Paladin (like the Empyreal Knight) but more flexible.

So without further adieu:

1. Alignment Restriction
Champions of Balance must remain True Neutral and any deviation rendering them any other alignment causes them to lose access to all powers save for base attack bonus and feats.

2. Aura of Good - Champions of Balance do not have this.

3. Detect Good/Evil - This replaces Detect Evil -
Each time the Champion of Balance uses this power they must choose if they will Detect Good or Detect Evil, otherwise it works as the Paladin/Anti-Paladin power of the same name.

4. Balanced Smite - This Power Replaces Smite Evil -
This power works exactly like Smite Evil save for it can be targeted against any non-Neutral Evil or Good target. The Champion of the Balance gains a bonus equal to 1/2 (minimum 1) of their Charisma Bonus to Attacks and that same bonus as a Deflection Bonus to their AC against the target of their smite. They also gain a damage bonus equal to 1/2 their level in Champion of Balance and may ignore up to 5 of the target's DR.

5. Divine Grace - The Champions of Balance do not have this.

6. Conduit of Balance - This ability replaces Lay on Hands
Beginning at 2nd level, a CoB can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. Each day she can use this ability a number of times equal to 1/2 her CoB level plus her Charisma modifier. With one use of this ability, a CoB can heal 1d6 hit points of damage for every four CoB levels she possesses. Using this ability is a standard action, unless the CoB targets herself, a CoB only needs one free hand to use this ability.

Alternatively, a CoB can use this power to deal damage to living or undead creatures, dealing 1d6 points of damage for every four...

Your paladin of balance is strictly inferior to the paladin of lawful good. It'd be nice if the respective champions could actually be balanced against each other. I don't see why, for instance, divine grace, is unique to paladins of LG.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Your paladin of balance is strictly inferior to the paladin of lawful good. It'd be nice if the respective champions could actually be balanced against each other. I don't see why, for instance, divine grace, is unique to paladins of LG.

It is strictly inferior... Sort of.

It doesn't have a code of conduct though aside from, "Don't alignment shift."

So it has a LOT of options an LG Paladin doesn't.

It can lie. It can use poison. It can be dishonorable. Etc. Those things give it a nebulous advantage that Paladins don't have.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Well, among other reasons, the neutral guy can use poison, lie freely, blatantly break the law, and freely deal with even the most evil characters.

I see NO reason why said champion only discriminates against good and evil, and not Law and Chaos, too.

A proper Paramander would be its own class entirely. It is far more about being opposed to extreme alignments then about being a TN exemplar and battle champion. I see them as manipulators and intelligent warriors, not martial tanks. After all, their patrons aren't going to be particularly warlike, either.


Ed Reppert wrote:
Get rid of classes. Make everything a skill. Allow PCs to learn any skill for which they can find a source (a teacher, for example).

It's almost as if that was one of the first reactions to 1e D&D; 1978 - RuneQuest prints its first edition. D&D never lost it's name brand, but there have always been terrific alternates and most of them classless.

If you made Pathfinder classless... I'm not sure where the appeal would lie. Character building is a large chunk of the fun, and you can throw a rock and hit less clunky rules or more tactical combat.


Shifty wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

However to be more politically correct, I can say it like this:

"People want the mechanical benefits of the Paladin without the mechanical penalties of the Paladin."

Pretty much sums it up.

All the perks, none of the costs.

Because Paladins are oh-so-powerful compared to the classes with looser alignment restrictions or no restrictions at all, such as...

Clerics, Druids, Summoners, Wizards...

If someone wants to power-game, Paladin is not even in the top 10 best choices!


Hey! Smite is, like, a lot of damage!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
hiiamtom wrote:
Hey! Smite is, like, a lot of damage!

Which, as everyone knows, is totally unique to the paladin class, and there are no other classes capable of dealing hit-point damage in Pathfinder.


Hence, my own sarcasm.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Is there really such a thing as a true neutral PC? Even if you place the big N on character sheet, it is hard to play a PC that is totally uninterested in any cardinal alignment direction, yet still wants to adventure.


I think if you want a "Paladin of Neutrality" you're going to have some hard work in figuring out what his code actually is, what drives him to achieve some ideal of True Neutrality. The default Paladin strives for order and good. He vanquishes that evil that cannot be redeemed, and stands for structure, charity, and defense of the innocent. The "Paladin of Freedom" (CG) strives for positive choice in all things. He upholds the idea that everyone is free to choose their own path, so long as they do no harm to others. He stands for liberty, friendship, and community. The "Paladin of Tyranny" (LE) strives to use society for his own (or his dark master's) benefit. He uses the letter of the law to take what he wants without retaliation, and stands for bureaucracy, subjugation, and the wants of the privileged over the needs of the common. The "Paladin of Slaughter" (CE) brings about the end. Whether he creates chaos in the name of the Abyss or seeks to end all life by command of the Ravager, he stands for decay, disorder, and the end of the Age of Man.

If you can put together a decent code for your TN Paladin, his smite and detect should probably affect "extreme alignments" (no neutral component; the four Paladins I just described have the four extreme alignments), his lay on hands and channel energy should probably either heal or harm everyone (living AND undead) for a reduced amount.

And for the people mentioning Cecil as an ideal Paladin: Are you talking about Dark Knight Cecil, who helmed a fleet of Airships (the only such in the world, a technological advantage on par with bringing a tank back to the Middle Ages) and slaughtered innocent people the world over using blood magic (his Dark AoE damaged himself, what else do you call it?) to gather the world-ending McGuffins for his deranged king? Sure, he felt bad about it when he realized the king was actually planning to end the world, but other than the one time he almost lost a fight with a MIRROR, he didn't really change his behavior. Charge in, kill everything (with holy magic this time), sacrifice whoever you need to as long as he gets his way.

....yes, I'm talking about the twins. They were so sweet and he's just like "sorry I'm a healer now that I'm Paladin so no Cleric is needed in this party, and I just enslaved an ancient god of death, so I'm better than you in every way. Please turn yourself and your twin brother into stone for my fleeting tactical advantage now. Sure, you're both children and I'm an old man, but I've always believed "women and children first" referred to target selection."


Maybe in your not pathfinder game, paladin means fighter with some cleric like powers, including lay on hands healing or harming, a warhorse that can be called for, a smite opposed alignment several times a day, a code of conduct, and cleric spells up to 4th or 5th level.

In my Pathfinder, Paladin is one type of Holy Fighter. There can be anti Paladins and 7 more different holy fighters.


Aelryinth wrote:

A paramander would be involved in keeping the conflict between opposite numbers, and trying to keep neutrals out of it. After all, Good has the real power to oppose Evil, and without a target, might want to get zealous about converting the non-Good to the true path.

.

If I remember correctly,the paramander's response to both Paladin and Anti-Paladin is eradication.


HWalsh wrote:

Its not condescending.

Condescending would be statements like, "Oh yes. He's just being dismissive."

That was a really great attempt at explaining condescending! You almost had it exactly right. I reckon with a little bit of practice and some patience you will have condescending nailed in no time!

Sorry I couldn't resist.

To the opening post, depends whether being lawful good is part of the definition of being a paladin. In Pathfinder it is but in 5e it isn't. Choose what suits your game.

To the broader question as to what a neutral holy warrior stands for, it can be anything that is not alignment dependent. Maybe they strive for physical perfection above all other things and are largely indifferent to the struggle between good and evil or law and chaos.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
To the opening post, depends whether being lawful good is part of the definition of being a paladin. In Pathfinder it is but in 5e it isn't.

Keeping this in mind for later.


HWalsh wrote:
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Your paladin of balance is strictly inferior to the paladin of lawful good. It'd be nice if the respective champions could actually be balanced against each other. I don't see why, for instance, divine grace, is unique to paladins of LG.

It is strictly inferior... Sort of.

It doesn't have a code of conduct though aside from, "Don't alignment shift."

So it has a LOT of options an LG Paladin doesn't.

It can lie. It can use poison. It can be dishonorable. Etc. Those things give it a nebulous advantage that Paladins don't have.

Then give it Poison Use. Give it the Bluff skill. Give it alternatives to the features lost instead of just blatant glaring holes where features once stood .


Diffan wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Your paladin of balance is strictly inferior to the paladin of lawful good. It'd be nice if the respective champions could actually be balanced against each other. I don't see why, for instance, divine grace, is unique to paladins of LG.

It is strictly inferior... Sort of.

It doesn't have a code of conduct though aside from, "Don't alignment shift."

So it has a LOT of options an LG Paladin doesn't.

It can lie. It can use poison. It can be dishonorable. Etc. Those things give it a nebulous advantage that Paladins don't have.

Then give it Poison Use. Give it the Bluff skill. Give it alternatives to the features lost instead of just blatant glaring holes where features once stood .

It doesn't need them.

It has the possibility, it has more flexibility in what it can Smite, it has more flexibility in what it's "LoH" can do. It can channel positive AND negative. It has a larger spell selection.

That more than makes up for its loss.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

A paramander would be involved in keeping the conflict between opposite numbers, and trying to keep neutrals out of it. After all, Good has the real power to oppose Evil, and without a target, might want to get zealous about converting the non-Good to the true path.

.

If I remember correctly,the paramander's response to both Paladin and Anti-Paladin is eradication.

that is the ParamanDYER, which is all about killing all extreme alignments, and would be considered evil under any real moral code (I.e. you are chaotic good = you should be murdered is not even a tn moral code by any stretch of the imagination)


HWalsh wrote:
Diffan wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Your paladin of balance is strictly inferior to the paladin of lawful good. It'd be nice if the respective champions could actually be balanced against each other. I don't see why, for instance, divine grace, is unique to paladins of LG.

It is strictly inferior... Sort of.

It doesn't have a code of conduct though aside from, "Don't alignment shift."

So it has a LOT of options an LG Paladin doesn't.

It can lie. It can use poison. It can be dishonorable. Etc. Those things give it a nebulous advantage that Paladins don't have.

Then give it Poison Use. Give it the Bluff skill. Give it alternatives to the features lost instead of just blatant glaring holes where features once stood .

It doesn't need them.

It has the possibility,

You really believe that? In my 16 years experiences with 3.PF I've come to learn that players NEVER use "options" that have significant drawbacks. Ever seen characters successfully dual-wield, use poison, trip, grapple, or sunder on any consistent basis WITHOUT the corresponding specialized feat or feature? I sure haven't. The risk of losing your weapon, having the effect turned on you, and the significant penalties are rarely worth your use of a Standard Action.

HWalsh wrote:
it has more flexibility in what it can Smite,

You gave it 3 more opposing alignment (excluding NG and NE for some reason?) but halved the damage and limited the amount of DR it ignores. So the versatility it gained lost it some class features AND a lesser smite. Two penalties for versatility =/= balanced. Especially when Paladins get ANOTHER bonus to specific creatures (undead, demons, etc). I think you put TOO strong an emphasis on how great versatility is.

Personally I'd have kept it exactly the same as the default Paladin save they can smite only the extremists (LG, CG, LE, CE), thus adding only 1 more to the pool of potential targets.

HWalsh wrote:
it has more flexibility in what it's "LoH" can do.

You can damage people, sure, but at every 4 paladin levels compared to the default paladins' 2 levels. Again, 2 penalties for this so-called vaunted versatility.

HWalsh wrote:
It can channel positive AND negative.

And you didn't second-penalize it, so there is that!

HWalsh wrote:
It has a larger spell selection.

I did't comb through all the spells that were both Good and Evil and compared how many they got vs. how many a default Paladin or Antipaladin.

HWalsh wrote:
That more than makes up for its loss.

So just to recap this variant instantly loses:

• Aura of Good
• Divine Grace
• Aura of Courage
• Mercy
• Aura of Justice
• Aura of Righteousness

In exchange this variant receives:
• Smite (diminished damage, AC, and only overcomes DR/5)
• Detect Evil/Good
• Conduit of Balance/LoH (diminished power based on level, can harm living beings)
• Channel Positive/Negative Energy (no secondary penalty or diminished effect, yay!)
• Spellcasting (more variety in spells, lose access to alignment-based ones)
• Aura of Resolve (instantly nerfed, only protected from certain alignments compared to the default paladin who's protected from everyone).
• Champion of Balance (lesser DR protection, no other benefits).

And you think this really is balanced because they don't have to act a certain way?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Needs more skill points;)


Woof! Anyone else smell cranky grognard? Alignment is a balancer the way crystal meth is a depressant.


HWalsh is also basically saying <implying> a cavalier challenge is broken with his posts. No one ever will claim that. Maybe that's just the better way to go, make a Cavalier order that is mechanically identical to Paladin and call it a day.

EDIT

Also, why don't people want to make a cavalier work for more things? I know it's sort of the iconic image of Paizo continuing ivory tower game design what with its swappable orders, new feat types, and very narrow use; but the base concept of a knight that isn't a paladin was not far from where it should be.


Ed Reppert wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

The closest thing we're probably ever going to see to a Neutral Paladin is the Insinuator Antipaladin archetype. They can be Neutral Evil.

They're essentially the Objectivist version of a Paladin.

Objectivism is neutral evil? Interesting view.

Yeah, it's definitely Interesting.

Lots of stuff worth thinking about in how alignment translates to real-life philosophy.


Diffan wrote:


You really believe that? In my 16 years experiences with 3.PF I've come to learn that players NEVER use "options" that have significant drawbacks. Ever seen characters successfully dual-wield, use poison, trip, grapple, or sunder on any consistent basis WITHOUT the corresponding specialized feat or feature? I sure haven't. The risk of losing your weapon, having the effect turned on you, and the significant penalties are rarely worth your use of a Standard Action.

Without the feature? Absolutely. Without the feat? No. That is why we have feats though to choose them.

Quote:
You gave it 3 more opposing alignment (excluding NG and NE for some reason?) but halved the damage and limited the amount of DR it ignores. So the versatility it gained lost it some class features AND a lesser smite. Two penalties for versatility =/= balanced. Especially when Paladins get ANOTHER bonus to specific creatures (undead, demons, etc). I think you put TOO strong an emphasis on how great versatility is.

Versatility is a MASSIVE advantage and if you can't see that then you've never played with a GM who actually made players follow the Paladin rules and the codes.

They can target:
Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil, and Chaotic Good.

Paladins can target:
Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil, Neutral Evil

Most of the time DR isn't even an issue in this game, then many of them have DR 5 or less. This isn't as much of a flaw as you think. The real advantage of the Paladin's Smite Evil isn't the damage, or even the DR (most of the time), most of the time it is the to-hit and AC buffs.


Trogdar wrote:
Woof! Anyone else smell cranky grognard? Alignment is a balancer the way crystal meth is a depressant.

Alignment isn't the primary balance factor with Paladins.

The STRICT rules and the codes are an issue.

Like I said, a Lawful Good can lie, a Paladin can't.


HWalsh wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Woof! Anyone else smell cranky grognard? Alignment is a balancer the way crystal meth is a depressant.

Alignment isn't the primary balance factor with Paladins.

The STRICT rules and the codes are an issue.

Like I said, a Lawful Good can lie, a Paladin can't.

If the code, the most restrictive rules element placed on a class, factored into the balance of the class, then why is the paladin not far and away the strongest class? It's not even in contention in its current form.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think people are overselling the value of being able to lie in PF.


HWalsh wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Woof! Anyone else smell cranky grognard? Alignment is a balancer the way crystal meth is a depressant.

Alignment isn't the primary balance factor with Paladins.

The STRICT rules and the codes are an issue.

Like I said, a Lawful Good can lie, a Paladin can't.

Any class or alignment can have strict rules and code. I think that you are overselling the importance of this being unique to the paladin. The alignment being LG isn't a NEED for this class.

The same sort of codes and rules could be applied, with some modifications, to any alignment. You could easily remove "can't lie" from paladins and they would remain unchanged. The code can vary between deities and not change what this class is.


knightnday wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Woof! Anyone else smell cranky grognard? Alignment is a balancer the way crystal meth is a depressant.

Alignment isn't the primary balance factor with Paladins.

The STRICT rules and the codes are an issue.

Like I said, a Lawful Good can lie, a Paladin can't.

Any class or alignment can have strict rules and code. I think that you are overselling the importance of this being unique to the paladin. The alignment being LG isn't a NEED for this class.

The same sort of codes and rules could be applied, with some modifications, to any alignment. You could easily remove "can't lie" from paladins and they would remain unchanged. The code can vary between deities and not change what this class is.

Actually, the biggest problem in the line is this:

I don't have to defend Paladins needing to be LG. That isn't something I have to prove there is a need for.

You have to prove that there is a need for TN Paladins. If you can't prove a need, then all you are saying is something you want that isn't necessary.

251 to 300 of 398 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / True Neutral Paladin? All Messageboards