All Holy Warriors are Paladins?


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Having personally played a game of this incarnation in one form or another since AD&D 2nd edition (2nd. 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, 4.0, and DnDNext) one thing has struck me as. Very very odd.

Clerics see use in all forms of religion, be the deity good or evil, or any other axis and combination there of.

So why is it automatically assumed by the game, that there are no Holy Warriors, such as Paladins, in the camps of other non-good deities?

Would it not make more sense to create a class and label it something like; Holy Warrior; and simply give it all the paladins powers, yet change the “Good” alignment denotations. To the Good/Evil/Neutral instead? Simply change the “Good” Descriptor in the class, to Good/Evil/Neutral everywhere in the class entry?

It would be simple enough to note in the text, that a “Good”: Holy warrior is called a paladin.

You can even keep the Blackguard prestige class, by doing the same thing. Shifting the “Evil” descriptor to “Good/Evil/Neutral” showing that the warrior has outright forsaken his previous god to fall into the worship of another.

Ex-Holy Warriors can still exist (as when losing the Paladin class benefits in the book for behaving wrongly), those are simply Holy Warriors who have not chosen to cleave to a new deity as their patron.

Neutral Deity Holy warriors would be allowed to chose at creation. Which alignment descriptor that are personally choosing to challenge, good or evil, in regards to their Aura and Protection style spells. Or it would be determined automatically perhaps by the interests of their patron deity.


Used to be the Champion of "Deity Name Here" prestige class to cover this to many degrees. Now I personally use the inquisitor class to fill in that role for the most part. There is also some very good 3PP products to fill that niche (Templar comes to mind), but from core Inquisitor is still the closest I believe. That isn't actually counting the actual prestige classes Paizo has released either and there are quite a few of those that are dedicated to specific deities.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I LIKE Paladins to be above and beyond the 'other' holy warriors.

The way I see it... is you NEED the 'LAWFUL' attached to him to make him a STRICT follower of the code. ZERO 'interpretations' and 'reimagining' his god's desires. 'Good' Is required to try to push the ideals and purposes higher than himself.

It's kind of a package deal...

ANYONE Chaotic is going to (by definition) chafe under authority. He's more focused on what HE thinks is right, then what his GOD says is right. Neutral Characters don't take a stand one way or another... basically the opposite of the 'Righteous warrior'

Evil... well... By nature they tend to be more interested in furthering their OWN goals... Even when following an evil god, it's about getting power for themselves...

So frankly, I LIKE the Paladin to be the shining beacon of faith and goodness that even the chief clerics look up to.

Also... with the Inquisitors and the Clerics already armed and armored... we HAVE 'holy warriors' for the other gods now. No reason for them to be 'special favorites' like the Paladins :)


There are already Anti-paladins as champions of Evil, and Hellknights as champions of Law to a lesser degree. Paladins are way more then Holy Warriors though. Clerics are pretty much Holy Warriors. They get weapons, they get good armor, they can fight in the name of their gods. Paladins go way beyond that and are champions of GOOD and LAW personified. They are not so much deity specific as they are about Truth, Justice, and Honor. It takes a certain level of conviction to be a Paladin. I am not sure what a Paladin of CN would really stand for, Selfishness personified I suppose. The non-extreme alignments just sort of lose something if you try to make Paladins out of them.


As Timothy said, clerics are the holy warriors, the armed branch of the church. I mean...

Grand Lodge

What's the rules question?


Inquisitors can be holy warriors, too.


Other than their CoC, I don't think there's much to distinguish a cleric or paladin in terms of flavor.

How do you distinguish between the guy holding a holy symbol and bashing in your face with a hammer from the guy holding a holy symbol and bashing in your face with a hammer?

The paladin is a legacy class... and the cleric juggles too many hats, like holding a hammer and bashing in an enemy's face with it.

Now the 4e paladin had an even clearer role, and there were "alt" paladins too, in a way. (The avenger is like a sneaky paladin, the blackguard is a killy antipaladin, etc.)


There's also the Holy Vindicator prestige class, which can be Good or Evil.


Paladins exist as a representation of a very distinct archetype (in the literary sense not the PF sense). The are the quintesential knights in shining armor, chaste, true, just and so forth. You do not need the skills of the paladin class to create warriors of other alignments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

two quick points...

there are "holy warriors" with no divine power...

I think all of the alignment classes (paladin, hellknight, anit-paladin) should be prestige classes.

that is all.


Clerics ARE the holy wariors. They're not the guy going door to door handing out copies of the scripture, they're the guys who go on crusades/jihads/etc.

Inquisitors are the scalpel where the clerics are the hammer. Seeking out the enemies if the faith and dealing with them in ways that a huge battle wouldn't solve.

Paladins are the character type of the knight in shining armor, but they are not mechanically attached to any deity at all, and haven't been since at least 3.5.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:
Personally, I LIKE Paladins to be above and beyond the 'other' holy warriors.

That's the fluff behind the class, what the designers want to evoke with the class, but it is factually not the case.

Take a Lawful Good, Code-of-Conduct-following Paladin and stand him next to a Lawful Good, not-COC-following Cleric of equal level. Have another cast Detect Good. Both of them will ping Good. Both of them will ping Good just as much and not anymore than the other.

Now stand the Paladin next to a Chaotic Good Cleric of equal level. You will still register no more good by the only objective measurement found in-game from the Paladin than from the Cleric.

And don't Inquisitors also have auras of alignment?

To the OP, yes, it would make perfect sense.

What makes no sense is this:
There's a CN deity in the core rulebook with the War domain (among other domains). By the description of neutral in the core rulebook (at least as far as the good-evil axis is concerned), Gorum (the deity in question) prefers good to evil though he doesn't actively pursue it himself.

Being a deity of War, he naturally has a preference for servants with a measure of combat ability of their own. He doesn't want to imbue such a servant with so much divine power that it interferes with the servant's own prowess (i.e., he has Clerics, but just once he'd like a character with less divine power and more BAB, such as the CN version of a Paladin).

So his options are "make a Paladin (an LG goody-two-shoes that will disagree with his every policy)" or "make an Anti-Paladin (someone he will have to send all the rest of servants to take out)".

Gorum: "Go forth my servant and take my power into the world and act against me. But be warned: if you ever do anything I approve of, I have to take that power away. Unfortunately, if I'd given you so much divine power that you would cease to interest me if you tried to learn how to use them, you'd be able to retain my godly might that I WANT you to have in the first place and actually do my will in the world. Alas, I have to punish you and take my gift away whether I want to or not if you ever make me proud of you."

Makes. No. Sense.

But good luck convincing the rest of the community that people should be allowed to play the characters they want to play without having to cajole, bribe, threaten, or beg their DM any more so than any other player who happens to be playing something the designers didn't, in their infinite wisdom, decide to hamstring.

Seriously. Clerics can be any alignment. Fighters can be any alignment. Why is the combination of that so alignment-specific?

It's like saying:
"Earth! Fire! Wind! Water! Heart! Go planet!"
"By your powers combined, I am...agoraphobic? Oh, no! Wide-open spaces! AHHH!! Why is that even in there?!"

Makes. No. Sense.


I have always been of the opinion that any member of any class could be a holy/unholy warrior. Just like a a Wizard can be a knight, or a bard a priest.


The problem you are biting at is that the name Paladin implies a dovoted and virtuous warrior. Hence when dragon magazine did paladins of different alignments years back each alignment had a different name. Seriously though Inquistors, oracles, clerics, druids, witches and assassins all have place to serve different dieties in the pantheon.


Tectorman wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
Personally, I LIKE Paladins to be above and beyond the 'other' holy warriors.

That's the fluff behind the class, what the designers want to evoke with the class, but it is factually not the case.

Take a Lawful Good, Code-of-Conduct-following Paladin and stand him next to a Lawful Good, not-COC-following Cleric of equal level. Have another cast Detect Good. Both of them will ping Good. Both of them will ping Good just as much and not anymore than the other.

Now stand the Paladin next to a Chaotic Good Cleric of equal level. You will still register no more good by the only objective measurement found in-game from the Paladin than from the Cleric.

And don't Inquisitors also have auras of alignment?

To the OP, yes, it would make perfect sense.

What makes no sense is this:
There's a CN deity in the core rulebook with the War domain (among other domains). By the description of neutral in the core rulebook (at least as far as the good-evil axis is concerned), Gorum (the deity in question) prefers good to evil though he doesn't actively pursue it himself.

Being a deity of War, he naturally has a preference for servants with a measure of combat ability of their own. He doesn't want to imbue such a servant with so much divine power that it interferes with the servant's own prowess (i.e., he has Clerics, but just once he'd like a character with less divine power and more BAB, such as the CN version of a Paladin).

So his options are "make a Paladin (an LG goody-two-shoes that will disagree with his every policy)" or "make an Anti-Paladin (someone he will have to send all the rest of servants to take out)".

Gorum: "Go forth my servant and take my power into the world and act against me. But be warned: if you ever do anything I approve of, I have to take that power away. Unfortunately, if I'd given you so much divine power that you would cease to interest me if you tried to learn how to use them, you'd be able to retain my godly might that I WANT you to...

It is not Chess, everyone does not start with the same pieces on the board. A Paladin upholds all that is GOOD and TRUE. I am not sure why Gorum would want Paladins and all. Paladins should be seeking peace when they can, not start feuds for the sake of it. An anti-Paladin might be a better choice but even he is for enslaving and murdering people not the battle itself.

What specifically do you want to do that you are not allowed to do? Don't say play a CN Paladin because that goes against the idea of the class. Do you just want the sweet Saving Bonus? Also Gorum is not Chaotic for the sake of Chaos, so his Paladins would not be all Chaos oriented. He is Chaotic because all he cares about is battle. I am curious as to what you have in mind.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A Cleric or Oracle with a handful of Fighter levels is more likely to represent Gorum, rather than a Paladin.

While I personally have no problem with there being other forms of Paladin, I think they should be alternate classes. The Paladin is very strong because he's gifted with great power by his deity, but he also must walk a very fine line to make sure he is doing what is right. Great power comes with great responsibility and all that.


The reason? Gary Gygax while he had some great ideas he also had some ideas that were awful enough to win the Darwin idea. My opinion only of coarse. So legacy. That being said pretty much anyone can be holy warrior. Actually on some settings Paladin is not a holy warrior at all, they are champions of good and law in that order.

Now if I had my way alingment would be beaten to death with a teaspoon. Paladin would not exist as it is. Instead we would get a a mundane version of the trope of knight in shining armor. And then we would get something like clerics but with 4 spell level of casting to accompany clerics.

That said there is absolutely no problem in making a paladin for each and every alingment. Just little tweaking with mechanics required. Codes are not exclusive to lawful characters, druids have one. Let's see a CN god of war, strength and skill at arms. "I do not fall on my knees and pray for my god like those weaklings. I do not ask for things from my deity, I take what I desire by my own two hands. I worship my god by burrying my battleaxe in to my opponents skull. I do not make offerings, my sacrifice is my own body when I finally meet my better in the field of battle." Just because the deity is Chaotic does not mean, there are not things that please and displease the god.

All that said any class can be a holy warrior in the broad sense of the word. Anyone who fights in the name of some god is a holy warrior.

Shadow Lodge

Sure, you can make a Holy Warrior with some combination of Cleric, Fighter, Inquisitor, and Cavalier levels. But why should you have to jump through hoops when you want to play a non-LG full-BAB class with a measure of divine magical power? Especially when you're serving an appropriate deity?

I like the idea of a Paladin being a surpassing champion of his ideals. I even agree that the LG Paladin is the most classic example of the archetype. However, I don't think it's necessary that the ideals the paladins serve be limited to the LG alignment.

For the next campaign I'm GMing, I'm making specific Paladin/Antipaladin orders for the different deities that have deity-specific codes of conduct and appropriate alignment-based powers. The True Neutral deity has Paladins that can Smite and Detect a specific creature type (shapechangers) that that deity opposes. LG Paladins that are devoted to their ideals rather than a specific deity will still exist, but the other gods still get their Champions. I will also allow players to create non-LG paladins serving a cause rather than a deity, though I would require a detailed code of conduct from these.


Timothy Hanson wrote:

It is not Chess, everyone does not start with the same pieces on the board. A Paladin upholds all that is GOOD and TRUE. I am not sure why Gorum would want Paladins and all. Paladins should be seeking peace when they can, not start feuds for the sake of it. An anti-Paladin might be a better choice but even he is for enslaving and murdering people not the battle itself.

What specifically do you want to do that you are not allowed to do? Don't say play a CN Paladin because that goes against the idea of the class. Do you just want the sweet Saving Bonus? Also Gorum is not Chaotic for the sake of Chaos, so his Paladins would not be all Chaos oriented. He is Chaotic because all he cares about is battle. I am curious as to what you have in mind.

Weirdo wrote:
I like the idea of a Paladin being a surpassing champion of his ideals. I even agree that the LG Paladin is the most classic example of the archetype. However, I don't think it's necessary that the ideals the paladins serve be limited to the LG alignment.

This right here. What do I want to do? Play a Holy Champion class of some name, the Lawful Good variation of which may be known as the "Paladin", that includes multiple interpretations as so-called valid ideas of the class.

A class incorporating a modicum of divine ability with a plurality of conventional combat ability (including but not limited to a full BAB), with a similar amount of variation in it as with the Cleric class that can spontaneously cast cure OR inflict spells and channel positive OR negative energy.

Does channeling negative energy go against the idea of a faithful priest of good? Yes. Is a faithful priest of good the only interpretation of a divinely empowered priest? No, hence clerics of any alignment, some of which don't even have to acknowledge any deity whatsoever.

(If anything goes against the idea of a class, it's that. And yet, it's right there in the book where any unsuspecting player can read it, get it into his head that he'd like to play that sort of character and in fact, look forward to it without having to anticipate some big argument.)

What do I want to play? A CN Paladin, where the name Paladin is replaced with some other name that doesn't have so much misbegotten baggage attached to it.


Personally, I do find the LG only alignment of Paladins to be unnecessarily restrictive.

I feel that they should be more in line with how Clerics work. There are gods of all alignments and they all like priests to uphold their faiths... yet only LG deities are interested in empowering some holy warriors to enforce those faiths?

Clerics have to deal with the tenets of whatever god they worship, or they lose their powers. Seems simple enough for paladins to work the same way.

Thinking about it, I might personally prefer if Paladin/Antipaladin were molded into a single class, with their mechanics being dependent on Good or Evil.

So, a Good pally gets their Smite Evil, Lay on Hands, and so on.
An Evil one gets Smite Good, Touch of Corruption, etc.
Neutral paladins pick one side at first level to focus on, the way clerics choose their channel energy, and cure/inflict spells. (Kind of restrictive for those who are focused on Law/Chaos, but no mechanics in place for them just yet. I'll keep this simple.)

I don't know, that's just off the top of my head, but it seems a lot more conducive to customizing, which is one of the things I most like about Pathfinder.

@Weirdo: That also seems like a very good setup.


Nutral Palidin = Ranger

Shadow Lodge

A Ranger does not make a good Neutral Paladin. A ranger is nature-flavoured and in general has different mechanics.

That said, I can absolutely see an order of knights that fight a particular enemy having rangers in addition to paladins within their ranks.

Darkwolf117 wrote:

So, a Good pally gets their Smite Evil, Lay on Hands, and so on.

An Evil one gets Smite Good, Touch of Corruption, etc.

Neutral paladins pick one side at first level to focus on, the way clerics choose their channel energy, and cure/inflict spells. (Kind of restrictive for those who are focused on Law/Chaos, but no mechanics in place for them just yet. I'll keep this simple.)

My LN and CN Paladins (of the Judge of Souls and Trickster, respectively) get Smite Chaos and Smite Law. Like clerics, they do get to choose between positive energy (Lay on Hands etc) and negative energy (Destructive Touch, since they're not really corrupted or corrupting).


Weirdo wrote:
Sure, you can make a Holy Warrior with some combination of Cleric, Fighter, Inquisitor, and Cavalier levels. But why should you have to jump through hoops when you want to play a non-LG full-BAB class with a measure of divine magical power? Especially when you're serving an appropriate deity?

First of, Ranger.

Secondly, because BAB is a game mechanic - not an in-world matter. So "full-BAB" is no description of a character at all. When they prioritize what should be easily acceptable, they go by character concepts, not mechanics concepts. Such as "holy warrior", which is the cleric (and has been since 1e). Or a fighter/cleric if you prefer that.

Incidently, there's no way to play a full-bab class with a measure of arcane power AFAIK. Except you can learn a cantrip or two or whatever it is through traits.

I'm not against paladins of other alignments (though I do think they should keep to lawful - I don't see the sense in having a class so defined by their code of conduct and then have them be chaotic), but I don't get why that's so much obvious than having a wizard cast divine spells, a raging rogue or any other number of concepts that aren't strictly part of the rules but can be simulated through various other means. I'm not against options, I just don't get why this one is so special to so many people.


Gwiber wrote:


So why is it automatically assumed by the game, that there are no Holy Warriors, such as Paladins, in the camps of other non-good deities?

Um, there are holy warriors following other alignments. But per rules, paladins are lawful good.

Gwiber wrote:
Would it not make more sense to create a class and label it something like; Holy Warrior; and simply give it all the paladins powers, yet change the “Good” alignment denotations. To the Good/Evil/Neutral instead? Simply change the “Good” Descriptor in the class, to Good/Evil/Neutral everywhere in the class entry?

It may make more sense to you some other way, but once again, per rules paladins are lawful good.

Paladins and alignment have been discussed bunches in many other threads (usually not in the rules section though).

Greg


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To me a Ranger could easy be a Holy Warrior for any nature based Deity.
As Said any Deity can have an Inquisitor as a Holy Warrior
Any Lawful Deity can have Monks as Holy Warrior.
And then there also Cavaliers Who can serve any Deity.
To be a Paladin you have to be both Disciplined and be self sacrifing Something Only Lawful Goods tend to be.

The Exchange

Check out Green Ronin's "Book of the Righteous" for 3.0 and the updated Holy Warrior for 3.5

They took the Paladin apart, and created what is functionally a Domain system that slots in the different powers. The 3.5 Paladin is recreated precisely with the Champion and Guardian holy warrior domains.

I've tossed around the idea of trying to update the holy warrior to match the Pathfinder Paladin, but haven't gotten around to doing so. Maybe I'll do that when sitting in my deer blind this week.


Weirdo wrote:
My LN and CN Paladins (of the Judge of Souls and Trickster, respectively) get Smite Chaos and Smite Law. Like clerics, they do get to choose between positive energy (Lay on Hands etc) and negative energy (Destructive Touch, since they're not really corrupted or corrupting).

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I just didn't want to start cranking out new smites without some forethought. Figured it'd be easier to stick with what's already been put down in places.

Also, destructive touch sounds fitting.

Ilja wrote:
Secondly, because BAB is a game mechanic - not an in-world matter. So "full-BAB" is no description of a character at all. When they prioritize what should be easily acceptable, they go by character concepts, not mechanics concepts. Such as "holy warrior", which is the cleric (and has been since 1e). Or a fighter/cleric if you prefer that.

Except I wouldn't personally consider a cleric to be a holy warrior. If we're going with character concepts, not mechanics concepts, I would call them a priest, who is more about the spellcasting. (Yes, they aren't terribly bad at combat, but a paladin is clearly more suited for it. And multiclassing opens a whole new can of worms.)

To each their own, of course, but it seems to me that there is a big enough divide between them to separate the concepts.

Edit: Also, to address this.

Ilja wrote:
I'm not against options, I just don't get why this one is so special to so many people.

The reason I find it to be a bit strange is the fact that most classes are not very much restricted in how they play except in logical ways.

Barbarians being non-lawful makes sense to me, as someone who frequently goes into a wild frenzy is rather lacking in the control department. Monks requiring lawful is understandable as they require strict and rigorous discipline as they learn their art. Even Ex-monks make sense, as they simply can't gain new levels, but keep their abilities (turning nonlawful and suddenly forgetting how you've fought your enemies all your life... might wear through my suspension of disbelief).

Paladins on the other hand, at least to me, don't feel as though they have that kind of excuse. They're empowered by their chosen deity to do whatever that deity thinks they should. A Chaotic Good deity can have just as much necessity for a champion of their beliefs as a Lawful one. Again, I feel it relates back to the way Clerics can serve whatever god fits them best, while Paladins have only 1/9 of those options (2/9 if you count Antipaladin). Why would none of the other gods be interested in some champions?

Shadow Lodge

Degoon Squad wrote:
To be a Paladin you have to be both Disciplined and be self sacrifing Something Only Lawful Goods tend to be.

First, who says a chaotic character can't be disciplined? Chaotic characters hate having others' laws imposed on them, value adaptability and flexibility, and see no value in keeping promises for the sake of the promise. There's nothing that says they can't exercise extreme self-discipline in pursing something that they personally value. That's like saying a LG character hates freedom because freedom is generally considered a chaotic value.

Second, an evil, non self-sacrificing variant paladin already exists (the Antipaladin).

Third, I would say that a Paladin has to be Dedicated. The rest of the philosophical bent is packaged into the classic LG paladin, not the core concept of the paladin as a champion of a deity or value system.

Ilja wrote:
Secondly, because BAB is a game mechanic - not an in-world matter. So "full-BAB" is no description of a character at all. When they prioritize what should be easily acceptable, they go by character concepts, not mechanics concepts. Such as "holy warrior", which is the cleric (and has been since 1e). Or a fighter/cleric if you prefer that.

Yes, full BAB is an abstract game mechanic and 3/4 BAB characters can be perfectly solid warriors. A well built Inquisitor, Cleric/Fighter, or Cleric/Cavalier can be in general as effective in melee as a Paladin. But there are more noticable differences in mechanics. For example, all those characters cast (and gain other abilities) based off Wisdom, which makes it difficult to play a CG holy warrior with a powerful personality.

I absolutely have no problem with Inquisitors, Clerics, or really any class from filling the "Holy Warrior" role if they are built for it, and I once played a LG Inquisitor who for story purposes was a classic paladin. But for that character, the Inquisitor mechanics (Wis-based and heavy on the skill points) made more sense. And I think a non-LG character should have the option to choose Paladin mechanics if that makes more sense. For example, it's a huge asset for that True Neutral deity I mentioned to have werewolf hunters that are immune to disease.

Ilja wrote:
I'm not against paladins of other alignments (though I do think they should keep to lawful - I don't see the sense in having a class so defined by their code of conduct and then have them be chaotic), but I don't get why that's so much obvious than having a wizard cast divine spells, a raging rogue or any other number of concepts that aren't strictly part of the rules but can be simulated through various other means. I'm not against options, I just don't get why this one is so special to so many people.

Because it's such a minor option to introduce. A raging rogue or a full-BAB arcanist would require a new archetype or class. A divine spellcasting wizard is easier but would at minimum require some careful consideration to prevent abilities like the Samsaran Mystic Past Life from breaking balancing factors between arcane and divine spells and what one caster is supposed to accomplish with them. Paladins of other alignments require a find-and-replace on alignment keywords and five minutes to devise an alternate code of conduct.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For holy warriors of Gorum, you have the crusader cleric archetype. You get some bonus feats and almost full spell-casting. Take weapon focus as one of them, and until level 6, you are not really behind a fighter in damage. Also take the rage domain for barbarian rage at level 8.

So you get less attacks than an equal level martial, but your attack bonus is about equal and you are a full spell-caster.

Its close :p

You can also re-flavor the barbarian as being driven by divine power.


I had variant paladin's going back to AD&D. I sat down when 3.0 came out and took the Paladin class apart to see what it could do. I came up with a range of similar abilities and spells that differed by deity / portfolio. I call the various sub-classes that resulted "Templars". I created different Templar orders for the deities that had military orders (with different codes etc.). Tinkered with it some more for 3.5 and PF. One Templar variant is the Paladin, of course, the others differ by deity. It's worked out for me, but I was more worried about how the Templar orders fitted into my homebrew setting than I was in balancing the various orders. As a result they are close, but (especially from an adventurer's point of view) some are at a slight advantage vs. others.

The same thing is true for the variations of Clerics my campaign employs though. I borrowed a lot of ideas from the old Complete Book of Priests. It was a rough outline for how to balance / do this for Clerics, but very inspiring. It's one of the few old pre 3.x books I still keep handy when working on aspects of my game.

Shadow Lodge

Knight Magenta, very good idea and I'll have to note that archetype for later, but again, with Wis-based casting, no Smite, and no immunities it ain't the same.

R_Chance wrote:
I had variant paladin's going back to AD&D. I sat down when 3.0 came out and took the Paladin class apart to see what it could do. I came up with a range of similar abilities and spells that differed by deity / portfolio. I call the various sub-classes that resulted "Templars". I created different Templar orders for the deities that had military orders (with different codes etc.). Tinkered with it some more for 3.5 and PF. One Templar variant is the Paladin, of course, the others differ by deity.

Interesting. Do you think people would be more willing to accept non-LG classes mechanically almost identical to the paladin if they were called "champions" or "templar" and only the LG variant was referred to as a "paladin"? Some previous posters pointed out attachment to the concept of the "paladin" as LG, and I wonder if this might satisfy those who aren't actually opposed to the mechanics.

Grand Lodge

"Holy Warrior" is a broad term. A religious warrior of any kind, can be considered a "Holy Warrior".

A Champion of a Nature god could be a powerful Druid, or a Champion of a martial god who is a Barbarian Warlord.


Long before Paladin was a class, the cleric was the "holy warrior", and technically it still is. cleric was always defined as "second only to a fighter in combat"


Weirdo wrote:
Knight Magenta, very good idea and I'll have to note that archetype for later, but again, with Wis-based casting, no Smite, and no immunities it ain't the same.

My major rebuke to that is why would "Holy Warriors" of other alignments get those things? I can see the Cha Casting, but the other things not so much. They have smite because they are champions of Good whose sole purpose is to defeat evil in the name of all that is righteous. The have immunities because they are so pure and such defenders of Good that no evil can harm them. I am not seeing how a CN Paladin would have either of those abilities. I guess if you were to make them they would have something instead, I do not see how Smite works flavor-fully though. Obviously you could change the flavor, but Paladins are one of the few classes where flavor and mechanics are completely interwoven.


There is a book coming out that will add more holy flavor to other classes early next year.

Personally, I am opposed to the idea of anti-paladins completely. To me, a huge part of what makes a paladin is selfless devotion, and a huge part of what makes evil (especially rpg evil, where the people know and embrace being evil, as opposed to thinking they are good) is selfishness. One cannot be selflessly devoted to being selfish.

While other alignments should have champions, they certainly should not be a cut and paste of something else. Of course, in the old days, the assassin was a base class and the role was somewhat covered. I think the evil-opposites stuff is best left to comic strips.


I feel a lot of things should be featified. I think if it isn't too powerful it should be able to be made a feat.

Because things like immunity to disease would break nothing, and you're right that it's something that could be flavorful on a lot of characters (holy warrior, battlefield scrounging goblin rogue, necromancer etc).

On smite for clerics, that would be the destruction domain.

On cha-based divine spellcasting you have the oracle, though I find them pretty limited in concept due to their curses.

I would not at all like paladins of everything to be made part of the basic setup, because I feel it reduces the iconic feel of the paladin itself (on the other hand I'd preferred paladin as a prestige class rather than base class). I can see holy champions of all alignment, but not with the same abilities. A CG champion of freedom that cannot be imprisoned by the strongest of nets nor the most powerful spells? A NE champion who's pure malevolence is so strong it causes the weakwilled to instantly turn evil in mind and soul? Sure, give me those.

A paladin that just prefers to gold dragons instead of red dragons? No thanks, for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Clerics are holy warriors, paladins are holy knights.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lordzack wrote:
Clerics are holy warriors, paladins are holy knights.

Cavaliers are mundane knights, so you have your warrior of god (cleric), your knight in shining Armour (cavalier) and your Mary Sue (Paladin).

Sorry old joke Paladins are both a pet peeve of mine and source of great amusement, when ever I gm one I will always throw in an impossible situation or some limitation on their inhuman degree of goodness.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well this might be what you are looking for: the Holy warrior in the book of the righteous.

This character class is 3.0, built on the template of a paladin ie same bab, saves, skill progression, hd, and spell progression. As a holy worrior you pick a couple of domains that you god offers, and based on those domains you get powers....much like the current incarnation of the cleric in Pathfinder.

oh one thing i liked was that, if you picked the right two domains you had a paladin.

I liked the class.

I hope this helps

Shadow Lodge

Timothy Hanson wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
Knight Magenta, very good idea and I'll have to note that archetype for later, but again, with Wis-based casting, no Smite, and no immunities it ain't the same.
My major rebuke to that is why would "Holy Warriors" of other alignments get those things? I can see the Cha Casting, but the other things not so much. They have smite because they are champions of Good whose sole purpose is to defeat evil in the name of all that is righteous. The have immunities because they are so pure and such defenders of Good that no evil can harm them. I am not seeing how a CN Paladin would have either of those abilities. I guess if you were to make them they would have something instead, I do not see how Smite works flavor-fully though. Obviously you could change the flavor, but Paladins are one of the few classes where flavor and mechanics are completely interwoven.

The reflavoring is extremely minor and, like the mechanics, is practically find-and-replace. All you have to do is replace the concepts of Good and Righteousness by "Dedication to the Champion's Ideal." Observe.

Champion of Chaos:

The power of the Champion's Aura of Chaos is equal to her Champion level. Due to her powerful enmity for those who try to impose codes of conduct on others, the Champion can Detect and Smite Law as a Paladin Detects and Smites Evil, and use any Paladin abilities affecting Good or Evil but instead targeting Chaos and Law, respectively.

The Champion can decide whether they exercise their calling with a bolstering or destructive focus. A bolstering Champion gains lay on hands, mercy, and auras as a paladin, since their dedication to self-determination and adaptability protects them and their allies from conditions such as fear, disease, or compulsions that would impede them in pursuing their aims. A destructive Champion gains the destructive touch, cruelties, and auras of an antipaladin, as their zeal causes their enemies to give way before the Champion's might.

If you really want you could play around with it such that they get immunity to compulsion before immunity to fear, for example, but this is good enough to play with.

And for the code of conduct:

A Champion of Chaos must be CN. The Champion must take all opportunities to undermine legal authority. The Champion does not take prisoners or use magical compulsion, as such things are anathema to them. Charm effects and other forms of trickery are acceptable and even encouraged as long as the target retains free will. Though the Champion is encouraged to free prisoners, they are not required to put themselves at risk to do so (note: that's CG). Though a Champion of Chaos does not articulate this commitment in the formalized way that a Lawful Champion would, it is nevertheless the Champion's deep personal dedication to these concepts that fuel their power, and thus the Champion will lose their powers if they fail to uphold them.

Additional note: Purity is not the sole province of goodness. Pure Evil is still pure. Same for Pure Law or Pure Chaos.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wind Chime wrote:


Cavaliers are mundane knights, so you have your warrior of god (cleric), your knight in shining Armour (cavalier) and your Mary Sue (Paladin).

Sorry old joke Paladins are both a pet peeve of mine and source of great amusement, when ever I gm one I will always throw in an impossible situation or some limitation on their inhuman degree of goodness.

Really? Alignment situations that stress a Paladin crop up frequently and naturally. I never felt the need to "eff" with my players just for the fun of it. Are tyhere any other classes whose players you like to torture above and beyong the necessities of the game?

*edit* @Weirdo: Oddly enough I think a lot of the objections are based on the name Paladin. Call them something else (i.e. Templar) and suddenly people are OK with it.


R_Chance wrote:
*edit* @Weirdo: Oddly enough I think a lot of the objections are based on the name Paladin. Call them something else (i.e. Templar) and suddenly people are OK with it.

This... is actually kind of correct. I came right from 2E to Pathfinder... So I really don't equate 'paladin' with 'Smite' I equate them with Good,purity,Codes, etc. etc... The 2E Paladin and the Pathfinder Paladin are really only connected through Flavor.

Attaching the name 'Paladin' to a character that doesn't fit the 'flavor' that's synomous with the title really irks me a bit... Especially with all the inquistor/cleric/etc. etc... that fill the same spot as 'chaotic paladins'

Having Templars and champions and other things are not new. They even had a few 'holy warriors' who couldn't live up to the standards of 'paladin' in 2E.

But cut and paste everything from ONE class... and give it to ANOTHER?? ehhhhh not so much ;)

Shadow Lodge

That's the thing. I don't want to create a completely new "champion" class. I want to allow players to use the paladin class to play a champion of a non-LG ideal, because I see no reason to limit those mechanics to that particular ideal. I am perfectly OK with using new terminology such that a "paladin" is a LG champion, a "justicar" is LN, a "liberator" is CG, an "anarch" is CN, etc, if that preserves the integrity of the title "paladin." But the whole point is that the other alignment champions work the same way or almost the same way as a paladin class currently does.

The point is mostly moot for me personally, since my usual group isn't terribly attached to Paladin Classic and all of this is stuff I'm making for my own home game. But I'm fascinated by pretty much any sort of paladin discussion, partly due to the strong and often quite different opinions people have about them.


I think. the problems with Chaotic Holy Warriors, is forgetting that. they can, and some DO serve gods.

Paladins" Holy Warriors, serve their god. As long as they follow the god's tenants, then them getting holy power is not a problem.

Anymore than in the case of a Arch Duke of Hell, granting power to his followers.

Is it likely they will plot and plan against their master? OF course they will. Its in their nature to do so.

And an evil Deity is going to be fully aware of it. And take steps to deal with it. ONE of the primary ways evil does that.. is setting it against itself.

The evil god takes his holy warriors. and puts them into challenges where they face each other off, and seek to make the other look like a fool to gain the favor of their power.

It's silly to say that any god who thinks of it..w ould not in some way grant power, and even set some of those with power. above others as champions.

Rules wise.. I would prefer they did away with the Paladin as a class itself, and moved Paladin to a sub section of the "Holy Warrior", representing the "Lawful Good Holy Warrior."

Mind you.. there can always be a term that is different from Holy Warrior, it;s just to get a point across that term is used.


Weirdo wrote:

That's the thing. I don't want to create a completely new "champion" class. I want to allow players to use the paladin class to play a champion of a non-LG ideal, because I see no reason to limit those mechanics to that particular ideal. I am perfectly OK with using new terminology such that a "paladin" is a LG champion, a "justicar" is LN, a "liberator" is CG, an "anarch" is CN, etc, if that preserves the integrity of the title "paladin." But the whole point is that the other alignment champions work the same way or almost the same way as a paladin class currently does.

The point is mostly moot for me personally, since my usual group isn't terribly attached to Paladin Classic and all of this is stuff I'm making for my own home game. But I'm fascinated by pretty much any sort of paladin discussion, partly due to the strong and often quite different opinions people have about them.

I just started my first pathfinder Paladin. It's VERY different from the 2E version that's for sure O.o

While the 2E version required AWESOME stats... The pathfinder one just seems more POWERFUL all around...

Seriously... He's level 2, He has a Fort save of 9 and a will of 7.

I have an 8th level sorcerer whos fort = 5 and will = 7, and a 17th level rogue who finished the AP with a fort of 12 and will of 15... Seriously... this 2nd level character could hold his own against a LOT of characters higher then him...

That's not even counting the smites and immunities he gets.

Paladins are VERY powerful characters. Part of the checks and balances for them is that they 'use their power for GOOD not EVIL'.

Looking around the threads that keep popping up, and it seems that it's VERY hard to tow that straight and narrow 'LG' line. It's all part of the same package.

I'm finding it... 'interesting' myself. I've always been a TAD more chaotic with my characters. ;)

But that's the problem I see with the 'anything goes' mentality towards alignment... CG?? How hard is it to keep a character 'Chaotic good'?? Chaotic NEUTRAL?? They guys who don't feel strongly about right or wrong, and don't like being told what to do??

How many of THOSE guys will EVER fall??? And who do they smite?? Lawful people? What about the "N" Paladins? What kind of code exists for characters who don't feel strongly about... anything?? Who do they smite? Nobody? Everybody??


Gwiber wrote:
Is it likely they will plot and plan against their master? OF course they will. Its in their nature to do so.

Really? I would think a Chaotic Evil creature that was given power by their deity to go rape, pillage, and murder, just because it spreads evil in the world or the deity finds it funny, would have NO problem serving in that situation.

Likewise for most of the other alignments. I would guess that if a deity thinks this champion meets their criteria, and are so sure of it that they are willing to impart their power to them, then this champion probably is not going to object to what their deity wants them to do.

In all honesty, it kind of sounds like issues with the Paladin class stem more from the fact that they need to be LG than just the matter of them needing to uphold their deity's wishes.

If the source of their power is their god, why should they need to care if a situation puts them in conflict between their god, the law, and the greater good? They should only really need to please their deity in that case, because the deity is the one who has say over their powers. Needing to balance all three makes impossible situations that they can't get out of without falling (and I've seen a few posts to suggest some GM's just love throwing these situations out there).

phantom1592 wrote:
How many of THOSE guys will EVER fall???

I would like to ask why do regular Paladins need to fall in the first place? Most classes are not built with the idea that they should have to fall simply because there are rules around it. How often do you see Clerics, Barbarians, and Monks mess up their alignments and lose access to their powers? What about the other classes that simply can't lose access to their powers?

Just because it is in the rules does not mean the GM needs to mess with a player for choosing a class that is difficult to roleplay. If the player is not being absolutely terrible, they shouldn't need to fall in the first place.

Shadow Lodge

phantom1592 wrote:

Paladins are VERY powerful characters. Part of the checks and balances for them is that they 'use their power for GOOD not EVIL'.

Looking around the threads that keep popping up, and it seems that it's VERY hard to tow that straight and narrow 'LG' line. It's all part of the same package.

The problem with seeing the paladin code of conduct as a balancing factor is that it is an extremely subjective one. Some GMs will go to extreme lengths to put players in a position where they are almost guaranteed to fall. Others won't enforce it unless the paladin does something excessively evil or unlawful. Not to mention that in some games it's much easier to be LG than in others. Some GMs will actively reward players for "doing the right thing" while others will have their villains exploit the Good character's morality.

phantom1592 wrote:

But that's the problem I see with the 'anything goes' mentality towards alignment... CG?? How hard is it to keep a character 'Chaotic good'?? Chaotic NEUTRAL?? They guys who don't feel strongly about right or wrong, and don't like being told what to do??

How many of THOSE guys will EVER fall???

According to my sample code of conduct, the ones who fail to undermine lawful authority, or use compulsion magic, will fall. A CN champion is more than a CN character, he is firmly and if necessary violently committed to being CN. And if he doesn't fight the Law, the Law wins.

This is in addition to any deity-specific requirements. For example, my CG love deity requires in particular that his champions support and defend lovers, especially those who love in the face of social pressure, and that they respect their own lovers.

phantom1592 wrote:
And who do they smite?? Lawful people? What about the "N" Paladins? What kind of code exists for characters who don't feel strongly about... anything?? Who do they smite? Nobody? Everybody??

Chaotic paladins could absolutely smite Law, and a True Neutral Paladin could smite a particular enemy of their god, or they could smite only extreme alignments (LG, CG, LE, CE).


Darkwolf117 wrote:


Really? I would think a Chaotic Evil creature that was given power by their deity to go rape, pillage, and murder, just because it spreads evil in the world or the deity finds it funny, would have NO problem serving in that situation.

Though... Chaotic implies 'not wanting to be told what to do...' Doesn't really hold too well with being commanded to do ANYTHING.. They may follow along for a WHILE... but chaotic by nature will get bored and do their own thing.

While, I've never been a fan of people who claim 'Lawful Good only means having a code they won't break, REGARDLESS of what those rules are'... There is SOMETHING off about Chaotic characters toeing the line like this...

Darkwolf117 wrote:


I would like to ask why do regular Paladins need to fall in the first place? Most classes are not built with the idea that they should have to fall simply because there are rules around it. How often do you see Clerics, Barbarians, and Monks mess up their alignments and lose access to their powers? What about the other classes that simply can't lose access to their powers?

Just because it is in the rules does not mean the GM needs to mess with a player for choosing a class that is difficult to roleplay. If the player is not being absolutely terrible, they shouldn't need to fall in the first place.

I admit, I'm not a fan of the 'DM out to screw the paladin' threads I see around here. However, I do like the Paladin being held to a standard. Monks, Clerics, Barbarians all have 2 or 3 different Alignments they can legitimately move to without penalty. PERSONALLY, I would like to see MORE DMs messing with the clerics' threads, After all their god should get ticked at THEM too for gross violations...

But I DO like the idea of Paladins being the shining example... Even if the god itself and the Priesthood is not LG. There are quite a few NG and LN gods outthere that Paladins are BETTER then... The spokesperson for an ideal that even the church can't adhere to...

Weirdo wrote:
The problem with seeing the paladin code of conduct as a balancing factor is that it is an extremely subjective one. Some GMs will go to extreme lengths to put players in a position where they are almost guaranteed to fall. Others won't enforce it unless the paladin does something excessively evil or unlawful. Not to mention that in some games it's much easier to be LG than in others. Some GMs will actively reward players for "doing the right thing" while others will have their villains exploit the Good character's morality.

Honestly, I question that kind of GMing. I'm not a fan of targeting a specific player and aiming to screw him over.

Now to clarify... when I say 'balancing' act... I don't entirely mean 'mechanically' since ideally, falling never happens.

I kind of mean IN GAME balancing. This all powerful juggernaut who operates on a strict guidelines. He has lots of powers... but limited situations to USE that power.

A paladin can be counted on to NEVER commit genocide... he will NEVER attack the guards for the heck of it. He will never eat babies... He will not wholesale slaughter innocents...

Opening things up to all alignments give smiting power to loose cannons. ANYTHING is possible... Players will FLOCK to some of these liberal smiters... and why SHOULDN'T they?!? It sounds like the premier melee class..

Weirdo wrote:

According to my sample code of conduct, the ones who fail to undermine lawful authority, or use compulsion magic, will fall. A CN champion is more than a CN character, he is firmly and if necessary violently committed to being CN. And if he doesn't fight the Law, the Law wins.

phantom1592 wrote:
And who do they smite?? Lawful people? What about the "N" Paladins? What kind of code exists for characters who don't feel strongly about... anything?? Who do they smite? Nobody? Everybody??
Chaotic paladins could absolutely smite Law, and a True Neutral Paladin could smite a particular...

?????

Does that sound like a viable PC? Frankly it sounds like the Joker to me... Does that mean that CN paladin has to try to kill EVERY guard? Every Judge? Every official of any kind? Or else he falls?

Ummmm... that neutral Paladin gets FOUR smite targets except for the standards three... and does he get enough 'detect' spells to pinpoint all four corners??


Kimera757 wrote:

Other than their CoC, I don't think there's much to distinguish a cleric or paladin in terms of flavor.

How do you distinguish between the guy holding a holy symbol and bashing in your face with a hammer from the guy holding a holy symbol and bashing in your face with a hammer?

That's window dressing. You could say the same about a fighter holding a sword in two hands and a paladin holding a sword in two hands. But nobody's arguing that they have different roles and abilities.

Paladins have always been the companions of clerics. They've always shared some flavor. That goes without saying. But in the end, the cleric is a priest, and the paladin is a knight.

What kind of a knight, is the question. He is a knight of the Round Table, or a knight of Charlemagne. Those are very specific archetypes going back centuries and centuries in Real World mythology and folklore. And nobody asks if Galahad is a priest.

Point invalidated. You lose 1 Internets.

1 to 50 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / All Holy Warriors are Paladins? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.