Hopefully not another Paladin alignment discussion. (It totally is)


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 283 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, I was building a backup/backstory character for my Ranger (Her Paladin Mother), and I remembered that Paladins have the LG alignment requirement.

This isn't really an issue, not complaining, etc, but it was also something I'd never given much thought before.

Why is the ALIGNMENT the requirement?

Why isn't it the GOD'S interests/priorities the requirement instead?

Sarenrae is NG for a reason, she (Over simplifying big time XD) moderates her desire to fight evil, with the desire to redeem it as well. She moderates her actions in general, actions have consequences after all.

Why wouldn't her Paladins reflect this first and foremost?

Why wouldn't they be just as balanced and redemption/healing oriented as she can be? Nothing against smiting some evil if needed of course.

This goes really for any God with Paladins, or Anti-paladins.

Paladins of Abador could be LN, and more closely aligned with his goals and plans. They'd be more about stabilization and progress than righting wrongs, it would actually make for an interesting character.

It seems almost like Paladins AREN'T divine champions of their Gods, but more simply champions who happen to also have a God that powers them, with their Alignment being more important than anything else.

Heck, mechanically, a Paladin could alignment shift to NG by performing something that Sarenrae would approve of, and yet, for some reason she'd take away the powers she'd granted due to the Paladin class mechanics. But, if they refrained from performing that action, they'd retain their LG nature/alignment and powers granted to them by her.

I'm not saying it's likely, but it's possible.

So, why aren't paladins tied in alignment to their deity? The newest book (Inner Sea) included several Paladin codes for the various Deities, why not just follow those? I see no problems with this myself, but, this isn't how things are done, so clearly there has to be a problem I'm not seeing. There has to be something I'm not seeing.

Additionally: I could be misunderstanding a large part of this. I've always understood that Alignment flows from Actions, modified in part by the intent behind the action, the action's results, and the characters reaction to the results. So, as near as I can tell, a CG who faithfully followed a CG God, would perform CG actions, and be CG, even though they quite Lawfully respect and observe their deities laws. Likewise a LG who followed that same CG God for the same reason, would be performing CG actions in service to that God, and their alignment would change as a result. If it didn't, that looks like it could open up all KINDS of strange loopholes.

Thoughts? :)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the old days of D&D Paladins were not about following Gods, that was the clerics thing. Oh no I stepped into a tarp!!!!


It's tied to the history of the game. The paladin class dates from 1E, well before any of the various worlds and their various gods had been published. The class was intended to represent figures like Sir Galahad or Count Roland (the word "paladin" originally referred to the 12 champions of Charlemagne), who were the epitome of Christian knightly virtue.

I've never thought that either the paladin or the alignment system in general fits very comfortably in a world with many gods, although they might work okay with a dualist religion like Zoroastrianism. Paladin is a popular class, though, which makes it a little hard to leave out.


I haven't read Inner Sea can't remember/find any references to paladins of gods other than Iomedae (I also didn't find anything referencing paladins being followers of Iomedae either) so this won't be about specific mechanics or RAW.

The point of a paladin is to have a strict code that will be difficult to follow sometimes. Their power stems from their faith and righteousness in the face of evil. It makes sense for followers of the goddess of justice, valor and honor to receive more power from their faith than the goddess of redemeption or the god of drinking and freedom.

The way I see it, it is about sacrifice for power. And serving Iomedae is alot more sacrifice than Cayden Cailean.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No good reason.

Liberty's Edge

13 people marked this as a favorite.

Paladins are not first and foremost servants of a particular God. They are not necessarily even empowered by a particular God. You can, in fact, have an atheist Paladin.

Paladins are empowered by the pure force of their own righteousness the same way Druids are by nature itself. And that would be why they are first and foremost a particular alignment, not that of a deity. They're empowered by the Alignment, not the deity.

They can certainly have Divine patrons and that influences them strongly, but it's not the heart of their power, and they don't lose said powers for disobeying the Deity in question's will, only for breaking their own code of behavior.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paladins are a specialized form of LG Holy Warriors. They are LG because that's their definition- a specialized LG Holy warrior.

There are many other holy warriors with other alignments: Inquisitors, Warrior cleric (and the new class, upcoming), some Cavaliers, and even the ranger.

And of course Sarenrae's Paladins are devoted both to her and the Order. She likely wants Holy warriors who are structured and disciplined, as well as her Inquisitors and Rangers. That was she gets many forces fighting for her.


Because that's what the class is designed to be. It's meant to emulate the historical ideal of the paladin's code in medieval Europe.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Paladins are not first and foremost servants of a particular God. They are not necessarily even empowered by a particular God. You can, in fact, have an atheist Paladin.

Paladins are empowered by the pure force of their own righteousness the same way Druids are by nature itself. And that would be why they are first and foremost a particular alignment, not that of a deity. They're empowered by the Alignment, not the deity.

They can certainly have Divine patrons and that influences them strongly, but it's not the heart of their power, and they don't lose said powers for disobeying the Deity in question's will, only for breaking their own code of behavior.

U i believe hit it on the nail with this post.


So why can't a Paladin be empowered by ANY belief or code?

If a Paladin can be empowered by an abstract force like 'righteousness', why do clerics need gods in Golarion?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
So why can't a Paladin be empowered by ANY belief or code?

Tradition. Logically, you're quite correct (and indeed, the game even has Antipaladins as evidence of a different empowering code)...but thematically, the people at Paizo decided to stick with tradition, and Paladins being defined by their Lawful Good-ness.

Me, I allow CG Paladins and LE Antipaladins and just say your code needs to be extreme enough (ie: one of the four extreme alignments) in order to properly empower you. That seems a good compromise between logic and tradition to me.

Zhayne wrote:
If a Paladin can be empowered by an abstract force like 'righteousness', why do clerics need gods in Golarion?

You might as easily ask why they need them if there are Druids, who just draw their power from nature. Different power sources do different things...Paladins and Druids don't get 9 levels of spells off the Cleric list, now do they? You need a God empowering you for that. And being a Paladin is also a lot harder than being a Cleric due to the much more restrictive code of behavior required.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

My take on paladins from my home campaign:

Paladins are first and foremost devotees of law and good. Many of them are a part of a formal knightly order. They may or may not be devoted to a deity. If they are devoted to a deity, their code still comes first.

Certain gods see these champions of righteousness and empower them with divine might because the paladin's code and ethics mostly align with their ethos. They do this realizing that a paladin serves that code first.

Inquisitors are kind of similar - they are individuals whose actions aid the deity that empowers them, but they are not necessarily bound by the church.

Contrast with clerics, who are devoted followers of a deity and who are empowered to effectively be the god's mortal messenger.

That's my take, anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Like folks say, though the fluff tends to describe the Paladins as tied to the gods, their underlying motif hasn't ever really been "champion of the divine", but the "knight in shining armor", inspired by the Arthurian mythos, tales of knightly chivalry, and romanticized visions of the medieval Crusaders - don't forget, it was the 80s, and Gary Gygax was a pretty devout Christian.

The whole hiccup got started in 1e, became more muddled in 2e, and since then it's basically been a sacred cow; everyone expected Paladins to be Lawful Good *and* divine champions at the same time.

Honestly, OP, one of the things I thought WoTC did right with 4th edition was giving that sacred cow the chop and just making Paladins the holy warriors of any and all faiths. Removes the need for classes like the Blackguard or Antipaladin, which have always been kind of ridiculous.

Besides, if I want to be a "knight in shining armor", I can spin that out of any armor-wearing Lawful Good character - fighters, cavaliers, rangers... I don't need a specific class to fit that archetype.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Teatime42 wrote:
Why is the ALIGNMENT the requirement?

Because someone way back in the early years of D&D, probably Gygax or Arneson, thought that it'd be really swell if every single paladin ever were LG.

And PF, for all of its advancements since those days, is still a D&D legacy game.

Teatime42 wrote:


So, why aren't paladins tied in alignment to their deity? The newest book (Inner Sea) included several Paladin codes for the various Deities, why not just follow those? I see no problems with this myself, but, this isn't how things are done, so clearly there has to be a problem I'm not seeing. There has to be something I'm not seeing.

Nope, there’s no problem with paladins of non-LG alignment. I’ve been allowing them for years, and nothing has gone wrong. :)


I'm starting to like more and more the idea that paladins are devoted to goodness and order rather than deities, and that why that translates into special abilities is a mystery. Maybe some people theorize that they're empowered by some god that hasn't made him/her/itself known, but nobody really knows. Perhaps even the gods don't know. Or perhaps they do, but they're keeping it to themselves for some reason.


Teatime42 wrote:
Why is the ALIGNMENT the requirement?

Because legacy. A lot of the branches of the game and other games use paladin as a holy warrior without an alignment requirement. This one chose to keep it because the last edition did it. If I remember right, this is for several reasons, including people saying "I won't buy it if you change it! It'll never be the same!" and personal bias's, and I think I've seen a few other reasons but I'd hate to state too much without source.

Should there be? Probably not, I've had more fun with build your own codes/gods and being open ended about it, for what its worth. Are people going to argue about it? Well...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The idea is that the term "Paladin" means "LG Holy warrior" just like "Anti-paladin" means "CE Unholy warrior".

Thus there's no such thing as a "paladin" of any alignment but LG. Just like there's only CE Anti-paladins.

Doesn't mean you could not have CG Holy Warriors or LN Holy Warriors or whatever, but they'd look different from the Paladin, much like the Anti-paladin does.

Now, why have they only typed out the CE "archetype' version, and not the LN or CG versions? No demand. We already have the cavalier and the ranger and the inquisitor and that new class coming up.

You want a LN Holy Warrior? Cavalier, pick a appropriate archetype. Or Inquisitor. They both can be of any alignment.

Why do we have to call a LN holy Warrior "a Paladin"? Why not call it a Inquisitor?


DrDeth wrote:
The idea is that the term "Paladin" means "LG Holy warrior" just like "Anti-paladin" means "CE Unholy warrior".

I suppose that depends on how you define paladin. Bing dictionary says its a medival hero, a champion of a cause, or a knight of Charlemagne. To be fair I don't think bing uses Lawful Good or Chaotic evil in its definitions.

DrDeth wrote:
Now, why have they only typed out the CE "archetype' version, and not the LN or CG versions? No demand. We already have the cavalier and the ranger and the inquisitor and that new class coming up.

Plenty of demand, its just ignored.

DrDeth wrote:
Why do we have to call a LN holy Warrior "a Paladin"? Why not call it a Inquisitor?

Because he's a Paladin of the LN god of scaled justice, who calls himself an inquisitor, but his friends call him a warpriest behind his back while he's not looking, and there's this little village off the coast that calls him an oracle after a sort of indescribable noodle incident with him and the party rogue.

DrDeth wrote:
You want a LN Holy Warrior? Cavalier, pick a appropriate archetype. Or Inquisitor. They both can be of any alignment.

Or you know, maybe people pick a class based on mechanics too. Maybe they don't want to be a 3/4 BAB skill monkey or a guy on a horse, maybe they want to be a guy who goes around smiting things for their god. You can play a figher or barbarian and call yourself a holy warrior.


Aren't inquisitors intended to be primarily ranged?


MagusJanus wrote:
Aren't inquisitors intended to be primarily ranged?

Nope. They get crossbows as a weapon and their iconic is seen with ranged weapons. That's about as ranged as they get though. Teamwork feats work best with martial weapons and they don't get a lot of combat bonus feats to pump into that ranged weapon style. Paladin might actually make a better ranged character because full BAB and they get an archetype for a ranged paladin specifically.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paladins are tied to a particular code that is ethical, honorable, dutiful and righteousness conduct. They uphold certain principles and virtues of "humanity" such as justice, morality a "common good", compassion, charity and so forth. Codes by their nature are part and parcel to the concept of Law. It's not a "sometimes I follow the code" or "I follow it when it suits me." Neutral Good characters might compromise part of the code if they felt it was necessary, chaotic good characters would be hard pressed to follow a strict code the impinges on their personal freedom,and the fact is, the paladin's code often impinges on their personal freedom in order to fulfill their duty; "strict code" and "chaotic" are antithetical.

The code though, is not morally neutral. A paladin must consider "the good" when following the code. Lawful Neutrals simply adhere to a code, the law perhaps with honor but without consideration of "the good." Javert from Les Miserables is an example of a Lawful Neutral adherent. The law is all that matters.

Other religions might have holy or unholy warriors and that's the niche filled Battlepriests, Inquisitors and the like. The Paladin though, is rooted in not only the early editions of the game (D&D) but in the mythology and loose historical conceptions of such heroes as ( in no particular order) Charlemagne, King Arthur, St. George, Roland, Galahad and the like.

So, NG paladins? CG paladins? LN paladins? No, not for me. They might be holy warriors and noble (in terms of spirit, not social class) but they're not paladins.

Lantern Lodge

I like the idea of an unknown deity empowering the Lawful Good paladins.

Not sure if this was pure GM material, or if it was actually published, but my 3.5 campaign has a deity that requires a DC 45 religion check to have even heard of. Supposedly, this deity is worshiped by other deities. Perhaps a similar thing goes on here, where a deity on a higher level than the deities we know of takes time to empower those that embody it's virtues, just for the sake of having those virtues? Perhaps the good old christian idea of God versus the Devil, working behind the scenes and making themselves directly known to very few people.

If one wanted, a homebrew pantheon could include all of the current deities which worship 9 deities representing each alignment, which worship 1 deity with no alignment (makes no choices).


I believe in the DND next playtest, there was no alignment requirement, other than aligning with the deity, which has always made more sense to me. That said, I also liked the old idea that a Paladin is a fighter for good, not necessarily a fighter for a particular god. In theory, the Warpriest should be the fighter for a specific god, and paladin a fighter for a specific ideal - if that makes any sense. Take some of the divine power away from the paladin, and replace it with honor/conviction sourced powers instead. Though i guess that starts to step on the toes of the cavalier.

It all starts to look like there are too many classes, all stepping on each other...


QuietBrowser wrote:

Like folks say, though the fluff tends to describe the Paladins as tied to the gods, their underlying motif hasn't ever really been "champion of the divine", but the "knight in shining armor", inspired by the Arthurian mythos, tales of knightly chivalry, and romanticized visions of the medieval Crusaders - don't forget, it was the 80s, and Gary Gygax was a pretty devout Christian.

The whole hiccup got started in 1e, became more muddled in 2e, and since then it's basically been a sacred cow; everyone expected Paladins to be Lawful Good *and* divine champions at the same time.

Honestly, OP, one of the things I thought WoTC did right with 4th edition was giving that sacred cow the chop and just making Paladins the holy warriors of any and all faiths. Removes the need for classes like the Blackguard or Antipaladin, which have always been kind of ridiculous.

Besides, if I want to be a "knight in shining armor", I can spin that out of any armor-wearing Lawful Good character - fighters, cavaliers, rangers... I don't need a specific class to fit that archetype.

This seems to encapsulate the problem fairly well.

Sorry for not commenting before, the thread had been pretty unanimous, nothing really to discuss.

It seems like we have one class, with two different views on what it does.

Paladins as holy champions of humanity only, yeah, I could see that. The problem is though, that there are many WAYS to be a "Paladin" in that case. Any class can. A fighter could be, a cavalier, even a bard. Why would one class, and one class only be the one that gets that distinction. The original knights of old that were mentioned as being the inspiration of it fought in MANY ways. Knight, Archer, Calalier even some that were fairly bard like. So why can't they ALL be Paladins? Archtypes only go so far...

And this gets it right on the head. Because that's how it's been.

But, SHOULD it be that way?

Personally, I think not. It could just be from my own experiences of course, but I see no problem with having a class be a martial champion of a faith/god. In fact, it fills a rather useful and helpful slot in my opinion.

But what kinda of slot does a LG only paragon of humanity fill? A limited one compared to the other.

It looks to me, that being a LG Paragon should be a character's motivation, not a class mechanic. I have no problem with alignment restrictions, I just don't like seeing seemingly arbitrary mechanical restrictions.

A fighter for good can be any class, why restrict it?

But really, only one class gets divine empowerment to be a Champion of faith.

Thank you all. :)

Hope to see more. :D


MrSin wrote:


DrDeth wrote:
Now, why have they only typed out the CE "archetype' version, and not the LN or CG versions? No demand. We already have the cavalier and the ranger and the inquisitor and that new class coming up.

Plenty of demand, its just ignored.

I do think it would be cool for Paizo to release official archetypes for Paladin reflecting other alignments than LG and CE.

You could use the 3.5 Paladin of Tyranny, Paladin of Freedom, and Blackguard to help homebrew archetypes for LE and CG. It would be a little more work for LN, CN, NG, NE, and N.

In the mean time, a Cavalier/Warpriest makes a pretty good Paladin stand-in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it makes sense that Paladins must be good. Clerics get their powers from their conviction, but Paladins get their power from their righteousness.

Having to be lawful is pretty poopy, though.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samasboy1 wrote:
You could use the 3.5 Paladin of Tyranny, Paladin of Freedom, and Blackguard to help homebrew archetypes for LE and CG. It would be a little more work for LN, CN, NG, NE, and N.

No, it's not. At least, not for anything except TN.

  • Step 1: If you are good, use the Paladin class. If you are evil, start with the Antipaladin class. If you are neither, pick which one to use (like a neutral cleric picks whether they channel positive or negative energy).
  • Step 2: Pick an alignment you are the champion of (good, evil, law, or chaos). You must remain a member of that alignment and have a strong aura of that alignment. You smite and detect the opposite alignment, and the opposite alignment bypasses your DR.
  • Step 3: You only get aligned spells on your list (eg Protection from Evil) if they match your alignment. So a NG paladin doesn't get Prot Chaos, but a CG paladin does get Prot Law.
  • Step 4: Generate an alignment-appropriate code in discussion with your GM. You should be forbidden to commit acts opposed to the alignment you chose in step 2, and choose at least 3 additional clauses (eg mercy, purity, honour, freedom, charity, justice, obedience to something/one, defense of something/one, anarchy, self-reliance, tyranny, destruction, corruption).

Result: a LG paladin who smites Evil, a LG paladin who smites Chaos, a LN paladin who smites chaos, LN antipaladin who smites law, etc.

Logistics is not the problem here.

Samasboy1 wrote:
In the mean time, a Cavalier/Warpriest makes a pretty good Paladin stand-in.

Not really. It's not charisma-based. Also the Cavalier comes with a mandatory pet attached.


Desidero wrote:
I think it makes sense that Paladins must be good. Clerics get their powers from their conviction, but Paladins get their power from their righteousness.

Righteousness is in the eye of the beholder. What's right, what's moral, and how to execute are all subjective things. You can be a perfectly self-righteous man and remain uncaring for traditional laws and other's well being. You can be righteous in the sense that you follow the doctrine of any sort of religious text or moral code, it isn't necessary that it be all about the well being of other's. You could believe your doing the world a favor by executing the wicked and those who have wronged you in a truly horrific manner.

Weirdo wrote:
Samasboy1 wrote:
In the mean time, a Cavalier/Warpriest makes a pretty good Paladin stand-in.
Not really. It's not charisma-based. Also the Cavalier comes with a mandatory pet attached.

They're okayish fluff, but they're not the same mechanics. As said earlier, you can play a Ranger or fighter with all the bits about being a holy man with a code and champion of lawful goodness, but you can't smite if you take either and you won't have divine grace or litanies or auras or detect. You can also play a cleric, but you won't have full BAB or a lot of those other class features that can't be emulated without magic(well... at least until bestow grace of the champion). Cavalier seems more akin' to a knight of Charlemagne imo, but I don't think Charlemagne's battle tactics work in a dungeon as much as they do a field of battle you set up, but that's another conversation altogether. The thing is each class is going to have a different playstyle, or at least ideally feel different to play because of their mechanics.


Weirdo wrote:

Samasboy1 wrote:
In the mean time, a Cavalier/Warpriest makes a pretty good Paladin stand-in.
Not really. It's not charisma-based. Also the Cavalier comes with a mandatory pet attached.

And Paladin's have always had a mount (PF makes it optional). The Cavalier is only there to provide the mount, as it has always been integral to Paladins.

There is not a large dependence on CHA, true, but it retains some value. And is retains Wis dependence, which has always been another stat Paladin abilities work from.

Plus, you get the mount AND the magic weapon this way, instead of having to choose.

But yeah, I guess it wouldn't be as much work as I was initially thinking, except maybe N.

For NG, strip out all the lawful stuff from Paladin. If LN, strip out the good stuff from Paladin. For CG, convert all the lawful stuff to chaos.

For NE, strip out the chaotic stuff from Antipaladin. For CN, strip out the evil stuff from Antipaladin, For LE, convert all the chaotic stuff to lawful.

N just seems a bit different to me.


Samasboy1 wrote:
But yeah, I guess it wouldn't be as much work as I was initially thinking, except maybe N.

Just do what I do, give people a choice over the types of powers they get. They can debilitate their foes or bolster their allies with auras and who they deem as foes. You can create a flexible class with the chasis, especially by giving people that thing that makes things flexible, choice. An evil guy who strengthens his minions against a particular sort of CC can still be pretty evil and if he wants to smite other bad guys, why not, because maybe that's his gig.


MrSin wrote:
Desidero wrote:
I think it makes sense that Paladins must be good. Clerics get their powers from their conviction, but Paladins get their power from their righteousness.
Righteousness is in the eye of the beholder. What's right, what's moral, and how to execute are all subjective things. You can be a perfectly self-righteous man and remain uncaring for traditional laws and other's well being. You can be righteous in the sense that you follow the doctrine of any sort of religious text or moral code, it isn't necessary that it be all about the well being of other's. You could believe your doing the world a favor by executing the wicked and those who have wronged you in a truly horrific manner.

Except that it isn't subjective. Both PF and AD&D before it make the assumption that good, evil, law, chaos, and neutrality are objectively real, regardless of what anybody does or does not believe. There is a very good reason it's done this way: spells that detect alignment or that have different effects depending on alignment would be nearly impossible to adjudicate otherwise.


JoeJ wrote:
Except that it isn't subjective.

Morality isn't subjective? Because its a pretty subjective thing. Even with pathfinder/dnd having definition sfor what is a certain alignment, there's still plenty of room for interpretation and I've seen a lot of different ones. Regardless of that, righteous itself isn't related to good or evil, its about following a moral code of any sort, justification, and a response to injustice, all of which can be anywhere on the spectrum of dnd's alignment spectrum. Justice can be brought in by anyone, and in anyway.

Or we're talking about real life, which is a 10 foot pole thing, imo.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Except that it isn't subjective.

Morality isn't subjective? Because its a pretty subjective thing. Even with pathfinder/dnd having definition sfor what is a certain alignment, there's still plenty of room for interpretation. Regardless of that, righteous itself isn't related to good or evil, its about following a moral code of any sort, justification, and a response to injustice, all of which can be anywhere on the spectrum of dnd's alignment spectrum. Justice can be brought in by anyone, and in anyway.

Or we're talking about real life, which is a 10 foot pole thing, imo.

I'll reserve the discussion of real world morality for another venue, thank you.

In the game, however, the alignments have to be objective in order to make the system work. Otherwise, what is a Detect Evil spell, for example, detecting? Is it based on the caster's judgment or the target's? Or is it some deity's judgment? (and if so, which one?). How do the outer planes work if good, evil, law, and chaos are subjective? The definitions of each alignment may vary from GM to GM, but within the context of a particular campaign, the expectation in the rules is that the alignments are fixed.


There are two points I'd like to add to the discussion:

1) Paladins are held to a very high moral standard. In 1E a paladin had to tithe 10% of their wealth, could only own a limited number of magic items (this was before wealth by level), and were not allowed to use ranged weapons (using a ranged weapon to attack an opponent who may not be able to fire back was dishonorable). Paladins are held to a higher moral standard than just LG, though LG is a pretty high standard.

2) A paladin's moral standards are held to both objective and subjective standards. The D&D morality/alignment system is difficult to apply to real world scenarios- in real life, the stated intent, actual intent, and result can all be different things. The mayor of a city might support a program to clean up downtown with a stated intent of improving quality of life, an actual intent of improving profits for business owners who contribute to his campaign, and a result of making one small part of downtown nicer at the expense of the rest of the city. A paladin must have a stated intent, actual intent, and result in line with both LG standards and the Paladin Code.

Inner Sea Gods does (in my opinion) a really good job of providing specific guidelines for paladins and anti-paladins of specific gods. And the warpriest provides options for playing a non-LG holy warrior. I'm a fan of the old-school paladin. I enjoy trying to navigate shades of grey through a lens of black and white. You can do that with any character, but a paladin losing class abilities for certain missteps.


I stumbled into a similar topic on a board i shalt not name about a interesting concept.

A true neutral "Paladin" that basically was fully dedicated to create a stalemate between the forces of good and evil to hold a ethernal status quo and ensure that the "ying" and the "yang" were always balanced.

Thought it was worth putting in here for a bit of inspiration.

On the other hand, personally i think there should have been variations on the paladin. Similar in abilities but named differently depending on the alignment, so a few examples would be:

LG - Paladin
NE - Juggernaut
LE - Hellknight ( even tho they are just the elite knights of cheliax but hey )
LN - Royal Guardians
CG - Freedom Champions
TN - Knights of Balance

I think the restrictions are silly to only have paladins as the only "4th level warrior-in-plate-and-divine" while other deities have to do with rangers, clerics, inquisitors and the like and not have a "heavy shock trooper" kind among their ranks which whield their powers similar to a paladin...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally don't like having paladin equivalents of other alignments. As an aesthetic thing, that's just too symmetrical for my taste. I don't even have anti-paladins in my world.

After reading through this thread, this is what I now have written in my house rules:

Paladins:
Individuals do not choose to be paladins; rather, the power chooses them. Players who want to play paladins should decide, as part of character creation, how they knew they were called to this role. Paladins are not required to choose a patron deity, or even to be religious. The source of their special abilities is unknown, at least among mortals.

The DR that paladins receive at 17th and 20th level works opposite to the description in the Core Rulebook. Instead of being overcome by evil, it only protects against damage caused by evil-aligned creatures. (Essentially it is DR/non-evil).

Shadow Lodge

Samasboy1 wrote:
N just seems a bit different to me.

Mechanically it is a bit different since TN can't use any of the four alignments as a source of their power.

Some like to make TN the "Balance" alignment that smites the corner alignments, but I find that unsatisfying.

Instead I'm working on a Foehunter archetype that permits TN paladins / antipaladins (I'm calling the combined class "champions" and "paladin" becomes a title for a specific LG order of champions). The Foehunter selects a monster type, religion, or organization to smite. So you could be a TN champion of Pharasma who smites worshippers of Urgathoa, or members of the Whispering Way, or a Dragonslaying Knight who smites dragons. I'm just not sure whether to replace DR/alignment with DR/Foe, DR/not-foe, or something else.

JoeJ wrote:
Except that it isn't subjective. Both PF and AD&D before it make the assumption that good, evil, law, chaos, and neutrality are objectively real, regardless of what anybody does or does not believe. There is a very good reason it's done this way: spells that detect alignment or that have different effects depending on alignment would be nearly impossible to adjudicate otherwise.

Even if good, evil, law, and chaos are objectively real parts of the game mechanics, righteousness isn't. There's no "detect righteousness" spell. Members of different alignments/religions are likely to define righteousness as being a member of their alignment/religion, but since everyone's doing the same thing the results are subjective. Paladins qualify as "righteous" in some way, but whether that's because of their lawfulness, goodness, or just the fact that they dedicate themselves 100% to their cause is not clear. Chronicle of the Righteous suggests that righteous = good since it describes Good Outer Planes (and any good, not just LG), but then, in-world the Chronicle of the Righteous was written by a celestial being so the title is a bit biased. In any case, both of those things are flavour-based speculation, not mechanical absolutes.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Teatime42 wrote:

So, I was building a backup/backstory character for my Ranger (Her Paladin Mother), and I remembered that Paladins have the LG alignment requirement.

This isn't really an issue, not complaining, etc, but it was also something I'd never given much thought before.

Why is the ALIGNMENT the requirement?

Why isn't it the GOD'S interests/priorities the requirement instead?

Sarenrae is NG for a reason, she (Over simplifying big time XD) moderates her desire to fight evil, with the desire to redeem it as well. She moderates her actions in general, actions have consequences after all.

Why wouldn't her Paladins reflect this first and foremost?

Why wouldn't they be just as balanced and redemption/healing oriented as she can be? Nothing against smiting some evil if needed of course.

This goes really for any God with Paladins, or Anti-paladins.

Paladins of Abador could be LN, and more closely aligned with his goals and plans. They'd be more about stabilization and progress than righting wrongs, it would actually make for an interesting character.

It seems almost like Paladins AREN'T divine champions of their Gods, but more simply champions who happen to also have a God that powers them, with their Alignment being more important than anything else.

Heck, mechanically, a Paladin could alignment shift to NG by performing something that Sarenrae would approve of, and yet, for some reason she'd take away the powers she'd granted due to the Paladin class mechanics. But, if they refrained from performing that action, they'd retain their LG nature/alignment and powers granted to them by her.

I'm not saying it's likely, but it's possible.

So, why aren't paladins tied in alignment to their deity? The newest book (Inner Sea) included several Paladin codes for the various Deities, why not just follow those? I see no problems with this myself, but, this isn't how things are done, so clearly there has to be a problem I'm not seeing. There has to be something I'm not seeing.

Additionally: I could be...

It sounds like what you really should be looking at, is ditching the Paladin classes altogether and taking a long look at Monte Cook's Champion class from Arcana Evolved.


MrSin wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
You want a LN Holy Warrior? Cavalier, pick a appropriate archetype. Or Inquisitor. They both can be of any alignment.
Or you know, maybe people pick a class based on mechanics too. Maybe they don't want to be a 3/4 BAB skill monkey or a guy on a horse, maybe they want to be a guy who goes around smiting things for their god. You can play a figher or barbarian and call yourself a holy warrior.

Just gonna second that. I think most people who want non-LG paladins are more interested in having a Full BAB 4-level divine casting class open to other alignments than they are in having a "Paladin" open to other alignments.


Yeah, when people start talking about a non-LG paladin, I wonder, what is it about the paladin they are interested in? Certainly not the specific flavor, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to change it. The general flavor of a divine warrior? Certainly there are ways of building that now with other classes. The specific abilities (modified as appropriate)? Okay. General flavor with the specific abilities. Okay.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Just gonna second that. I think most people who want non-LG paladins are more interested in having a Full BAB 4-level divine casting class open to other alignments than they are in having a "Paladin" open to other alignments.

Probably true. we have a Paladin in our Party who we constantly have argument with, not because his alignment clashes with the party, but because he thinks Lawful means that he IS the Law, and the Good means, for the good of his cause/party.

Me personally, I like Story above all else. beyond mechanics, beyond playing, I LOVE stories and characters.

pres man wrote:
Yeah, when people start talking about a non-LG paladin, I wonder, what is it about the paladin they are interested in? Certainly not the specific flavor, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to change it. The general flavor of a divine warrior? Certainly there are ways of building that now with other classes. The specific abilities (modified as appropriate)? Okay. General flavor with the specific abilities. Okay.

There really isn't, yeah, you can fulfill the flavor of holy warrior, but in the end, the Paladin has distinct abilities that cannot be spoofed through other classes, and those abilities are what make teh class what it is. It's hard to explain, words are failing me right now. The mechanics aren't important in terms of what it stands for, anyone can do that, what is important is what those abilities MEAN.

I could spoof the holy warrior LG mentality fairly well. Actually rolling up a Fighter that's a Michael Carpenter style LG "Paladin", doesn't work as well mechanics wise, but it works fine in terms of what he is. A Normal guy, with an extraordinary sword, and a God who isn't above tweaking things here and there.

I do a lot of reading, play a lot of video games, etc. I think a Paladin who championed a Faith/God first and foremost has a lot of potential, and that's what made me question this in the first place.

I think there's a disconnect between what Paladins were originally, and what they are now. I haven't seen someone play a Paladin as it was originally intended ONCE. I've seen Dozens at least that actually follow a God, every time I've made one as a Player I've had a God that I followed first and foremost (Always LG), my very First character was a Paladin, and the very first question was, "Okay, what God do you want to Follow?".

So, based off of what I myself have experienced (Which, would admittedly be biased as such), it's not that I don't want the flavor, I DO want the flavor, but someone is insisting on some additional baggage that really doesn't fit the class as I've seen it played and used. :/

There really ISN'T a way to spoof that with another class.

I could spoof a lawful good holy warrior like has been described here with ANY class really.

But a champion of Faith and Good willing to get down and dirty to defend what's right and champion their god? No, that's really only one class.

What we have here, is slippage over time.

But, is the slippage dominant in play, or is it the Original intention still that's dominant?

Which do you all think it should be?

Shadow Lodge

pres man wrote:
General flavor with the specific abilities. Okay.

I think that's the one I personally am after.

I'm not attached to the idea of the champion of lawful goodness who respects authority and behaves in a chivalrous manner. It's a perfectly good concept and I've played one (ironically, as a member of the Inquisitor class). I just don't think it's a concept that needs defending, because there will always be people who want to play an honourable knight in shining armour.

I do really like the idea of an inspirational warrior of goodness whose supreme selflessness and compassion shines forth with an unmistakable glory and who channels that power to defeat evil and protect the innocent. And that kind of character needs paladin mechanical abilities, or at minimum Charisma-based abilities and a martial focus. I don't want to have to fiddle with oracle curses, wisdom-based casters, or bard/cavalier multiclassing to make it work.

I'm also perfectly happy with a devoted champion of a cause, not necessarily the cause of goodness, who gains power from the force of their devotion and who is inspirational in their commitment to whatever ideal drives them. I don't like it as much as I like the Champion of Pure Good, but it is suitable for some more morally grey settings, my current game included.


Also consider that Paladins,(along with Rangers, Necromancers, Illusionists and Monks)if rolled in a legitimate manner, were EXTREMELY rare.

They required a 17 Charisma, and if memory servers, a 15 wisdom and 12 or 14 Strength. Originally, there was no point buy. So rolling those stats were to reflect the rarity of the class itself.

They were very powerful at the time, and balance had to be set by stat requirements, and a L/G alignment. Also, the game was intended to play heroes, not villains. But, also, the alignment system is flawed truly by free will.

Consider that the Druid had to be True/Neutral, and it stated in the alignment description, that, if a druid were in a battle of uneven numbers, He Would Switch To The Opposite Side To RETAIN BALANCE!

No. That's absolutely stupid.

Long story short, let the L/G pallies be L/G. But craft yourself a L/N variant. The one constant is that Law is a must. Could you have a class that's Chaotic, with similar abilities? Sure, but he wouldn't be one who upheld balance and law, he would be one who railed against the constraints of society's restrictive shackles.

My two cents.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

If you can't do something smart, do something right.


VonZrucker wrote:

Also consider that Paladins,(along with Rangers, Necromancers, Illusionists and Monks)if rolled in a legitimate manner, were EXTREMELY rare.

They required a 17 Charisma, and if memory servers, a 15 wisdom and 12 or 14 Strength. Originally, there was no point buy. So rolling those stats were to reflect the rarity of the class itself.

They were very powerful at the time, and balance had to be set by stat requirements, and a L/G alignment. Also, the game was intended to play heroes, not villains. But, also, the alignment system is flawed truly by free will.

Consider that the Druid had to be True/Neutral, and it stated in the alignment description, that, if a druid were in a battle of uneven numbers, He Would Switch To The Opposite Side To RETAIN BALANCE!

No. That's absolutely stupid.

Long story short, let the L/G pallies be L/G. But craft yourself a L/N variant. The one constant is that Law is a must. Could you have a class that's Chaotic, with similar abilities? Sure, but he wouldn't be one who upheld balance and law, he would be one who railed against the constraints of society's restrictive shackles.

My two cents.

Um.. not that I remember...

Illusionists and Necromancers were always schools of the wizard class (atleast in 2nd anyway), Druids did not NEED to switch sides if uneven. That was part of the description of the alignment TN. It says:

True Neutral:

A Neutral character represents Neutral on both axes, and tends not to feel strongly towards any alignment. A farmer whose primary overriding concern is to feed his family is of this alignment. Most animals, lacking the capacity for moral judgment, are of this alignment since they are guided by instinct rather than conscious decision. Many roguish characters who play all sides to suit themselves are also of this alignment (such as a weapon merchant with no qualms selling his wares to both sides of a war for a profit).

Some Neutral characters, rather than feeling undecided, are committed to a balance between the alignments. They may see good, evil, law and chaos as simply prejudices and dangerous extremes. Mordenkainen is one such character who takes this concept to the extreme, dedicating himself to a detached philosophy of neutrality to ensure that no one alignment or power takes control of the Flanaess.

Druids frequently follow this True Neutral dedication to balance, and under Advanced Dungeons & Dragons rules were required to be this alignment. In an example given in the 2nd Edition Player's Handbook, a typical druid might fight against a band of marauding gnolls, only to switch sides to save the gnolls' clan from being totally exterminated.

As for the Paladin, in 2e it was just like any class, you just needed to be human to be a Paladin. The limiting factor was that the code was strict, but in 2e, changing alignment was always bad...


I think that most personality/belief concepts that want to be champion of some god or some ideal are better built with inquisitor. I believe inquisitor is what the paladin always should have been but never was.

Most (but not all) of the time when someone picks paladin it is either because they still have the fluff of Diety's Champion stuck in their head and don't consider anything else OR they really want the smite evil / divine grace mechanical benefit.


K177Y C47 wrote:
VonZrucker wrote:

Also consider that Paladins,(along with Rangers, Necromancers, Illusionists and Monks)if rolled in a legitimate manner, were EXTREMELY rare.

...Consider that the Druid had to be True/Neutral, and it stated in the alignment description, that, if a druid were in a battle of uneven numbers, He Would Switch To The Opposite Side To RETAIN BALANCE!

Um.. not that I remember...

Illusionists and Necromancers were always schools of the wizard class (atleast in 2nd anyway), Druids did not NEED to switch sides if uneven. That was part of the description of the alignment TN. It says:
** spoiler omitted **...

He might be referring to 1st edition, of which I have no knowledge of.

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

I think that most personality/belief concepts that want to be champion of some god or some ideal are better built with inquisitor. I believe inquisitor is what the paladin always should have been but never was.

Most (but not all) of the time when someone picks paladin it is either because they still have the fluff of Diety's Champion stuck in their head and don't consider anything else OR they really want the smite evil / divine grace mechanical benefit.

Inquisitor can work, but it's not the same thing. It's an aptly named class, and it fills it's slot, but it's not everything, still room for the Cleric and Paladin with it.

Actually, I think it's rather complementary to the other two.

It doesn't fill the slot I was talking about though, except in name.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Neutral is actually 2 alignments: True Neutral, which is an actual philosophic neutral alignment, exemplified by druids and Aeons and such; and 'false neutral', which is simply living on natural instinct and not giving hoo doo about alignments.

Your average human is at least as likely to be false neutral, only caring about himself, family and close friends, far moreso then True Neutral (actively purusing a neutral philosophy).

Hellknights are a very good sub for a LN prestige paladin, btw. The cold heartlessness and absoluteness that defines the order is basically LN all the way.

==Aelryinth


Paladins are Iconic in their dedication to a personal code (Lawful) and of protecting the innocent and smiting the wicked (good). I think the problem came in with antipaladins. They were made to be dark counterpoints to paladins, but acting within a certain code of behavior is the antithesis of chaos. There are plenty of ways to be an evil opponent to a paladin without making up a class. However, they opened the door for other alignments getting special archetype classes, which people now demand even though they are thematic stretches at best.

That said, I think Paladins would work much better as a PRC. You design a character toward being a Paladin, pass the required tests, earn your powers (and retain them) through obeying your code, and then continue developing as a warrior or cleric when you have finished with your ten PRC levels.

I think 9/10 of the beef people have with Paladins are that one alignment gets a nice thing (even though it doesn't really work with other alignments thematically) and that the alignment in question is LG, which a large and vocal portion of the player base hates with far more fervor than a couple of Lawful Stupid/Jerk players justifies.

Shadow Lodge

I don't hate LG. I'm playing a LG character right now. I personally have played more LG characters than CG ones.

The reason that I have a beef with one alignment getting a nice thing is that:

1) That thing is a core class. Prestige classes are supposed to have a specific focus so having a single-alignment prestige class makes sense. Core classes are supposed to have a broader focus, and have moved in a broader direction as the game has developed. We don't have any more race-restricted core classes, bards can be lawful, and druids can be neutral on only one axis. But paladins are still LG.

2) That class is the only one to fit the major niche of "charisma-based divine warrior" which means that some concepts like a dashing divine champion of Cayden Cailean are harder to pull off than they should be.

3) The other alignments don't have comparable nice things.

4) That nice thing works better thematically with other alignments than many people think. Not everyone agrees that personal codes are always lawful. Some people, including myself, think that the content of the code and the character's relationship with it is more important in determining alignment. Even if personal codes were inherently lawful, that doesn't mean that a code alone is enough to make a character lawful. Alignments describe many factors, and a character with some chaotic tendencies like a preference for novelty and a deep respect for individual rights could follow the paladin's code as written and be NG rather than LG.

1 to 50 of 283 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Hopefully not another Paladin alignment discussion. (It totally is) All Messageboards