| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o7vq?Aeonic-Paladin-True-Neutral-Alternate-Cla ss#1
I made THIS ^^^ a while back. I hope it helps :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Timmy, when you put a Proton and a Negatron (Anti-Proton) together, what you get is not a Neutron (or even two Neutrons), but an explosion.
Similarly, the Neutradin is made from the fused corpses of a Paladin and an anti-Paladin.
There's approximately one million homebrewed classes posted for holy warriors of every or any alignment, and none of them have gained traction. Because "Neutrality" is not the stuff heroes are made of.
Well, Timmy, when you put a Proton and a Negatron (Anti-Proton) together, what you get is not a Neutron (or even two Neutrons), but an explosion.
so an alchemist, got it.
Because "Neutrality" is not the stuff heroes are made of.
This is exactly why I choose to base my homebrew paladin on Aeons. Would they be heroes (just for one day)? Probably not. A TN would be neither hero nor villain, but an anti-hero. Such a character, I think, could be a fun challenge to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because "Neutrality" is not the stuff heroes are made of.This is exactly why I choose to base my homebrew paladin on Aeons. Would they be heroes (just for one day)? Probably not. A TN would be neither hero nor villain, but an anti-hero. Such a character, I think, could be a fun challenge to play.
except what exactly is his code of conduct? to do nothing/stay out of everything? great, best anti-hero ever. when he performs an action non-impartially he will lose all of his paladin powers and fall into, the rest of the spectrum?
except what exactly is his code of conduct? to do nothing/stay out of everything? great, best anti-hero ever. when he performs an action non-impartially he will lose all of his paladin powers and fall into, the rest of the spectrum?Because "Neutrality" is not the stuff heroes are made of.This is exactly why I choose to base my homebrew paladin on Aeons. Would they be heroes (just for one day)? Probably not. A TN would be neither hero nor villain, but an anti-hero. Such a character, I think, could be a fun challenge to play.
Well, since you're asking about a homebrewed class the poster already provided a link to...
Cosmic Code
An Aeonic Paladin must be of True Neutral alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil, good, lawful, or chaotic act that does not benefit the overall balance of existence.
Additionally, an Aeonic Paladin's code requires that she ignore legitimate authority, act without passion or compassion, help aeons in their missions, and punish those who harm or threaten “the condition of all”.
except what exactly is his code of conduct? to do nothing/stay out of everything? great, best anti-hero ever. when he performs an action non-impartially he will lose all of his paladin powers and fall into, the rest of the spectrum?Because "Neutrality" is not the stuff heroes are made of.This is exactly why I choose to base my homebrew paladin on Aeons. Would they be heroes (just for one day)? Probably not. A TN would be neither hero nor villain, but an anti-hero. Such a character, I think, could be a fun challenge to play.Well, since you're asking about a homebrewed class the poster already provided a link to...
Cosmic Code
An Aeonic Paladin must be of True Neutral alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil, good, lawful, or chaotic act that does not benefit the overall balance of existence.
Additionally, an Aeonic Paladin's code requires that she ignore legitimate authority, act without passion or compassion, help aeons in their missions, and punish those who harm or threaten “the condition of all”.
I already see problems in that code, what is the "condition of all" and how can it be threatened? it can't be threatened by people dying because that's an evil act opposed by good. The very act of feeding itself is an act aligned toward good and life.
looking up the aoen's I'm going to assume it means keeping everthing in a spiral of death and rebirth? this mostly means doing nothing, or vast alternations between good and evil actions.
this means in general an aeonic paladin would attempt to otherwise destroy cities as they are too static and must be ensured destruction.
most civilized settings would be leaning lawful and/or good and thus the paladin would have to perform mostly chaotic and evil actions to try to pressure the system to flow. basically, from what i can read on aeons they should be opposed to civilization, which is the dominant staticafier. It's what allows mages to amass knowledge and obtain immortality.
basically, I don't think the paladin would play out how it's written as there's more lawful and good than chaotic and evil running around for the reason that lawful-good slows down the cycle of destruction and rebirth.
personally, I can't find a way that I can just look at this from a perspective and go, that makes sense to do. they would be significantly more likely to team up with a anti-paladin than a normal paladin.
did i mention i'm probably going crazy on new learned knowledge on the effects of civilization on people and it's effects versus anarchy(basically, barbarians might have not been civilized and awed by civ as much as we told our selves, and were created by the people who ran from civilization and all the wars and taxes it created, but didn't survive because civilization persists easier). oh and it's 3AM i need to sleep.
There was an earlier Dragon article from the 1980s that introduced four paladin classes, one each for the extreme alignments (CG, LE, CE, and N). They didn't get any traction.
There was the Holy Vindicator prestige class in one of the 3.5 splat books-- essentially a CG paladin. That didn't get any traction either.
If you want a paladin-like character of any alignment, that design space is occupied by the Inquisitor and Warpriest base classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's precisely zero reason Paladins should have alignment restrictions, outside of tradition. The 3e design team were going to drop the alignment crap from it, but their playtesters called the waaaahmbulance.
The correct method to do this is make paladins without alignment restrictions, then put any limitations on them in setting-specific material. It's far easier for players and GMs to exclude extant material than create their own.
There's approximately one million homebrewed classes posted for holy warriors of every or any alignment, and none of them have gained traction.If it hasn't gained any traction then why do you think people keep making and using them? Isn't the fact that so many people saw fit to go through the trouble of writing neutral paladins to use in their games is proof that the concept does have traction?
@OP: I've heard that D&D:Next is supposed to have paladins of every alignment. That's something you can look into once it comes out.
Yup. 4e and now 5e has dropped the LG restriction -- in 5e's case, despite a strong nostalgia factor.
PF hasn't dropped the restriction because it's a retroclone of the last D&D edition that did have it, and PF is still in its first edition. I wouldn't at all be surprised if PF 2e dropped the restriction, though.
I made THIS ^^^ a while back. I hope it helps :)
Linkified that for ya. ;)
@ renegadeshepherd: I just recently wrote up an all-inclusive paladin-alike class that Pres Man and others on the homebrew forum put together:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's precisely zero reason Paladins should have alignment restrictions, outside of tradition. The 3e design team were going to drop the alignment crap from it, but their playtesters called the waaaahmbulance.
The correct method to do this is make paladins without alignment restrictions, then put any limitations on them in setting-specific material. It's far easier for players and GMs to exclude extant material than create their own.
I know that you and I have diametrically opposed opinions on the question of the utility of alignment, but I will completely disagree with you on this point.
The whole point of the paladin class is to be a champion of goodness and justice, like Sir Galahad from Arthurian legend.
Taking away the alignment restriction on the class defeats the entire purpose of the class.
And I'm now jumping out of this YAPT*.
*Yet Another Paladin Thread
And, obviously, I disagree. I don't see a Paladin as anything other than a cleric with bigger weapons, thicker armor, and worse spellcasting.
If a class has such a narrow focus that it can only be one thing, then it's not a class. It's a PrC, or MAYBE an archetype.
If you think that's 'the whole point', then you can choose to only play LG paladins, and require them when you run a game. But there's no good reason not to let that decision be made at the table level.
+1 to Haladir
There are plenty of classes, even PFS-legal ones, that fit the bill of sacred warrior for any given faith or philosophy. If your true gripe is that those classes don't get to bypass DR and add Cha to saves, well that is a silly reason.
It's a moot point anyways. The people with influence in the industry pretty clearly disagree with you. hence the continued long line of published non-LG paladins.champion of goodness and justice, like Sir Galahad from Arthurian legend.
With all due respect, I would disagree with that assertion as well.
Paladins do indeed have a Lawful Good alignment restriction in the published rules for Pahtfinder RPG, in both the rulebook and the Campaign Setting lines.
You're talking about homebrew and 3PP designs.
Obviously, there is some level of demand for "paladins" of various alignments. If you think that's a good match for your campaign and play style, then by all means use them! There are a plethora of different versions out there! Have fun!
You just won't be seeing them at my table.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just have to add one of my favorite Futurama quotes "What makes a man turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"
There are two camps in this battle.
1) Paladins can be of any alignment.
2) Paladins are Lawful Good only.
Let me introduce a 3rd camp;
3) Holy Warriors can be of any alignment, and the Lawful Good Holy Warrior is called a Paladin, and each of the other eight alignments have a specific name for their Holy Warriors.
I, obviously, fall into the 3rd camp. With that said, a very good PDF for this is Green Ronin: Book of the Righteous. It is for DnD 3.0 / 3.5, and one of these days it will rise to the top of my to do / project list, and I will finish "converting" it to the Pathfinder rule set.
-- david
It's a moot point anyways. The people with influence in the industry pretty clearly disagree with you. hence the continued long line of published non-LG paladins.
With all due respect, I would disagree with that assertion as well.
Paladins do indeed have a Lawful Good alignment restriction in the published rules for Pahtfinder RPG, in both the rulebook and the Campaign Setting lines.
You're talking about homebrew and 3PP designs.
4e and now 5e has dropped the LG restriction -- in 5e's case, despite a strong nostalgia factor.
Failed your Knowledge (Industry) check, too, friend. ;)
Assuming I have not overlooked some material and there is no literature on the matter.... What would you think that a "paladin of neautrality" would look like or have ability to do? Please discuss.
Paladin of the Green (Gozreh/The Green Faith):
These divinely powered champions of nature are empowered to fight the most extreme corrupters of the natural world: evil outsiders and undead. They are tasked with hunting them down and purging them, acting as divine antibodies of nature reacting to the invasion of unnaturalness that are fiends and undead.
They can detect these infections and smite them. They channel the living power of nature and are strengthened to resist the powers and infections of the unnatural.
Most often found arising in reaction to hordes of undead or fiends in the natural world, Paladins of the Green are most commonly found today among the shattered remnants of the Kellid tribes that were displaced by the Worldwound.
So, mechanically they are almost the same as core paladins except for their required alignment, code, and perhaps their own alignment aura.
It's a moot point anyways. The people with influence in the industry pretty clearly disagree with you. hence the continued long line of published non-LG paladins.
With all due respect, I would disagree with that assertion as well.
Paladins do indeed have a Lawful Good alignment restriction in the published rules for Pahtfinder RPG, in both the rulebook and the Campaign Setting lines.
You're talking about homebrew and 3PP designs.
4e and now 5e has dropped the LG restriction -- in 5e's case, despite a strong nostalgia factor.Failed your Knowledge (Industry) check, too, friend. ;)
Actually, I did know that. I did not think that the decisions of Wizards of the Coast regarding another game system (i.e. D&D 4e & 5e) was germaine to a discussion about PFRPG.
Richard Boone played "Paladin" in the 1960s TV series Have Gun - Will Travel,, but I didn't think that was germaine to the discussion either. That character was a gunslinger, anyway ;-)
Just from the mechanics Paladin is a class that uses an alignment to be especially effective in combat against the opposite alignment on that axis. Neutral doesn't really have an opposite the way alignment is visualized in the books so you'll have to think your way around that. To answer the question someone could write a campaign setting where 'Paladin' just stands for training to destroy evil creatures regardless of your own attitude so you could be neutral. Or another one where there is a real threat to the state of the universe because of aberrations that eat reality or something on a weird third alignment axis that the otherwise neutral character opposes.
Also, I think it's so weird that so many see neutral as either too apathetic to adventure or having an insane obsession with balance to the point of attacking everyone at some point. So many complaints about alignment restrictions and neutral gets put in the smallest box?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Richard Boone played "Paladin" in the 1960s TV series Have Gun - Will Travel,, but I didn't think that was germaine to the discussion either. That character was a gunslinger, anyway ;-)
I loved that show. Watched it every week as a teenager!
-- david
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
There are two camps in this battle.
1) Paladins can be of any alignment.
2) Paladins are Lawful Good only.Let me introduce a 3rd camp;
3) Holy Warriors can be of any alignment, and the Lawful Good Holy Warrior is called a Paladin, and each of the other eight alignments have a specific name for their Holy Warriors.
Here was another take, back in 1986. The article describes two different True Neutral warriors, the Paramander (dedicated to preserving balance and free will) and the insane Paremandyr (dedicated to the destruction of all alignment-based structures, burning the world down to True Neutral ashes).
I used some of these classes in my home campaign back in the day.
Actually, I did know that. I did not think that the decisions of Wizards of the Coast regarding another game system (i.e. D&D 4e & 5e) was germaine to a discussion about PFRPG.It's a moot point anyways. The people with influence in the industry pretty clearly disagree with you. hence the continued long line of published non-LG paladins.
With all due respect, I would disagree with that assertion as well.
Paladins do indeed have a Lawful Good alignment restriction in the published rules for Pahtfinder RPG, in both the rulebook and the Campaign Setting lines.
You're talking about homebrew and 3PP designs.
4e and now 5e has dropped the LG restriction -- in 5e's case, despite a strong nostalgia factor.Failed your Knowledge (Industry) check, too, friend. ;)
Ah, so you were not in fact addressing 137ben's point, which I've bolded.
Very well; I agree that the what...ten or twenty or so Paizo employees seem to favor the traditional paladin, as evidenced by the PF rulebook.
I have a game upcoming where one of the players wanted to play a Paladin of Abadar and bring civilization and jazz to the wilds.
Totally allowed him to be Lawful Neutral and have Detect Chaos and Smite Chaos.
It's a moot point anyways. The people with influence in the industry pretty clearly disagree with you. hence the continued long line of published non-LG paladins.champion of goodness and justice, like Sir Galahad from Arthurian legend.
With all due respect, I would disagree with that assertion as well.
Paladins do indeed have a Lawful Good alignment restriction in the published rules for Pahtfinder RPG, in both the rulebook and the Campaign Setting lines.
You're talking about homebrew and 3PP designs.
Obviously, there is some level of demand for "paladins" of various alignments. If you think that's a good match for your campaign and play style, then by all means use them! There are a plethora of different versions out there! Have fun!
You just won't be seeing them at my table.
Homebrew, 3PP, and the official pathfinder APG rulebook alternate class non-LG antipaladins.
There's precisely zero reason Paladins should have alignment restrictions, outside of tradition.
Which is all the reason that is needed.
For those that disdain traditions there's always house rules.
I mean WHY do you need to have a class NAMED "Paladin" for other alignments?
You can have holy warriors of every alignment what with the Inquisitor or the Cavalier or one of the new classes coming out. Or even a Ranger.
Also, I think it's so weird that so many see neutral as either too apathetic to adventure or having an insane obsession with balance to the point of attacking everyone at some point. So many complaints about alignment restrictions and neutral gets put in the smallest box?
because he's either going to be a druid or a neutral from futurama... THIS IS AN EXEMPLAR OF NEUTRALITY! not just some run of the muck neutral.
P.S. i also believe anyone who wrote 4e should have no effect on what pathfinder is doing.
I read a fantasy novel once that was in a post-victory world. The Heroes had won and defeated the Ultimate Evil, and now the world was threatened by being consumed by a blinding light. A ragtag group of villains had to adventure together to unleash a great force of darkness in order to counterbalance all of the good.
The party was brought together by a completely neutral character who just wanted to preserve balance. She was really a Druid, but I suspect that a TN Paladin would act similarly.
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you check out that article you'll see those were creations by the esteemed Mr. Jacobs. He was never happy about them though.There are two camps in this battle.
1) Paladins can be of any alignment.
2) Paladins are Lawful Good only.Let me introduce a 3rd camp;
3) Holy Warriors can be of any alignment, and the Lawful Good Holy Warrior is called a Paladin, and each of the other eight alignments have a specific name for their Holy Warriors.Here was another take, back in 1986. The article describes two different True Neutral warriors, the Paramander (dedicated to preserving balance and free will) and the insane Paremandyr (dedicated to the destruction of all alignment-based structures, burning the world down to True Neutral ashes).
I used some of these classes in my home campaign back in the day.
Actually, that was the article MY article was inspired by/based on. The two I wrote were in Dragon #310 and #312 if memory serves, and coming up with themes for each of the classes that helped justify them as existing without overlapping other classes (aka, the paladin smites evil, so none of the other 8 should have smite evil) was really tough. And by the end of the articles, which I was hired to write by the magazine's editor (it wasn't an article I approached them with a pitch to write, but one they wanted to publish and they offered it to me since I'd established myself as a good go-to guy for articles by that point I suppose), I was pretty convinced, and remain convinced to this day, that a paladin for every alignment is not a great idea. If only because it reduces and marginalizes the paladin.
The warpriest is our attempt to do that, frankly. A single class that mixes cleric and fighter stuff into something of a holy warrior.
Had I my OWN druthers and a time machine and the power I wield in the industry today back in the early 2000s... I would have pushed for making the paladin a prestige class.
I pushed a little bit for this with Pathfinder, but we were VERY timid at the time about what we did and didn't want to change in the game, since at the time no one knew what a Pathfinder was, and we needed to ease folks into the idea of sticking with a D&D-less Paizo.
Also, I think it's so weird that so many see neutral as either too apathetic to adventure or having an insane obsession with balance to the point of attacking everyone at some point. So many complaints about alignment restrictions and neutral gets put in the smallest box?because he's either going to be a druid or a neutral from futurama... THIS IS AN EXEMPLAR OF NEUTRALITY! not just some run of the muck neutral.
P.S. i also believe anyone who wrote 4e should have no effect on what pathfinder is doing.
I WAS talking about run of the muck neutrals.
It amazes me that they can create a class with divine spells, combat abilities, but because they don't name it Lawful Neutral Paladin, Chaotic Good Paladin, everyone gets upset that there is no Paladin of other alignments. Personally, I think the Cleric is the Holy Warriors of the other alignments. I just think Lawful Good gets a Paladin in addition to their Clerics because the straight and narrow is a hard path to walk and good is more powerful than evil and Lawful is able to concentrate and develop power more effectively than chaos. Neutral's and Chaos lack the conviction and discipline to do and be what a Paladin is. This is all in my opinion. Now every edition has had champions of various alignments, Plethora of Paladins was a great article in Dragon Magazine. What I liked about Plethora of Paladins is that the other classes were not just clones of the Paladin with a different alignment, but they had their own unique abilities, the LE was the illrigger class and more of a thief than a warrior. All the classes were very different, the True Neutral class was a Paramander and nothing like a Paladin in abilities.
Just from the mechanics Paladin is a class that uses an alignment to be especially effective in combat against the opposite alignment on that axis. Neutral doesn't really have an opposite the way alignment is visualized in the books so you'll have to think your way around that. To answer the question someone could write a campaign setting where 'Paladin' just stands for training to destroy evil creatures regardless of your own attitude so you could be neutral. Or another one where there is a real threat to the state of the universe because of aberrations that eat reality or something on a weird third alignment axis that the otherwise neutral character opposes.
I agree, the true neutral paladin is a conceptual stretch, and I've never had a player ask to be one.
FWIW though, I think that the 'anti-extremism' TN paladin is an acceptable concept within the context of the game's symmetrical sheme of morality. I think 'extremist' is somewhat of a misnomer for those who simply happen to be both lawful and good, or whatever, but oh well.
Also, I think it's so weird that so many see neutral as either too apathetic to adventure or having an insane obsession with balance to the point of attacking everyone at some point. So many complaints about alignment restrictions and neutral gets put in the smallest box?
Agreed again. I think the disconnect comes partly from the 2e druid class, which has a TN requirement and is described as "Will periodically switch sides so that good nor evil nor law nor chaos ever becomes dominant."
I'm not sure where the apathetic image of TN comes from though.
http://www.gotfuturama.com/Multimedia/EpisodeSounds/2ACV02/07.mp3
You just won't be seeing them at my table.
And that's fine. But what you do at your table shouldn't limit what we do at ours. Again ... if PF creates paladins of all alignment, you can still do exactly what you want with next to no effort. Until they do, we can't. That strikes me as intensely wrong.
Create more options, let the individual tables decide what goes and what doesn't. This way, everybody can play how they like.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's precisely zero reason Paladins should have alignment restrictions, outside of tradition.Which is all the reason that is needed.
For those that disdain traditions there's always house rules.
I mean WHY do you need to have a class NAMED "Paladin" for other alignments?
You can have holy warriors of every alignment what with the Inquisitor or the Cavalier or one of the new classes coming out. Or even a Ranger.
Tradition is NO reason. Tradition is just an excuse to cling to old ideas in new circumstances. It's meaningless and counterproductive.
It's simple. It's better to create options and let tables limit what they want to use. This way, everybody can play what they want. You think Paladins are LG only? Fine, then you only play them, and only allow them at your table. Meanwhile, what damage does it do to you for PF to create what we want? You lose nothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's precisely zero reason Paladins should have alignment restrictions, outside of tradition.Which is all the reason that is needed.
For those that disdain traditions there's always house rules.
I mean WHY do you need to have a class NAMED "Paladin" for other alignments?
You can have holy warriors of every alignment what with the Inquisitor or the Cavalier or one of the new classes coming out. Or even a Ranger.
Tradition is NO reason. Tradition is just an excuse to cling to old ideas in new circumstances. It's meaningless and counterproductive.
It's simple. It's better to create options and let tables limit what they want to use. This way, everybody can play what they want. You think Paladins are LG only? Fine, then you only play them, and only allow them at your table. Meanwhile, what damage does it do to you for PF to create what we want? You lose nothing.
no ones stopping you from using any the myriad of other paladin classes people have made.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could a neutral aligned paladin exist in pathfinder?
Yes, but there will always be someone saying it's badwrong fun and shouldn't exist.
|
Just from the mechanics Paladin is a class that uses an alignment to be especially effective in combat against the opposite alignment on that axis. Neutral doesn't really have an opposite the way alignment is visualized in the books so you'll have to think your way around that. To answer the question someone could write a campaign setting where 'Paladin' just stands for training to destroy evil creatures regardless of your own attitude so you could be neutral. Or another one where there is a real threat to the state of the universe because of aberrations that eat reality or something on a weird third alignment axis that the otherwise neutral character opposes.I agree, the true neutral paladin is a conceptual stretch, and I've never had a player ask to be one.
FWIW though, I think that the 'anti-extremism' TN paladin is an acceptable concept within the context of the game's symmetrical sheme of morality. I think 'extremist' is somewhat of a misnomer for those who simply happen to be both lawful and good, or whatever, but oh well.
Also, I think it's so weird that so many see neutral as either too apathetic to adventure or having an insane obsession with balance to the point of attacking everyone at some point. So many complaints about alignment restrictions and neutral gets put in the smallest box?Agreed again. I think the disconnect comes partly from the 2e druid class, which has a TN requirement and is described as "Will periodically switch sides so that good nor evil nor law nor chaos ever becomes dominant."
Agreed with all this.
I think TN paladins are difficult to work as a champion of alignment for the reasons described, but TN is not inherently apathetic so they work just fine as champions of a specific deity or cause. It would require a bit of a mechanical tweak though since the paladin's powers are largely alignment-based. I wrote up a quick archetype (as part of my any-alignment paladin rewrite, the champion):
Divine Foe: A foehunter selects a Foe instead of an opposed alignment. The Foe may be a creature type, as the Ranger's favoured enemy ability, a religion, or another organization or class of offender at GM discretion. They gain the ability to detect and smite members of the Foe group, rather than the opposed alignment. At GM's discretion, the champion may deal twice the normal bonus damage from smite upon an exemplary member of the Foe group (for example, if the Divine Foe is dragons, double damage may be dealt to a true dragon. If the Foe is a religion, double damage may be dealt to clergy of the faith rather than simple worshippers). This replaces the Champion's Aura and modifies Smite and Detect Alignment.
Aura of Vulnerability: The champion's weapons bypass the DR of any Foe, whether or not Smite is currently active on that enemy. Further, any weapons within the champion's aura bypass the Enemy's DR. This replaces Aura of Faith.
Foehunter's Resilience: The Foehunter gains DR 2/- instead of DR 5/opposed alignment. This ability modifies Aura of Righteousness.
True Foehunter: The Foehunter's DR increases to 4/-. In addition, a Foehunter who smites and strikes a Foe may end the smite effect as a free action in order to stun the Foe for d4 rounds. If the target succeeds at a Fort Save (DC = 10 + 1/2 level + Cha mod), they are instead staggered for 1 round. The Foehunter can only use this ability on a given Foe once every 24 hours. This ability replaces True Champion (Holy Champion).
Not entirely sure how balanced it is (needs playtesting), but conceptually I think it works.
EDIT: The applications I see for this would include things like an undead-hunting champion of Pharasma (or alternatively one who fights followers of Urgathoa), a Green Faith aberration hunter, and a champion of Callistra who smites abusive lovers out of a sense of justice. And yes, inquisitors work for this but for me it is significant that one class is Wis-based and likely to dump charisma (canny and insightful) and the other Cha-based and likely to dump Int and/or Wis (inspirational and charismatic) - which is also why, well-intentioned as it was, I don't think the Warpriest fills this niche.
I admittedly don't have the long experience as many on the boards but I've always wondered why it was no stretch of imagination for every deity/alignment to have clerics but the holy/unholy warrior was alignment restricted. Cleric abilities are also somewhat attached to alignments. If you're a neutral cleric, you choose to deal in either positive or negative energy at the start, not Channel Neutral Energy. Why wouldn't a neutral paladin basically be able to choose between the paladin (helping/positive energy etc) path and the anti paladin (harming/negative energy) ability set?
This is what I've been toying around with for my campaign; lifting the LG and CE restrictions of the paladin and anti-paladin but requiring they be the exact alignment of their deity. I see these classes as holy warriors--the hand of their deity on the Material plane. A person may choose to be a priest or cleric, but paladins are called so their alignments and ideals (code of conduct) should mirror their deities.
The problem with a neutral paladin is that it doesn't give you much of a basis to build the character around.
The standard paladin is built around being good and fighting evil, and the antipaladin is the reverse. It is easy to conceive of warriors who uphold law against chaos or vice versa. If a paladin's abilities are to be alignment based, the whole scheme starts to fall apart for somebody who is of true neutral alignment.
The Champion class from Arcana Evolved provides a possible way around that problem. That class is designed for a game that does not even have alignment. Instead, each Champion is dedicated to a cause, and his class abilities are tied to that cause. Obviously there would be no problem with such a character being of any alignment (inlcuding true neutral) unless the cause in question is unquestionably non-neutral.
Paladins have lore, defined limitations, and an extra reason an decent GM can have a paladin marching all over the country depending on the GM's story.
What does said non-LG paladinish bring to the table? Most of 3.0 and 3.5's attempts IMO were powergamer additions with little to no fluff, just crunch.
For some players this is not an issue, not saying my table's way is better or worse, IMO I just cant reason the need.
EDIT:I am still part of that group that likes the Paladin being a prestige class, but MEH, that is another discussion