So Paizo has now released rules for a LG, NG(greyguard) and LN(greyguard) paladin, and rules for a CE and LE(tyrant) antipaladin, and using those rules I've built a NE and CN antipaladin, and a CG paladin archetype, but I still want a true Neutral paladin, and can't think of a good way to balance it, as it doesn't necessarily oppose anything while arguably opposing everything. Any ideas?
Anti extremism. Abilities and code that act against LG, LE, CG and CE. Balance enforced by shaving off the protruding bits.
How you right this up is a bit beyond me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's very difficult to conceptualize a True Neutral Paladin, since they don't really have any ideals that are under threat enough for them to stand up for, or anything opposed to those ideals for them to fight.
Best I can guess is giving them a "Smite Bias" style effect, affecting LG/CG/LE/CE but not any partially neutral character.
Also I'm pretty sure this belongs in Homebrew.
That sounds like a Druid to me. Maybe a ranger or Hunter.
It seems like Warpriests ought to fill everybody's needs for "divine combatants of all stripes".
But if we're actually trying to preserve what's the most flavorful thing about the Paladin, that their power derives from living by a strict personal code, you would probably have to design the code around a strict philosophical neutrality. Not the "I'll do what's convenient" kind of neutrality but that the "good/evil/law/chaos" are arbitrary constructions (i.e. that actual good and "elemental good" (the kind that pings "detect good" are different and mostly unrelated.)) No idea what you'd smite, but I imagine this character would be distrustful of Angels and Demons alike.
|
A NE Paladin type does exist - the Insinuator, from Agents of Evil, who can be any evil alignment, has a code of loyalty to themselves and can bond with different outsiders (including neutral ones!) each day. Their smite is very versatile but a little less potent.
I mostly agree with Saethori in that it's hard to find a truly strong neutral ideal - other than perhaps the pursuit of balance. In that case, I think a design akin to the insinuator where you seek out outsider bonds and aid their agenda would be best.
Overall though, I feel Paladins should be in extreme alignments.
So Paizo has now released rules for a LG, NG(greyguard) and LN(greyguard) paladin, and rules for a CE and LE(tyrant) antipaladin, and using those rules I've built a NE and CN antipaladin, and a CG paladin archetype, but I still want a true Neutral paladin, and can't think of a good way to balance it, as it doesn't necessarily oppose anything while arguably opposing everything. Any ideas?
Wow, I wasn't aware of those archetypes. They are so... incredibly unsatisfying.
Tyrant in particular. I remember the old 3.0 paladin variants published in Dragon magazine, there was a unique class levels 1 to 20 for each of the alternate alignments. Though it's been so long ago I don't remember the details, I do remember missing that variant LE "Tyrant" (or was it despot? or oppressor?) paladin ever since.
What Paizo did... is amazingly lazy and botched. The direction they've went with for the paladin was good, as was the one for the antipaladin, for the most part. But the antipaladins' powers don't mesh well with a lawful evil crusader class... Adding diplomacy, yea, that belong there. Removing ride, though? What the heck? He gets a mount but doesn't even get ride as a class skill!? And... that's it. That's all they changed. "Okay, make him LE instead of CE, and give him diplomacy instead of ride. Good enough, work's done!"
A LE paladin, for starters, should smite chaos, not good. He is the epitome of creating "Order, no matter the cost". He will bring Peace to the world, even if it means enslaving everyone on it first. Every AP ability that focuses good should focus chaos instead. He will impose fear and submission. Diseases as a weapon make no sense to them, outbreaks are chaotic and the sick cannot be coerced to work to further his aim. Plague Bringer should be replaced. AP already has a number of fear-based abilities, so enchantment effects could be appropriate, or otherwise a bonus to intimidate and diplomacy based on level.
My two cents. :P
At the very least, the Anarchic ability for fiendish boon should have been swapped for Axiomatic.
They released Insinuator, and got requests for "LE Antipaladin with nothing changed; LE makes more sense given their code." They went with that. And hey, it's an easy fix later- it's an easily stacked archetype.
At the very least, the Anarchic ability for fiendish boon should have been swapped for Axiomatic.
It will be in the next printing, I think.
I still want a true Neutral paladin, and can't think of a good way to balance it
Before you think about balance: What exactly do you consider a "true neutral paladin"? This can be translated to class features which are a must.
If I had to design such a class, I'd use the usual paladin as a base:
1) Weapon and armor proficiency: Unchanged (helps to keep distance to druid)
2) Detect Evil: Becomes 'Detect Extreme' to notice LG, CG, LE and CE. You won't know which one it is, though.
3) Smite Evil: Becomes 'Smite Extreme', targeting the same 4 alignments as 'Detect Extreme'. For double bonus, outsiders need to have both alignment subtypes and dragons have to be of one of the 4 alignments. Undead (extreme by definition) are affected as normal.
4) Divine Grace: Unchanged
5) Lay On Hands: Effect is reduced to d4 from d6, but can be used to heal living, harm living, heal undead or harm undead creatures.
6) Aura of Courage: Get a +8 bonus vs. fear effects. As a standard action you can create a 10 ft. aura which provides +4 vs. fear for your allies (meaning: also for you), but then you lose the +8 bonus. Switch back as a standard action.
7) Divine Health: Same +8 for yourself respective +4 for allies, vs. disease.
8) Mercy: Becomes <insert fancy name here>. You can remove conditions like a paladin, but then you suffer them yourself, unless you successfully save against the original DC. If you are affected, you can transfer the condition to another creature, via Lay On Hands.
9) Channel Positive Energy: Becomes <pick another fancy name>. Can either heal (partially) neutral creature by the usual amount or damage creatures of the 4 alignments.
10) Spells: Remove everything good from the paladin list. Add some neutral stuff from the cleric list to compensate.
12) Divine Bond: Bind with an aeon eidolon like a summoner, but only with half as many evolution points. Alternatively bind with your weapon. A weapon can be enhanced by the combined lists of paladin and antipaladin, minus everything alignment based.
...
For "Smite Extremes." I wouldn't allow them to double it at all.
A Paizo N Paladin would most likely be one tied directly to the church of Pharasma, so I would expect it to have themes involving death and the dead as well as outright forcing you to go out of your way to slaughter undead.
The other obvious option would be something more akin to a Green Knight or ranger that serves more as a guardian of nature-> see druid.
Maybe the nature angle of the druid and company doesn't fit the bill but a more monk-like austerity and back to basics kind of feel could work. Remove the asceticism aspect though and really go for that salt of the earth, no nonsense kind of a thing.
I realize one could argue that such values aren't intrinsic to neutrality, all alignments on the spectrum have the capacity for this point of view. To me, that might just be it, embracing values that are functional regardless of moral ideals can in itself be a moral ideal. Really, I don't know I'm just spitballin' here.
As for mechanics, Smite is usually used against particular alignments or creaturetypes but what if it hinged on a different condition like the other having more hp than you or something like that? The ability would serve to even out the playing field instead of gaining the upper hand, true, but it fits with the flavor of balance pretty well, if you ask me, so it might still be worth looking into. Maybe the class could share its weaknesses or strengths with others or vice versa, maybe it 'steals from the rich and gives to the poor' or...
... We call a duck a duck and let go of the notion that it could maybe somehow be a chicken too.
So Paizo has now released rules for a LG, NG(greyguard) and LN(greyguard) paladin, and rules for a CE and LE(tyrant) antipaladin, and using those rules I've built a NE and CN antipaladin, and a CG paladin archetype, but I still want a true Neutral paladin, and can't think of a good way to balance it, as it doesn't necessarily oppose anything while arguably opposing everything. Any ideas?I would note the grey paladin is mechanically terrible, so logically the neutral paladin should be even worse.
I would take the Gray Paladin as a baseline and weaken its abilities from there. IE Smite Foe now gives you half your level in damage and Enhanced Health gives you a +2 on saves against poison and disease.
The only thing that makes it "terrible" is losing out on Divine Grace, otherwise it pretty much makes up for what it loses.
They released Insinuator, and got requests for "LE Antipaladin with nothing changed; LE makes more sense given their code." They went with that. And hey, it's an easy fix later- it's an easily stacked archetype.
But... why? Antipaladin isn't even PFS legal, if people want an anti-paladin that's LE instead of CE, and nothing else changed, should be pretty easy to get GM approval... heck, I'd reckon many GMs would be more willing to accept a LE one than the standard CE one. Or just erreta the anti-paladin as allowing CE or LE, that's pretty much the same result.
It'd have been nice for a variant that actually had some thought and effort put into it, and playtested to remain balanced.
A lot of GMs like to stick to the rules. They won't let someone run a LE antipaladin unless its an option listed in a Paizo book.They released Insinuator, and got requests for "LE Antipaladin with nothing changed; LE makes more sense given their code." They went with that. And hey, it's an easy fix later- it's an easily stacked archetype.But... why? Antipaladin isn't even PFS legal, if people want an anti-paladin that's LE instead of CE, and nothing else changed, should be pretty easy to get GM approval... heck, I'd reckon many GMs would be more willing to accept a LE one than the standard CE one. Or just erreta the anti-paladin as allowing CE or LE, that's pretty much the same result.
It'd have been nice for a variant that actually had some thought and effort put into it, and playtested to remain balanced.
Folks seemed pretty happy about having it be official material.
Folks seemed pretty happy about having it be official material.A lot of GMs like to stick to the rules. They won't let someone run a LE antipaladin unless its an option listed in a Paizo book.They released Insinuator, and got requests for "LE Antipaladin with nothing changed; LE makes more sense given their code." They went with that. And hey, it's an easy fix later- it's an easily stacked archetype.But... why? Antipaladin isn't even PFS legal, if people want an anti-paladin that's LE instead of CE, and nothing else changed, should be pretty easy to get GM approval... heck, I'd reckon many GMs would be more willing to accept a LE one than the standard CE one. Or just erreta the anti-paladin as allowing CE or LE, that's pretty much the same result.
It'd have been nice for a variant that actually had some thought and effort put into it, and playtested to remain balanced.
Amazing. These people seem genuinely delighted for a totally garbage archetype. It's existence, to which I was ignorant until now, only makes me more aggravated by the lack of a proper LE antipaladin...
As for the code, it might be somewhat off for a CE zealot, but it's also kind of off for a LE one, even with the new phrasing...
Amazing. These people seem genuinely delighted for a totally garbage archetype. It's existence, to which I was ignorant until now, only makes me more aggravated by the lack of a proper LE antipaladin...
As for the code, it might be somewhat off for a CE zealot, but it's also kind of off for a LE one, even with the new phrasing...
If you don't care for the simple swap, Insinuator is a great fit for LE. It's a very selfish archetype, but also one that gets along better with other party members. It can smite rebellion regardless of its alignment (only rarely needing a single day to get a new patron), and focuses on resilience rather than spreading diseases. Players didn't feel it was a good fit for them because it traded out too much, which is where the Tyrant archetype came in. If you don't think that's a proper LE Antipaladin either, then you can homebrew, or just apply additional archetypes to the Tyrant (since any stacking conflicts can easily be ignored with no issues).
If you don't care for the simple swap, Insinuator is a great fit for LE. It's a very selfish archetype, but also one that gets along better with other party members. It can smite rebellion regardless of its alignment (only rarely needing a single day to get a new patron), and focuses on resilience rather than spreading diseases. Players didn't feel it was a good fit for them because it traded out too much, which is where the Tyrant archetype came in. If you don't think that's a proper LE Antipaladin either, then you can homebrew, or just apply additional archetypes to the Tyrant (since any stacking conflicts can easily be ignored with no issues).Amazing. These people seem genuinely delighted for a totally garbage archetype. It's existence, to which I was ignorant until now, only makes me more aggravated by the lack of a proper LE antipaladin...
As for the code, it might be somewhat off for a CE zealot, but it's also kind of off for a LE one, even with the new phrasing...
Albeit interesting, the Insinuator is a weird archetype. It's a mix-mash of paladin and anti-paladin abilities that occasionally shows potential, and other times leaves one perplex. The ability to smite just about anything is surprising and unprecedented. Replacing spells with feats is okay, I guess (heck that's what I offer my players in my homebrew low-magic campaign), but I don't see why it's tied to this archetype in particular. Constantly changing patrons (not obligatory, I concede) certainly isn't fitting of LE, more fitting of NE and, to a lesser extent, CE. Detect Neutral... why?
Some of the swaps I'd actually find rather fitting on a LE paladin moreso than in this specific archetype. Getting mercies, for example. Why does the champion of selfishness get the ability to cure others of their harmful conditions? And inspire courage to his allies?
It get brownie points for breaking out of the mold that the anti-paladin needs to be a mirror opposite of the paladin, certainly, but it's still kind of an incoherent mess.
I actually find the base antipaladin to be fine as it is, and my desire for an LE paladin is not to simply have an evil opposite of the paladin, but a perversion of it. One who fights for the greater good, but will go to any lengths to achieve his goal. The antipaladin is a perfect fit for those souls filled with hatred who just want to share their suffering upon others, but the LE paladin should be about serving an evil master and bringing inflexible and unemphatic order upon the world. In many cases, the LG and LE paladin should be fighting the same fights, but the means to achieve their goals is what sets them apart. Which is what should make the temptation even greater.
a druid
a druid
Alternatively, a ranger.
I'll admit I have a hard time conceptualizing a true neutral paladin. But mechanically speaking, "full BAB character with some various abilities and divine spells" fits ranger like a glove. And a more nature-oriented character is probably more what I'd imagine from a true neutral champion, so doubly suited.
a druidAlternatively, a ranger.
I'll admit I have a hard time conceptualizing a true neutral paladin. But mechanically speaking, "full BAB character with some various abilities and divine spells" fits ranger like a glove. And a more nature-oriented character is probably more what I'd imagine from a true neutral champion, so doubly suited.
FYI, druids back in the day had to be neutral.
Albeit interesting, the Insinuator is a weird archetype. It's a mix-mash of paladin and anti-paladin abilities that occasionally shows potential, and other times leaves one perplex. The ability to smite just about anything is surprising and unprecedented. Replacing spells with feats is okay, I guess (heck that's what I offer my players in my homebrew low-magic campaign), but I don't see why it's tied to this archetype in particular. Constantly changing patrons (not obligatory, I concede) certainly isn't fitting of LE, more fitting of NE and, to a lesser extent, CE. Detect Neutral... why?
Some of the swaps I'd actually find rather fitting on a LE paladin moreso than in this specific archetype. Getting mercies, for example. Why does the champion of selfishness get the ability to cure others of their harmful conditions? And inspire courage to his allies?
Well, you're not going to ever get everything just right, but I think it's a better LE fit then you're viewing it as.
One important point- the Insinuator can't cure others of their harmful conditions. Their healing and mercies are self-only. As far as granting bonuses versus fear to allies is concerned, that's just being scarier than everything else. (Enemies are penalized, after all.) Changing patrons (if you choose to do it) is favoring personal advancement, and does a good job of representing LE's ability to work with agents of the law or of evil. Detect Neutral is weird, yeah, but you don't need your detect ability because you can smite pretty much anybody. If one assumes they can generally tell good from evil, though, it becomes useful as a way to find out who falls in the middle, leaving room for persuasion.
a druidAlternatively, a ranger.
I'll admit I have a hard time conceptualizing a true neutral paladin. But mechanically speaking, "full BAB character with some various abilities and divine spells" fits ranger like a glove. And a more nature-oriented character is probably more what I'd imagine from a true neutral champion, so doubly suited.
The First World book coming out in a month or two is going to include a prestige class for worshippers of the Eldest. Might make a good follow-on to Ranger to give it a bit more focus in that area? There are a few TN Eldest.
FYI, druids back in the day had to be neutral.a druidAlternatively, a ranger.
I'll admit I have a hard time conceptualizing a true neutral paladin. But mechanically speaking, "full BAB character with some various abilities and divine spells" fits ranger like a glove. And a more nature-oriented character is probably more what I'd imagine from a true neutral champion, so doubly suited.
They don't anymore? :P
While druids and warpriests get often suggested as alternatives to variant-aligned paladins, they don't really make a great fit. While the ranger lacks the code of conduct, he is otherwise much closer to what one would probably expect.
Well, you're not going to ever get everything just right, but I think it's a better LE fit then you're viewing it as.
One important point- the Insinuator can't cure others of their harmful conditions. Their healing and mercies are self-only. As far as granting bonuses versus fear to allies is concerned, that's just being scarier than everything else. (Enemies are penalized, after all.) Changing patrons (if you choose to do it) is favoring personal advancement, and does a good job of representing LE's ability to work with agents of the law or of evil. Detect Neutral is weird, yeah, but you don't need your detect ability because you can smite pretty much anybody. If one assumes they can generally tell good from evil, though, it becomes useful as a way to find out who falls in the middle, leaving room for persuasion
I overlooked the self-only restriction on the mercies (I had seen it on Lay on Hands), you are correct, but Aura of Courage remains as a team buffer, whereas Aura of Despair would have been more fitting of the concept.
Detect Balance is just horrible, they would have been just as well to nix the Detect Good ability than to give us that. Because it has absolutely no impact on anything... he can smite neutral and non-neutral targets alike, depending on his alignment and the powers he invokes. Half of the point of Detect Evil was to avoid wasting smites, but Detect Balance has very limited use for this, if any. Honestly I find the wording on these abilities confusing. Detect Balance only seems to detect neutralness on the good to evil axis, and not the law to chaos axis. A neutral good character wouldn't pin, for example. Smite impudence only targets foes that don't share "an alignment" with the invoked power. "An"? So if he summons a neutral evil outsider, can he smite a neutral good opponent? They both have a neutral part. Or does it not apply because it isn't on the same axis?
The archetype isn't useless, but certainly doesn't feel polished. It also re-uses the antipaladin's code of selfishness, which doesn't fit my concept of the LE paladin (which is more lawful than evil).
It's both buffing and debuffing. If you want more law than evil.
Detect Balance is just moral neutrality, yes. Otherwise it would be useless. As it stands, I can see plenty of uses with a little creativity. As for the wording, it's because Pathfinder inherited a poor ability to specify what is meant by "neutral".
Smite works against those who don't share an alignment, not those who don't share an alignment component or alignment element. The axis doesn't enter play.
*shrugs* I really like the archetype. It addresses pretty much every issue I had with Antipaladin.
---
TN Paladin of Inaction? Smite Adventure Hook? Aura of Mundanity? Trades Divine Grace for Reclince Place?
I'd imagine a N paladin as a force of balance, not of nature. While nature usually shows a lot of balance, a N paladin might also strive for balance between nature and civilization. When druids try to stop lumberjacks with violence, they might have to battle the N paladin who defends them. On the other hand, when said lumberjacks get frustrated and try to burn down the entire forest, the N paladin will attempt to stop them.
For "Smite Extremes." I wouldn't allow them to double it at all.
Hmm, my reasoning was: When a paladin opposes a BBEG and its minions, most of them will be evil. But it's unlikely that a N paladin will encounter e.g. LG and CE foes working together - he will fight the same evil group and can't smite NE opponents. Or he will fight a mostly good group, but is handicapped since he can't smite NG foes.
I think its a great archetype. It sticks to the original mechanics(which I like) while providing a code that is much more compatible with a team game.
To me, all three evil paladin code of conducts seem to be pretty much the same. They all demand self-interest above all else, and cause a fall for altruistic behavior, which to me is the core of the problem for team play. Sure, the wording is a bit different, and the appropriate alignment fluff is changed, but the core of it remains. In that regards, the tyrant archetype doesn't really seem any more compatible with standard non-evil games than the standard vanilla antipaladin is.
They don't anymore? :P=FYI, druids back in the day had to be neutral.a druidAlternatively, a ranger.
I'll admit I have a hard time conceptualizing a true neutral paladin. But mechanically speaking, "full BAB character with some various abilities and divine spells" fits ranger like a glove. And a more nature-oriented character is probably more what I'd imagine from a true neutral champion, so doubly suited.
ergh, they had to be True Neutral, not "any neutral".
For "Smite Extremes." I wouldn't allow them to double it at all.Hmm, my reasoning was: When a paladin opposes a BBEG and its minions, most of them will be evil. But it's unlikely that a N paladin will encounter e.g. LG and CE foes working together - he will fight the same evil group and can't smite NE opponents. Or he will fight a mostly good group, but is handicapped since he can't smite NG foes.
My thoughts were that the Insinuator only does half damage normally, and the Gray Paladin doesn't double against non-evil Dragons, Outsiders, or Undead, then the TN Paladin should always just deal one damage per level, never doubling.
Plus, if you're fighting The BBEG, or the BBGG, their followers will probably have a high frequency of lawfulness, or chaos, respectively.
The only thing that makes it "terrible" is losing out on Divine Grace, otherwise it pretty much makes up for what it loses.So Paizo has now released rules for a LG, NG(greyguard) and LN(greyguard) paladin, and rules for a CE and LE(tyrant) antipaladin, and using those rules I've built a NE and CN antipaladin, and a CG paladin archetype, but I still want a true Neutral paladin, and can't think of a good way to balance it, as it doesn't necessarily oppose anything while arguably opposing everything. Any ideas?I would note the grey paladin is mechanically terrible, so logically the neutral paladin should be even worse.
I would take the Gray Paladin as a baseline and weaken its abilities from there. IE Smite Foe now gives you half your level in damage and Enhanced Health gives you a +2 on saves against poison and disease.
This honestly sounds like the best idea to be frank, it will make up for the storyline benefits of being a Neutral Neutral Paladin