Just my 2 cp, but i think giving paladins Smite Points or something like that wouldn't be a half bad idea myself. Letting them use the points for smiting, turning, or auras. I think that would work great, must the same way i like how rage points work for barbarians. Yes, we could give everyone points, but i dont really like that idea, but i do like the flexibility it would give paladins.
I do think paladins should get Detect Evil. Its something they've always had, though it tends to be abused. I think its a classic feature that needs to be preserved, if modified somehow.
I also do not think paladins should be something other than LG. If you want a non LG paladin, make a cleric =P Or take blackguard prestige class.
*Edit* And yes, i very much think paladins should be Charisma casters. They represent the martial leaders of the church and their deity. And because of that spark, their god takes notice of them. I think that is more personality than wisdom based. *Edit*
I had the same idea as anybody here too, I guess.
1) Make the Paladin a CHA caster
2) Let him cast his spells spontaneous
3) Open up the class to any good alignement (since there is NOT A SINGLE ability about Law/Chaos except some spells)
4) Let em use FAITH/RESOLVE/CONTEMPLATION/DETERMINATION POINTS for smiting and auras (and maybe turning)
A lot of people lobbying for alot of different classes are taking about adding points to replace per day, the main issue with this is that it just adds another non-backwards compatible system, and doesnt do anything different then per day uses.
I still stand by per rounds/encounter for abilities. This allows a character have an entire adventure in a single crazy as hell day or play normally for monthes. It is something about 4e I like and they come few and far between.
Yeah, I am not quite sure about Rage/Faith points myself. I somehow feel use per round/encounter/day easier and thus better.
But as I said, I really don't know about that.
|
I would definitely add 'Shield Bond' to paladins, so you could channel divine energy into your shield instead of your weapon. And in any case there should optional Auras (at least picked with Divine Feats if not as class abilities).Like the idea of this as well - what about broadening it out to "Armour Bond" too? - the proverbial "Armour of God" if you will - this would make them able to better protect themselves and could work in tandem with some of the optional Auras to offer protection to their fellow adventurers/followers etc.
Just a northman's ten pennies worth on the subject...
I like it, but I fear it might downplay fighter's abilities. Hmmm...
I really like the idea of paladins having Cha based spellcasting. Cause the idea of a clutzy and stupid holy warrior just doesn't work for me :)
|
I hate to be a naysayer, but the whole notion of a Paladin has always seemed to require a broadly skilled individual, to my way of thinking.
The multiple stat dependancy seems to be part of the flavor of the class; not every schmuck is cut out to be a paladin, nor are they supposed to be.
that being said, I wouldn't, personally, have any issue with a CHA based spell casting dependency. Paladins strike me as a pure faith and force of personality and devotion type class, rather than the somewhat more cerebral and meditative clerics.
I hate to be a naysayer, but the whole notion of a Paladin has always seemed to require a broadly skilled individual, to my way of thinking.
The multiple stat dependancy seems to be part of the flavor of the class; not every schmuck is cut out to be a paladin, nor are they supposed to be.
that being said, I wouldn't, personally, have any issue with a CHA based spell casting dependency. Paladins strike me as a pure faith and force of personality and devotion type class, rather than the somewhat more cerebral and meditative clerics.
Ill take this opportunity to clarify a point here. Im not asking for paladins to be able to stat and gear the same as fighters, the paladin can and should have its own unique flavor, and their holy abilities, high charisma, and unique outlook on adventuring are a lot of fun to play around with.
But there is a point where flavor need give way to function. As things stand, paladins are just too spread out to be effective at what they are supposed to be good at.
You see a similar effect with monks. They need all 3 melee stats to stand with rogues and other melee classes in terms of damage and survivability, and THEN need to add wisdom on top of that to take advantage of their monk abilities. And those abilities, while flavorful and cool, often don't make up for the loss of the raw stats.
The tricky part is balancing things so that the different classes can still be equally effective (or at least close to it) at the same job in different ways.
As I have posted in the past I really don't like how Paladins where handled in 3e (initially too front loaded, now trying to cover too many bases with too few resources).
I know one of the commandments of the Pathfinder RPG process is "keep compatibility." However, I believe this class needs a rethinking.
Since we are not going to use Green Ronin's Holy Warrior Handbook (3.5 updated from The Book of the Righteous) I would propose the following:
SMITE EVIL:
Smite should be a Paladin's signature move. At low levels you have to ration it and high levels it only does so much. Here is an example of what I would do with the ability:
Smite Evil (Su): Once per combat, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal melee attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day.
At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin's smite evil gains additional powers:
4th level - Treat the weapon used during the smite as good aligned for that attack.
7th level - Holy burst, if a smite attack confirms a critical against an evil creature, it deals 1d10 of holy damage per critical modifier (e.g. x2 does 2d10, x3 does 3d10, etc).
10th level - treat the weapon used during the smite as undead bane or evil outsider bane, chosen at the time this ability is gained, for that attack.
13th level - Gain an extra smite per combat.
16th level - Blinding smite, an evil creature is overwhelmed by divine power. A successful smite against an evil target blinds that target until the start of its next round. A critical blinds the creature for additional round equal to its critical modifier (e.g. x2 is 3 rounds, x3 is 4 rounds).
19th - Gain an extra smite per combat.
These are just examples of what smite could be, the order or the powers themselves are in play. If you don't like them or they need to be rebalanced then by all means fiddle with it.
DIVINE BOND:
I agree that the Paladin's mount should be expanded to include a companion option instead. Basically, a mount or companion creature is a function of its CR and whether it can fly or not. If people want to see a break down of SRD mounts and companions by CR, I can post that up.
In my campaign, your choice of patron deity influences which mount/companion you can summon. For example, paladins of the goddess of arguments and volcanoes can call a companion, either a Medium fire elemental at 6th or a Small fire mephit at 7th.
Anyway, those are my suggestions,
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
|
|
there was a reason why Paladins in 2nd Advance Dungeons & Dragons where rare, not uncommon like Rangers or Bards, but actualy rare... almost unique in which they requieres at least 2 very high skill scores (Cha 17, Wis 15 i think) and other few scores up from the avarage...
That also explained the Alignment Restriction...
But lets also remember... they were modeled into the Chivalrous Knights and Paladins of Medieval Europe...
If the setting is pretty much different to Europe... the Paladin can receive changes...
But yes I think a PAragon of Virtue demands at least Good Wisdom... he requieres to learn something of what he does and what he is taught... but yes he requieres Charisma because he IS a beacon for his faith... everything is extra, well received but extra.
Skills i will give him 4 + int per level... but well i always boost every class skills because I like to give emphasis on the skills and not just the combat.
I requiere still to read the book to know well which changes could or could not go (just learned of this, and began readong the book, but Paladin is one of my 2 favorites classes)...
But Detect Evil... I can go with the wind... sometiemes the enemy of the faith are not hidding behind evil... and it kind of ruins an intrigue if the Paladin just know who re the evil persons in the court... I have seen this skills used and abused continiously and I liked the changes Ravenloft did by changing it to Detect Chaos... you detect those who are way different of your mindset, of your discipline and are unthrusworthy in this... that is as good for a Paladin to despise a Rogue as for him to be Evil...
-> for myself i would give the Paladin sense motive and some bonus to it (same with the Cleric, its ufundamental and spells should not change the fact of something his nature should call for!)
but aside of that also the real "Holy Warriors" of medieval times would go to great lenghts to do their church bidding.... any one remember the Inquisition? or the Templars? (yeah i Know second edition depicts them as Clerics...)
The question is to what lenghts would you let a Paladin go to "banquish" evil?
about the round/encounter... it really really is a change from the original editions to 3.5 that i HATED... you make the spells usefuls for nothing but combat... as if it was a videogame... if I wanted to play RPG Videogames I would paly Dark Alliance (or finish it) at least there the spells returns as easily as they go...
why spent a Bull's Strenght or Cat's Grace in nothing but a few rounds of combat when it was usefull for better things... Strenghten the workers for the temple or giving a girl a better chance to get her loved one's heart by enhancing her dancing skills... those things are human things... things that Clerics or anyone should care...
and i think i ranted in a different post...
|
|
As I have posted in the past I really don't like how Paladins where handled in 3e (initially too front loaded, now trying to cover too many bases with too few resources).
I know one of the commandments of the Pathfinder RPG process is "keep compatibility." However, I believe this class needs a rethinking.
Since we are not going to use Green Ronin's Holy Warrior Handbook (3.5 updated from The Book of the Righteous) I would propose the following:
SMITE EVIL:
Smite should be a Paladin's signature move. At low levels you have to ration it and high levels it only does so much. Here is an example of what I would do with the ability:Smite Evil (Su): Once per combat, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal melee attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day.
At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin's smite evil gains additional powers:4th level - Treat the weapon used during the smite as good aligned for that attack.
7th level - Holy burst, if a smite attack confirms a critical against an evil creature, it deals 1d10 of holy damage per critical modifier (e.g. x2 does 2d10, x3 does 3d10, etc).
10th level - treat the weapon used during the smite as undead bane or evil outsider bane, chosen at the time this ability is gained, for that attack.
13th level - Gain an extra smite per combat.
16th level - Blinding smite, an evil creature is overwhelmed by divine power. A successful smite against an evil target blinds that target until the start of its next round. A critical blinds the creature for additional round equal to its critical modifier (e.g. x2 is 3 rounds, x3 is 4 rounds).
19th - Gain an extra smite per combat.
These are just examples of what smite could be, the order or the powers...
(Uh, seems like the forum ate my post or something -- another try...)
Hmmm... I think I like your ideas! Now, I *would* prefer Paladins getting "Smite/Faith Points" and some nice optional powers to spend them on, but if that's not going to happen, I'd surely want to see your suggestion implemented into the class abilities. Nice work! :)
One minor tweak, though: that 10th level power would work better and in a more versatile manner if it's not chosen at 10th level, but rather each time you invoke the power. I'd feel extremely frustrated if I chose Outsider Bane and the DM didn't include them in his campaign. Therefore, IMO it would work better as a "dynamic" choice.
|
|
I miss Detect Evil.
That said, I think the idea of a Charisma based Spell casting makes sense with this class, as well as an increase in skill points. Much as HP now range from 1d4 to 1d0 (with the notable exception of the Barbarian), skill points should range from 4 per level to 8 per level. Penalizing a class by giving only 2 skill points per level, limits its diversity. Yes, high INT gives back some of those missing skill points, but that means a player HAS to rely on his INT score for the bump up. A dumb (INT 8) paldin would not be as skilled as a high INT paladin, but the same would aplly to similar stats with any class.
After reading the Alpha2 Paladin write-up, and the suggestions on the board, here's my suggestions FWIW:
1) Make Paladins CHA-based casters. It seems to me that a paladin's divine powers come from the strength of their faith rather than keen insight, and faith could be considered an aspect of someone's personality.
2) Allow them to choose a domain, but limit the choices to Law, Good or Glory.
3) More skill points. Being a hybrid caster/fighter, they have a lot more ground to cover skill-wise than a straight warrior or spellcaster...Physical training, religious teachings, social skills, etc.
Otherwise, I love the way all the classes are shaping up and can't wait to see what the ranger will look like...
Why do so many people say they miss detect evil?
It's still an ability of the Paladin!?
At least in my copy of Alpha 2...
It might sound strange, but when I used to play a Paladin DEX was more of a dump stat than INT.
Since STR goes for melee damage and a low DEX can be substituted though a bigger Armor, that was perfectly ok for me.
While I do like the idea of Paladins as CHA casters, I don't like the possibility of Paladins with low WIS. That's just not fitting.
Right now, I am really considering to reintroduce old AD&Ds min. Abilities for each class.
(BTW: AD&Ds Paladin: STR 12, CON 9, WIS 13, CHA 17)
Why do so many people say they miss detect evil?
It's still an ability of the Paladin!?
At least in my copy of Alpha 2...
Its still there. Hard to see, but still there. I made a suggestion early on that it might not be the best way to go about portraying that kind of ability, and I think people took it the wrong way.
Lets talk about Detect Evil for a bit.
Pros:
Makes it really hard for Evil to hide.
Helps assure the righteousness of the paladin's combat.
Allows the paladin to single out potential foes without being noticed (most of the time).
Cons:
Takes a while to warm up. Not nearly as effective in combat as people might think.
Sits in a strange spot in terms of at will abilities. Its not a spell, and its not a spell like ability, but it functions as both.
Many paladins will just rely on the detect to choose enemies, potentially wreaking havoc with dangerous and touchy situations.
I have no strong feelings one way or the other right now. I kinda like the idea of paladins not being entirely sure one way or the other, no absolutes, that kinda thing. On the other hand, that would probably mean the paladin code would have to be lightened a bit.
I agree with several of the points posted so far:
1. CHA basis for Paladin
2. Smite Points
I also like the any alignment option, which has been around forever. See the Blackguard and the Anti-Paladin for example. I've like to see a variant of the class offering options like the specialist wizard.
This is my speculative variant; 9 paths for a class called Paragon: Paladin [LG], Cavalier [NG], Zealot [CG], Justicar [LN], Watcher [N], Anarchist [CN], Dominator [LE], Malefactor [NE], Destroyer [CE]. Each represents a character's dedication to an ideal more than to a specific deity, though of course, many do serve specific deities of their alignment.
If any there should be only 4 around:
Paladin (LG),
Liberator (CG),
Tyrant (LE),
Conquerer (CE)
Only the course of extremes can shine or burn strong enough to bring forth a dedicated fighter of the faith.
(BTW, it's just what was done in Unearthed Arcana)
If any there should be only 4 around:
Paladin (LG),
Liberator (CG),
Tyrant (LE),
Conquerer (CE)Only the course of extremes can shine or burn strong enough to bring forth a dedicated fighter of the faith.
(BTW, it's just what was done in Unearthed Arcana)
And in the SDR.
Thanks for the input. I like your names better than mine.
*Wall of Text ahead*
While the changes to the Paladin class are good, I'd agree that they are not a "fix" per se, but a good indication of a work in progress.
On Multiple Stat Dependancy:
I agree that to make the most of a paladin class you need several, if not all, of your stats to be quite high. Due to the amount of dependant abilities and features this is more true than for other base classes. However one does not "need" to play the most effective paladin for him to actually be effective at what he does which in my experience has been to detect/smite and try to aid the bard in making sure people don't run (aura of courage) and to help in the meleeing of dungeon gribblies.
There's nothing wrong with that, and if you don't mind not measuring up to your fellow adventurers you won't really feel poor in comparison. The Paladin class as is has alot of roleplaying potential as well, what being a stern and devout believer and overall zealot for the cause of good. However, I find his abilities to convince anyone without resorting to smiting them or running over them with his horse to be..well..inadequate.
If the intention is to stay true to the so called "iconic" element of the Paladin class and hamstring him to a Lawful Good alignment only then he needs to be able to do more than just beat people up. He should be able to give a rousing speech as well as skewer demons. Convert unbelievers
As I've commented elsewhere I think that the paladins lawful good alignment thing is not really an iconic feature. It's old, but it does not chime as being a necessary thing to propagate in the new and improved Pathfinder RPG.
I can make a comparison. What does any truly iconic wizard have? A pimpin' wizard hat, ofcourse! So lets not lose this iconic element and say that all wizards must have a wizard hat with planets on it or at the very least some stars. This example is meant as a joke, but I think I get my point across. If you want a wizard with a hat you can just add that by yourself. But if I want a militant holy man that is not a cleric, I can just take my radical desires somewhere else, house rule it or just play some other game thank you very much! I think that basing the Paladin in the LG alignment only only limits the possibilities for players. I've heard it often enough in my group, at RPG gatherings locally as well as here on the message boards, there's a large group that wants to play a holy warrior type that is not a cleric and not a religious fighter. They want a paladin with some variety, some spice! And it is jury rigged all the time, why not make it an option? Would that totally destroy the class? I can't see it doing anything but adding to the class, it certainly doesn't hurt it.
To another point now...
None of the Paladin abilities seem to be really "special" enough to warrant an alignment restriction.
A further example.
Paladin walks into a bar.
"My faith in all that is good and just allowed me to cure this man of his wounds!"
*Paladin uses lay on hands on a peasant*
Sorcerer/Evil cleric steps up and says:
"Meh, I can do that!"
*uses celestial bloodline*/*his prepared cure light wounds*
The paladin, not one to be one upped by evil doers, breaks out his hammer and smites the evil cleric. The cleric returns his smite with a Unholy Blight as the sorcerer spews fire and acid from his hands!
This goes on for awhile as every other class does what the paladin does, often if not always better and without the alignment restriction!
I guess what I'm trying to say is that IF you must keep the alignment thing, which doesn't even make sense if you don't allow the arguement of "It's been like this for so long!", but if it must stay lets make the Paladin more special. Lets let him do something truly amazing, something truly iconic. I keep hearing about his alignment being iconic but since alignments have no outward ingame effect then what is it that the paladin can DO that is so iconic? (as in, all alignment does is slot you into groups which certain spells, abilities or items have certain effects on you)
It's not his combat ability, his spells, his special abilities or even his skill selection! He seems rather tacked on in the current system. The Pathfinder version has taken some great steps to address the lack of uniqueness a paladin has, adding various flavorful auras as well as changing the truly ridiculous remove disease 1/week to a 1/day. The bond to a item or a creature is a nice touch addressing not only that some people don't want a mount but that having an actual mount is often more hassle than it is worth.
I've been going on for far too long and my arguement has become abit unwieldy.
What does the paladin do that other classes can't do? We should ask the question "When is a Paladin indispensable?" Other classes synergize in a nice way with each other to a certain degree (I've got alot of problems with the druid in both 3.5 and Pathfinder, but that's for another thread).
What does a Paladin bring to the table? What does he contribute?
I must say I've never heard "Oh I wish we had a Paladin".
Post-script
I realize that as I read through it I might come off as a Paladin hater. I'm not though, I played a Paladin for a long while in a Age of Worms campaign and in my own homebrew campaign I heavily use Paladins as kind of a looming threat to my players (I've got a more "various shades of grey" approach to alignments). I love the idea of a paladin...but I don't love the class.
Post-post-script
Rereading everything makes me notice that I don't make alot of meaningful suggestions for fixes. Are there people out there that want to hear ideas for a Paladin with variety that is still backwards compatible? By no means am I advocating the slaying of the Paladin classes feature of it being primarily a "Lawful Good-kinda class" but to just add the option of something different! It having been established that the designer(s) read this and other threads, would such comments be appreciated or is the alignment just not up for discussion? (I keep mentioning the alignment because RAW-wise there's only so much you can do within the "black and white" view of the world which D&D must maintain...unless we want to change that as well! *encouraging nod*)
|
|
I would LOVE to see the multi-alignment Paladins again, I don't recall seeing since First Edition, when Dragon published an article that had a Paladin for every alignment. That was some serious fun!!
I'm not advocating non-LG paladins as I'm totally against the notion: but DRAGON did have an issue a few years ago with variant alignment "paladins"
Robert
|
I would LOVE to see the multi-alignment Paladins again, I don't recall seeing since First Edition, when Dragon published an article that had a Paladin for every alignment. That was some serious fun!!
I'm not advocating non-LG paladins as I'm totally against the notion: but DRAGON did have an issue a few years ago with variant alignment "paladins"
Robert
Mystara had the (Any Lawful) Paladin. Frankly it validated "Paladin Takes Life".
I like the paladin as a L/G character. Its iconic and flavorful, and asks some interesting questions for players who want to walk the holy road. Paladins of other alignments just don't seem fit. Why would a chaotic person adhere to a very strict code of conduct? Why would a neutral person care?
With blackguards there is at least the idea of tyranny, law taken to oppressive extremes. They also work as a foil for traditional paladins, both follow the law but for very different reasons. Then there are a rare type of paladins, the Grey Guard. Typically I would associate that prestige class with the church of St. Cuthbert, so I guess there is some foundation for a L/N paladin, or a L/G paladin leaning more towards neutral at least.
Other alignments, even the extreme ones, really don't seem to work.
Also, is there any way anyone here knows to get this moved to the class forums?
The question is:
Do people not like the idea of "paladins" of "other alignments"?
Or do they not like a class with "other alignments" that has "paladin" abilities?
Its chicken and egg, but it matters. Are the only holy knights allowable LG paladins, with no room for crusader/templar types of other alignments? Or are other alignments ok, as long as it isn't called "paladin"? Just trying to fish out where the line in the sand is.
Side note to interact with Glan Vars, regarding other alignments: Any extreme alignment is basically one step away from insane, at least from a modern perspective, and that includes the good ones.
Humans, and most of the other core PC races, are often neutral (at least on one axis). That means the vast majority of law abiding, law breaking, puppy adopting, puppy kicking people are in the end, just neutral. It takes a person with strong beleifs to register on one of the extreme axis points, and even more so to hit two of them. A lawful good person is both Mother Teresa AND Judge Dredd, two people that, while we might admire them, it is hard to understand how a person could maintain such an outlook for so long.
Its a small subsection of a population that manages to be strongly commited to an extreme alignment. But the effort it takes to reach such an alignment gives focus to the individual who has it. While a chaotic person is unpredictable, prone to changing their mind, and generally deals with situations as they come, a person who is both chaotic and good has a strong desire to see the lives of those around him improved, to see that those who harm others are punished. He might have a dozen contingency plans, so he can take whichever tickles his fancy. He is unlikely to ever pass by a person in need without stopping, and while his solutions to problems may suprise you, he is as determined as he is creative and unpredictable.
Similar descriptions can be made for CE and LE. Look at the Joker from Batman for CE, or Apocalypse from X-Men for LE. They are equally dedicated to their own respective goals, even if they seem insane or inscrutable to us "normal" people.
Even if he knows in his head that it can never be done, the paladin honestly beleives in his heart that good WILL ultimately destroy evil, totally and completely, and that the trials he goes through is just the steps towards that final destination towards paradise for all creatures.
Charisma is needed for all of the Paladin's special abilities EXCEPT spell-casting, which requires wisdom to the point where you must have a mod to start getting spells at the proper levels.
I agree, make their magic Charisma based, and and also allow them to cast spontaniously, as per the sorcerer. I think making smite a per encounter ability would also greatly increase them.
Paladin Playtest Reports are as unencouraging as the OP suggest that they might be.
-Frank
|
I have two thoughts on paladins in Alpha 2 release.
#1. I think paladins should get to smite evil more often. It is their signature ability and IMO something they should get more of. I think something like (3 + Charisma modifier)/day seems more reasonable to me. Only being able to do it once per day till 4th lvl seems just silly to me. Alternatively, make a feat called "Extra Smiting" or something more clever... The feat would give the paladin +4 smite attempts per day. If you want to make a super smiter, take it multiple times and let it stack. This is like the Extra Turning feat for clerics, but applies to the paladin signature ability.
#2. I think they should be Charisma based spell casters. I don't mind them preparing spells ahead of time, but making them Charisma casters would reduce the multi-stat dependency slightly, and hold with, what i see, the idea of a marshal leader of the church.
I'd *strongly* favor making them free-choice casters like warmages and beguilers, with access to their entire list. I played a paladin through SCAP and found it intensely frustrating to have only 1-2 spells through most of that, and have to prepare them in advance. I always seemed to pick the wrong spells; in particular I never did guess right about when I'd need Align Weapon and when I wouldn't (and that spell is totally useless, except when it's essential).
I actually ended up proposing to the GM that we lose the casting altogether, because it was just frustrating me so badly as a player, and substitute something else. We ended up doing free-casting instead, so I've playtested that a bit. It's not too powerful; it's hardly powerful at all, because the number of spells is so small, but it does reduce the frustration factor.
We haven't playtested the Pathfinder paladin yet, but it does not really seem to solve the problems we had in SCAP. The PC became so battered by her inability to contribute--the other PCs mostly had to protect her, not vice versa--that we had a spectacular turn to the dark side 2/3 through. In particular, without high strength and the fighter feats she was unable to deal with diverse kinds of DR. We gave her an exceptional mount, a celestial unicorn with ranger levels, but even that wasn't enough.
An observation we had with both paladin and monk is that, while good saves are nice, they do not constitute a niche for a PC by themselves; the PC needs useful *active* abilities. High AC may be a niche because it allows the PC to take a front-line position that would otherwise kill them, but high saves are not like this. (Unless you consider "person who sets off traps" a niche, and we didn't.)
Mary
We haven't playtested the Pathfinder paladin yet, but it does not really seem to solve the problems we had in SCAP. The PC became so battered by her inability to contribute--the other PCs mostly had to protect her, not vice versa--that we had a spectacular turn to the dark side 2/3 through. In particular, without high strength and the fighter feats she was unable to deal with diverse kinds of DR.
To be fair, I don't think it was the fault of the 3.5 rules that the player chose to run a melee fighter with low Strength (and without some other way of consistently adding to melee damage like sneak attack).
Are the only holy knights allowable LG paladins, with no room for crusader/templar types of other alignments?
We already have a class for "templar types" for all nine alignments -- the cleric.
The cleric class is similar to certain religious orders of knighthood of the Middle Ages: the Teutonic Knights, the Knights Templars, and Hospitalers. These orders combined military and religious training with a code of protection and service. Members were trained as knights and devoted themselves to the service of the church. These orders were frequently found on the outer edges of the Christian world, either on the fringe of the wilderness or in war-torn lands. Archbishop Turpin (of The Song of Roland) is an example of such a cleric. Similar orders can also be found in other lands, such as the sohei of Japan.
The paladin is a different archetype entirely, the chivalric hero.
The paladin is a noble and heroic warrior, the symbol of all that is right and true in the world. As such, he has high ideals that he must maintain at all times. Throughout legend and history there are many heroes who could be called paladins: Roland and the 12 Peers of Charlemagne, Sir Lancelot, Sir Gawain, and Sir Galahad are all examples of the class. However, many brave and heroic soldiers have tried and failed to live up to the ideals of the paladin. It is not an easy task!
The paladin is lawful good because any character who met the ideal of the chivalric hero would be lawful good. A good but non-lawful character would abandon the punctilio of honor if it interfered with promoting the good; the non-good would not engage in the selfless heroism required. Therefore, a paladin who is not lawful good is impossible.
I’m on the “a non-LG Paladin isn’t a Paladin” side. My main argument is that LG is the most restrictive and toughest alignment to play (can still be fun tough!) and the Paladin risks losing is powers if he strays to far from it. Who could judge any other alignment this way?
Chaotic: Sorry you just kept your word one time to many! How dare you respect those crazy pay for stuff rules?
Evil: You haven’t met your oppression quotas this week?
Neutral: You’ve been too good this last adventure so now you should get the party to do some evil stuff or lose your Paramender-hood (from ye ol’ dragon magazine).
Of course you can judge but it has to be more serious (and less likely) offences that can tip the balance of any non-LG ethics.
In short, champions of other alignment should get fewer abilities than the Paladin or get other restrictions to make up for “easier alignments”. But they are NOT-PALADINS.
As for the class-mechanics brought up:
I get the Idea of a CHA caster but I feel there should be a minimal effort to get some WIS (perhaps access to spell levels, witch would require a WIS of 11 at 4th to get 1st level spell and 14 at 14th to get 4th level spell) the rest working based on CHA.
If the class would get Orisons (O level spells at will) it would actually swallow the Detect-Evil ability and could make it tradable for Detect-Chaos if called for.
The “switchable” bound (from mount to weapon) is an interesting concept but I wouldn’t put it per day. Perhaps 30 days or levelling up before switching whichever comes fist (like the replacement of a lost bound).
Therefore, a paladin who is not lawful good is impossible.
To be fair it is only impossible to those that accept that line of reasoning. Just as for some a wizard without a pimpin' wizard hat is impossible.
There are plenty of good reasons to do away with the alignment requirement or make it an option. For one it gives players more options instead of forcing them into a certain mould. I haven't heard a single good arguement to explain why this would destabilize the class especially since we're playing a game that is moderated (so if the DM doesn't want any other type of Paladins than LG, then he can make it so! At least he has the option to decide!).The main argument against changing the alignment seems to be that this restriction has been around for a while and that people can't imagine a Paladin being any other way. How about those of us that don't care what was going on in 1st ed. or simply prefer to have the choice to have our Paladins abit more flavorful, versatile, useful and so on?
If the class is only special because of its limitations then we'll never make it balance with other classes unless we apply some other equally arbitrary limitation to them all; All fighters must wear a helmet, all bards are of questionable sexual preference, all wizards have hats etc.
If you want to apply a code of somesort to your Paladin then just work one out with your DM. And why can't other classes be bound by codes of conduct? If my warrior is LG and does everything the Paladin does and more, howcome he ain't blessed, smiting gribblies and whatnot? Because the alignment is not what makes the class, it's the person behind the alignment. And alot of the Knights of the Round Table mentioned earlier were right bastards and did underhanded stuff.
The reason why using poison, stabbing people in the back and such is considered dishonorable is because knights back in the day were rich and skilled people. It took years of training and loads of money to acquire the gear and skills to be a knight or a paladin and they didn't like some peasant backstabbing them with a poison blade and nullifying all their efforts.
For the same reason paladins should be banned from using crossbows, hell even magical items and spells since I bet the aristocracy doesn't look kindly on peasant mages fireballing their elite (which is what paladins were and seem to still be in this system; the elite of the church bound by honor to face other men of honor in the field and to die by their tenets if need be).
Needless to say such a rigid view of the world rarely survives contact with the first dungeon of goblins.
I think the alignment debate is an excellent reason why the alignment system should've been scrapped altogether. Unfortunately, it is so deeply embedded in the system it's there to stay.
I think Mary's free form casting idea is a stroke of genius. I'm houseruling it into my games.
Therefore, a paladin who is not lawful good is impossible.To be fair it is only impossible to those that accept that line of reasoning.
Yes; if one decides to have the paladin represent an archetype other than the one originally intended as far back as Supplement I: Greyhawk, then all sorts of changes are both necessary and desirable. But, if it no longer uses the archetype of the paladin (as defined by historical usage either in the tales of the Matter of France or in all previous editions of D&D), then, why call this different archetype a paladin?
And lots of the Knights of the Round Table were, of course underhanded bastards. 1e Deities & Demigods was clear to mark them as fighters, not paladins.
|
|
Charisma is needed for all of the Paladin's special abilities EXCEPT spell-casting, which requires wisdom to the point where you must have a mod to start getting spells at the proper levels.I agree, make their magic Charisma based, and and also allow them to cast spontaniously, as per the sorcerer. I think making smite a per encounter ability would also greatly increase them.
I wouldn't mind seeing a more "martial" Paladin who loses spellcasting but gains more Smite/Aura abilities in PF. However, if the Paladin retains spellcasting, I agree -- he should be able to use spontaneously those few slots he gains.
Here here on that!Skimp on Intelligence and your already low skill selection becomes even worse, and leads to the "Lawful Stupid" type of paladin. The lack of Intelligence combined with the holy bent of the class has made the Paladin into the Jehovah's Witnesses of DnD (No offense to any JWs out there).Dude, I'm not even a Jehovah's Witness and I'm offended by this. Can we try to avoid pointless religious slurs and bigotry in our game discussion, please?
Please read a little before you bring up an already addressed problem.
Im liking the idea of holy points. They could run like barbarian rage points (4+Cha at first, 2+Cha at 2nd and beyond) and they could be used to power paladin abilities like smite, Channel Positive Energy, and maybe even give some boosts to the paladin mount. With the Cha-Based casting it would give the paladin a lot more staying power, something it desperately lacks right now, and could open up a host of fun feat ideas.
Now I'm starting to want to bring the Cloistered Cleric option in, call that Priest, and then severely limit the spell selections of regular clerics to a domain/diety focus list and then call them Templars.
I like the idea of smite points, similar to rage points, but I see two things:
Does using the same mechanic mean stealing the other guys toys? Does it encourage the process of houserules and supplements "borrowing" from the other classes abilities because they are already mechanically similar (as some divine/arcane spells do)?
Does it fit in the backwards compatability goal? I absolutely love rage points, but they do make the barbarians take more time and effort to "back-convert", than say, the rogue.
|
|
As someone who plays paladins consistently:
KEEP the MAD. Playing a paladin is about tough choices. Might as well start at character creation. Yes, I'm serious. In fact, I'd say you really need 5 stats; everything except DEX. However, if you're going to do something about it, key everything to wisdom. It kind of annoys me that every paladin has to be attractive and dynamic. Being a paladin, to me at least, is about heroism and virtue, not popularity and glamor. I understand they're supposed to be great leaders, especially at higher levels, but how about leading by example rather than through raw force of personality?
That's the bard's shtick.
As someone who plays paladins consistently:
KEEP the MAD. Playing a paladin is about tough choices. Might as well start at character creation. Yes, I'm serious. In fact, I'd say you really need 5 stats; everything except DEX. However, if you're going to do something about it, key everything to wisdom. It kind of annoys me that every paladin has to be attractive and dynamic. Being a paladin, to me at least, is about heroism and virtue, not popularity and glamor. I understand they're supposed to be great leaders, especially at higher levels, but how about leading by example rather than through raw force of personality?
That's the bard's shtick.
I am really glad that you shared that point of view. I agree, just because a class could be good at something, doesn't mean the class should be designed so that its easy to do everything that it can do to maximum effectiveness.
Indeed, that is a very interesting idea prompted there. Definitely puts willpower back into wisdom's camp instead of charisma.
I think that it is worth noting that the First Edition paladin was intended to be a sort of elite class. Back then it really did outshine the fighter in many ways.
Moreover, the paladin's LG moral code of chivalry was designed to be difficult and challenging to play. Honestly, those who balk at the strict alignment requirement are sort of admiting they are not up to that kind of a challenge.
A well-played paladin is a paragon of both good and law and can be looked up to as a hero even by chaotics who don't live by that kind of code.
My bottom-line point: the paladin class is not so much the problem as is how it is played by so many people. 1E pretty much spelled out what was expected of the paladin but as editions have come and gone the designers haven't really wanted to push the issue.
Too many people use the paladin as a way to control the group and as an excuse to mandate what the party can and can't do.
Which is a pretty good definition of Lawful Evil.
I would maintain that base classes should present you with a way to get your character concept into the game and thus should maintain a fair level of neutrality and versatility. Every base class has a likely or maybe even a "cliché" example of how this class is and that gives you a fair idea of how the class is going to be but there's a near endless permutation and variety to those base concepts.
Variety is the spice of life after all, and no dish is more bland than the Paladin.
If you want to play a more specific character type you can always moderate yourself. By that I mean that if you want to follow a code of conduct why does it have to be built into the class? Is it not enough to just state that he must be a champion of some ideal and leave it to the player and DM to make it all fit? If I want to be a Fighter with socialist beliefs, one arm and a unnatural obsession with leather do I need to take some special class for that? No, I just add that myself.
Since the Paladin is not the only class capable of being Lawful Good it doesn't seem all that impressive really. Game mechanically wise he's not really a paragon of his alignment. And if it's about how you roleplay him then why nail it down as a game mechanic and why would it matter if you could play LE, CE, CG Paladins at all?
As for it being a fun challenge, then sure it's a fun challenge but then again so any restriction or limitation to a class you or I come up with. This is a reference to "All wizards must have a hat".
I find that a class should be special for what it can do, not what it can't do.
Post-script.
I'm not against Paladins having to follow a code, I'm just against them following a single code and that Paladins of other varieties are unable to surface. This might be linked to a major problem I have with the alignment system itself, but you can make the argument without bashing the alignment system.
I find that stories become so much more alive when you sprinkle abit of moral ambiguity into the mix. Take the Cold war, is one side evil and the other good? Sure from their perspective the other one is evil and they the champions of good, but is there one that is universally good/evil? Now place Paladins into that setting. You can justify them seeing each other as being evil, if they follow different deities there's nothing to say they can't detect each other as being evil even (since isn't more like a detection based off of some standard set by the deity you are channeling?). Maybe one is more like the D&D Paladin but then why is the other one invalid? Is the only other alternative to a Paladin a puppy murdering Blackguard? Is there no way for two Paladins to follow codes that are so wildly different in focus and emphasis that they both hate each other and subscribe to separate moral standards?
If there are any Warhammer players out there I think it's enough to ask who are the "Good Guys" in 40K and you get what I mean.
But by all means make the "Iconic" version of the Paladin a Lawful Good variety, nothing wrong with that.
This was a paladin that my group brain stormed over for a long time and this is what we came up with. The DM allowed it, and it still had the code of conduct and still suffered from MAD. It is loosely based on the duskblade with the assumption that the paladin is a holy warrior and should be offensive and defensive in nature. He was played from level 1 until around 13 or 14 and always felt of adequate power never over powered and never underpowered.
He lost smite, special mount, d2 worth of hit points, and remove disease. He gained more offensive spell selections and 0 and 5th level spells, a better caster level, and a better turning level, and a couple gimic abilities. Fire weapon replaces the smite ability, minus the extra damage from paladin level and the to hit bonus. Just an idea of one paladin that worked and worked well. It wasnt as powerful as the cleric or wizard, but didnt feel left out in the cold either.
Paladin
Alignment: Any good.
Hit Die: d8.
Class Skills
The paladin’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (cha), Knowledge (the religion, nobility) (Int), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), and Sense Motive (Wis).
Skill Points at 1st Level: (2 + Int modifier) x 4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 2 + Int modifier.
Table: The Paladin
Level Base
Attack Bonus Fort Ref Will Abilities
1st +1 +2 +0 +0 Lay on Hands,Aura of good, detect evil
2nd +2 +3 +0 +0 Divine Grace
3rd +3 +3 +1 +1 Turn Undead 3/day
4th +4 +4 +1 +1 Divine Health
5th +5 +4 +1 +1 Aura of courage
6th +6 +5 +2 +2 Fire Weapon +1d4
7th +7 +5 +2 +2
8th +8 +6 +2 +2 Holy Gust
9th +9 +6 +3 +3
10th +10 +7 +3 +3
11th +11 +7 +3 +3
12th +12 +8 +4 +4 Fire Weapon +1d6
13th +13 +8 +4 +4
14th +14 +9 +4 +4
15th +15 +9 +5 +5 Holy Weapon
16th +16 +10 +5 +5
17th +17 +10 +5 +5
18th +18 +11 +6 +6 Fire Weapon +1d8
19th +19 +11 +6 +6
20th +20 +12 +6 +6 Holy Avenger
level Spells per Day
0 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
1 3 2 — — — — —
2 4 3 — — — — —
3 5 4 — — — — —
4 6 5 - — — — —
5 6 5 2 — — — —
6 6 7 3 — — — —
7 6 7 5 - — — —
8 6 7 6 - — — —
9 6 7 6 2 — — —
10 6 8 7 3 - — —
11 6 8 7 5 - — —
12 6 8 8 6 - — —
13 6 9 8 6 2 - —
14 6 9 8 7 3 - —
15 6 9 8 7 5 - —
16 6 9 9 8 6 - -
17 6 10 9 8 6 2 -
18 6 10 9 8 7 3 -
19 6 10 10 9 7 5 -
20 6 10 10 10 8 6 -
Class Features
All of the following are class features of the paladin.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: paladins are proficient with all simple and martial weapons, with light, medium armor, heavy armor, and with shields (except tower shields).
Spells: The Paladin gain spells through leveling and can cast any spell from their spell list like a bard or sorcerer, provided their wisdom score is high enough. Their caster level is the same as their class level.
Lay on Hands: same as standard paladin
Divine Grace: a paladin gains a bonus equal to their Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws.
Aura of Courage: a paladin is immune to fear (magical or otherwise). Each ally within 10 feet of her gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against fear effects. This ability functions while the paladin is conscious.
Divine Health: a paladin gains immunity to all diseases, including supernatural and magical diseases.
Turn Undead: Same as a good cleric
Holy Gust: Use gust of wind as the spell; any creature in area takes fire and holy damage equal to your level, ½ of each for the total of the level.
Holy Avenger: any weapon the paladin holds can surpress the enchantment on the weapon and aquire the holy avenger template, the fire weapon ability of the weapon does not get suppressed.
Spells List: 0-->detect magic, read magic, light, disrupt undead, cure minor wounds;
1st-->bless, bless weapon, bless water, create water, detect poison, detect undead, divine favor, magic weapon, endure elements, protection from chaos/evil, cure light wounds, remove fear, shield of faith;
2nd-->flame blade, aid, consecrate, augury, align weapon, spirtual weapon, cure moderate wounds, lesser restoration, bull’s strength, delay poison, eagle’s splendor, owl’s wisdom, resist energy, shield other, undetectable alignment, zone of truth;
3rd-->continuel flame, cure serious wounds, daylight, discern lies, dispel magic, magic circle against chaos/evil, greater magic weapon, prayer, remove blindness/deafness, remove curse;
4th-->cure critical wounds, heal mount, break enchantment, death ward, dispel chaos, dispel evil, holy sword, neutralize poison, restoration, remove disease, searing light;
5th-->mass cure light wounds, heal, freedom of movement, dismissal, atonement, flame strike, raise dead, righteous might, true seeing, wall of stone, cone of fire (like cone of cold but fire damage)
Feel free to use any or all of this, or even hate it or tear it apart. :)
Since the Paladin is not the only class capable of being Lawful Good it doesn't seem all that impressive really. Game mechanically wise he's not really a paragon of his alignment.
Right. Exactly. The Paladin is not an alignment paragon or champion. If paladins were alignment champions, it would make absolutely perfect sense for there to be non-LG paladins serving as paragons and champions of the other alignments.
Similarly, paladins are not a god's champion. If paladins were just a god's champion, it would make perfect sense for all gods to have paladins, regardless of alignment.
But neither of those is what the paladin is. Paladins are a class modeled on the paladins in the Matter of France. That's why they're called paladins; if they were something else, they'd have a different name. If you want them to be something else, give them a different name.
A wizard class which didn't use magic would be an abuse of the English language, because wizards by definition are users of magic. A fighter class which didn't fight is similarly and abuse of the English language. And a paladin who isn't a chivalric hero is another abuse of the English language.
Since anyone who follows the chivalric code of honor would be lawful in D&D terms, and anyone who unselfishly and heroically defends the weak and innocent would be good, a paladin is lawful good by default.
Now, maybe you don't think there should be a paladin class, because it's too narrow and limiting. Fine, remove it, and replace it with something else that you like better. Just don't call the replacement class a paladin, because it won't be one, it will be something else. A Paragon, an Exemplar, a Holy Warrior . . . whatever.
|
|
I think that it is worth noting that the First Edition paladin was intended to be a sort of elite class. Back then it really did outshine the fighter in many ways.
Moreover, the paladin's LG moral code of chivalry was designed to be difficult and challenging to play. Honestly, those who balk at the strict alignment requirement are sort of admiting they are not up to that kind of a challenge.
A well-played paladin is a paragon of both good and law and can be looked up to as a hero even by chaotics who don't live by that kind of code.
My bottom-line point: the paladin class is not so much the problem as is how it is played by so many people. 1E pretty much spelled out what was expected of the paladin but as editions have come and gone the designers haven't really wanted to push the issue.
Too many people use the paladin as a way to control the group and as an excuse to mandate what the party can and can't do.
Which is a pretty good definition of Lawful Evil.
One quick counterpoint to that last statement before I get into the meat of this post: telling people what to do isn't always bad; when a parent tells their child not to touch a stove, an officer tells a soldier to carry out an order, or even when a boss gives an employee an assignment, it's lawful, maybe, but not necessarily evil (the first example is unquestionably good). Be that as it may, I do agree with your central point, and furthermore I've never felt that a paladin should be bossy, judgmental, and self-righteous. If you read Order of the stick, I'm much more a fan of Hinjo and O-Chul (particularly O-Chul) than Miko. If you DON'T read order of the stick, start. ;) For those who haven't read the 552 strips and 2 books, however, I'll sum it up this way: the role of the paladin in the party is the GLUE, not the brain. He should be the one keeping squabbling party members working together, less-than-heroic party members convinced that they should press on towards a virtuous goal, and everyone's morale up when things seem hopeless. If you focus on those things as the player of the paladin, you will often become a leader in the party through them. I can wax eloquent on good material for inspiring yourself and getting in the right frame of mind if you're playing a paladin (and will happily do so in another thread if people are interested), but the standbys, old and new (King Arthur, Gallahad, Charlemagne, Solomon Kane, Hinjo & O-Chul, etc.) DO work. Part of being able to make that mindset credible is NOT being an invincible superman at the table.
...But neither of those is what the paladin is. Paladins are a class modeled on the paladins in the Matter of France. That's why they're called paladins; if they were something else, they'd have a different name. If you want them to be something else, give them a different name.
A wizard class which didn't use magic would be an abuse of the English language, because wizards by definition are users of magic. A fighter class which didn't fight is similarly and abuse of the English language. And a paladin who isn't a chivalric hero is another abuse of the English language.
Since anyone who follows the chivalric code of honor would be lawful in D&D terms, and anyone who unselfishly and heroically defends the weak and innocent would be good, a paladin is lawful good by default.
Now, maybe you don't think there should be a paladin class, because it's too narrow and limiting. Fine, remove it, and replace it with something else that you like better. Just don't call the replacement class a paladin, because it won't be one, it will be something else. A Paragon, an Exemplar, a Holy Warrior . . . whatever.
Sure, the D&D Paladin is clearly modelled after Charlemagne's 12 Paladins and alot of their abilities take inspiration from there. But I need only point you in the direction of the wikipedia article on Paladins that that's clearly not the only usage of the word, nor the only way they can be portrayed. Similarly, one who is a Paladin is also classified as someone who is a "Determined advocate and defender of a noble cause". Since it's clear that what is noble to a group of resistance fighters may not be noble to a member of the Imperial Guard from an aristocratic upbringing "noble" can be applied to any cause just as evil can, it depends on which side of the fence you are.
So, history does not pigeonhole him to his current incarnation, nor does the usage of the word, semantics aside it'd be nice if some of my points were addressed.* The Paladin needs variety
* In his current incarnation the Paladin class limits player and DM scope (and thus variety).
* It's easier to take away than it is to add, what is the gamebreaking reason paladins can not be a "neutral" class that is defined further by the player and DM? Example:
Alignment: The Paladin cannot be of any neutral alignment, anyone who takes up the mantle of Paladin must be set in his views. Furthermore he must follow a strict code of conduct and morals and if he ever grossly violates that code he may lose his powers (See Code of Honor sidebar). The details of this code is left up to the Player and DM but here is an example of the classic Lawful Good Paladin Code. *example*
* D&D is a moderated game, if you only want LG Paladins and the current Paladin code, great maintain it. But there's no real reason why you can't have the option to play a different kind of Paladin. I think that by incorporating that option into the core rules is a great move.
Any reply to my points?
Or shall we start talking about the history of chivalry and honor and show how the Paladin concept is really a real world mirror of how the aristocracy kept its peasant population subjugated and servile, if you're a starving peasant you can't face a well fed and trained elite knight armed in full plate, wielding a lance and riding a heavy warhorse. (Lets not actually...this requires us to start arguing against the alignment system, which while silly but does speed up gameplay. But lets not get stuck in the alignment system either, lets use it for convenience, lets not build the game around it, that gives us a stark Black and White world where the Paladin is automatically on the right side and it's not possible to have it any other way. The world is shades of grey, one mans martyr is another mans suicide bomber; one mans Paladin is another mans Blackguard.)
Post-script
I guess I can boil it down even further. I want to have the option to have my Paladin different. Is there any reason not to include that option, semantics aside?
I have to say, after looking over the Paladin, I don’t think the class as written is flawed. The Paladin has always needed fair ability scores, that’s true. But for good reason, he can do a lot more stuff than the Fighter or the Barbarian.
A Paladin is a combatant, so he should have fair Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution. He’s a charismatic and clever individual, and as such he should have a fair Intelligence, Charisma, and Wisdom. That being said, he should have at least a 14 Wisdom, 14 Charisma (if not Higher), 14 Strength, and the rest can be lower if they must, but preferably no less than 12. But honestly, a paladin should have a few exceptional scores of 16-18 as well. If this can’t be done with 28 points, it’s because the 28 point buy is flawed in my opinion. It’s designed to create semi realistic characters, average folk, not heroes. A paladin will never be and should never be average. He’s a classic hero of legend and nothing less is acceptable. I honestly think he can only be made with a die roll and good rolls.
There has been a lot of talk about the Paladin not being able to hold his own against a Fighter in terms of combat. Yes. That might be true. And he shouldn’t be able to. That’s not the Paladin’s job.
Fighters train in combat and nothing else. They should be better with a sword and arrow. They should hit more often and do on average more damage.
Put a Fighter against a Fighter.
Put a Paladin against Spellcaster or arcane monster. With a high Charisma and Divine Grace, he’s got high saving throws, and spells like Resist Energy, Protection from Evil, and the truly awesome Holy Sword. Not enough, look at Complete Divine. Lots of good spells in there. And now he’s immune to Charm and Fear.
A paladin at low levels should be fighting evil spellcasters, demon cultists, and the like. And later on, demons and dragons. What good is the vast majority of his abilities against a Fighter?
Also, focus your paladin on the type of Bond you’re going to take. If you’re going to get a Mount, take the Mounted Feats. A paladin in open terrain rules the battlefield.
If you’re not going to go that route, look at the Divine Feats from Complete Warrior. Divine Might alone gives the paladin a lot of power. Oh and by 5th level, with a 14 Strength, a 16 Charisma, and taking Extra Smite, you can roll a +10 doing D8+7 4 times a day with a non magical weapon. Combined with Divine Might and it goes up to D8+10. Combined with Power Attack and a +1 weapon, maybe even Weapon Focus. You get the idea.
And when you run out of Smite Evils and Spells, try Laying on Hands. By 5th level, you’ve got hopefully 15 points to spread out to people. No it’s not much, but it’s more than the Fighter can do, and you can never roll a 1 on a cure light wounds.
Oh and let’s not forget the much improved Turn Undead, which you should hopefully have 6 times a day. With you around, the party has a much easier time getting though the day.
As far as Paladins of non LG alignment. I like this idea. (check out Book of Hallowed Might: Awesome) At first I thought it would take up too much space to show four of even nine different Paladins, but with the amount of pages dedicated to the Wizard and Sorcerer, maybe it's not a big deal. I'm just not sure if enough people want this to justify the space needed.
By that I'm also saying that a LG paladin should have different abilities than a CG Paladin. Not just a different alignment.
That’s my 2 pennies.