[THINK TANK] Paladins

[quest-master]

On the subject of names, how about changing the name of the class itself to crusader, with paladin being the title for good-aligned crusaders?

Good - paladin
Neutral - champion
Evil - blackguard

Just a thought.

[Chobbly]

quest-master wrote:

On the subject of names, how about changing the name of the class itself to crusader, with paladin being the title for good-aligned crusaders?

Good - paladin
Neutral - champion
Evil - blackguard

Just a thought.

You could. But should you? (not a flame, just a question)

The paladin is an archetype in D&D. The greater archetypes are the classic four, Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard. The paladin is (to me) part of a second set of archetypes, including the Bard, Ranger and others. The base classes to me (in D&D as well as Pathfinder) are there to represent these archetypes.

Why would you have a champion of true neutral alignment? A champion of neutral would be unable to act in a good, evil, chaotic or lawful way without risking changing their alignment. Helping an old lady that had fallen over would be against their code of conduct (good). Equally, laughing and jeering at said old lady would be against their code of conduct (evil). Whilst not helping may not break the lawful aligment (depending on the law), not doing anything to help could be seen as being self-serving (and thus chaotic). Thus, would a Paladin of Neutrality be forever paralysed into inaction?

I don't see how neutral paladins can work. It doesn't fit in the 'something to aim for' in the code of conducts. In my experience, neutrals are for those who don't feel strongly in particular areas - the paladin is focused on being LG, and to dilute that would dilute a class that is underpowered and often derided for being so.

As a non-inflammatory aside, is there any reason why the concept of a non-LG paladin could not be accomplished by multiclassing fighter/cleric? Or failing that, hitting the Complete Champion book for some of the stuff in there?

Chobbly

[quest-master]

A neutral paladin would be a defender not of moral virtues or evil ambitions but of that which his deity holds in interest.
A paladin of a nature deity for example would be a devout protector of a forest or some natural wonder. He would fight against any threat that would destroy the balance of nature, just as many druids would, but using more martial tactics than magic. Ultimately, it may prove less disruptive to simply knock out the intruder with a well-placed blow to the head and drag him away rather than launching a flame strike or commanding nearby plants to scare said intruder off.

Since evil villains more often threaten the balance of nature with their destructive schemes and methods, it would not be out of the question for a neutral paladin to side with the good guys all the while watching closely to make sure the rest of the party doesn't disrupt nature as well.
This same paladin wouldn't feel overly concerned about helping the old lady but if it meant getting her to get her ass off of sacred grounds sooner than later he would certainly do so.

Neutral paladins aren't for everybody, but the rules for them should exist whether people want to use them as PCs or NPCs.

As long as it serves the interests of his deity, the neutral paladin will act however the situation demands that he act, in the interest of his faith.
This is why I suggested a separate code of conduct based on the deity or alignment.

By the way, not doing anything and being self-serving is a sign of neutrality. Helping or laughing or doing both just for the fun of it is more in line with chaotic.

[Chobbly]

quest-master wrote:

A neutral paladin would be a defender not of moral virtues or evil ambitions but of that which his deity holds in interest.

A paladin of a nature deity for example would be a devout protector of a forest or some natural wonder. He would fight against any threat that would destroy the balance of nature, just as many druids would, but using more martial tactics than magic. Ultimately, it may prove less disruptive to simply knock out the intruder with a well-placed blow to the head and drag him away rather than launching a flame strike or commanding nearby plants to scare said intruder off.

For me, I'd probably just say play a ranger with a tweak or two, perhaps swapping out Favoured Enemy for a Smite Evil class feature that can only hit non-Neutrals, given the focus. It would already have the class skills for a more nature-inspired character.

quest-master wrote:

Helping or laughing or doing both just for the fun of it is more in line with chaotic.

I think the point stands though, that quite a simple situation could threaten a character with a neutral code of conduct into inaction by not being able to act in a truly neutral way. I still think the paladin should be kept as lawful good, and potentially crusaders or some other variant for the other alignment extremes (CE, LE, CG) which can have their own well-defined code of conduct.

I wouldn't want a non LG paladin, given the archetype, but my game is my game, and your game is your game.

Chobbly

[Viktor_Von_Doom]

Chobbly wrote:

quest-master wrote:

On the subject of names, how about changing the name of the class itself to crusader, with paladin being the title for good-aligned crusaders?

Good - paladin
Neutral - champion
Evil - blackguard

Just a thought.

You could. But should you? (not a flame, just a question)

The paladin is an archetype in D&D. The greater archetypes are the classic four, Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard. The paladin is (to me) part of a second set of archetypes, including the Bard, Ranger and others. The base classes to me (in D&D as well as Pathfinder) are there to represent these archetypes.

Why would you have a champion of true neutral alignment? A champion of neutral would be unable to act in a good, evil, chaotic or lawful way without risking changing their alignment. Helping an old lady that had fallen over would be against their code of conduct (good). Equally, laughing and jeering at said old lady would be against their code of conduct (evil). Whilst not helping may not break the lawful aligment (depending on the law), not doing anything to help could be seen as being self-serving (and thus chaotic). Thus, would a Paladin of Neutrality be forever paralysed into inaction?

I don't see how neutral paladins can work. It doesn't fit in the 'something to aim for' in the code of conducts. In my experience, neutrals are for those who don't feel strongly in particular areas - the paladin is focused on being LG, and to dilute that would dilute a class that is underpowered and often derided for being so.

As a non-inflammatory aside, is there any reason why the concept of a non-LG paladin could not be accomplished by multiclassing fighter/cleric? Or failing that, hitting the Complete Champion book for some of the stuff in there?

Chobbly

No Core (I don't care about whether something core, but people think Core should be the end all be all) class should be restricted to just one alignment. I agree that a TN Paladin doesn't work, but Paladins of the other alignments should work. The LG only Paladin thing is a Cow that needs to die.