Or can you? After the recent release of the APG, one of my players has shown clear interest in playing a paladin. As many could guess, the issue is that my campaign world doesn't (and never has before) taken alignment into consideration. It hasn't been an issue in the many years we've been playing, and we've simply avoided spells like "Protection from ______." I personally never liked the concept of it, so I ditched it early on. Unfortunately, the Paladin seems to be totally interwoven into the concept of alignment, and I know there are other DMs out there who play alignmentless games, so I was looking for some advice.
I once before had a player who wanted to play a paladin, but since there was no alignment, I simply let him smite anything except truly neutral creatures, like animals. I soon realized that was a foolish mistake, and the class dominated most everything. Luckily for me, that campaign ended quickly, and we moved on. Now I'm back looking to see if anyone has any suggestions/experience with this kind of situation, and if they could offer any helpful advice. Also, I don't intend to start a debate about alignment, I'm just looking for alternatives is all.
Thanks!
i would say in my personal opinion that it would be easy to do, as long as the character follows the code of conduct of the paladin he should be fine, follow all the same rules, you can even incorporate all the elements of the lawful good alignment into the code to emphasize this.
i feel that it could work just fine, but the gm (im assuming you will be the gm) just has to watch what the paladin does and keep him aware of how close he is to losing his abilities for not being moral enough.
My initial thought at the thread title:
Exactly the same way as you play him in a campaign with alignments.
Mechanically, either change Smite to function on enemies of his faith, or only on servants of "evil" deities (ie, the God of Murder is going to be an "evil" deity even if the campaign doesn't have strict alignments) plus traditionally evil outsiders like demons and devils.
You won't ruin the paladin class by restricting his smite targets a little over what he normally gets. All of his other alignment stuff is pretty much fluff.
I'd say the Paladin must have an alignment - it supports his code. That doesn't mean the rest of the game universe understands it though. In any game he should be striving to lead by example first anyway.
Being a frontline soldier in the war against something is very much his defining characteristic. He needs something.
S
Possibly look at some alternatives maybe APG challenge instead of smite, and have the paladin play as if he has an alignmet and that alignment is lawful good............
Yes, a Cavalier of "The Order of the Star" would be the Paladin Replacement in an "alignment free" game.
Even if you do not use alignments, and there are a lot of game systems that do not, especially ones not based on fantasy, there will still be Good and Evil in the world and there will be people who respect and follow the Laws and those who scorn it and prefer the anarchy of Chaos. Look at the real world. We do not have alignments, but the basis from the real world for the fantasy alignments is very real. So even without an alignment system for your campaign world, you can still easily have paladins even if they would more likely be called knights. Also, things like Detect Evil and Protection from Evil and Smite Evil should still be perfectly viable even without an alignment system, just that there would be fewer targets for them because something would have to be really evil and not wishy-washy neutral to evil for them to work without alignments.
Thanks for the replies, folks. I suppose I wasn't seeing the trees for the forest; I think I was too focused on stepping so far out of the picture that I convinced myself I needed an alternate system. With your replies Im beginning to think I don't. I was just afraid that one of these extremes would emerge: That the paladin had too few targets to smite, or the reverse, due to a lack of clearly defined rules. I think with my standard campaign style, I should easily be able to label which targets are "smitable" and which are just enemies in your way, and they should be frequent enough to be satisfying.
Thanks for the advice, guys! I'll hopefully have a fun-loving paladin player popping (alliteration!) up in our next adventure.
While I agree with everything that has been said about Smite Evil and the Code of Conduct, you might want to consider replacing Detect Evil. Detect Evil will be a lot harder to run case-by-case since it will only come up in cases that are already borderline. I suggest replacing it with a class bonus to Sense Motive, similar to the Inquisitor's Stern Gaze ability.
I've also never used alignments. Not since I outgrew them way back in 1e. And my paladins have never suffered.
The easiest way to explain it is with real world examples. Here in the real world, we don't have an aligment system. We cannot pigeonhole every human being into one of nine labels and expect them all to always act within the constraints of their chosen alignment.
And yet, in this real world, we can certainly point at people and rightly call them evil. Or good. Sometimes it's fairly objective. Charles Manson, evil. Abraham Lincoln, good. Usually, it's subjective. I'm convinced my wife's best friend is evil. Heck, I'm not too sure my wife isn't evil...
For this world, it's enough that we put labels on things in our own minds. I have a fairly good idea of who, within the limited circle of my acquaintances, I would consider to be good, and who I would consider to be evil. Likewise with lawful and chaotic. In some of those cases I might be wrong.
Back to the game world.
PCs ought to (IMO, and quite likly in the OP's opinion too) walk around in their fantasy world forming their own ideas of who is good/evil/lawful/chaotic. Sometimes it will be objective, but usually it will be subjective.
Spells like Detect Evil still function, in my campaign, but they work more on the target's current frame of mind, or on his most recent activities, rather than on some mystical pigeon-holed gamist label hanging over his head.
In other words, point a Detect Evil at a family man who is working hard at his day job to earn a living and take care of his family, and he probably won't show up as evil. Point it at him later that week when he meets with his revolutionary buddies and plots to poison the king, and now he'll very likely detect as evil.
I further play it that your actions carry with you for a while (the bigger the initial deed, the longer the lingering effect), so kicking a kitten might barely register as evil for a few minutes, but summoning a demon and telling it to eat all the orphans in the local orphanage might tag you as evil for many months to come.
Having said all that, there is no problem with Smite Evil.
The paladin cannot smite that family man at his day job, but he likely can smite him while he is plotting to poison the king, maybe even for days or weeks afterward (especially if the king really is a good and just king).
And as for the players, I let them write an alignment on their sheet if it helps them roleplay according to a concept they like, but I never ask them what it is. I just track it in my head, maybe making a few notes, and if it is ever an issue (like some paladin tries to smite them, or they pick up an evil-aligned weapon, etc.), then I use my own judgment to decide what their alignment is, right then, at that little slice of time. That same smite or evil weapon may affect them differently tomorrow or next week, but right now, I make the adjudication and move on.
My players almost never disagree, and when they do, I have my notes. If they point out something I've forgotten, I may re-evaluate. And then we move on.
Works like a charm and has never been a problem.
|
It always bogles my mind how many people don't seem to understand that just because a stat isn't given for alignment, that doesn't mean that good and evil won't exist. To echo the other replies in this thread: Play him exactly the same as if he were in a campaign that included that outdated, archaic alignment concept.
I use alignment and actually worked it in my campaign. I don't think it should be a straight jacket and inform players to just play their character as they may not even know what their alignment really is. But alignment has an importance in my setting as I play up the wars between law and chaos (like Elric) as just as important as the war against good and evil.
|
We hate alignment but do our best to work around it for the most part. I'm playing a Paladin right now and after a few bumps we've got it pretty well settled. We acknowledge that there are many shades of gray in good and evil and my detect evil ability sees them. Generally, my GM makes something of a judgment call based on how evil he figures a person is. Theft is evil but without violence its pretty limited. So the cutpurse shows up as gray but definitely not smitably evil. A murderer, a rapist, these guys will get the smite to the face. But even the cleric of an evil god might not be smitable, not if he's not doing truly evil stuff.
The other option, maybe only particularly possible if the player is a moral theorist or philosopher is to have them design their own moral theory or use an existing one. Then the GM just has to make a judgment call as to who qualifies as an enemy of that moral philosophy.
But this leads us to other problems, mainly that some moral philosophies, notably Rand's egoism, will let you justify too much in their name. It's a tough line for a GM and player to walk sometimes.
Or can you? After the recent release of the APG, one of my players has shown clear interest in playing a paladin. As many could guess, the issue is that my campaign world doesn't (and never has before) taken alignment into consideration. It hasn't been an issue in the many years we've been playing, and we've simply avoided spells like "Protection from ______." I personally never liked the concept of it, so I ditched it early on. Unfortunately, the Paladin seems to be totally interwoven into the concept of alignment, and I know there are other DMs out there who play alignmentless games, so I was looking for some advice.
Paladins don't really need alignment anyways. It's a legacy. It has nothing to do with their balance. The only trouble is reflavoring the abilities like detect evil.
I once before had a player who wanted to play a paladin, but since there was no alignment, I simply let him smite anything except truly neutral creatures, like animals. I soon realized that was a foolish mistake, and the class dominated most everything. Luckily for me, that campaign ended quickly, and we moved on. Now I'm back looking to see if anyone has any suggestions/experience with this kind of situation, and if they could offer any helpful advice. Also, I don't intend to start a debate about alignment, I'm just looking for alternatives is all.Thanks!
I'm not sure how the paladin ended up owning. 90% of the creatures you fight are usually evil aligned anyways.
Make the paladin come up with a code appropriate to his beliefs. Let smite only work on clear enemies of that code.
A paladin of "freedom" for example (which was a variant in 3.5) can only use smite on someone clearly fighting for tyranny. A servant for a corrupt king. A slaver etc.
The other option is the player makes a religious fighter and you call him a paladin.
Thanks for the replies, folks. I suppose I wasn't seeing the trees for the forest; I think I was too focused on stepping so far out of the picture that I convinced myself I needed an alternate system. With your replies Im beginning to think I don't. I was just afraid that one of these extremes would emerge: That the paladin had too few targets to smite, or the reverse, due to a lack of clearly defined rules. I think with my standard campaign style, I should easily be able to label which targets are "smitable" and which are just enemies in your way, and they should be frequent enough to be satisfying.
Thanks for the advice, guys! I'll hopefully have a fun-loving paladin player popping (alliteration!) up in our next adventure.
Like others said, just make sure the code of conduct is clear. It is especially important in a game without alignment. Write it out, and talk to the player about it. Paladins are often problematic becuase player and dm have different images in mind between the two. So talk it out, what the code of conduct insists on for various situations, like, do you smite the baddie or save the innocent if you can only do one or the other? Or what do you do with prisoners, defeated foes? Is deception ok if it's to land a blow against evil? What kind of tactics are or arent honorable (ambush, use of enchantment, whatever).
Same goes for what is smitable. Come up with a standard and stick to it as best as you can. Try to make sure the paladin gets to smite at least once a session on average. Nothing is worse then not being able to use your main ability for an extended period of gametime. Also basically detect evil becomes detect smitable for the player, so if he checks, he knows who smite does and doesnt work against.
For smite, just figure out who can and cannot be targeted by it ahead of time. Either make an allowed or disallowed list (or both). An example "allowed" list could be like this:
Outsiders from Hell, Abyss and Shadow planes
Clerics and servants of gods who reside on those planes (or similar to gods from those planes if you have your own cosmology)
Undead
Disallowed:
Humanoids (unless you specifically an individual to be Smite-able)
Don't think in terms of alignment, think in terms of morality, ethics, honor and virtue.
Some games have characters quite close to a paladin, such as the samurai or the jedi.
If you can play these without alignment, you can play a paladin.
I'm not sure how the paladin ended up owning. 90% of the creatures you fight are usually evil aligned anyways.
My campaigns tend to be more humanoid oriented than monster oriented, and there were a handful of occasions where they just fought off wild animals. I don't necessarily label all the NPCs as "evil" because they oppose the party, they might simply (and usually do) have conflicting goals. As such, I could only say a few opponents that might actually have been "evil," but most of the time they're probably closer to neutral or chaotic. When the paladin could smite whatever he wanted, our resident fighter felt a little outmatched by comparison.
But, of course, I foolishly neglected to mention that I was also only doing one or two combats a day, so his normally quite limited pool of daily smites was basically a nonissue. Hehe, I suppose I shouldn't have left out that crucial detail, my apologies. But in retrospect, I do see your point... so it's quite possible that I should simply revamp my campaigns a little to incorporate more creatures and stylistically "evil" folks.
But in retrospect, I do see your point... so it's quite possible that I should simply revamp my campaigns a little to incorporate more creatures and stylistically "evil" folks.
You can actually have a lot of fun with this. You can very easily have villains of Neutral morality, and if you work at it a bit you can even get Good-aligned villains (even as villains for a Good party). You can also use non-villain enemies with Neutral morality alignments pretty easily -- a Neutral magical beast might be rampaging through the villages surrounding the forest because someone did something to the forest/its lair/its young, etc.
Smite Evil in a campaign without alignments would still work on the following: undead, demons/devils/fiends of any type, cultists of evil gods, cursed lycanthropes, and dragons with a penchant for eating other intelligent creatures.
Detect Evil in my campaign only works against creatures that would have a supernatural aura of evil. Most of the above would detect as evil except for the cultists (depending on their level/involvement - clerics would, blackguards would, but your average layman wouldn't).
In a campaign where good and evil are subjective these features and spells can still work. It just requires a little more effort on the part of the DM to judge when they would and when they wouldn't.
For instance, an evil priest casting Blasphemy can expect it to work on non-cultists (maybe even lay cultists)opposed to his cult unless they are of similar bent. In other words, Blasphemy cast by a cleric of Asmodeus would work against followers of Pharasma but it wouldn't probably work against followers of Demogorgon.
Or can you? After the recent release of the APG, one of my players has shown clear interest in playing a paladin. As many could guess, the issue is that my campaign world doesn't (and never has before) taken alignment into consideration. It hasn't been an issue in the many years we've been playing, and we've simply avoided spells like "Protection from ______." I personally never liked the concept of it, so I ditched it early on. Unfortunately, the Paladin seems to be totally interwoven into the concept of alignment, and I know there are other DMs out there who play alignmentless games, so I was looking for some advice.
I once before had a player who wanted to play a paladin, but since there was no alignment, I simply let him smite anything except truly neutral creatures, like animals. I soon realized that was a foolish mistake, and the class dominated most everything. Luckily for me, that campaign ended quickly, and we moved on. Now I'm back looking to see if anyone has any suggestions/experience with this kind of situation, and if they could offer any helpful advice. Also, I don't intend to start a debate about alignment, I'm just looking for alternatives is all.
Thanks!
Give him Favored Enemy instead.
Both are fighting methods to defeat your enemies.
I watch Medium.
Less than half the undead are evil.
I think Pathfinder should have a stated listing for spirits of the dead who have not become Ghosts.
|
My current Pathfinder Ravenloft game doesn't use alignment, and one of the characters in the party is a paladin. My rule has always been that a paladin has to act in an orderly and goodly fashion, even if there's no such thing as Lawful Good, and must obey the strictures of his faith. He can use his smite against undead, anti-paladins, dragons (because there aren't any good dragons in Ravenloft), clerics of antagonistic faiths, lay worshipers of antagonistic faiths of at least 11th level, fiendish outsiders, and anyone who's failed a dark powers check.
I generally allow smite to work against any creature powered by negative energy or that would normally have the "Evil" subtype, as well as anyone who's had to roll a dark powers check (whether they failed or not) within the last few minutes. So a paladin can smite a guy who just knifed a little old lady to steal her purse, even if the Dark Powers didn't take notice of it. It's worked out pretty well so far.
Jeremy Puckett