|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would agree about the alignment restrictions if the OP was talking about playing standard D&D. Your pretty much stuck with the alignment restriction and rightfully so in that case imo. In a home game espcially a homebrew campaign setting I don't see why one cannot have a non-lg paladin. Or a similar character with the same abilites.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can such a thing exist ?
A class all about maintaining the balance between good and evil law and chaos ? could such a class even function or would the paradoxical decision required drive most True Neutral Paladins Insane ?
with "Smite Other" ;) anything outside of a true neutral is fair game for balancing hehehe.
Or is a True Neutral Paladin just another name for an existing class ? if so which class would you consider to be a True Neutral Paladin if such a thing can even exist.
From 3.5 Dragon magazine #110 there is an article "Champions of the Divine Paladins of other alignments" by none other than James Jacobs which has a true neutral pally known as the Incarnate.
Instead of detect magic they can detect creatures with an alignment subtype.they get some basic elemental attack abilities rather than healing
they get to smite any extreme alignment
they can rebuke outsiders
they get an elemental companion rather than a mount
they get commune with nature as a spell like ability
& they get a more Druid like spell list
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We are agreement about being passionate about Paladins. I refuse to play them as boring Lawful Stupid stick in the mud in terms of alignment. I'm not going to charge blindly towards a live dragon if my Paladin can attack him asleep in his lair. It might not be heroic but I don't play suicidal characters lacking in tactics either. I also dislike those who play them like Dirty Harry with Sword and Shield.
I just felt like some in the thread were shooting down the Op idea because he wanted to think outside the box. 99% of the time I play and most of the players I game with do play a LG Paladin. I don't see why the other 1% who want to try a non-Lg is a bad thing.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless... Your comment about how you would act as a Paladin is exactly what breaks the Paladin balance-wise.
Why because I use proper tactics and don't play a Paladin as Lawful Stupid. Attacking a sleeping opponent is tactics. A Paladin has to act honorably yes. I don't think that applies to evil creatures imo. I don't play suicidal characters either. Maybe you do I don't. A paladin is given special abilites to be used wisely and smartly against evil. Not to be thrown away on a pointless attack because it's the "heroic" thing to do. It's not to say as a Paladin I always ambush a enemy. I'm also not going to wake up a superior opponent and die. That works in stories and movies.
I'm not going to waste time writing up a character and give him a backstory. Only for him to die within ten minutes of a session because he did the honorable yet poor tactical choice.
This is all so the Paladin can fight honorably and take evil head on.
No where in the code does it says a Paladin has to stupidly and willingly throw his life away in a pointless heroic gesture. That's great you just yelled at the top of your lungs to wake up the sleeping dragon. It just cost the life of half or maybe the entire party. But hey at least it was "heroic".
The next edition of Pathfinder. The devs need to grow a pair and develop a actual code of what the Paladin can or cannot do. What is considered a evil enough act to make a Paladin fall. It's too damn unclear imo and prone to personal bias from both sides on the alignment issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does the game really need another class for people who just want to hit monsters and not think to hard about right or wrong? Not really. Morals can mean a lot of things, but without needing to adhere to a code of morals, what is the point of a paladin? Any worthwhile paladin code can be conceptualized as LG.
The worst thing that might happen is that players are going to make apathetic paladins, who just go around being shameless opportunists, doing jobs for tyrants and then saving orphanages all the while getting paid and paying lip service to "Balance", and of course they are contributing to 'balance' by not fighting consistently for one side. Or even worse saying "I'm TN, I just don't care. Oh look, monsters! I smite them!" This takes out the entire fun and point of the paladin class, which is to be zealous and moralistic, and the challenge of playing a paladin is to have a harder road to walk, and have deep convictions that aren't easy to live up to. Example, you are obliged to accept a surrender, even though killing will benefit you more. You are obliged to not steal, even though it would be so easy and profitable. That is what makes the class engaging to play. The paladin should not gain extra smiting powers and saves because they took the easy option of accepting payment for mercenary work and running away when it got too hard.
If a player came to my game asking to make a TN paladin, I would assume they want to be able to smite good and law and chaos as well, and have no actual moral restrictions or imperatives, which is a recipe for a s+%# character, both for storytelling purposes and for mechanical balance. They could have just as easily made a cavalier or a fighter, or a warpriest, but then chosen Paladin because it seems more powerful.
My stipulation for making such a TN paladin, which I would do very hesitantly, is that they need to pick a deity or ideology with a very strong, demanding and specific ideology, and that ideology must be relevant to the campaign at hand. Then the smiting only be opposed to that deity's specific portfolio. For example, a Paladin of Pharasma would get smite undead / Smite fateless. If we aren't playing a campaign about undead and or people who time travel to alter history and the future, where people create undead a lot and it is accepted and useful, then clearly your character isn't going to be relevant to the story. A paladin of the Green Faith should have "Smite Civilized", and being in town should be disgusting.
In these campaigns, we might as well have rearranged our morality so that being a good person meant acting in accordance with your fate, or tearing down civilization, no matter how enticing it might be go renegade. We can do this with many ideologies. Does a paladin need to be chaste? In some settings chastity is virtuous. You might conceptualize chastity as being denying of humanity and evil. It doesn't matter, but the campaign should have an idea of something to call "good", that should be difficult to live up to completely, and can be made up of enforceable edicts and ethics that can be turned into a code.
If paladin players aren't required to live up to a code, one which doesn't benefit them (and therefore can't really be called 'good' at a stretch), then you haven't added anything to the game, you've only taken away the thing that makes the paladin it's own thing. What good is that?
HWalsh I sincerely hope these special snowflake Paladins you enjoy also have to be human, AND they have ability score requirements too otherwise it IS just another class. Years of multiple D&D editions have said there are PALADINS of other alignments and using them or being told to call them something else is a pretty disrespectful thing to say
nemophles: Smite is easily done as those that have no neutral alignment component. That means LG, LE, CE, CG. Only 1 more than smite good.
As to the rest, a code of conduct is a code of conduct no matter the alignment. I fail to see why LG would be the only valid one.
HWalsh: "lawful stupid" is often the other side of "honorable." It's the reason the same kind of people that love playing kender also love to play paladins. It's an excuse to roleplay in a way to disrupt the game. Borrowing the wizards component pouch by the kender ranks right up there along with wake up the bad guys before charging...
Don't forget Unearthed Arcana also had variant Paladins for 3.0 :)
Don't forget Unearthed Arcana also had variant Paladins for 3.0 :)
"These paladin variants aren't meant to be unique classes in and of themselves, but rather alignment-based variations of the paladin. They have the same Hit Die, skill points per level, weapon and armor proficiencies, and spells per day as the standard paladin. Their class skill lists are nearly identical, with exceptions noted below. Their spellcasting functions identically to that of the standard paladin (though their spell lists are somewhat different). When a class feature has the same name as a paladin class feature, it functions the same as the one described for the standard paladin."
I'll also kindly point out that James Jacobs doesn't use off-alignment paladins, and turned in that article basically because he had a job to do. He didn't like writing it and doesn't treat it seriously.
"Everything a paladin can do, with none of the alignment restrictions' is right up there with "Our archer can shoot 3 arrows a round at first level!"
Pure cheese.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget Unearthed Arcana also had variant Paladins for 3.0 :)
It was updated to 3.5 and there are 3 variants. Further there were specific paladin types written for Dragon (issue #106 Plethora of Paladins) and then there is the Antipaladin which is a Paladin in all their mechanics too. Then there's 4th and 5th editions where alignment isn't required either.
The notion of ONLY LG Paladins is a dying one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll also kindly point out that James Jacobs doesn't use off-alignment paladins, and turned in that article basically because he had a job to do. He didn't like writing it and doesn't treat it seriously.
"Everything a paladin can do, with none of the alignment restrictions' is right up there with "Our archer can shoot 3 arrows a round at first level!"
Pure cheese.
I don't think you know what cheese is, but it certainly isn't linked to the Paladin class, not even Pathfinders better version.
I'll give you two takes on what a paladin is: Paksenarrion Dorthansdotter and Bahzell Bahnakson.
See The Deed of Paksenarrion by Elizabeth Moon, and David Weber's "The War God" series: Oath of Swords, The War God's Own, Wind Rider's Oath. I figure both of these are LG.
Then there's "Paladin", Richard Boone's character in "Have Gun, Will Travel". Mercenary, gun for hire. Definitely not your classic paladin. Probably NG.
You want to have other than LG "paladins" in your campaign world, have at it. That's a non-starter for me. <shrug>
I invite you to check out my Aeonic Paladin
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you know what cheese is, but it certainly isn't linked to the Paladin class, not even Pathfinders better version.I'll also kindly point out that James Jacobs doesn't use off-alignment paladins, and turned in that article basically because he had a job to do. He didn't like writing it and doesn't treat it seriously.
"Everything a paladin can do, with none of the alignment restrictions' is right up there with "Our archer can shoot 3 arrows a round at first level!"
Pure cheese.
Paladins aren't cheesy.
Paladins without the restrictions of Paladins are pure cheese.
Mechanically speaking, not even close...
I'll give you two takes on what a paladin is: Paksenarrion Dorthansdotter and Bahzell Bahnakson.
See The Deed of Paksenarrion by Elizabeth Moon, and David Weber's "The War God" series: Oath of Swords, The War God's Own, Wind Rider's Oath. I figure both of these are LG.
Then there's "Paladin", Richard Boone's character in "Have Gun, Will Travel". Mercenary, gun for hire. Definitely not your classic paladin. Probably NG.
You want to have other than LG "paladins" in your campaign world, have at it. That's a non-starter for me. <shrug>
Cool, doubt we'd ever game together in the first place so I don't see a problem here...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanically speaking, not even close...Mechanically speaking, they very much are.
Paladins are BALANCED around those weaknesses.
You take those weaknesses away and Paladins are getting something for literally nothing,
Unfortunately they're not, especially with how other classes are built and how well they work. A well-built Fighter, with all their feat options, can work exceptionally well compared to a Paladin. Again, a Paladin isn't straight up better mechanically speaking than other classes of similar caliber (full bab, weapon-based classes) which render further punitive elements unnecessary
Fighter and paladin face off.
Paladin notes fighter is skilled with armor, and wearing plate and a shield, just like him, likely has a somewhat higher AC.
Paladin makes his sword Brilliant with Sword Bond.
Cue Dead Fighter.
==Aelryinth
I've seen both at high level, both in 3.5 and PF and unless the target is evil the Fighter pulls ahead overall. The sheer amount of feats available plus things like weapon training and advanced weapon training and critical feats they have more access to AND it wrks against every and all targets.
I've seen both at high level, both in 3.5 and PF and unless the target is evil the Fighter pulls ahead overall. The sheer amount of feats available plus things like weapon training and advanced weapon training and critical feats they have more access to AND it wrks against every and all targets.Okay. You build yours, I'll build mine, we can meet in Roll 20 and duel it out if you want to see. How are you overcoming the Hero's Defiance and the LoH HP advantage?
I never used rolld20
Heroes Defiance is a nice spell, but you over come it by slugging it out and hope for poor LoH rolls OR that they only prepare the spell a few times instead of in every slot. However simply using a polearm, trip+ attack 3 more times and move 5-ft rise + repeat has work easily in the past. Also getting initiative 1st and not letting off any spells is also a good option too. Nt to mention this gs like Power Attack + Vital Strike and Weapon enhancements.
Still, the idea here is that the Paladin isn't hands down better than the fighter as it was in pre-3e days and the alignment restrictions don't make them more in-line aND balanced with other classes now
nemophles: Smite is easily done as those that have no neutral alignment component. That means LG, LE, CE, CG. Only 1 more than smite good.
As to the rest, a code of conduct is a code of conduct no matter the alignment. I fail to see why LG would be the only valid one.
What kind of acts would make this Scion of Neutrality paladin fall? Doing the same thing too many times on a row? Or doing anything ever with any effect? I wouldn't use these dual extremity smites because it doesn't actually lend the class or the player a position other than apathy or opportunism. The players have to come up with an actual ideal, and "I just love neutrality" does not make for a good paladin code; It doesn't actually lend itself to any position on any moral dilemmas, and leaves the players the freedom to just do whatever. Smiting specific opposing ideologies is an effort to maintain actual flavour for a potentially deflavoured class.
Of course there are codes of conduct that aren't LG. I provided instances of codes that aren't LG in my post. It is a challenge to come up with a neutral paladin code that is worth having in your game. Go on, come up with some, like I did, and contribute the thread.
I reckon the value of the class, and the paladins code, is that it should be difficult and require sacrifice and vigilance and trials. My entire post was saying that you could come up with some, but most of the worthwhile TN codes you come up with are codes that could be called LG or CE if you adjust the setting slightly.
What kind of acts would make this Scion of Neutrality paladin fall?
Ok, I just decided what makes them fall. It's if the TN paladin ever does anything nice to anyone while some authority figure tells them to, because that's lawful good. But also if the do anything nice to someone while someone tells them not to, because that's chaotic good. If they do something nice, they need to do it specifically while nobody has any opinion on whether they should or not.
Or, they are doing something from an internal emotional state, which is chaotic. But if it helps anyone, then that's CG, so they fall. And if it hurts anyone, that's CE, so they fall. They need to only follow emotions that have no effect on anyone, or specifically hurts someone while helping someone. And of course, they need to include their own welfare in the equation, or else they could be acting self-interestedly, which is evil.
So, maybe they act emotionally, killing one person and saving another!
Oh, but you see, That is what adventurers do all the time anyways. Slay a dragon, get it's gold. Dragon loses, adventurers win. Rob a bank, get gold. Bank loses, PCs gain gold. Catch a bank robber. Robber loses, bank wins. Get into a bar fight. Win or lose, someone wins and someone loses.
Some things are not zero sum games. Trading for example. Everyone wins. That's good. But he can't smuggle, because that'd be chaotic. And if he doesn't smuggle, that'd be lawful. SO he has to smuggle sometimes. Just like every other opportunistic adventurer that ever existed in this game. Oh, what a strict and powerful code they must follow.
So, lets assume you have init.
You come in to trip, you succeed (this is round 1 so you only get one attack), I cast grace, my movements no longer provoke, and I use my move action to stand up. (This is *if* you can get the trip to stick, which is bad as I learned early on how bad it messed me up so the boots are specifically there to stop it.) Depending on how the GM rules it you may be able to AoO me for standing. Then I close on you by making a 5ft step. I am now in melee range. You do not get an attack of op to me closing. I make an attack.
So you take a double move and attack (stand up + an extra 5-ft step + attack)? How's that work?
Your action, you 5ft step back so you can use the pole, step up kicks in and I step forward onto you. Now you are in trouble. You might be able to use one of the things from WM Handbook to use the weapon in close range, but that gives me the advantage as your attack bonus goes down, and given my standard cycle's AC there is a good chance that your iterative will miss.
Sure but Step Up works once and if I have Lunge chances are I'm going to keep you out of range. But I wouldn't make a normal attack, I'd try to trip again (touch trips are easy to pull off with certain weapons). Rinse and repeat until you can't cast Grace and start provoking AoOs unless you have boots that allow double move + attach, which I don't know about.
The advantage is now mine, and you have made a tactical error that you can't really recover from as a Fighter. Your best option is to withdraw on your next action, but you are also about to suffer through a full attack cycle from me. You're going to be severely injured with no way to recover quickly enough and you are forced to either fight at a...
Or use Lunge and ways to keep you constantly moving to keep nullifying full-attacks.
Damn this NDA.
Did you break the NDA by acknowledging the NDA? That's a thing, you know.
*snip*First:
Your first action would be a trip. For this, you have to be at least within 1 square. If you are:
Within 2 squares as I'd be using a pole-arm (most likely a Fauchard)
Ie:
You:
Move (move)
Trip (standard)
Secondary attack (benefit of Greater Trip): Disarm
Me:
Grace (swift)
Stand (move) (boots so no provoke)
5ft step (since I didn't move)
Attack (standard)
You'd have to pick up your weapon, so your Standard Action would be to pick up that (which, isn't a move action and thus provokes an Attack of Opportunity which I'd use to trip). Also, what are these boots called? I looked through the Feet items and I didnt come across boots that allowed free movement actions (I did just quickly browse so it's quite possible I just didn't see it).
Me:
Power Attack (free)
Full-Attack (with Power Attack and Furious Focus and including another Disarm is possible)
5' step (free)
Rise and Repeat. Now you will eventually go through your spells OR I'll miss my trip + Disarm. It's possible I miss on all my attacks and it's possible that you roll a nat 20 and go first in the encounter.
There are a LOT of "if's" in this scenario. If we're talking 20th level with all assumed wealth-by-level then tripping is rather "meh" since we'd probably both be flying (you with Angelic Aspect and me with Winged Boots) and we'd both be hastened with either potions or items and what not.
The point, however fun this exercise was (and I think it was :) ) is that a Paladin used to be flat-out better in almost every regard Class-wise prior to 3rd Edition to the Fighter. So then their alignment requirements, along with stat-requirements and racial requirements ALL went into making it more balanced. There were HUGE pitfalls for falling and it wasn't very easy to gain atonement (usually a perilous quest many levels above yourself) which gave people the idea that Paladins were rare.
Strictly from a character-building perspective they WERE rare because it was hard to hit the Stats of Wisdom and Charisma when you were rolling in order OR had DMs not allow you to reallocate your scores after they were rolled OR your stats were semi-OK but the MAD nature of Paladins made your character overall weaker and Pallys often died early on.
As 3rd edition rolled around (and later v3.5) Fighters, getting feats and Skills, along with the easy nature of Multiclassing (especially with classes like Barbarian and Cleric) it made playing a Paladin a rather "meh" affair. You had a guy who was a Barbarian 1/ Fighter 2/ Cleric 17 who got 9th level spells, Raged, bonus Fighter feats, Smite (if Destruction domain), Turn Undead, and could use divine wands compared to a Paladin who's horse was never very appropriate for every encounter AND they needed to invest resources (feats) to make their 1 feature better. their other feature (Smite) is only good against evil creatures so DMs, at least the ones I had, loved using Constructs and Animals to defend enemies, thus rendering one of my main attacks irrelevant.
Then 4th hit and Paladins were relieved of their Alignment duties. Sure the connotations therein pushed the "Just and Holy Warrior" aspect and there were consequences for abuse of your powers but they weren't black-and-white LOSS of powers for sneezing in front of the Bishop or Swearing when you lose at Cards (hyperbolic, I know). And 5th edition continued the trend of no hard Alignment requirements for Paladins based completely on feedback and surveys. When the Paladin playtest came out and it was required that you had to be Lawful (not even Good, but any Lawful) people lost their minds on the messageboards and feed-back surveys. Same thing with the Monk.
So if someone wants to make a Paladin of Neutrality and come up with a list of Dos and Don'ts for this alternate version, I'm all for it. I'm all for calling that a Paladin too. If it can detect specific enemies, smite, channel healing, wear armor and fight with swords and is generally considered the right-hand of their religion/deity/ideal then that's a Paladin. Alignment need-not apply
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. Numero uno... Stop using the term "lawful stupid" and use the proper term, "honorable."
Their a reason why that term now exists. Their also a difference between acting honorably. Another when a player does it to a degree that put himself and his party at risk. Hence the term Lawful Stupid. You want to portray the second that's fine. Take the risk on your own as a character. Nothing in the Paladin code requires the party to follow a player who wants to play a streotype to stupid degree.
Then do NOT play a Paladin. Do not play the class that is built to be honorable and valorous. There ARE tactics that can be used by a Paladin, I know, I play an "honorable" Paladin all the time and I use PLENTY of tactics.
Some us actually have a life outside of gaming and it requires more than making characters who die because of poor tactical choices. It's one thing if I do something dumb on purpose and my character dies. I'm not going to play Lawful Stupid only so that my character can die within ten minutes of a game session. I have give up my personal time to go to a game session. I want to have fun. Not spend time wasted on a new character.
I just don't kill enemies in their sleep.
I can respect that but that's your play style. Not everyone else. Respect that others don't play the game the same you do.
It is only throwing your life away if you die. I've lived through 9 levels so far playing "pure honor" in one of the most hardcore, nightmarish, DM throws everything at you, pulls no punches, and frequently throws APL+4 enemies against you, games that I have ever seen in 27 years of playing RPGs.
That some very convoluted logic right there. It's a good tactic as long as your character survives. What about everyone else at the table? To they get a say whether or not to have their characters possibly die. Or the Dms game falls part because the players all decided to follow the player using no tactics. Beyond "see evil enemy and charge". Again point to me where it says a Paladin is supposed to commit suicide in fighting evil. That everyone else character is supposed to do the same.
As for never dying because of poor tactical choices. Sorry but I don't beleive it. Not for one minute. Let alone a second. i have been playing almost as long as you have. Too often way too often I have seen both Paladins and non-Paladins dying because of charging straight towards the enemy. Waking up a enemy because it's dishonorable. Maybe luck enough to survive more than dying. But no deaths for 27 years. Sorry don't beleive it.
We are kept under WBL, we face enemies way stronger than us, and we manage to survive while STILL being honorable.
All well and good. But none of that requires poor tactical choices on the part of a player. None of that requires a Paladin to throw his life away in a futile but honorable gesture.
Just because YOU can't figure out how to do it doesn't mean it can't be done.
Translation if you don't play it the way I do and only the way I do your doing it wrong.
One, you don't wake up the sleeping Dragon without everyone being well aware of the plan and knowing to be ready. Two, you make sure everyone knows what is going to happen so that everyone is ready for it. Three, you gather intel about the target before you fight it so that you can prepare ahead of time to deal with it.
All well and good but your asking everyone to risk player death simply because you consider attacking a sleeping opponent dishonorable. One faces player death in every encounter. I refuse to lose a character because of a poor tactical choice. It's not fun for players or DMs. Now if the odds are in your favor with magic, items go for it. Going up against a Dragon that can TPK the party is the very defination of lawful stupid imo. You can;t always plan out every encounter. Want to make poor tactical choices a character YOU take the risk. Not everyone else
If you have to ask yourself, "Is this evil enough to fall." then the answer is "Yes."
No thanks but that's way too open to extreme personal bias on both the player and DM. We need a Paladin code written by the devs as to what is a evil act.
A "Paragon" class could be nice, with different names, codes, and abilities for different alignments. LG could be the most restrictive, and they're Paladins.