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
Up through 3.5, Paladins of other than Lawful Good were not part of core rules but optional extras, or magazine articles such as the Jacobs article mentioned before, but all but disowned by it's author.
4th Edition and WOW D20 broadened it from "Must be Lawful Good" to "Any Good required, but both were very different classes as all of the 4th edition classes were from their 3.X namesakes. From what I've seen of 5th, it retained the "Must Be Good" qualifier.
There has never been any core material for non-good Paladins. Some in supplementary rules or third party publications like the Jacobs article, but not as core rules.
Although I probably wouldn't penalize a paladin for staking the sleeping vampire. One of the mandates of many paladin orders is to vanquish the undead. Were I playing the paladin in this situation, I'd be saying in-character "I'm not sure about this" and letting someone else do the actual staking, while being on hand if things go south.Preaching to the choir.
Though the Vampire's fine. It's not alive. You can't kill that which does not live.
A vampire is a self-realized creature who has sentience. And killing that while sleeping is ok cuz....undead? But dragons arent.
God I'm glad I generally stick with 4th edition
Eh, it isn't an edition thing, it's a player/GM thing.
Josh-o-Lantern's comment above about being a Paladin of someone/something has the right of it. A "general" paladin shouldn't exist -- unless you are playing a one off campaign where no one (GM or player) cares to put too much effort in -- but should instead be at least as flavorful as cavalier orders.
If you try to just eyeball the code in the Core book and enforce it, anyone could turn every moment into a "you fall" moment or the game turns into a never ending series of the paladin being worried and asking "will this make me fall?"
The paladin tenets and code are different for each of the Inner Sea gods, as an example, and that book also tells us that different paladins may interpret it differently. This should and would apply (as we see with anti-paladin codes) to paladins/holy warriors/stabby warrior magiknights of differing alignments.
To wrap up, I'd like to briefly address the question of "why is the paladin sneaking in?" Because not all paladins must wear shining armor and run up to the front door to issue a challenge. Not all paladins must wake up their foes and challenge them to personal duels. Not all paladins are adverse to using tactics and strategy rather than hoping and praying that the boons they receive for their job are enough to protect them.
#notallpaladins
If you try to just eyeball the code in the Core book and enforce it, anyone could turn every moment into a "you fall" moment or the game turns into a never ending series of the paladin being worried and asking "will this make me fall?"
Problem is, as long as there is a fall at all, no matter how well defined its specific parameters might be, then what you have is nothing but a constant stressful looming Sword of Damocles hanging over the player's head. Which A) no one deserves and B) should not even have a place in a Saturday afternoon diversion.
If you try to just eyeball the code in the Core book and enforce it, anyone could turn every moment into a "you fall" moment or the game turns into a never ending series of the paladin being worried and asking "will this make me fall?"Problem is, as long as there is a fall at all, no matter how well defined its specific parameters might be, then what you have is nothing but a constant stressful looming Sword of Damocles hanging over the player's head. Which A) no one deserves and B) should not even have a place in a Saturday afternoon diversion.
I tend to agree on this. In my own campaigns (TRIGGER WARNING: HOUSE RULES!) falling for a paladin is something that can happen, but you'd need to work at it. A cleric might have the same issues going away from their god's tenets and decrees as well, but neither are something that are just going to come up on your average game day. You'd need to make some serious mistakes or be lead down the path of temptation with sufficient warnings, omens and signs.
Otherwise we get the issues I see on the board, where a paladin might as well strap a cleric to his back casting Atonement after every encounter.
Seem basically the name that most people have issue with. The mechanic could be used to create a class that is identical to the Paladin but has different name, different alignment and different code.
The same mechanics really aren't even that good of a fit for champions of other alignments.
They aren't? They seem to work well enough that Paizo only made minor adjustments for a CE version [and now NE and LE with Insinuator (Antipaladin Archetype)].
So Paizo allows 4 alignments using the similar basic mechanics. What would you say is the issue with using it for the other alignments?
Violence is not honorable, whether you stab them in the back or the front.
Self defense? Defense of others? Do you suggest that when someone does violence to you and yours, the only honorable thing to do is to lie down and die?
Violence is not honorable, whether you stab them in the back or the front.Self defense? Defense of others? Do you suggest that when someone does violence to you and yours, the only honorable thing to do is to lie down and die?
No, he's saying if you plan to kill a man, it matters not if they are asleep or not. The end result is still making something dead. Inviting it to tea first doesn't make it honorable, it just takes more time...
|
I'm sure that's what he's saying.Violence is not honorable, whether you stab them in the back or the front.Self defense? Defense of others? Do you suggest that when someone does violence to you and yours, the only honorable thing to do is to lie down and die?
After all, how many kobolds have you seen do it?
After all, how many kobolds have you seen do it?I'm sure that's what he's saying.Violence is not honorable, whether you stab them in the back or the front.Self defense? Defense of others? Do you suggest that when someone does violence to you and yours, the only honorable thing to do is to lie down and die?
It's almost like some omnipotent being put them there JUST to be killed...
It'll blow your mind if you think about it too much... :)
And the Antipaladin is a vaguely ridiculous class that is ill fitting, but even as such is supposed to be a fallen Paladin, not something that started as a champion in its own right
The Antipaladin really isn't that great of an argument for mechanics fitting concept well.
To you... It's super clear and obviously clear that others disagree and those people include the company that MAKES the game.
And JUST how many level should you have before falling? No one ever fell in training? It's like saying no one ever washed out of wizard school... :P
SO you are saying the mechanical bits of all pathfinder classes fits their concept perfectly well in all ways? That the fact that it is in a book makes it perfect?
I have no issues with the vast majority of the classes. When I do have an issue, it's not with mechanical bit and concept. But then I think a thief is someone that steals things and not a single set of mechanics that should be made into a class. A champion of an ideal shouldn't need a major mechanical change any more than you need a new class for fighters than use two handed weapons, wizards that cast illusion spells or clerics of different gods. At worst, an archetype or alternate class should fit.
Perfect? I don't recall saying that. It's super clear though that it being in the books means that they disagreed with your incredibly open statement of 'it doesn't fit'.
All you have said is 'the concept doesn't fit'... and leave it at that. That tells us nothing and adds nothing. Doesn't fit how? Why? The single crumb you gave, falling, I 100% disagree with. Makes perfect sense to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, there is nothing more obnoxious than just calling something you disagree with a "house rule". Second, just because they have alignment categories and spells does not create an objective morality. Creatures, NPCs, and PCs all have alignments. PCs are free to determine their alignment according to their own judgment. That's not a house rule, that's good GMing. More critically, it's easy to give extreme examples where determining alignment is easy, but in the fuzzy areas alignment is anything but objective. Your subjective standards about what constitutes lawful good are, in fact, your GM house rules about what constitutes lawful good. There are few very thin guidelines; if you think that can create an objective morality where you can make an objective judgment you must be the most enlightened person in the history of the universe.
Objective morality is not remotely easy, even if it exists, which I highly doubt. If it does exist, it doesn't constitute simplistic categories. That's why the code is the bargain and is a lot easier to adjudicate than guessing what a GM thinks morality is.
Exactly this. For all that Pathfinder technically runs on objective morality, the core rulebook doesn't define its objective moral standards beyond a few fairly vague, open-ended statements. Meaning that ultimately it's up to the GM and the players to fill in the blanks on how the moral system works. The few times they've gone into specifics, like the answer to the old Goblin Babies issue, they've generally stuck to open-ended answers that leave it up to individual groups to decide.
So basically, Pathfinder morality is going to depend heavily on your GM and group's moral views. Even if they all agree that Pathfinder has objective morality, you can bet that a fundamentalist, a Neo-Kantian, and Nietzschean are going to have very different views on what that morality is (well okay, the Nietzschean would probably reject the entire concept of alignment, but you get my point).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 sayUp through 3.5, Paladins of other than Lawful Good were not part of core rules but optional extras, or magazine articles such as the Jacobs article mentioned before, but all but disowned by it's author.
I'm going to be frank, I don't really care what Jacobs has to say on the subject. His opinion literally means nothing to me on this subject, no offense intended. Not only that but I wholly reject this moronic idea of "core". Saying it's not core has zero value when it comes to character options. To me, ALL character options are on the table to be used or banned, core doesn't get some special pass in this regard.
4th Edition and WOW D20 broadened it from "Must be Lawful Good" to "Any Good required, but both were very different classes as all of the 4th edition classes were from their 3.X namesakes. From what I've seen of 5th, it retained the "Must Be Good" qualifier.
4e Paladins have no restrictions on Alignment other than it has to match their paton deity, which they must choose. That's it. Further there's no Instant Fall clause either.
As for their "namesakes" let's just say that I 100% disagree with that notion.
In 5e it depends on their Oath selection and the particulars are embedded with that aspect. There's also the Oath-breaker Paladin and the "green" Paladin which isnt necessarily good.
There has never been any core material for non-good Paladins. Some in supplementary rules or third party publications like the Jacobs article, but not as core rules.
I'm not sure why that has any relevance to the fact that there are Paladins of other alignments?
The answer the original question, No.
This is why warpriests were introduced.
Of course, in your game do whatever you want...
I also have this story. You are leaving out several things.
One, Radovan has those monk levels IMPOSED on him. He has lost his original class levels and basically taken on the levels and abilities of the guy who trapped him in the devil body.
So, he's not a monk. He's had abilities by a spellcaster grafted onto them.
If you read the later books, he has none of the combat abilities or special powers of the monk class left behind.So, he's NOT a monk, nor ever has been. He's been forcibly given the powers of a monk at cost of his own.
If some PC thinks he can wrangle a level 20 character playing god coming down on him to do this, like happened in this story, then we're playing wholy different campaigns.
And anyways, isn't there a martial artist archetype, where if all you want to do is fight, you can be any alignment?
Just don't be a monk if you don't want to be lawful. IUS combatants can be found in many locations.==Aelryinth
In the next novel, Queen of Thorns, there's a scene where he and Count Jeggare begin the morning by going through their forms. And Inner Sea Combat page 7 calls him a CG (I called him CN, I was mistaken) male tiefling Rogue 5/Monk 2. So yes, he did keep some of what he learned, and yes, he was, is, and remains a Monk.
As for the Monk (the non-Martial Artist Monk, anyway) being synonymous with being Lawful, why? Why must this be the case on every world, in every universe, in every campaign setting, ever, ever, ever, that Monks have to choose between non-Lawful or using ki? Not just Golarion, but any other campaign setting you might use the Pathfinder game system for. Or does it make sense to peg Storm and Thor as evil just because they use lightning and Palpatine is also evil and happens to use lightning?
EDIT: More to the point, what is the benefit of a Sword of Damocles looming over players heads entirely dependent on what happens to catch their fancy as a means of realizing a character in this game? Specifically, what is...
And what do those levels mean of his?
That he learned something while forcibly having monk levels imposed on him, i.e. he leveled up under the aegis of the magic, got monk levels, reverted back to his normal alignment, and now can't level as a monk.
It's still a case of Wish-level magic coming in and altering the rules. Again, he has none of the greater powers of the monk, only the little dribs he could actually figure out on his own.
And he's a story character, they bend the rules. He's also a synthesist summoner of one kind or another, and REALLY powerful, despite not having any levels in that class, either.
==Aelryinth
A TN Paladin has to have a philosophy, and one way or another, it is going to be based on TN concepts.
1) He can be a druidic style champion of 'Nature', which basically ignores the alignment struggle.
2) He can be a molder of alignments, trying to make sure none of them get too powerful so the world can flourish from the conflict. This can be seen as profiting off the interaction of rival ideas, or ruthless survival of the fittest.
3) he can be 'False Neutral' and abandon the metaphysical struggle entirely. In a 'natural' manner, such a character would be devoted to the things N people are - Family, Friends, and/or country/order. Within the realm of that Neutrality, they take advantage of outsiders, but not too much, will make war to grab territory, consider all attacking foes to be evil, guard what is theirs and take what is others if they are not allies, are responsible for their own and potentially ruthless to those outside their circles.
In short, they'd act 'human' without devolving into racism, sexism or Evil. Think of merchants out to make a profit without cruelty. They'll squeeze every copper out of you they can, but they won't kill you, because that means no profit tomorrow!
I'm not sure how you'd make a 'paladin' out of that, since you are abandoning the greater struggle for a purely mortal view point. Then again, that might be entirely the point!
As for a smite...I don't see it happening for a TN, because 'everyone outside my circle of acquaintances' doesn't make for a fair bias.
I'd probably change it completely around and make it a 'defensive boost', instead of an offensive one, to account for the reactionary, defensive nature of Neutrality. A bonus to AC and saving throws, maybe with fast healing or regen thrown in, instead of smiting/killing. They are the defenders of their people, and really good at being on defense!
==Aelryinth
Peasant: Help Mr. Paladin! Orcs are raiding my village to the east!
Paladin of Neutrality: Orcs have been doing these things for ages! Who am I to put a stop to it? It's just the way things are. Also you're not from around here so I don't owe you anything.
Peasant: My Hero!
Paladin of Neutrality: All in a day's work, stranger. Onward, towards Status Quo! *rides off into the sunset*
It's almost as laughable as the Gray Guard.
Less status quo then 'something of relevance to me and my family and friends/order/country'.
I could picture a neutral paladin being very interested in anything which affects his own, but being blandly heartless or even boldly opportunistic to anything outside it.
This is reactionary behavior, which is extremely neutral in nature, reacting to threats when they become personal, instead of being proactive and heading them off.
A neutral paladin type would always want neighbors that are better people then they are. Easier to profit off them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is exactly why I find the idea so laughable. I understand you are trying to describe a character with a neutral alignment. And to your credit you do a wonderful job of that. At this point, you could replace the word 'paladin' with the word 'brigand' and it would fit almost perfectly.
This is simply someone wanting to use a Paladin class and wipe away all the uniqueness of the character, looking for excuses to play a character that is apathetic towards the plight of most other people, yet still somehow gets divine powers of.. could we even call it righteousness at this point? Nah I think not.. Divine powers of.. Detachment! That defines this character quite well. Who is this character going to smite? Someone that actually gives a crap?
"Hey guy you care too much. *smite*"
It's like someone wanting to play a druid that doesn't give two monkey droppings about nature, yet somehow is able to wield the full arsenal of nature against his foes. Just doesn't fit.
There has never been any core material for non-good Paladins. Some in supplementary rules or third party publications like the Jacobs article, but not as core rules.I'm not sure why that has any relevance to the existence of other alignments...
Because third party and auxiliary material designated as "optional" rules do not have the same level of authority as core rules.
|
While reading the Insinuator anti-paladin archetype from 'Agents of Evil' I thought that it would have actually made a decent framework for a true neutral 'paladin of balance' type concept.
Basically, the central concept is that the character draws power from an outsider within one alignment step of theirs each day, and their smite and other abilities are determined by the alignment of the outsider. The class as written is restricted to evil characters and thus could never bond with a good outsider, but it would be simple to adjust it to work with TN... or any alignment really.
In any case, the Anti-Paladin and Insinuator are evil Paladin archetypes. There are tons of good Paladin archetypes, including some which are not lawful. However, I can't think of any (Paizo produced) Paladin archetypes which are neutral in respect to good/evil.
Because third party and auxiliary material designated as "optional" rules do not have the same level of authority as core rules.
There has never been any core material for non-good Paladins. Some in supplementary rules or third party publications like the Jacobs article, but not as core rules.I'm not sure why that has any relevance to the existence of other alignments...Since you dug this conversation back up, you are wrong about no non-LG core paladins. 5e has no alignment restrictions to paladins, and an Oath of Vengeance works for evil or good easily - just like an Order or Ancients works well for neutral.
Then the "anti-paladin" or fallen paladin is called an Oathbreaker and has separate class features.
And 4e has unaligned paladins so it looks like 4E and 5E are fine with non-good paladins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And 4e has unaligned paladins so it looks like 4E and 5E are fine with non-good paladins.Because third party and auxiliary material designated as "optional" rules do not have the same level of authority as core rules.
There has never been any core material for non-good Paladins. Some in supplementary rules or third party publications like the Jacobs article, but not as core rules.I'm not sure why that has any relevance to the existence of other alignments...Since you dug this conversation back up, you are wrong about no non-LG core paladins. 5e has no alignment restrictions to paladins, and an Oath of Vengeance works for evil or good easily - just like an Order or Ancients works well for neutral.
Then the "anti-paladin" or fallen paladin is called an Oathbreaker and has separate class features.
Shhh....don't you know those fly in the face officially with the LG-Only agenda???
Also, the idea of one source having more "authority" over another is ridiculous. The only authority ANY option has is when the DM deems it so. Period
The problem is what aspect of neutrality you are using. I cannot see the outsider thing working. Both good and lawful outsiders will have great problems working with someone who will happily deal with their opposite numbers tomorrow.
I think it more likely a paramander would be opposed to all outsiders, and most true aberrations. In addition, a Smite they could change each day as they regain spells to one of the four extreme alignments, as their 'targets of the day', would be workable.
A paramander would be involved in keeping the conflict between opposite numbers, and trying to keep neutrals out of it. After all, Good has the real power to oppose Evil, and without a target, might want to get zealous about converting the non-Good to the true path.
So, I imagine a paramander would facilitate sending crusaders north to the worldwound, help liberate slaves and incite rebellion in cheliax, keep Andoren focused on anti-slavery crusades instead of overthrowing its neighbors, stir up the orcs to keep lastwall focused on them, and encourage piracy against Qadira to thwart its dreams of economic dominance in the inner sea.
In short, the paramander would be all about making sure rival forces always ran into one another and foght it out between them. The paramander himself could function as emisary, spy, mercenary or black knight in furtherance of what to outsiders would seem like completely inscrutable goals. They would be capable of far more duplicity and underhanded tactics then paladins, acting more like 'real people', with their own particular code of honor dealing withe fact that allies today might be enemies tomorrow.
However, I do not see them as going and murdering good people. Good people are easy to manipulate. Find them an enemy and they will throw themselves against it, no need to BE that enemy. They would make easy use of that virtue, probably supplying information, or forcing the existence od forces into the open.
I can readily see them reliably taking up arms against Evil, however. The aggressive nature of evil has to be contained, and often violence is the only way to do it. Diplomacy can turn a Good army aside, but the only way to deal with a would-be conqueror is to make sure he dies.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Question, if a true neutral paladin were to do too many good deeds would he fall and become an ex-paladin?
And that brings up my main problem with this idea of a neutral paladin, in my experience players that want to play a neutral paladin want all the powers of a paladin, which makes them pretty much one of the most powerful martial classes, but still want to be sociopathic murder hobos.
Now maybe paladins on different spots good spectrum, neutral good and chaotic good may be fine to me(less so for chaotic good), but neutral on the moral axis no.
I think the best way to run a neutral paladin would be to largely ignore the entire alignment aspect of the class/character. Personally, I think that True Neutral Paladins would not have the sort ideals that really fit in with alignment.
When I play a true neutral character, I generally give them a morally neutral goal that they're focused on. Whether it's a fighter who wants to be the greatest swordsman in the land, a wizard who wants to learn ALL the magic, or an investigator who just loves poking into hidden ruins and finding ancient knowledge and treasure. I don't see any reason why a full BAB with 4 divine casting levels character couldn't have a similar goal.
One thing I will grant is that the Paladin's class ability package is a bit too alignment-focused to make an easy conversion to a neutral class. Paladins/Antipaladins and too a lesser extent clerics have a lot of class features that center on good and evil. The only way to really make a good neutral paladin would be an archetype that keeps the basic chassis (Full BAB, 4 level divine casting), but reworks a whole lot of the class abilities.
In other words, a completely different class which is not, in fact, a Paladin?I think the best way to run a neutral paladin would be to largely ignore the entire alignment aspect of the class/character. Personally, I think that True Neutral Paladins would not have the sort ideals that really fit in with alignment.
When I play a true neutral character, I generally give them a morally neutral goal that they're focused on. Whether it's a fighter who wants to be the greatest swordsman in the land, a wizard who wants to learn ALL the magic, or an investigator who just loves poking into hidden ruins and finding ancient knowledge and treasure. I don't see any reason why a full BAB with 4 divine casting levels character couldn't have a similar goal.
One thing I will grant is that the Paladin's class ability package is a bit too alignment-focused to make an easy conversion to a neutral class. Paladins/Antipaladins and too a lesser extent clerics have a lot of class features that center on good and evil. The only way to really make a good neutral paladin would be an archetype that keeps the basic chassis (Full BAB, 4 level divine casting), but reworks a whole lot of the class abilities.
No, archetype. There's nothing wrong with the basic chassis. The Insinuator antipaladin can get their powers from an outsider within one step of his own alignment and since they can be NE, they can get then from a true neutral power. Very little would have to be done to the Insinuator antipaladin to make a fine N archetype of Paladin.
No, archetype. There's nothing wrong with the basic chassis. The Insinuator antipaladin can get their powers from an outsider within one step of his own alignment and since they can be NE, they can get then from a true neutral power. Very little would have to be done to the Insinuator antipaladin to make a fine N archetype of Paladin.In other words, a completely different class which is not, in fact, a Paladin?I think the best way to run a neutral paladin would be to largely ignore the entire alignment aspect of the class/character. Personally, I think that True Neutral Paladins would not have the sort ideals that really fit in with alignment.
When I play a true neutral character, I generally give them a morally neutral goal that they're focused on. Whether it's a fighter who wants to be the greatest swordsman in the land, a wizard who wants to learn ALL the magic, or an investigator who just loves poking into hidden ruins and finding ancient knowledge and treasure. I don't see any reason why a full BAB with 4 divine casting levels character couldn't have a similar goal.
One thing I will grant is that the Paladin's class ability package is a bit too alignment-focused to make an easy conversion to a neutral class. Paladins/Antipaladins and too a lesser extent clerics have a lot of class features that center on good and evil. The only way to really make a good neutral paladin would be an archetype that keeps the basic chassis (Full BAB, 4 level divine casting), but reworks a whole lot of the class abilities.
Yup. Plenty of archetypes out there that take out a whole lot of class features, leaving only the basic chassis behind.
|
Because third party and auxiliary material designated as "optional" rules do not have the same level of authority as core rules.
Well, in my world, the only ones to have any authority about what rules material gets used and what not is me and my players. And we happen to like non-LG-Paladins. And a lot of 3PP material as well.
We're simply not lawful enough, I guess.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If all you have left is a four level spellcaster and the BAB it's not a paladin. At that point it's just another class unless you just want to be purposely obstinant to try to call it a paladin. Why is calling it a paladin instead of just making a new class to do what you want so important to you?There is a precedent for this though.
As much as I think the idea of a True Neutral Paladin is bad, the Empyreal Knight pretty much guts the class. Losing nearly every single class feature.
My table constantly jokes about it being the non-Paladin.
Losing:
Divine Grace
Mercy
Lay on Hands
Channel Positive Energy
Is forced into the Mount bond
And in the only general actual advantage it gets is its level 20 Capstone is better than the Paladin's level 20 CapstoneIt becomes a 4 level caster with some resistances, the auras, and the ability to summon monsters.
Still doesn't answer the question though - if you are going to do so much work as to replace all of the abilities and leave just BAB and spell casting, and probably even a different spell list as well, why not just make a new class since you are basically making one anyway? why does there exist the need to call it a paladin?
It is a coping mechanism.
This is basically the, "Me too!" effect.
The player feels that one alignment (Lawful Good) is utterly terrible (usually) and they feel that their favorite alignment (in this case True Neutral) deserves its own special class. They like the idea of the Paladin (a class that represents the Paragon of the alignment) but they hate the idea that Lawful Good gets it.
Basically they see the Paladin as a special snowflake, and they want to be a special snowflake too.
Its a form of player entitlement. If X can be Y, then I want to be Z and be Y as well.
Yes, I'm sure the reason people are interested in non-LG Paladins is all because of their inherent genetic and cultural inferiority to godly avatar of gaming perfection that is HWalsh. Please guide us away from the horrors of badwrongfun, divine one! We're not worthy!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HWalsh being extremely condescending and dismissive of differing opinions while trying to tell other people what are their own arguments and reasoning?
I'm shocked...
And what do those levels mean of his?
That he learned something while forcibly having monk levels imposed on him, i.e. he leveled up under the aegis of the magic, got monk levels, reverted back to his normal alignment, and now can't level as a monk.
It's still a case of Wish-level magic coming in and altering the rules. Again, he has none of the greater powers of the monk, only the little dribs he could actually figure out on his own.
And he's a story character, they bend the rules. He's also a synthesist summoner of one kind or another, and REALLY powerful, despite not having any levels in that class, either.
==Aelryinth
So he learned two levels of Monk while not being any manner of Lawful. There was an implied forced alignment change from his being trapped in that form, but it was of the good-to-evil variety. He remained non-Lawful while he was learning those two levels of Monk that he kept.
Unless you're saying that a CG character, slowly becoming CE, while trapped in the body of a Lawful subtype Outsider, will register as Lawful, not non-Lawful, for the purposes of meeting class requirements. I wasn't under the impression that an imposed alignment subtype was recognized as the character's actual alignment.
And it's not a matter of what specific explanation allowed a non-Lawful character to take levels in some manner of ki-using Monk. It's that it happened at all. That it happened at all means that it is something that serves to inspire players with regards to their own characters. In a game, they should not then have to jump through hoops of the "Specific Level of Tired" variety just to play what they've been inspired to play.
Get rid of classes. Make everything a skill. Allow PCs to learn any skill for which they can find a source (a teacher, for example).
The TN concept for a paladin I'm having trouble wrapping my head around, because: "What does a TN paladin stand FOR?"
You'd need to outline something and craft a goal for them. At that point, I'd suggest that their abilities aren't in line with what you're wanting the character to stand for, because objectively, what a TN character wants and what a LG character wants are fundamentally different.
That is at the heart of it: a paladin stands FOR something and TN just...doesn't seem to in the same way. Not unless you sat down and took the time to define it. Then, you're stuck with a chassis which stood FOR something very different.
TN sounds more like a kind-of justicar, or an inquisitor. Possibly a warpriest.
The inquisitor's class flavors could be more easily adjusted to your goals. It already exists. I would go that direction.