The campaign setting I set up for my PC's is dependent on a polytheistic system, with 8 dieties handling multiple portfolios and the populace calling on whichever god will meet their need at the time. (god of Luck when you're gambling, god of Mercy when you're broke afterward)
Making it up myself made me think about tweaking Clerics and Paladins a bit:
- Your cleric is not beholden to a single god. They act as conduits of divine power and can use any domains they wish, even if they are from two opposing dieties. Alignment is up to the PC's actions, if they have a 'good' and 'evil' domain, if they act more evil, the good domain spells falter and become less powerful, and visa-versa.
- Paladins must pick a single god to serve. They can be of any alignment as long as it is within one degree of their patron, and can choose a single domain of that god and add those spells to their paladin spell list. Evil aligned pally's use the Anti-Paladin build, Neutral Paladins get the choice of channeling heal/harm, good/evil based on the situation, but should try to balance their actions and stay within the tenants of their patron.
My issue is I haven't had anyone play-test these ideas yet (nobody wants to play a pally...), so I'm curious if anyone can come up with some pit-falls or issues I might come across in the future. I'd appreciate some input from everyone, especially game-breakers.
When you say clerics can use any domain they wish, does that mean the choose any two a creation and continue to use them forever or do they actually get to pick new domains when it strikes their fancy. The latter seems quite powerful.
While it would be nice to have spells get stronger or weaker depending on the actions of a cleric, that could lead to a lot of bookkeeping or game time spent attending to spiritual needs that normally take place off-stage. For example, if you just look what takes place on-stage during most adventures, it would seem that all PCs worship death and mayhem.
If paladins are are supposed to be paragons of 'virtue' (i.e. epitomize the tenets their chosen god) I don't think allowing them to have an alignment that doesn't exactly match seems a bit wishy-washy.
I've always imagined clerics serve the entire pantheon, but chooses a patron that matches their personality or needs. While a sea-faring cleric might worship Gozreh as his patron, he would still also honor Abadar, as trade would likely be important as well, and lest woe befall him, even pay homage to Pharasma as she controls fate. Said priest would not seem out of place praying at a temple dedicated to Shelyn when he needed to attend to matters of the heart.
When you say clerics can use any domain they wish...
Essentially it's a slightly modified "Spontaneous Conversion" The cleric chooses their two primary domains and prepares their spells normally at the beginning of the day. If they need to, they may swap out one spell per cleric level from their prepared Domain Spells for one from another domain of equal level, they loose the spell once cast and cannot prepare it again when they prepare their spells normally.
While it would be nice to have spells get stronger or weaker depending on the actions of a cleric, that could lead to a lot of bookkeeping ... it would seem that all PCs worship death and mayhem.
I was thinking a simple tally system based on action (x - strikes (toward good/evil), equals x subtracted from your heal/harm effectiveness.) Yes, it could get very bogged down in math and semantics, but that's up to an individual DM's decision. Certainly something to think about.
If paladins are are supposed to be paragons of 'virtue'...
I tend to view Paladins more as old-fashioned "knights" who work their asses off, dedicating their life to serving something (be it an ideal, god, virtue, etc.), if they chose to serve a neutral or evil cause that is their choice. I see your point that PC's could take the 'neutral' option as an 'I can do whatever' idea... it would take the right kind of player to make it work right.
I've always imagined clerics serve the entire pantheon...
Glad to hear I'm not the only one who thinks this way!
A suggestion for paladins: Instead of letting neutrals use it against any and all, make them "champions of balance" that can use their powers against "extremes"; chaotic evil, chaotic good, lawful evil, lawful good.
So you have:
LG: Major vs evil, minor vs chaos (current)
NG: Major vs evil, minor vs evil
CG: Major vs evil, minor vs law
LN: Major vs. chaos, minor vs chaos
N: Major vs extremes, minor vs extremes
CN: Major vs law, minor vs law
LE: Major vs good, minor vs chaos
NE: Major vs good, minor vs good
CE: Major vs good, minor vs law (antipaladin)
Part of what balances a Paladin is the strictness of the Lawful Good alignment.
If a PC could give me a convincing argument for a non-lawful paladin, I *might* grant it, as Stringburka pointed out above, it could work.
I should amend my first post though: I have a stipulation that Paladins be Lawful, simply because of the level of commitment it takes to become one.
This is also why I had the note about "within one step of their patron's alignment", allowing a Lawful Neutral paladin to serve either a Chaotic Neutral, Neutral Good/Evil, or Lawful Good/Evil god; they couldn't serve a Chaotic Evil/Good god under this rule. I have a very small pantheon to choose from, so it allows for a little more creativity and wiggle-room for players.
I do see your point in that it could make for a broken/overpowered character if the GM allowed them to do either/or, again, another pitfall of not being able to play-test with my power-gaming friends...
Make them "champions of balance" that can use their powers against "extremes"; chaotic evil, chaotic good, lawful evil, lawful good.
I like this suggestion. It does help pin down a 'cause' for the pally to fight for, even if they are 'neutral'.
This is also why I had the note about "within one step of their patron's alignment", allowing a Lawful Neutral paladin to serve either a Chaotic Neutral, Neutral Good/Evil, or Lawful Good/Evil god; they couldn't serve a Chaotic Evil/Good god under this rule...
What you've stated ("within one step of their patron's alignment"), and what you wrote as alignments of patron gods allowed for your example, do not match up (according to how the alignment system is used).
"One step" means that one component of the alignment of the paladin in question can be changed to the component of an adjacent* alignment on the alignment grid (see below).
LG - NG - CG
LN - (N)N - CN
LE - NE - CE
So, to use your example of a LN paladin:
- s/he could be true N (=NN), because only the Lawful part of the LN alignment changes, i.e. a "one step change"; OR
- s/he can serve either a LE or a LG god, because only the Neutral part of the LN alignment changes, i.e. a "one step change".
Your LN paladin can NOT serve:
- a CN god because, although it seems that only "one" component of the alignment has changed (Lawful to Chaotic), it is actually two steps (from Lawful to Neutral to Chaotic, according to the alignment grid) and CN is NOT adjacent to LN in any case (it is, in fact, the direct opposite alignment);
- a NG or NE god because this is clearly a two-step change in alignment (the Lawful of LN is changed to Neutral; and the Neutral of LN is changed to either Good or Evil).
You have some great ideas for your campaign. I just thought that I should just clear up how the "one-step" rule as it is applied to alignment works. Of course, if you wanted your paladins to be able to serve a broader selection of gods, you could just rule it as such in your game.
But then it wouldn't be the "one-step" rule... ;)
Carry on.
--C.