| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone remember the old 1st Ed. AD&D dragon magazine article (also in 'best of dragon' for that year) that had a class description for all 7 alignments not previously covered by paladin/anti-paladin?
i think it would be nice to have some paladin archetypes that would simulate this. after all, if the dwarven stonelord from ARG can completely gut the paladin class and basically make another class(all class features are changed except for detect evil and lay on hands) why not do the same thing for paladins of other alignments?
|
There are already 3.5 paladin variants for the other three extreme alignments, found in Unearthed Arcana. No "neutral" components, though. They had the Paladin of Freedom (CG), Paladin of Tyranny (LE), and Paladin of Slaughter (CE). The Paladin of Freedom replaced defenses against fear with defenses against compulsion, and got Bluff instead of Diplomacy as a class skill. The evil paladins got Smite Good, debuff auras, and replaced lay on hands with a "deadly touch."
You can find full details here. Could probably convert this to PF archetypes pretty easily if you wanted, especially the Paladin of Freedom.
|
|
I agree. We had a CG Paladin in the party a little while back (special permission from DM). It didn't make the Paladin class any less special. It just allowed this particular Paladin to have awesome CG moments, like almost starting a riot over some prisoners she thought were being unjustly sentenced to death.
I've been statting up something along these lines for my next campaign.
The UA variants aren't really what I was looking for. I want each Paladin - even the evil ones - to strongly believe that what they're doing is right. An evil Paladin commits horrific atrocities not because he's an insane psychopath, but because he believes it is the best way to defend the interests of his people. In that context, a "smite good" class feature makes little sense; this is a character who will come into conflict with enemies of a wide range of alignments, and wants class features to combat any potential threat. Still working on how to handle that mechanically for the various types of non-good Paladins; tossed out quite a few promising ideas that had serious problems upon greater scrutiny.
I offer four codes of of conduct. "Mercy" (any good) is a redeemer paladin with less focus on stringent rules regarding association and duty and a greater focus on showing compassion and seeking salvation both for themselves and their enemies. "Order" (any lawful) gets more leeway to commit decidedly unheroic acts, so long as they uphold their duty and honor while doing so. "Freedom" (any chaotic) must cast aside unwanted responsibilities and restrictions in order to live their life as they see fit. "Might" (any evil) must destroy any threat to themselves or their cause by any means at their disposal; more of a knights-templar extremism concept than unholy terror.
Still a work in progress; if I could just figure out smite, though, I think the rest would fall into place much more easily.
Part of the Paladin package was being held to a higher standard than mere Lawful Good. If you make flavor of the month paladins then you may as well eliminate real paladins from the game. Since there is no higher standard for neutral's or chaotic's you may as well expect no one to play a real paladin anyway.
If you want a holy (or unholy) champion of some sort, go for Cleric / Holy Vindicator, because Paladin is Lawful Good only and Anti-Paladin (I'd rather call it a Blackguard) is Chaotic Evil only. Other options are Hellknight (if your faith is in the Order and its teachings) or Cleric / Divine Scion. Then again, I'd be willing to make an exception and let a friend of mine play a Chaotic Good Paladin because he asked nicely and would take time to RP as such. Sometimes, a player deserves his treat.
Edit: Forgot the Chevalier class that Dabbler mentioned.
I can see both sides of the argument. I think the restrictive code means the 'original' paladin should be the strongest, but that doesn't mean other paladins should not exist - mind you, there is the Chevalier prestige class for those. Nonetheless in the last 'what about paladins of other alignments' thread I came up with some alternates as an exercise:
I dunno, I just came up with the name to have a name. Renegades have to have something to rebel against, I wanted something with a cause to champion.
Greetings,
Remembering that the rules are just a model that you can personalize.
I see a paladin as a champion(a follower) of a principle/deity. The standard Paladin is the good-old-fashion-knight, but it's a little limited after a few adventures.
As GM, I Allow to play with Paladin (or Anti-Paladin, what does apply better) in any align. But, the PC must have a strict code of honor, or ideal, or principles. So, even with other aligns, it's a character that follow some kind of code.
TOZ linked the "newer" Dragon article that had the paladins of other alignments, I knew there was one since AD&D.
Ever since the inquisitor came out, I feel less of a need for other-aligned paladins. I realize they are very different classes in many respects, but the inquisitor is a more flexible divine warrior type that can suit a lot more character concepts than the paladin can (while the paladin comfortably exists in his own niche).
But if modifying the paladin is your thing... following the model of the antipaladin (an alternate class) and some of the archetypes, I'd reckon it'd be doable with archetypes. I wonder if there are any 3PPs who have done just that--if not, there's a niche that hasn't been filled yet.
I always thought Paladins as a "special" profession. Back in the day of 1e, qualifying to be a paladin was almost impossible which brought to mind that they were the "best of the best".
Alas now they are a standard profession who seem to get a bit more but are more restricted in behavior as the trade off. LG was that restriction. If you want to good stuff, you have to be certain way ... and that was how balance was maintained.
Having alignment adjusted paladins just aren't paladins in my opinion. If you want the flavor of the a non-LG holy warrior, you can always mulitclass cleric and fighter. You aren't the "optimized" killing machine a paladin becomes but still get what you want.
A Paladin is a LG holy warrior. Thus, by definition you can’t have a “Paladin” with any other alignment. One can certainly have a holy warrior with powers equivalent to a paladin, such as the Antipaladin. But as has been said, what with the Inquisitor and Cavalier, do we need it?
Are we talking about mechanics or flavor here? Because if you like the mechanics of a paladin but don't want to be LG, then I suppose I can't argue with that. If however, you are looking for a non LG/CE paladin from a flavor perspective, isn't that exactly what an Inquisitor is?
great points.
I find the inquisitor a great non-paladin paladin and I find the anti-paladin a meaningless class.
I once read something here that really changed the way I allow paladins in my games.
essentially Paladins are mortals that represent the epitemy of a specific gods military and evangelical essence thus...
a paladine could be any alignment as long as it was the primary alignment of a specific god, the paladine may or may not be called a paladine (crusader for Iomide, Brother of Erastil, breader of Lamashtu, Asmodean Enforcer are all paladines of various gods.
each god places 3 or 4 commandments on their paladin. agreed uppon by the player and GM so that a paladin of sarenrae may have rules like 1) ALWAYS attempt diplomacy before violence 2)NEVER smite a non-evil entity. 3) purge anything related to Rouvagug.
while a Paladine of Lamashtu may have rules like 1) you must scar yourself visibly and horribly (-4 to charisma for non-spell casting purposes) ritual scarification cannot be healed except by remove curse. 2) at least once per month you must attempt to breed with the intent of creating some form of offspring. 3) you must kill any opponent too weak to survive combat unless they convert to worship of lamashtu and accept immediate baptism by irreversible scarification (-4 charisma cannot be healed except by remove curse.
It all leads to unique and fun paladins with less ambiguity as to how they are to be properly played and a greater sense of personal investment by the player. other minor changes have to be made such as changing smite or detect and other class abilities but the general idea is as noted above.
paladins are something like avatars of the god not just avatars of LG.
I always ditched the rules and allowed for lawful paladins of all 3 alignments.
|
Well a while ago Green Ronin did a Holy Warrior It came from the Book of the Righteous
I happened to like the holy warrior. It had the same base attack bonus, saves and hit dice and spell schedule as the paladin. Each god offered domains. And like a cleric, a holy warrior would pick two domains that his god offered, based on the domains his powers would differ. his alignment had to match his deities.
you could by selecting the right two domains replicate a paladin. I liked the class.
Anyone remember the old 1st Ed. AD&D dragon magazine article (also in 'best of dragon' for that year) that had a class description for all 7 alignments not previously covered by paladin/anti-paladin?
i think it would be nice to have some paladin archetypes that would simulate this. after all, if the dwarven stonelord from ARG can completely gut the paladin class and basically make another class(all class features are changed except for detect evil and lay on hands) why not do the same thing for paladins of other alignments?
Dragon Magazine #106 "Plethora of Paladins"
There were actually 10 Paladins described. True Neutral had 2 (Paramander/Paramandyr).
The true neutral Paramandyr was the coolest one, imo.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inquisitors are a big help for people who want to play divine warriors of different classes, but the mechanics are very different. Also the most common flavour of the class is someone operating just a little outside of the normal system, someone who does what has to be done and therefore doesn't have to hold themselves to the same standards as a Paladin. What if someone wants to play a character utterly devoted to a specific god's agenda or a particular ideal that doesn't happen to be LG? What if someone wants to have magical healing and a bonded mount without multiclassing?
Part of the Paladin package was being held to a higher standard than mere Lawful Good. If you make flavor of the month paladins then you may as well eliminate real paladins from the game. Since there is no higher standard for neutral's or chaotic's you may as well expect no one to play a real paladin anyway.
I disagree that there's no higher standard for CG. In the same way that a LG character is dedicated to Justice, a CG is dedicated to Freedom. Not just in the sense of “I do what I want,” but in terms of a strong commitment to defend others from oppression. A CG character isn't just someone who does good without having to follow the law. It's someone who risks their lives, livelihoods, or reputations to help people escape slavery, unjust imprisonment, or the draft (and if the draft is serving a real good, oh look, it's a Chaos vs Good moral dilemna).
The CG paladin in our last campaign was morally obligated, because of the higher standard she was held to, to antagonize a judge and court was presenting a pair of child soldiers with the death penalty. Her background was as a LG soldier who left the military when she realized that its hierarchy allowed her fellow soldiers to get away with murder of innocents under the “fog of war.” She dedicated herself to Sarenrae as a CG paladin with an extreme commitment to redemption. She used lethal force against a humanoid foe exactly once, when fighting a bunch of crazed pirates reminiscent of Firefly's Reavers, and had to be convinced that she's made the right call.
She was absolutely a “real paladin.”
I have allowed the UA variants since they where first produced, and it has worked out wonderfully. Plenty of my players wanted to play a Paladin but hate playing LG... the CG variant was a perfect fit.
I have also switched to using the Prestige Paladin from UA also.
I have a conversion on my Google Docs for PF. I changed it to a 10 level prestige class... LG, CG, or LE (I dont allow CE in my games). Easiest way into the prestige version is 5 levels of Cleric. Most end up going 5 Cleric/ 10 Prestige Paladin/ 5 Cleric. Works out pretty well. +17 BAB, 15th level caster (cleric), and you get most the goodies from cleric and paldin (smite, channel, domains, lay on hands, ect).
I use the Prestige Paladin because I find it rediculous there are 1st level paladins. Paladins should be heroes (Level 6+)... powerful and all that. Not 1st level punks that can die to a single goblin. It just seems wrong. Its worked well in my game. I usually have some in game task or quest they have to complete from their order to become a paladin. Alot of my players write it into thier backstory as to why they are adventuring in the first place... to complete the task set before them to become a Paladin of thier order.
|
I use the Prestige Paladin because I find it rediculous there are 1st level paladins. Paladins should be heroes (Level 6+)... powerful and all that.
3.X was unintentionally funny in that one had to accomplish various feats and become a competent warrior and *impress an fiendish outsider* to get sponsored to become a Blackguard, while any schmuck with no accomplishments whatsoever could put down his begging bowl and become a 1st level Paladin.
It was like good had no standards, at all, and you had to actually work your butt off and *earn the right* to call yourself a champion of evil. Kinda still that way, in some respects. The oh-so-special Paladin is still a 1st level unearned thing that is only marginally harder to qualify for than 'Commoner 1,' while you still have to really train and focus and dedicate yourself if you want to become a Hellknight, or even a generic Assassin.
Prestige Paladin, all the way. Heck, not just holy warrior, but some sort of Prestige option for an arcanist or whatever who had dedicated his craft to the services of his faith and was blessed by the gods would be cool. Theurgist, anyone?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate fluff-based restrictions, therefore, I hate all allignment-based restrictions.
Allignment should either not exist or just be a general description of a character's personality. But someone, somewhere once made the mistake of adding mechanical effects to allignment.
Thanks to that, now everytime someone even suggests a CG Paladin, legions of grognards and fanboys react with horror and rage, screaming "non-LG Paladins is badwrong fun! And if I don't like it, noone should like it or be allowed to play it! At all!". Many of them don't even care about the class, they just lack empathy towards people who do.
Why instead of adding limitations, we don't add options and each one of us gets to pick the ones they like?
I like the concept of a 1st level paladin myself, though. A guy who may not even know he's a holy warrior...
I'd like to see Pallies (or equivalent new-named class) as LG, CG, LE, or CE only. Like a counter to the druid.
You could have a paladin-like holy warrior of another alignment, though. In fact the Chevalier prestige class is there for just this reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I totally loved that ADnD article, and have talked with Bardess here on the boards about PFing them. That's on my to do list. Very quirky classes with great flavor - the (IIRC - pardon any spelling errors) Myrikhan, Fantra, Lyan, Garath, Illrigger and Arrikhan as well as the Paramander and alternate evil Paramandyr. They run the gamut of light-to heavy armor, limited to partial divine spellcasting (one even had druid spells) and some even had some arcane ability. I think. THEY. TOTALLY. ROCKED. THE. PALADIN. SHOW.
Oldskool grognards for paladins of every alignment. (OGFPOEA)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The paramandyr is not evil, he's anti-extremist, activist Neutral - he's opposed to ALL the extreme alignments, and unlike Paramanders, is quite proactive about getting rid of such fanatics. The Paramander is a manipulator, the Paramandyr is a hunter and killer of religious extremists, not evil.
In that line of thought, are we going to start calling evil rangers Huntsmen now? :)
I used Lyans as a mighty order of knights in my game devoted to Law at all costs, with a patron only they worshipped. As they levelled, they became more and more inhuman and devoted to Law, eventually forsaking humanity in their blind devotion, and were capable of incredible atrocities in the furtherance of Law if you got in their way.
Remember, the Lyans had d12, cleric and arcane spells on their list, and gained +1 th/dmg/level against chaotic foes. OW.
Alas, the fact they served a patron nobody else did meant nobody trusted them, which forced them to be highly secretive and even more manipulative. Sure, they were nice for fighting the barbarian hordes, but you didn't want them living among you.
Of all those, the Fantra was the hardest to pin down, since he's basically the 'paladin of my clan'. Whatever is good for the clan, is good to him, and everyone else just doesn't matter a bit (=intelligent animals).
Myrikhan and Aarikhan were basically NG/NE ranger-paladins...except they got th/dmg bonuses = level against evil/good creatures. Ouch.
Faraths were CG church guardians...I did NOT understand that. CG GUARDIANS? Come on, where's the chaos in that. CG should be like the ultimate knights errant, out for personal glory and doing good deeds along the way.
Illriggers were the best in pure flavor. "crisply efficient assassination capabilities" is the line I remember best, and the arcane spells they had. They were stealthy, murderous, could lightning bolt you, and do it all in full armor with full Thaco. They rocked.
==Aelryinth
I use the Prestige Paladin because I find it rediculous there are 1st level paladins. Paladins should be heroes (Level 6+)... powerful and all that.3.X was unintentionally funny in that one had to accomplish various feats and become a competent warrior and *impress an fiendish outsider* to get sponsored to become a Blackguard, while any schmuck with no accomplishments whatsoever could put down his begging bowl and become a 1st level Paladin.
It was like good had no standards, at all, and you had to actually work your butt off and *earn the right* to call yourself a champion of evil. Kinda still that way, in some respects. The oh-so-special Paladin is still a 1st level unearned thing that is only marginally harder to qualify for than 'Commoner 1,' while you still have to really train and focus and dedicate yourself if you want to become a Hellknight, or even a generic Assassin.
Prestige Paladin, all the way. Heck, not just holy warrior, but some sort of Prestige option for an arcanist or whatever who had dedicated his craft to the services of his faith and was blessed by the gods would be cool. Theurgist, anyone?
Exactly. Players in my game have to WORK to become a paladin... and display its tenants and virtues for 5 levels before he becomes one. And because its hard... it comes with perks. When your a paladin in my game people of your faith (and people of similar faiths) respect you... because you are special. Like the difference between someone who is a soldier... and someone in the Green Berets or the Navy Seals.
That simply does not make sense. A Chaotic Evil champion should embody chaos AND evil, not simply be a deluded knockoff of the standard Paladin.
The CE Paladin believes the LG Paladin is a weak and naive fool who will bring ruin and suffering to his people in service to misguided "principles". The CE Paladin doesn't necessarily care about spreading chaos and misery; his primary concern is about supporting his people and seeing to their well-being. What makes him chaotic evil is that he is willing - and, in fact, mandated - to achieve his aims through acts of depravity that spread chaos and misery among other people.
The Paladin - of any alignment - is someone that people look to for aid in dark times. By creating a world where people can and do look to evil and terrible champions to save them, the thematic role of the good-aligned Paladin is strengthened. He must not only stand up to the enemies outside, but also the enemies within who advocate for unconscionable acts.
To be clear, this is something intended for a morally ambiguous setting, and the moral outlook expressed by evil-aligned Paladins is not at all compatible with modern western ideals of “good” and “right”. It's something you might expect from classical Rome, where slavery was ethical and wholesome family entertainment involved feeding Christians to lions. The role of a benevolent paragon is all the more potent and inspiring in a world where many despise him for doing the right thing, and monsters masquerading as people are lionized for their brutality.
A Paladin is a LG holy warrior. Thus, by definition you can’t have a “Paladin” with any other alignment.
In the standard Pathfinder setting where there is a universal standard for good and evil? I could certainly accept that. In a setting with moral ambiguity there is no "universal authority" to make that judgement call, anyone who considers their own philosophical outlook as the only "right" one is incredibly arrogant (and a perfect candidate for a Paladin, for that matter)
I totally loved that ADnD article, and have talked with Bardess here on the boards about PFing them. That's on my to do list. Very quirky classes with great flavor - the (IIRC - pardon any spelling errors) Myrikhan, Fantra, Lyan, Garath, Illrigger and Arrikhan as well as the Paramander and alternate evil Paramandyr. They run the gamut of light-to heavy armor, limited to partial divine spellcasting (one even had druid spells) and some even had some arcane ability. I think. THEY. TOTALLY. ROCKED. THE. PALADIN. SHOW.
Oldskool grognards for paladins of every alignment. (OGFPOEA)
I tried a time ago to bring a Myrikhan in 2E. My player loved it.
When I passed to PF, I reconstructed that character as an Inquisitor. But it's not just the same (turning undead is the greatest difference/problem).So I converted some D310 paladin as archetypes here trying to incorporate 1E elements. I guess that the archetype way works well.
Part of the Paladin package was being held to a higher standard than mere Lawful Good. If you make flavor of the month paladins then you may as well eliminate real paladins from the game. Since there is no higher standard for neutral's or chaotic's you may as well expect no one to play a real paladin anyway.I disagree that there's no higher standard for CG. In the same way that a LG character is dedicated to Justice, a CG is dedicated to Freedom. Not just in the sense of “I do what I want,” but in terms of a strong commitment to defend others from oppression. A CG character isn't just someone who does good without having to follow the law. It's someone who risks their lives, livelihoods, or reputations to help people escape slavery, unjust imprisonment, or the draft (and if the draft is serving a real good, oh look, it's a Chaos vs Good moral dilemna).
The CG paladin in our last campaign was morally obligated, because of the higher standard she was held to, to antagonize a judge and court was presenting a pair of child soldiers with the death penalty. Her background was as a LG soldier who left the military when she realized that its hierarchy allowed her fellow soldiers to get away with murder of innocents under the “fog of war.” She dedicated herself to Sarenrae as a CG paladin with an extreme commitment to redemption. She used lethal force against a humanoid foe exactly once, when fighting a bunch of crazed pirates reminiscent of Firefly's Reavers, and had to be convinced that she's made the right call.
She was absolutely a “real paladin.”
I hate to trample on what sounds like good role play. But a CG Paladin is NOT held to a higher standard... not even by your example. All GOOD characters should be fighting against oppression. And while the redemption bit does sound like more than a CG person should be expected to do it is hardly the same scale as the entire lawful side of a paladins alignment. The two are not equivalent... she made a half Paladin. Someone who goes above and beyond ONLY on the good side of her alignment and can safely ignore any lawful code.
Like I said it's still good role play. And there is nothing wrong with such house ruled classes. Just don't be surprised by the natural consequences of such additions, namely the loss of any Real Paladins in your game. After all most people will play the less restrictive CG version and ignore the more restrictive LG version if their powers are equivalent.
I have always liked the idea of the 4 extremes paladins (LG, CG, LE, CE). And the defenders of only LG can have true paladins sounds to me like "LG is superior good to others good alignements", and idea that I really hate.
My group is playing Way of the Wicked, an AP that screams "LE evil Paladin", which I have to make myself (later adapted to the 5 book version, which was really similar).
Is true that for many character ideas Inquisitor can be a good option to the non-LG Divine Champion, but I really prefer having the 4 options, or even all 9.
Edit: Iceshadow, Aranna, calm down a bit, please. The two options have good arguments on their defense. You should agree to desagree here.
I have always liked the idea of the 4 extremes paladins (LG, CG, LE, CE). And the defenders of only LG can have true paladins sounds to me like "LG is superior good to others good alignements", and idea that I really hate.
My group is playing Way of the Wicked, an AP that screams "LE evil Paladin", which I have to make myself (later adapted to the 5 book version, which was really similar).
Is true that for many character ideas Inquisitor can be a good option to the non-LG Divine Champion, but I really prefer having the 4 options, or even all 9.
Edit: Iceshadow, Aranna, calm down a bit, please. The two options have good arguments on their defense. You should agree to desagree here.
+1. Though I'd like any good or evil alignment (neutrality's less appealing to me).
I really HATED the 2E Guide to Hell's story of the creation of multiverse, with Law as the maximum in good and evil and Chaos as a simple remnant/byproduct. In my homebrew universe, the Main God has a feminine/lawful good aspect and a masculine/chaotic good aspect (the Lovers). And both have holy warriors.And- this kind of discussion goes on from 1E. With the same arguments. If this idea keeps returning every now and then, there must be a reason...