Dear fellow Pathfinders
I've been thinking a little about a Paladin (well, someone with a Smite ability) that doesn't rely on the target's alignment and more importantly, their own alignment to be good (evil for anti-).
So what happens is that at each level the 'Paladin' gains Smite 'Evil', she instead gains something called Smite Uglies (working title).
At each of these levels, she selects a creature type from the ranger favoured enemies table. She can then use Smite against the chosen creature types as she sees fit.
I suppose further touches will be needed if one were to really fit the entire class into a class specialised for hunting specific types of creatures but I think it's pretty balanced (or underpowered, even) in terms of Smite-ability.
So what do you folks think?
So what do you folks think?
I run paladins who carry no alignment and have a smite which can be used on anything. Yours looks more a more restrictive smite and I personally don't have a problem with it.
Don't be silly, Kittenological... Don't you know Non-LG Paladins are badwrong fun?
What...? You didn't know that?
Don't worry, I'm sure half the forum posters will soon come here just to tell you that...
/sarcams
Honestly, though... I fully support all attempts to reduce and/or remove alignment mechanics from the game.
My favorite idea is similar to MrSin's take on it... Paladins lose Detect Evil, but can Smite whatever they want. Alignment sucks. It adds nothing but restriction to the game...
My favorite idea is similar to MrSin's take on it... Paladins lose Detect Evil, but can Smite whatever they want. Alignment sucks. It adds nothing but restriction to the game...
There's something thrilling in picking out one target for smite rather than painting everyone on the field who's evil as a target. Especially when you really hated that guy. That's probably my favorite thing about running without alignment. No painted targets, but much more thrilling and honest that you actually wanted to smite that guy. Totally personal opinion though.
Anyways, yes, the forum may very well come down upon you for not understand the legacy of a paladin. Never know! Sometimes they don't. Sometimes its 1000 post of circular arguments that solve nothing.
Sounds fine, but I wouldn't call it a paladin anymore--I'd call it an "avenger" or some such. I particularly like the idea of choosing favored enemies. These guys would definitely have a place in most settings, as racially charged conflicts are common (dwarves vs. orcs and giants; gnomes vs. kobolds; etc). I'd probably remove the paladin's 5th-level "divine bond" in favor of the inquisitor's "bane" ability, but that's about all I'd add.
Edited for clarity.
Why can't you call it paladin? What exactly is your avenger avenging?
You can, but I wouldn't. A paladin is too firmly ingrained in my mind to mean "holy knight". You could no sooner change that than you could re-define a fighter as a "guy that casts spells" or a wizard to be a "weapons and armor master".
Oh, so its a personal opinion. That said, the character didn't suddenly not become a holy warrior.
What exactly is your avenger avenging?
An "avenger" might be a guy that hates orcs because orcs killed his family and village. He's avenging his loved ones by killing as many orcs as he can. Obviously not every "avenger" would be avenging someone or something, but neither are many "oracles" predicting the future.
Oh, so its a personal opinion. That said, the character didn't suddenly not become a holy warrior.
Of course it's an opinion, and I agree, some religions might teach its adherents to slay particular creatures, but I don't think those guys would be paladins. A paladin wouldn't slay an orc for being an orc; he'd slay an orc for being evil (and thus, wouldn't slay a non-evil orc, else he'd lose his powers). A paladin is just that: his code. He's the good guy--change that and "paladin" has lost its entire meaning (at least, to me).
A paladin is just that: his code. He's the good guy--change that and "paladin" has lost its entire meaning (at least, to me).
I allow build your own codes. He is his code in my game, just not in a long lost DND legacy way. Just state when its your opinion with "I think" and it makes it look more like it is, rather than stating "You should because..."
Perhaps I should have been more clear (I edited my original post for this very reason). Still, it's obvious that I'm speaking my opinion--I'm providing feedback. I'm not in a position of authority, nor am I forcing you (or the OP) to comply with my wishes. I find it tedious to predicate everything that I type with "I think", because I'm under the impression that most people are going understand that we're discussing a subjective matter.