| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've toyed around with expanding Paladins beyond being icons of Lawful Goodness into icons of each of the four cardinal Alignment options, i.e. Good, Evil, Law and Chaos. I've found that it can actually be pretty simply done without unbalancing anything in the game and with keeping to the flavor of the concept. In truth, it has more to do with role-playing than anything and the mechanical changes can be/should be kept simple.
First off, a Paladin can be a scion of Good, Evil, Law or Chaos, determined at the time of character creation - he may be of any alignment so long as his alignment contains that which he stands for (for instance, a Paladin of Law can be Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil). Paladins tend to align or ally themselves with specific deities that best represent their vision of what the primal alignment means to them - but not always. Their power, however, is drawn from their dedication to the primal alignment itself.
Mechanically, the change are fairly basic and similar:
Paladin of Good
Lay on Hands heals Good aligned creatures or harms Evil aligned creatures.
Channelling heals Good aligned creatures and harms Evil aligned creatures at the same time.
Gains Detect Evil and Smite Evil at 1st level.
Paladin of Law
Lay on Hands heals Lawful aligned creatures or harms Chaotic aligned creatures.
Channelling heals Lawful aligned creatures and harms Chaotic aligned creatures at the same time.
Gains Detect Chaos and Smite Chaos at 1st level.
Paladin of Evil
Lay on Hands heals Evil aligned creatures or harms Good aligned creatures.
Channelling heals Evil aligned creatures and harms Good aligned creatures at the same time.
Gains Detect Good and Smite Good at 1st level.
Paladin of Chaos
Lay on Hands heals Chaotic aligned creatures or harms Lawful aligned creatures.
Channelling heals Chaotic aligned creatures and harms Lawful aligned creatures at the same time.
Gains Detect Law and Smite Law at 1st level.
In all cases, the initial double-damage Smite bonus is removed, and the Paladin's spell list reflects his alignment (i.e. Paladin of Law gains access to Protection vs. Chaos while a Paladin of Evil gains access to Protection vs. Good and so forth). Additional changes follow common sense - for instance, Divine Bond grants access to the Holy weapon property to Good Paladins, the Axiomatic property to Lawful Paladins, the Unholy property to Evil Paladins and the Anarchic property to Chaotic Paladins. Aura of Justice (suitably re-named) affects creatures of the Paladin's chosen alignment and so forth. Divine Health, Divine Grace, Weapon & Armor Proficiencies, etc. remain unchanged. I toyed around witht he possibility of using Lay on Hands to inflict Mercy conditions on those of opposite alignment in addition to healing them in allies, but even though it made sense thematically, it was simply over-powered. An option to consider though might be to allow that and do away with Channelling entirely to balance the equation, or to allow a choice between one or the other.
The rules changes are relatively minor; Paladins are still expected to abide by a core philosophy and by central motivations depending on which alignment they draw their power from - a Chaotic Paladin can 'fall' if he actively supports the ruling establishment of law and order, but this could be represented by anything from a nihilist bent on destruction (Chaotic Evil) to a freedom fighter who mistrusts all official government as oppressive and inevitably corrupt (Chaotic Good).
This expansion of Paladins as a class is paying some interesting dividends early on, and serves to separate them further from Clerics when it comes to their roles and purpose. Its highly recommended for any games that enjoy Paladins as members of their groups, or perhaps as villains and foils in their campaigns.
Channeling heals OR harms (per channeling), it doesn't do both... is this part of the intended changes you were looking to make? or a misinterpretation?
Also, what are the alignment restrictions? Is Paladin of Good any type of good? or only neutral good?
Is the Paladin of Chaos any chaotic alignment? or only chaotic neutral?
otherwise, I've done this many time and many ways, but this is simple and sweet.
Also, what are the alignment restrictions? Is Paladin of Good any type of good? or only neutral good?
Is the Paladin of Chaos any chaotic alignment? or only chaotic neutral?
This is addressed.
First off, a Paladin can be a scion of Good, Evil, Law or Chaos, determined at the time of character creation - he may be of any alignment so long as his alignment contains that which he stands for (for instance, a Paladin of Law can be Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil).
@Azten
You are, of course, correct Sir/Ma'am. I'm reading while being distracted by last week's Walking Dead... probably should do one or the other. :)
Mostly looks good to me, though its a bit awkward that a chaotic paladin can fall for supporting order, makes them look like insane zealots or anarchist. Reminds me of the old neutral that had to constantly switch sides.
What I do is I let people make their own code, much more about what the player is personally doing and championing than the universe's somewhat alien whim.
@Azten.
You are, of course, correct Sir/Ma'am. I'm reading while being distracted by last week's Walking Dead... probably should do one or the other. :)
No worries - that's on deck for me and the missus Wednesday night and everybody keeps telling me its insane.
Yes, Paladins of Good can be any kind of good - which could theoretically set a Paladin of Good against another Paladin of Good.
Yes, having both effects (heal and harm) through channelling was intentional, an offset for losing some versatility in other areas of the class. To be honest, I never liked a Paladin chanelling anyway, and I do like the idea of being able to inflict Mercy conditions on people as part of the new Lay on Hands ability... but I'm still inclined to think it might be a bit overpowered (Poisoning, Causing Disease, Blindness, etc.). Perhaps a compromise is in order - how about this:
You can channel as I list above
or
With a single application of Lay on Hands you can:
Heal yourself or others of shared alignment or remove any one condition you've chosen as a Mercy as well as
Injure others of an opposing alignment or inflict any one condition you've chosen as a Mercy.
There is more versatility there as well as the opportunity to customize, but the power itself loses some of its potency.
My view on this isn't from a 'positive' and 'negative' energy perspective, but rather the channelling of the raw potency of the alignment itself which is inherently anathema to its opposite number. Law weakens, disrupts and destroys chaos... evil does the same thing to good, and so forth. Paladins not as agents of deities but rather as scions of alignment the way other creatures might be of the elements.
Alternately you could keep both channelling and Lay on Hands but do away with Mercies entirely.
What do you think?
Mostly looks good to me, though its a bit awkward that a chaotic paladin can fall for supporting order, makes them look like insane zealots or anarchist. Reminds me of the old neutral that had to constantly switch sides.
What I do is I let people make their own code, much more about what the player is personally doing and championing than the universe's somewhat alien whim.
.
And this is where the philosophical argument takes place a little bit. I am a big believer that as long as the Paladin believes that what he is doing is correct and for the greater good (or evil or whatever), then he won't fall. An evil Paladin of Chaos might work for the undermining of a legitimate government in order to let chaos rule, perhaps serving as the enforcer or agent of wealthy merchant who seeks to profit from both sides of a war... while a good Paladin of Chaos may wage a one man war against the slave trade or work to bring down an oppressive dictatorship. Its not that a Paladin has to oppose every nuance of his opposite number of all times - it would be difficult for anyone to function or survive were that the case - but rather to pick and choose how best to champion his order... or dis-order as the case may be.Think about it this way: an argument could be made that Batman was a good Paladin of Chaos, working outside the law and doing whatever he felt was needed for the greater good while the Joker would be an evil Paladin of Chaos, working to let chaos reign for its own sake, regardless of the consequences to others.
I posted a very similar thread a while back (probably 3+ months ago now) where I was asking people what they thought of a house-rule of allowing more than just the LG Paladin and CE Anti-Paladin.
The reason for me was that I'm a fan of Paladins and Anti-Paladins, I feel that the two alignments are way too restrictive and that they get their powers from the divine. Basically if you look at the Paizo books such as Faiths of Purity and Faiths of Corruption you will see all sorts of dogma and codes that the followers of specific deities should adhere to so that they keep their paladin powers and follow their paths.
For example a LG paladin doesn't get his powers from following the laws of the land made by man, he gets his powers from the divine being he follows and if his god's interests are different from those of mortal man, the paladin should always take the road that his god would approve of.
My caveats for my players were that they needed to follow a god that is represented in the books and read up on their codes/dogma, that way they are a true paladin of said deity.
I posted a very similar thread a while back (probably 3+ months ago now) where I was asking people what they thought of a house-rule of allowing more than just the LG Paladin and CE Anti-Paladin.
The reason for me was that I'm a fan of Paladins and Anti-Paladins, I feel that the two alignments are way too restrictive and that they get their powers from the divine. Basically if you look at the Paizo books such as Faiths of Purity and Faiths of Corruption you will see all sorts of dogma and codes that the followers of specific deities should adhere to so that they keep their paladin powers and follow their paths.
For example a LG paladin doesn't get his powers from following the laws of the land made by man, he gets his powers from the divine being he follows and if his god's interests are different from those of mortal man, the paladin should always take the road that his god would approve of.
My caveats for my players were that they needed to follow a god that is represented in the books and read up on their codes/dogma, that way they are a true paladin of said deity.
.
That's another, perfectly valid way of looking at Paladins. I've always liked the idea that each deity had their own Paladins, enforcers of their will and that as such, each had their own unique twist on the Paladin's abilities......but looking at that, it can become really complicated and very unique to each campaign, whether you're in Golarion, the Forgotten Realms or a home-brewed campaign world. For some that exercise is a lot of fun to go through, but my intention here was to create a universal adaptation of the Paladin that kept intact its original concept.
For me, making them scions of a particular alignment, or perhaps an iconic philosophy would be a better way to say it... that would work really well in any campaign world since the rules could be universal and would look a lot like what we're all already used to.
I'm always open to doing things that are a bit outside of the box and using the alignments as the source of power for paladins could work pretty well as you said. You'll have to let us know how it works out for you and your group.
Now, this covers 8 out of 9 alignments. But my question is, what about those who closely follow True Neutral Gods?
those losers are cleric/fighters.
They sit at the kid's table during thanksgiving...
those losers are cleric/fighters.
They sit at the kid's table during thanksgiving...
Heh - those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.
I've always envisioned true neutral as either utterly indifferent or - more classically - dedicated to 'preserving the balance'... except that's a red herring in my opinion. If your goal is to stay at the center, then you tend to slide right or left when one side or the other gains an upper hand to the 'new' middle and recognize the new definitions of both sides. Either way, I can't envision the need for a Paladin to champion their cause.
those losers are cleric/fighters.
They sit at the kid's table during thanksgiving...
Heh - those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.
I've always envisioned true neutral as either utterly indifferent or - more classically - dedicated to 'preserving the balance'... except that's a red herring in my opinion. If your goal is to stay at the center, then you tend to slide right or left when one side or the other gains an upper hand to the 'new' middle and recognize the new definitions of both sides. Either way, I can't envision the need for a Paladin to champion their cause.
Fair enough. I've figured TN to be the most flexible, loaning their talents to one side when another becomes to prevalent in effort to achieve an ideal balance. That or a non-evil version of the 'loths that continues law and chaos spurring forward... or against each other.
I'd like to see a paladin whose alignment detection only detects active or supernatural evil (non-native outsiders, undead, someone planning a murder etc.) I'd then allow paladins to have Sense Motive as a class skill.
I'd like to see a paladin whose alignment detection only detects active or supernatural evil (non-native outsiders, undead, someone planning a murder etc.) I'd then allow paladins to have Sense Motive as a class skill.
Honestly, in our home games, the Paladin's ability to 'Detect Evil at will' has been done away with. In my opinion it interferes far too much with games and makes moot the need for Paladins to make good choices, leaning instead on simply checking the alignment of everyone they encounter. NPC's are a lot more difficult to play if they're effectively walking around with EVIL over their heads in blinking neon. We have, however, added it to their 1st level spell list.
I like that idea. Fiends and undead I could happily back being able to ping; random evil people, not so much.
I like that idea. Fiends and undead I could happily back being able to ping; random evil people, not so much.
Technically you don't have an aligned aura if you are a humanoid with less than 5 HD, unless you are a cleric or a paladin/antipaladin... And with 5 or more HD you really don't register as a "random" person.
Any villain worth his salt is likely not to be a "random" person either, but if he's smiling and pressing flesh at a local do, I wouldn't want a simple detect evil to pick him out of the crowd.
Any villain worth his salt is likely not to be a "random" person either, but if he's smiling and pressing flesh at a local do, I wouldn't want a simple detect evil to pick him out of the crowd.
True. But to avoid that you can always put more evil guy just as you put good guys. You don't need to make any evil guy ready to sacrifice every child he sees. Someone might be a bad guy just because he is a sadist, and he likes it. Or because he killed his parents to get the inheritance faster. Maybe someone is just hateful of other people... You could even be a bad guy because you help others for the sake of self-glorification and you're ready to sacrifice others for that (there's no need to actually do it, just that you think it's right to do). And none of them will be the bad guy of the story.
Just to mix up, you could make the BBEG not actually evil, and make true evil guys help the party.
The point is: if the characters only find 2-3 evil NPCs over the course of a campaign (and others are their minions) it's obvious they are going to strike for them when something happen. But when there are in equal numbers with neutrals and good, the character have to discover who to punish for what. And you can play a lot with that.