So, with the current discussion about the messed-upedness of the helm of opposite alignement, it reminded me of a bunch of folks who say they work without alignement (namely Zhayne & MrSin). So I've been wondering:
How does one deal with mechanical effects related to alignement?
Namely, smite evil/chaos, various spells, paladins falling, etc...
I've had a few ideas to make a more alignement liberated system (just ban paladins and all the rest), but I'm interested in seeing how others have done it. I'm not quite to the point that I will allow someone to use smite on EVERYTHING, so I'm wondering how some people have gotten around it.
Note: one thing I will require from palies is a code (of their own) if I do see them. Where they state their own restrictions & such (which will be discussed). So as to reduce problems with "my vs their ideas of alignement". Might allow pseudo NG & CG paladins, but I still think a code is needed.
Either through a huge amount of power creep, or just not allowing classes that are defined by their alignments.
In case of abilities such as smite evil I would simply make them work against corrupted/unholy creatures (undeads and outsiders that normally have evil subtype, some of aberrations and dragons depending upon individual being nature, divine casters gaining power from dark gods).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My suggestion is to simply change smite evil to smite "that guy". If the smite goes against their code, ie: a protector of the innocent smiting a non-combatant, the smite doesn't work, just as though the target were non-evil. Alternatively, if the smite is in line with the paladin's code, ie: a liberator of slaves smiting a slaver, the smite functions like the smite is against an evil outsider, undead, etc.
Obligatory link to one approach.
The only class that's really defined by alignment is the paladin. The solution to every other class is to drop their alignment restrictions. The paladin is in a mechanical niche that isn't really filled by any other class, so I think completely dropping the class is a bad solution. For paladin, the main thing to change is smite evil.
Smite evil tends to be usable against the majority of important enemies one faces. Hence, I don't think there's very much power creep in letting smite apply to anyone. If you don't like that, another solution is to have the smite apply to enemies of the paladin's cause or religion. You won't be able to use it on a dire bear, but you will be able to use it on the dragon trying to conquer the local kingdom. Detect evil is easily changed to just check whether a creature is a valid target for smiting.
Similar solutions work for spells like holy word, though dropping those is less an issue than dropping a whole class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hm. There's a few steps I would take if I were to remove alignment entirely in my games (I come close, but I like alignment as a descriptor for an "at a glance" for how each character may react in a scenario, and I enjoy the concept of Outsiders being made of "Alignment Stuff"). Apologies if any of this is redundant with Vivianne's link, I haven't read it.
For classes like the Paladin, it's simple enough to do in one of two ways: Require every Paladin to have a god (and then base the Code on the general worship of that god), or let them make their own Code (and vet it until it is at what you see as the right amount of restriction). There's also the option of removing the Code entirely, it's not required to balance the class mechanically, but the Paladin feels a bit weird without an analogue.
As for Smite, and other alignment based effects, there's a few ways to do that too.
As Goblin said, "Smite That Guy" is always an option. However, Smite is ridicuously strong at mid-high levels, so this may not be a good option.
Option 1: If you went with requiring a Paladin to have a god, you could have it be "Smite people who don't follow the basic tenets of my religion in a significant way". Clerics/Paladins/Inquisitors of rival gods being the shoe-in, but also stuff like Slavers and Tyrants for Cayden Cailean, Undead for Pharasma, and so on. Problem being, not every god has a clear counter, and it would throw off balance to boot...Undead show up a lot more frequently than slavers, for example.
Option 2: Swap out Smite with something else. Give them Challenge, or Judgement or Bane...or perhaps even Challenge AND Judgement or Bane, which provides an "Everyone gets wrecked" ability that isn't quite as monstrously strong as Smite, but is a bit more versatile. It's basically "Smite That Guy" if you activate both, but it's still not as powerful as "Add my level to damage", though the to-hit bonuses will be amazing.
Option 3: Let Smite be "Smite Enemy", and change it. Maybe make the damage AND to-hit/AC bonus be based on Cha (perhaps the damage being 2x Cha). This still lets it be quite powerful, and much more widely applicable, but balanced overall.
Hope that gives you some ideas.
Thanks Rynjin for a very comprehensive review of my concerns. I know I will never allow "smite everything" as an option.
Option 1 is clearly too limited to be useful; I had thought of it, but I dont want to restrain the paladin to that degree.
Option 2 seems the most attractive, since the various powers already exist. Still aprehensive though. Option 3 is pretty close to option 2.
I dont DISLIKE alignement; I think it's a decent system that some people take WAY to seriously. I like the idea of outsiders as alignement-stuff. But I still want to allow players more liberty (as well as myself with NPCs). A code is a good start (since, even in an aligned system, there canbe differences between the player & GM). But that limiter has prevented the paladins from being the ultimate jerks, since they arent able to bash into submission those who arent evil (IE, no smite CG, N, CN, etc.)
Edit: apparently paizo is censoring certain words (like a-hole). That might explain some weird things recentlyé
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I would suggest just having the smite work against everything that the paladin would normally get his double damage bonus from smiting. This basically means evil outsiders (or rather, ones that have the evil subtype), chromatic dragons, and undead. You may also want to allow them to smite people who are clerics of gods that the paladin opposes.
So, basically, this means the paladin will be less effective fighting say... a thieves guild or corrupt officials, but will still be fully capable of smiting the big bads.
You may want to consider letting the paladin do a 'partial smite' against other targets to balance things out. In my games I replace Aura of Justice with the ability for paladins to smite non-evil things. They gain their charisma bonus to hit and AC, but no damage bonus or DR penetration. I got tired of paladins becoming useless in areas filled with golems, and I also didn't like the absurd damage boost that a party gets from Aura of Justice.
Change it to classic paladin enemies:
Dragons, outsiders and other creatures with the [evil] subtype, undead, creatures / character with the (evil) aura.
just have smite have a lesser effect against other foes, perhaps half the usual benefits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my home game, I simply treat all mortals who are not drawing power through devotion to some deity/cause as "neutral." Outsiders keep their descriptors, as do clerics, paladins, etc. And undead always count as [evil] and fey as [chaotic].
I also enjoy replacing "smite evil" with "smite heretic" -- i.e., "smite people devoted to a deity other than mine!"
For paladin's smite evil and detect evil, just let them smite anything, and then let them pick something off the ranger's favored enemy list for their special smite damage. For instance, Natalia the Black-hearted is a "paladin" whose smite does double damage on her first attack per round against humanoids of the human subtype. Fumli the Dwarf Champion gains his bonus against giants. Nick the Dragonslayer... well, you get the idea. Assuming you keep the Evil subtype in place for outsiders, that's a legitimate choice if someone still wants to play a holy paladin. If not, well, you're probably combining devils and demons into one kind of thing, anyway.
I simply make it smite. Yeah, it works against everything and maybe that's a bit overpowered, but I've only had one player play a paladin and he is hesitant to use his smite ability.
It has daily uses, and many opponents are evil anyway. Assuming a given paladin uses most of their smites in any given adventuring day, it shouldn't be much of a power-up. It's probably compensated for by the reduced utility of "detect evil" which probably detects something else. I might replace that with add 1/2 your paladin level to Sense Motive checks to get a hunch or sense hostile intent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way I'd do it is just have it work against all enemies with the exception of unintelligent creatures, with no concept of morality, or in cases where it clearly violates the paladin's code. As people have said, most enemies a party face tend to be evil, and the ones that aren't tend to be neutral on the basis that they are animals or magical beasts without the requisite sentience to determine right and wrong. Not to mention the fact that I like to throw neutral (LN, CN or TN) challenges at the party, as I find it more interesting that way, this type of game style tends to be unfair towards any paladin players, as it shuts down one of their primary combat abilities. By making the ability less limited, it frees the DM to throw more of these morally neutral challenges at the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not convinced to make it smite everything... mainly because I dont like sending streams of evil creatures at my players. Evil, just as good, will be infrequent in my games. While I do believe it can be overpowered, I'm mainly looking at this for fluff reasons. Dont want the paladin to have the option of smiting Joe&Jane Everyperson because they pissed him off.
I will definitly know you can smite the doublesmite stuff (evil dragons, abberations, undead, outsiders), since they dont necesarily have the moral flexibility of other sentient races (with exceptions; smite evilshouldnt work on an Arclich). After that, clerics of "evil" gods (and I think keeping alignement for gods is at least a good barometer to their behavior), antipaladins should definitly be smitable. I'm more apprehensive about the average mook (goblin, orc or otherwise).
If you're keeping alignment but just softening how it affects people's behavior, I'd say just restrict smite to people with evil auras, undead, and evil outsiders. If you want to make dragons and aberrations part of the mix, just give them evil auras, as appropriate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dont want the paladin to have the option of smiting Joe&Jane Everyperson because they pissed him off.
If you're keeping the paragon of good and virtue aspect of the paladin (which of course doesn't require the alignment system), then that's not an issue. Whether or not the paladin uses smite, killing random commoners because they pissed you off is a violation of your code. Hard to smite someone when you just fell and lost your ability to smite.
On the other hand, I like the idea, in some campaigns, that the paladin doesn't have any real ethical discernment. They can, and will, smite anyone they want, based on their personal sense of conviction, and their "detect evil" is just a spidey sense that tells them when someone is up to... something. So, most paladins are powerful champions and avengers, but some are paranoid and dangerous, and a few are completely off their rockers.
Agreed. He's a Paladin. Smiting people just for pissing you off is not something a Paladin does, to the point that if they were to try, they would no longer be Paladins.
One thing that I am certain is that I will always keep the "paragon of virtue" aspect. Still, I like the idea of restricting smite to people/creatures with evil auras. Might expand what things have an evil aura (IE, certain creatures could gain one if they are "evil" enough, like orc warlords).
It will make the paladin feel less special... but they are already one of the best healers, with spells, with some of the best defensive abilities (divine grace is the BOMB) so I'm not terribly bothered. They'll become a bit closer to the ranger power-wise ("favored enemy" can be SOO useless).
I need to think about this. I wont use it in my current game, but it's something to reflect upon.
Though you said it very well RJGrady; I am trying to "soften" the effects of alignement. I think it's system, but it lacks the complexity to give me ( and a lot of other people) some of the things I want.
I think I'm one of the few who likes "fluff" alignement restrictions. I understand very well that monks (paragons of self discipline) should be lawful, and why barbarians (fueled by rage and a LACK of control) should not be lawful. But that's another discussion altogether.
Edit: As for the Jane & Joe everyman thing, it might not have been the best example. Lets take another case: starving bandits; they arent necessarily evil, they're just trying to survive by attacking travellers (I would rate them in the current system as neutral or cn). A since they arent "unvirtuous", merely desperate in attacking a paladin, I dont see why they should be hurt by smite.
Their actions are certainly evil - they are killing people for money.
Sometimes paladins do that.
I am struggling to understand the issue with Alignment.
IRL we don't obviously have this issue but we still have to deal with issues of morality and very real evil in our own lives. (That's part of the reason we have; police, courts and armies).
In Golorian; Evil is a tangible entity, it has focus and form.
Evil actually is.
It's not simply a question of morality, just mentioning the name of an Evil deity can draw it's attention or could even summon it to your PC.
Well this is for homegames, and I prefer a more nuanced view.
And for the bandits thing, they arent killing people "for money"; they're killing people for food/clothes/other things needed for survival (not canibalism). Your war example also works in my favor; a soldier in that war should NOT be subject to smite evil, since they arent necessarily striving for evil goals.
And while I havent had a chance to test out chanelling myself, I've heard nothing but bad about clerical chanelling, so I'm rather dubious as to it's value. But this is not the point of this discussion.
So, to sum up what I think would work best with me:
-Smite will work on "obvious" targets (IE "evil" subtype outsiders, chromatic dragons, most abberations & undead)
-Creatures with "evil auras" (IE clerics of evil deities, anti-paladins), are also fair game.
-Creatures that are particularly vile (example: an Orc fighter who's personal goal it is to kick all the puppies in the world) can gain an evil aura (with certain effects); (might make it go the other way as well for players who demonstrate themselves as particularly virtuous)
-Creatures that are evil-ish (IE most thieves/thugs, most of the evil population) dont qualify for smite.
I think in my own games, 75% of the population will be neutral (leaning one way or another) with the rest being "extremes".
I'd look at this:
I think this handles it pretty nicely.
He has other parts to the series too.
Oh, vivian laflamme indicated it earlier. I didnt like it, because (for the paladin at least) it assumes you will mostly be facing evil foes (which will definitly not be the case in my games).
|
But it only works on "all types of outsiders, dragons, and undead".
Are they going to be fighting many non-evil outsiders, dragons, or undead?
You could rule that creatures can still have alignment subtypes, even though they wouldn't have actual alignments. But that would be a nerf, in that you'd only be able to use it on creatures that say [Evil] in the description.
But it only works on "all types of outsiders, dragons, and undead".
Are they going to be fighting many non-evil outsiders, dragons, or undead?
You could rule that creatures can still have alignment subtypes, even though they wouldn't have actual alignments. But that would be a nerf, in that you'd only be able to use it on creatures that say [Evil] in the description.
As I understand what it says, it works on ALL creatures. The "doubling" of damage is for ALL outsiders, dragons and undead (like solars & gold dragons. Fun).
|
|
Ah. I see what you mean. I misread that.
Well, you could just limit the entirety of smite to specific creature types.
Alternately, you could just drop Smite.
A quick search turned up these options for 3.5. Some of them might give you some ideas.
Eternal Order Substitution Levels (CV, p 39):
1st level: Corpsestrike (ignore undead creature's DR), Undead Knowledge, replaces smite evil
Half-Orc Paladin Substitution Levels (RD, p 160): d12 HD, switch Diplomacy for Intimidate
1st level: Righteous Fury (bonus damage, increases by level, has duration), lose smite evil
Holy Judge Substitution Levels (CV, p 44): add Knowledge (the planes)
1st level: Favored Enemy (devils), replaces smite evil
Here is what Archetypes on d20pfsrd have for swapping out smite. You could just choose one of them and make it a permanent swap, or you could allow the player to choose.
Oath of Loyalty (Loyal Oath)
Stonelord(Stonestrike)
Tranquil Guardian (Touch of Serenity)
So, there are alternatives to smite, and some are not alignment dependent.
1. Smite works on Devils, Demons, Daemons, and Undead.
2. Righteous Fury: Not sure. Dont have the source.
3. Favored Enemy: This is just less good. Especially if its only one type of creature. Maybe if it's straight up "As per Ranger" it would be okay (may still be a bit too weak, not sure), complete with adding more types as the paladin gains levels. Perhaps a more limited list than the ranger gets. Also, Perhaps allow them to progress the bonuses on more than one type as it scales, giving them say: +2 vs Demons, Devils, Daemons.
4. Loyal Oath: Give Defensive buffs to a buddy, and get a free attack when someone tries to hit him.
5. Stonestrike: 1 Round/Level/Day of Combat Buffs that will help you bypass natural armor and hit harder.
6. Touch of Serenity: Enemy has to make will saves to attack/cast spells.
I don't see a problem with smite working on all creatures given that if they start abusing their powers, eventually they would cease to be Paladins. It frees them up some.
Thanks a lot darkholme, that is some pretty good info. I'll have to reflect upon it when i have the time.
|
|
I don't see a problem with smite working on all creatures given that if they start abusing their powers, eventually they would cease to be Paladins. It frees them up some.
He's saying he doesn't want it to be an ability that they're able to use in every fight, against everyone who is a valid opponent.
I am struggling to understand the issue with Alignment.
There are a number of issues(to me). The biggest one is that people at the table can get all uppity about it, and worse you can have someone try and state their ideas on morality are better than yours. There is no universal idea of good and evil, even in Golarion(there might be, but your not exactly going to find a codex with a note on alignment for every situation). Not everyone agrees with the restrictions either. It also fails on a multi-cultural level, and it hurts the ability to make 3 dimensional characters.
Anyway, hey! Someone mentioned my name upthread. I throw out the restriction on who you can smite and the double damage on outsiders/dragons/undead. I also allow paladins of any alignment and let players create and handle their own code(I always allow divine casters of an ideal when I play or to create your own god anyway). Simplified. The thing is 9 times out of 10 people were up against something they could smite anyways, and they were saving it for BBEGs and the like anyways when they would smite, so it wasn't really a big change all in all. The big thing is I prefer to think of it as smiting a foe of your believe or something that stands in your way, rather than just "haha, I smashed him!". More of a climactic call out sort of thing. Adds more narrative and creative input from the people at the table... ideally. I'd be willing to trade in smite for those 1/10 times you can't use it for more creativity and narrative anyday.
I didnt like it, because (for the paladin at least) it assumes you will mostly be facing evil foes (which will definitly not be the case in my games).
I think it's fair to say that the game is designed with the assumption that most foes the party faces will be evil. For evidence of this, look at Paizo adventure paths. The paladin's smite evil ability is designed to be balanced for this type of game. As paladins already have a limited number of smites per day, allowing anyone to be a target of a smite isn't significant power creep from the archetypal good vs. evil game. It is a significant power up from your game, but only because the standard paladin is powered down in your game.
That's actually one of the things I like about not tying smite to the alignment system: as a DM, you don't have to worry that you are weakening the paladin by not sending mostly evil creatures at the party. I don't like mechanics that force me to design encounters and campaigns around not accidentally nerfing the ability.
|
|
Hmm. I hadn't considered that it might be supposed to work all of the time.
I've often had games where the PCs run into many many neutral aligned opponents, and the paladins cannot smite them.
I'm thinking some manner of Favored Enemy might work out okay as a replacement. Perhaps come up with a custom FE list for the Pally.
But you have a point, looking at the adventure paths, they seem to be able to smite about 85+% of the intended opponents.
I didnt like it, because (for the paladin at least) it assumes you will mostly be facing evil foes (which will definitly not be the case in my games).I think it's fair to say that the game is designed with the assumption that most foes the party faces will be evil. For evidence of this, look at Paizo adventure paths. The paladin's smite evil ability is designed to be balanced for this type of game. As paladins already have a limited number of smites per day, allowing anyone to be a target of a smite isn't significant power creep from the archetypal good vs. evil game. It is a significant power up from your game, but only because the standard paladin is powered down in your game.
That's actually one of the things I like about not tying smite to the alignment system: as a DM, you don't have to worry that you are weakening the paladin by not sending mostly evil creatures at the party. I don't like mechanics that force me to design encounters and campaigns around not accidentally nerfing the ability.
This seems like another terrible idea from to base your design on... kinda like favored enemy. How are they assuming it's balanced? That you DONT have the right one (thus pointless)? partial favored enemy? Max favored enemy? It seem so arbitrary.
I need to think, but I still dont want to have a power like that to be universal. Darkholme's ideas of having to choose one of the preexisting alternatives seems best. At this point, I think it's more of a philosophical opposition than a mechanical one.
How are they assuming it's balanced?
Ideally, the GM is balancing it. Or at least that's the go to response I know.
How are they assuming it's balanced?Ideally, the GM is balancing it. Or at least that's the go to response I know.
Eh, ultra-situational abilities always grind my gears... I can understand certain specialist archetypes/prcs having a specialization; they arent the base, so it's for those who are adventurous. But I hate the idea that I'm expected to have giants in my campaign if the ranger has it as a favored enemy? No (or very few) elementals/oozes/etc if I have a rogue in my party? Sigh... Ok, no more ranting, it isnt useful.
Thanks for your response Mr Sin, you've been one of the more vocal supporters of the "no-alignement" thing that I've known so it's nice to have your input.
But I am becoming more convinced my opposition is more philosophical than mechanical. It bugs me that a paladin should have the ability to smite anything it wants. It doesnt feel right in my mind.
I didnt like it, because (for the paladin at least) it assumes you will mostly be facing evil foes (which will definitly not be the case in my games).I think it's fair to say that the game is designed with the assumption that most foes the party faces will be evil. For evidence of this, look at Paizo adventure paths. The paladin's smite evil ability is designed to be balanced for this type of game. As paladins already have a limited number of smites per day, allowing anyone to be a target of a smite isn't significant power creep from the archetypal good vs. evil game. It is a significant power up from your game, but only because the standard paladin is powered down in your game.
That's actually one of the things I like about not tying smite to the alignment system: as a DM, you don't have to worry that you are weakening the paladin by not sending mostly evil creatures at the party. I don't like mechanics that force me to design encounters and campaigns around not accidentally nerfing the ability.
This seems like another terrible idea from to base your design on... kinda like favored enemy. How are they assuming it's balanced? That you DONT have the right one (thus pointless)? partial favored enemy? Max favored enemy? It seem so arbitrary.
I need to think, but I still dont want to have a power like that to be universal. Darkholme's ideas of having to choose one of the preexisting alternatives seems best. At this point, I think it's more of a philosophical opposition than a mechanical one.
I don't think anyone's saying it was a good idea, but it's the assumption the system made, so when you're house-ruling it away, it's probably wise to look at that as a good baseline for what should replace it.
This seems like another terrible idea from to base your design on... kinda like favored enemy. How are they assuming it's balanced? That you DONT have the right one (thus pointless)? partial favored enemy? Max favored enemy? It seem so arbitrary.
Yeah, that's why I like the instant enemy spell. It puts the control of when favored enemy applies in the player's hands, rather than the DM's. I prefer abilities like that, whose power doesn't fluctuate wildly depending upon what encounters the DM comes up with.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ideally, the GM is balancing it. Or at least that's the go to response I know.
But balancing it how?
It's not like WBL, or Encounters/Day, where there's some kind of guidelines to follow (those are still not a great idea). Just what proportion of the enemies you face are supposed to be of a type they took Favored Enemy in, and what proportion are supposed to be of what alignment?
The game would definitely run much smoother if you didn't have to worry about "how much gold have I given them? how much did they waste on consumeables, that I'm now supposed to give them the cash to replace? how much did they lose from selling things? how am I going to make sure there are 3-5 fights each day before they get a chance to rest so that the people with X/day abilities (like spells) can't blow them all in one fight? how many of the fights have to be against evil enemies? how many have to be one of the ranger's favored enemies?"
In my home games I've done away with WBL, and instead they get CAPs with their exp, which they spend on stuff that makes them more effective, and their money is for basic gear and utility items (and thus it's fine if they get way more, or way less, at any given point). I haven't figured out a solution to X/day abilities beyond "make sure they fight the equivalent of 4 CR appropriate fights each day, if there's only going to be one fight, it should be against 4-5 monsters of their CR.", and I haven't gotten around to houseruling alignment. I hadn't really considered favored enemy. I think I'll just offer some alternate ability players can take instead that won't be so swingy.
The game balance would be much easier to manage as a GM if they hadn't baked in all these crazy assumptions the GM needs to maintain, or if Paizo had changed those assumptions.
I didnt like it, because (for the paladin at least) it assumes you will mostly be facing evil foes (which will definitly not be the case in my games).I think it's fair to say that the game is designed with the assumption that most foes the party faces will be evil. For evidence of this, look at Paizo adventure paths. The paladin's smite evil ability is designed to be balanced for this type of game. As paladins already have a limited number of smites per day, allowing anyone to be a target of a smite isn't significant power creep from the archetypal good vs. evil game. It is a significant power up from your game, but only because the standard paladin is powered down in your game.
That's actually one of the things I like about not tying smite to the alignment system: as a DM, you don't have to worry that you are weakening the paladin by not sending mostly evil creatures at the party. I don't like mechanics that force me to design encounters and campaigns around not accidentally nerfing the ability.
There are a fair number of Neutral enemies in APs too (Animals and non-sentient Magical Beasts or Aberrations mostly), but this is a fair argument for allowing it as well, overall.
So, with the current discussion about the messed-upedness of the helm of opposite alignement, it reminded me of a bunch of folks who say they work without alignement (namely Zhayne & MrSin). So I've been wondering:
How does one deal with mechanical effects related to alignement?
Namely, smite evil/chaos, various spells, paladins falling, etc...
I've had a few ideas to make a more alignement liberated system (just ban paladins and all the rest), but I'm interested in seeing how others have done it. I'm not quite to the point that I will allow someone to use smite on EVERYTHING, so I'm wondering how some people have gotten around it.
Note: one thing I will require from palies is a code (of their own) if I do see them. Where they state their own restrictions & such (which will be discussed). So as to reduce problems with "my vs their ideas of alignement". Might allow pseudo NG & CG paladins, but I still think a code is needed.
Smite (X) becomes simply 'smite'. Whatever you feel like smiting, you can smite.
Spells that only operate off alignment (Detect Evil) do not exist. Spells with a variable effect based on alignment default to the Neutral effect.
I simply ban the Paladin, but it's not too hard to write them to be alignment-neutral, at which point they simply don't fall; any punishments for transgressions occur at the roleplaying level, not the mechanical level (as it should be, IMHO).
Another option is to leave alignment existing solely as a creature subtype and a spell descriptor. So, for example, a Paladin could detect, and smite, a demon or devil (regardless of its actual behavior), but couldn't detect or smite a murderer. Any creature without an alignment subtype is considered neutral. This still lets you have your themely 'holy avenger sword smiting supernatural evil' thing, but doesn't impede roleplay like the alignment system does.
Dont allow smiting of animals, non-intelligent foes or foes with the [good] subtype or aura ability or creatures that are otherwise soulless or outside of the dominion of the gods.
Some creatures might still be the target of smite evil (like skeletons or creatures that somehow gain the [evil] subtype / aura).
KISS: Smite, no increased damage bonus, no deflection bonus to AC/CMD. Done.
So good people, neutral animals, or non-intelligent foes can't be enemies of a church? Why force mechanical limitations on a class that has so many roleplaying constraints as it is? If a Paladin can smite anyone and abuses it, the roleplaying constraints in place (see Paladin code) dictate the penalty. Smite is also pretty limited in uses per day. People get to bent out of shape over a Paladins. The class would have been better left out of the game given folks tendencies.