|
I dont care for the paladin, myself.
I find the roleplaying limitations they have has caused more problems in my game than good.
Paladins have resulted in more player character murder than a rogue stealing from the party.
1. Paladin objects to something one of the (very likely neutral) characters has done.
2. Characters argue. Most of the party backs the non-paladin, or worst case, 50/50 split.
3. This happens a few more times.
4. Paladin player either can't justify continued association with the party, or can't justify allowing the actions of one of the characters to continue.
5. Character leaves, Total party dissolution, or fight to the death.
6. Goodbye ongoing plot.
I'd be more inclined to allow the Genius Templar than the Paladin.
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.
Can't say I disagree. Pathfinder isn't one of my favorite games because of a lot of those assumptions. x/day and encounter limit is one of the big ones for me. Its a real killer for narrative.
2. Characters argue. Most of the party backs the non-paladin, or worst case, 50/50 split.
Yarr, I finally drew the line after seeing too many player arguments. Its one thing to argue in character, but when its in real life heated arguments over a game its a little much for me.
I dont care for the paladin, myself.
I find the roleplaying limitations they have has caused more problems in my game than good.
Paladins have resulted in more player character murder than a rogue stealing from the party.
1. Paladin objects to something one of the (very likely neutral) characters has done.
2. Characters argue. Most of the party backs the non-paladin, or worst case, 50/50 split.
3. This happens a few more times.
4. Paladin player either can't justify continued association with the party, or can't justify allowing the actions of one of the characters to continue.
5. Character leaves, Total party dissolution, or fight to the death.
6. Goodbye ongoing plot.I'd be more inclined to allow the Genius Templar than the Paladin.
Yeah, and those problems aren't going away any time soon.
I've seen Smite Evil turned to Smite Enemy before... Both in PF and 3.5.
It didn't really make any difference. It's a power-up, of course, but not a significant one. And it helps to compensate for the loss of Detect Evil (since there's nothing to detect in a world with no alignment). The daily limits of the ability still keep it in check.
Besides, mot of the really dangerous opponents are evil anyway.... Dragons, outsiders, undead... Most of the really nasty ones are evil. And Paladins are very likely to go after evil enemies anyway.
|
|
Yeah, and those problems aren't going away any time soon.I dont care for the paladin, myself.
I find the roleplaying limitations they have has caused more problems in my game than good.
Paladins have resulted in more player character murder than a rogue stealing from the party.
1. Paladin objects to something one of the (very likely neutral) characters has done.
2. Characters argue. Most of the party backs the non-paladin, or worst case, 50/50 split.
3. This happens a few more times.
4. Paladin player either can't justify continued association with the party, or can't justify allowing the actions of one of the characters to continue.
5. Character leaves, Total party dissolution, or fight to the death.
6. Goodbye ongoing plot.I'd be more inclined to allow the Genius Templar than the Paladin.
Works out okay if you simply don't allow paladins.
Depending on the group, sitting down and talking with them about making a cohesive group before the game starts also helps.
Arcana Evolved didn’t have alinement’s, I think the Champion was their replacement for the Paladin. Maybe you could take a look at it, see if it has a power you could replace smite with, or you could land up converting the class over. I don't know, just thought I would point it out.
I've always hated alinement's... Anyone who sees the world as being black and white (good and evil) needs to experience more of it/open their eyes/mind. Only a child has an exuse not to understand the world is made of grays (ALL things have good and evil in them. If you can find me something that you doesn't; I will believe I am not wise enough to see good/evil it has before I believe it doesn't have it.).
I agree with the Smite Enemy philosophy. Have class/chivalric order/campaign setting define who the enemies are, and you're all set.
This means that the "default" paladin can have the exact same targets for its smite ability, you'll just have to spell out precisely which creatures fits the evil outsider, evil dragon and undead bill.
I agree with the Smite Enemy philosophy. Have class/chivalric order/campaign setting define who the enemies are, and you're all set.
This means that the "default" paladin can have the exact same targets for its smite ability, you'll just have to spell out precisely which creatures fits the evil outsider, evil dragon and undead bill.
See, one problem I have with "smite enemy", is that the ability already exists, it's called challenge (I love cavaliers & samurai). If you want "smite enemy", play a noble cavalier, there's no need to be a paladin. I think I'll have to stick with alignement for now, cause I'm not finding a solution (short of banning paladins) that satisfies me.
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.For what it's worth, this was my mindset when I wrote that alignment-free paladins can potentially smite anyone in the aforementioned article. Paladins are still supposed to be paragons of virtue, it's just that what constitutes "virtue" is entirely abstracted under that system, rather than having mechanics with weird in-game implications.
In other words, if they start smiting people that their god wouldn't approve of being smote, then the paladin will have some 'splaining to do. (Likewise, I kept the doubled damage on the first attack against dragons, undead, and outsiders because evil members of these groups are the traditional foes for "questing knight"-style characters, which paladins play towards.)
I recognize that this makes for "situational" powers - that is, powers where their appropriateness is variable based on, ultimately, the GM's discretion, and that some people staunchly dislike such things. I respect that opinion, though I personally disagree. To me, drawing strength from a (sentient) higher power means that you're going to be operating under oversight, and will have to explain yourself at times.
Having said all of that, I want to thank everyone who's linked to and discussed those articles I wrote about removing alignment from Pathfinder. They remain the most popular posts on Intelligence Check, and I'm glad that people are using them to have a more enjoyable game!
Thanks for the input alzrius. I guess a lot of it does end up amounting to GM discretion. My own phylosophical apprehensions notwithstanding, it's great to get some input from someone who's put a lot more effort thinking about this than I have.
I agree with the Smite Enemy philosophy. (snip)See, one problem I have with "smite enemy", is that the ability already exists, it's called challenge (I love cavaliers & samurai). If you want "smite enemy", play a noble cavalier, there's no need to be a paladin.
That's not quite the case, or else I expressed myself badly. Cavalier can declare their challenge against anyone. The cavalier isn't restricted the way a paladin or ranger are.
What I suggest is that the paladin gets to smite a short list of enemies, as defined by their order, patron deity, or campaign setting etc. Otherwise just give them a default list of typical enemies.
This is already the case by RaW except that the description targets [evil] creatures as a general grouping for convenience, but the description could have been "If the target of smite evil is a barghest, a bebelith, a cauchemar, a demon, a devil, a hell hound, a kyton, a nessian warhound, a night hag, a nightmare, a vargouille, a xill, a yeth hound, a black dragon, a blue dragon, a crag linnorm, a dracolisk, a dragon turtle, an ice linnorm, a green dragon, a red dragon, a tarn linnorm, a white dragon, a wyvern, an undead (and so fourth)..."
So what you need to do is define who are the enemies of the paladin, list them, and allow smite to work against those enemies only. The short-cut being "all the creatures formally tagged as [evil]".
I'm retooling it for my upcoming campaign and not using alignment. As nearly every creature has an elemental affinity I am allowing them to use smite against their opposite affinity. Also considering adding a corruption/purity thing to represent good and evil, though that is just putting back in a quasi-alignment again so I'm hoping this thread will provide some helpful alternatives.
replace alignment with aligned.
Nation: England can smite french and vice versa
Species Humans can smite monsters (monstrous humanoids, magical beasts, abberations), elves smite dwarves and vice versa.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What we did:
We use alignment descriptors but not alignment.
Smite evil works vs [evil] creatures (demons, dragons etc).
Smite uses/day are rolled into Lay of Hands.
Paladins can also spend 1 use of LoH to cast shield other as cleric of equal level.
This means against [evil] the paladin can smite a LOT, and when not against [evil] they are good healers and have options go be proactive.
It worked out great, though the campaign never got past level 6 (but we level very slowly).
What we did:
We use alignment descriptors but not alignment.
Smite evil works vs [evil] creatures (demons, dragons etc).
Smite uses/day are rolled into Lay of Hands.
Paladins can also spend 1 use of LoH to cast shield other as cleric of equal level.This means against [evil] the paladin can smite a LOT, and when not against [evil] they are good healers and have options go be proactive.
It worked out great, though the campaign never got past level 6 (but we level very slowly).
That seems like a really good idea. Thanks ilja, I'll seriously consider it.
Personally I'd not feel bad to use the favored enemy and challenge ability of the ranger and cavalier for the paladin class.
Challenge advances as smite evil in number of uses, as a cavalier of the same level.
Favored enemy undead, [evil] subtype and (evil) aura creatures, and dragons. +2 at 1st lvl advancing +1 every 5 lvls after that.
People never play cavaliers or rangers in my games though, and even if they did it wouldn't bother me. The mechanics fit the paladin well enough.
I'm retooling it for my upcoming campaign and not using alignment. As nearly every creature has an elemental affinity I am allowing them to use smite against their opposite affinity. Also considering adding a corruption/purity thing to represent good and evil, though that is just putting back in a quasi-alignment again so I'm hoping this thread will provide some helpful alternatives.
I always wanted to become more [fire] the more I cast fire spells!
Corruption/Purity reminds me of fable actually. Fable 2 used Purity/Corruption on a different scale than Good/Evil. You can add a lot of paradigms to the game.
Yeah, and those problems aren't going away any time soon.I dont care for the paladin, myself.
I find the roleplaying limitations they have has caused more problems in my game than good.
Paladins have resulted in more player character murder than a rogue stealing from the party.
1. Paladin objects to something one of the (very likely neutral) characters has done.
2. Characters argue. Most of the party backs the non-paladin, or worst case, 50/50 split.
3. This happens a few more times.
4. Paladin player either can't justify continued association with the party, or can't justify allowing the actions of one of the characters to continue.
5. Character leaves, Total party dissolution, or fight to the death.
6. Goodbye ongoing plot.I'd be more inclined to allow the Genius Templar than the Paladin.
Works out okay if you simply don't allow paladins.
Depending on the group, sitting down and talking with them about making a cohesive group before the game starts also helps.
As the old saying goes: It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Paladins are not supposed to fit in with every type of party. Such conflicts are pretty much inevitable if you pair a paragon of good with characters or players who play Neutral as an excuse to be just short of Evil and expect everyone else go just go along with it.
i simply define "evil" as "unholy" instead, with smite affecting all undead, fiends, chromatic dragons, abbarations and clerics who worship an evil deity as well as blackguards. everyone else is treated as "neutral" for the purpose of smiting.
I simply define "evil" as "unholy" instead, with smite affecting all undead, fiends, chromatic dragons, abbarations and clerics who worship an evil deity as well as blackguards. everyone else is treated as "neutral" for the purpose of smiting.This!
This is the most elegant solution I have heard offered to date.
I try to keep thins simple when removing alignment, "Good" is transitioned to "Holy," only celestial outsiders, metallic dragons, clerics of the "true" gods and paladins count as holy and only they are treated as good by spells.
Likewise "Evil" becomes "Unholy" and chromatic dragons, undead, fiendish outsiders, aberrations, anti-paladins and clerics of the "False" gods count as and are treated as evil for the purposes of spells.
All other creatures are treated as neutral on the good to evil spectrum.
Good and evil aligned weapons work as they always did only being called "holy" or "unholy" now.
All references to lawful and chaotic are removed completely and all creatures are treated as neutral on the law to chaos spectrum. Creatures with DR/Law are susceptible to silver, Beings with DR/Chaos are susceptible to cold iron.
I simply define "evil" as "unholy" instead, with smite affecting all undead, fiends, chromatic dragons, abbarations and clerics who worship an evil deity as well as blackguards. everyone else is treated as "neutral" for the purpose of smiting.This!
This is the most elegant solution I have heard offered to date.
More or less exactly what I was advocating a page or so ago, with respect to good/evil stuff:
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 like to keep in some [chaotic] and [lawful] things so that we don't have to throw out all those templates, creature types, items, and spells. Kekkres' solution (removing them entirely) would work, too; it just depends on how complex you want your cosmology to be.