|
Or "Is there any reason not to allow a player to play a NG Paladin?"
I've got a player who wants to play a NG Paladin.
I've looked at the Paladins of other alignments from 3.5 and earlier editions, and read over the Paladin's abilities a few times, and I just don't see any reason not to allow a player to play a NG Paladin. Sure, the spell list would have to be slightly tweaked, but everything else seems pretty straight forward.
Am I missing something? Can anyone suggest good reasons why a standard PF Paladin ought not be NG (other than the bit in the Alignment line of the class description)? I'm a fan of telling player's "yes", but I don't want to accidentally get some weird flavor/mechanics clashes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since the paladin has next to zero concern about law-chaos, it should be fine.
Of course, it shouldn't be alignment restricted at all ...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have always held the belief that all gods, of all alignments, should have holy warriors. I tweak the spell list and class abilities on a case by case basis. If paladins were played more often in my games I would likely codify it more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules say no. But you're the DM, and it's not a stretch for a HOUSErule. Have fun.
I can see some issues with CG, mind you, but even so it can be done.
Java man:all gods, of all alignments, do have holy warriors: they are called Inquisitors.
Dr Deth, thanks for the reminder, still converting from 3.5 in my philosophy and haven't seen an inquisitor played yet, so I forget about them. Will have to look at how they fill the role I want filled in my campaign.
The only thing I'd do is nix the spells which care about the law-chaos axis (don't have my books within reach, but I'm pretty sure they get Protection from/Magic circle against Chaos, and dispel chaos, and I think something else) as well as remove axiomatic from their Divine Bond options.
Considering NG is the Biggest Good I'd say yeah sure.