Paladin of Pharasma.
Undead are abominations that should be purged from existence. Boneyard paladins are empowered to detect, smite, and counteract the foulness of the undead.
They detect the evil of undead, smite them, lay on hands to counteract the damage of the undead or explode undead on contact. They are toughened to resist the powers of the undead (bonus on saves, immune to disease) and granted mercies to counteract their foul powers. The evil descriptor is so tied into undead creation that their smites work on evil descriptor outsiders, evil dragons, and evil creatures as well as a consequence, even though their divine mandate is focused on undead.
Remove the code, the alignment requirement, and the aura of good, and you are pretty good to go.
Re Dragon #'s 108, 310 and 312
... coming up with themes for each of the classes that helped justify them as existing without overlapping other classes (aka, the paladin smites evil, so none of the other 8 should have smite evil) was really tough. And by the end of the articles... I was pretty convinced, and remain convinced to this day, that a paladin for every alignment is not a great idea. If only because it reduces and marginalizes the paladin... I would have pushed for making the paladin a prestige class.These are still the best sources for Alt-Paladin's IMNSHO. If this idea interests you as a player or GM I would read, then re-read, these sources first.
Wait, JJ wrote eight paladin-alikes without smite abilities?! It's no wonder he ended up convinced that it was a bad idea!
I guess he had a word count to fill, but ugh, such a waste of mental energy!
I think the games (D&D, Pathfinder) should've gone the direction of letting players (with the GMs blessing) build whatever type of character they wanted to play. That is, set a core build for Warrior, Innate Spellcaster, Studied Spellcaster, Cleric, Rogue and Psion. Then choose race, skills and Feats or (possibly) Prestige options that lay over that build to make the character you want to play in a given campaign.
I was never in a campaign that used them, but the 3.0 (3.5?) Unearthed Arcana has a Generic Classes variant. The lineup is Warrior, Spellcaster, and Expert. (Not the NPC expert class.) I always thought it'd be cool if, rather than getting a bunch of bonus feats, the warrior was modified so that players could create the warrior concept they liked by taking class feature options like rage or smite. Obviously, such abilities would have to be broken down into smaller bits than they appear in the core classes, but it'd bypass multiclassing hoop-jumping and weird class restrictions like the paladin's.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always thought it'd be cool if, rather than getting a bunch of bonus feats, the warrior was modified so that players could create the warrior concept they liked by taking class feature options like rage or smite. Obviously, such abilities would have to be broken down into smaller bits than they appear in the core classes, but it'd bypass multiclassing hoop-jumping and weird class restrictions like the paladin's.Agreed. Maybe 5th Edition will let us do that. Or it can always be homebrewed.
Don't count on it. The beginner's rules for 5th edition are out now, it's basically a combination of 3rd edition and 1st edition. To be honest, it looks pretty nice from what's out so far.
|
Paladin of Pharasma.
Undead are abominations that should be purged from existence. Boneyard paladins are empowered to detect, smite, and counteract the foulness of the undead.
They detect the evil of undead, smite them, lay on hands to counteract the damage of the undead or explode undead on contact. They are toughened to resist the powers of the undead (bonus on saves, immune to disease) and granted mercies to counteract their foul powers. The evil descriptor is so tied into undead creation that their smites work on evil descriptor outsiders, evil dragons, and evil creatures as well as a consequence, even though their divine mandate is focused on undead.
Remove the code, the alignment requirement, and the aura of good, and you are pretty good to go.
Warpriest or Inquisitor of Pharasma.
Warpriest gains Sacred Weapon, Blessings, Fervor, and channel.Inquisitor gets Judements, Bane, and so on.
They both can smite via access to the Smite Abomination spell.
There is no need to modify the Paladin class when there are two classes that fill the same role.
Paladin of Pharasma.
Undead are abominations that should be purged from existence. Boneyard paladins are empowered to detect, smite, and counteract the foulness of the undead.
They detect the evil of undead, smite them, lay on hands to counteract the damage of the undead or explode undead on contact. They are toughened to resist the powers of the undead (bonus on saves, immune to disease) and granted mercies to counteract their foul powers. The evil descriptor is so tied into undead creation that their smites work on evil descriptor outsiders, evil dragons, and evil creatures as well as a consequence, even though their divine mandate is focused on undead.
Remove the code, the alignment requirement, and the aura of good, and you are pretty good to go.
Warpriest or Inquisitor of Pharasma.
Warpriest gains Sacred Weapon, Blessings, Fervor, and channel.
Inquisitor gets Judements, Bane, and so on.They both can smite via access to the Smite Abomination spell.
There is no need to modify the Paladin class when there are two classes that fill the same role.
You can be a warpriest or inquisitor of Iomedae or any god that is viable for paladins too, right?
Sarenrae as NG is one step for paladins, can have clerics, she has associations with the sun which makes her an approrpriate force of nature for druids and clerics, she can do it all.
The question asked was not whether paladins are necessary but whether neutral paladin types would fit in pathfinder.
I think thery can fit in lots of ways very well with very few changes.
Start with the existing Paladin class, then:
1. Change the alignment requirement to N
2. Replace every instance of the word "evil" with the word "neutral"
3. In the now Smite Neutral ability, change "undead creature" to "elemental"
4. Change the code wording to "Code of Conduct: A "paladin" must be of neutral alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an extreme good or evil act."There, done.
So a Holy Warrior of Neutrality now Smites his own alignment?!?
"Stop hitting yourself!" ;-)
DON'T fumble!!!!!!
You can be a warpriest or inquisitor of Iomedae or any god that is viable for paladins too, right?Paladin of Pharasma.
Undead are abominations that should be purged from existence. Boneyard paladins are empowered to detect, smite, and counteract the foulness of the undead.
They detect the evil of undead, smite them, lay on hands to counteract the damage of the undead or explode undead on contact. They are toughened to resist the powers of the undead (bonus on saves, immune to disease) and granted mercies to counteract their foul powers. The evil descriptor is so tied into undead creation that their smites work on evil descriptor outsiders, evil dragons, and evil creatures as well as a consequence, even though their divine mandate is focused on undead.
Remove the code, the alignment requirement, and the aura of good, and you are pretty good to go.
Warpriest or Inquisitor of Pharasma.
Warpriest gains Sacred Weapon, Blessings, Fervor, and channel.
Inquisitor gets Judements, Bane, and so on.They both can smite via access to the Smite Abomination spell.
There is no need to modify the Paladin class when there are two classes that fill the same role.
Yeah, the "there's no need to modify the paladin class because other classes can achieve similar concepts" argument doesn't wash because by that logic, there's no need for the paladin in the first place. Want to play a knight in shining armor? Play a LG cleric, warpriest, or inquisitor of a war god with a mount.
Come to think of it, all kinds of classes are superfluous by this logic. No need for the ranger; just multiclass druid with fighter. No need for the druid; just play a cleric with nature-y domains. No need for the barbarian; just play a fighter with anger management problems from a tribal culture. No need for the bard; just play a sorcerer/cleric/fighter who likes to sing.
So, nope, I'm not buying selective paladin logic.
Mechanically I think he'd work like a Samurai with magic abilities. Probably can "smite" anything, but only half as often as a Paladin to make it fair.
Paladin of Gorum.
The god of war empowers champions to stand bright on the field of battle amidst the hack and slash of combat. Like their patron, paladins of Gorum often appear in heavy armor and are supernaturally tough. To extend the hack and slash they are filled with self healing powers and mercies so they can take a beating and come back into the fray despite severe wounds.
Paladin without code and alignment restrictions, lose detect evil but their smite works on anyone just wihtou any heightening for fiends, undead or dragons.
I think the games (D&D, Pathfinder) should've gone the direction of letting players (with the GMs blessing) build whatever type of character they wanted to play. That is, set a core build for Warrior, Innate Spellcaster, Studied Spellcaster, Cleric, Rogue and Psion. Then choose race, skills and Feats or (possibly) Prestige options that lay over that build to make the character you want to play in a given campaign.I was never in a campaign that used them, but the 3.0 (3.5?) Unearthed Arcana has a Generic Classes variant. The lineup is Warrior, Spellcaster, and Expert. (Not the NPC expert class.) I always thought it'd be cool if, rather than getting a bunch of bonus feats, the warrior was modified so that players could create the warrior concept they liked by taking class feature options like rage or smite. Obviously, such abilities would have to be broken down into smaller bits than they appear in the core classes, but it'd bypass multiclassing hoop-jumping and weird class restrictions like the paladin's.
True 20 used a similar system with only three core roles: Warrior, Adept (spell caster), and Expert (skill user). Most of the class abilities were turned to feats and you got a feat (or in the case of spell casters the choice of a feat or spell) each level. It is a bit freeing when you don't feel constrained by those class abilities you don't necessarily want (which was the main reason I opted to move to Pathfinder after avoiding 3.5) but it also opens itself up for abuse.
|
Wait, JJ wrote eight paladin-alikes without smite abilities?! It's no wonder he ended up convinced that it was a bad idea!
Well, some of them did have smite. It just wasn't Smite Evil - the CG variant had Smite Law. Which really doesn't do it for people who want to fight Evil without being Lawful.
Mechanically I think he'd work like a Samurai with magic abilities. Probably can "smite" anything, but only half as often as a Paladin to make it fair.
What do you think about just swapping Smite for Challenge? The trade-off is versatility in exchange for losing Cha to-hit and AC and gaining a -2 AC penalty.
Stacking good and evil powers is totally a thing in literature. Simon Green does it in his books all the time. One of his heroes wields a dagger blessed by a servant of God and cursed by a disciple of Satan. Cuts through just about anything.
And you don't think it would be a good thing for LN, TN, or CN deities to be able to grant a "divine" bonus rather than a luck bonus, or a choice between profane and sacred bonuses?
Nope, I think Lawful types should grant insight bonuses and Chaotics Luck bonuses. Neutrals should grant morale or competence bonuses.
Don't see any reason to muddy the alignment waters with overlaps like that. There's already precedent for all kinds of alignment based stuff, the trend should continue, not suddenly get mixed.
==Aelryinth
Wait, JJ wrote eight paladin-alikes without smite abilities?! It's no wonder he ended up convinced that it was a bad idea!Well, some of them did have smite. It just wasn't Smite Evil - the CG variant had Smite Law. Which really doesn't do it for people who want to fight Evil without being Lawful.
No kidding! When I first heard about this article, I figured that JJ probably wrote some fluff text and a code for each new class, flipped some energy/bonus types, and then switched out a few of the less-iconic paladin features for new ones. I had no idea that he practically reinvented the wheel eight times! I've gotta get my hands on that article someday, just to see what the results look like.
Chalk me up as one who believes every Deity, or at least Major Deity, should have some Holy Champion running around. After all if the lawful good deity has Paladins and the Chaotic Evil has Anti Paladins, do you think the Law Evil Deities are going to sit back and not come up with their own champion.
you could of course you some prestige class or template as a Holy Warrior, but then you should then restrict it to a certain aligment.
To be honest, I was highly looking for wards to that article when it came out, thinking it would rehash and update the 'plethora of paladins' article from the hoary years of Dragon.
Instead, we got a mishmash of bad mechanics and worse flavor. JJ has said that he didn't believe other alignments should get paladins, and his belief was firmer after he got done writing all them. I agree - I was seriously underwhelmed by the article. JJ does believe the paladin should be a prestige class, which mechanically works fine.
You want holy champions, make it a feat or flavor an inquisitor, cleric, ranger or one of the new warpriests. You don't need something unique and special for each alignment any more then you need something unique and special for each god. Paladins are unique and compelling in their archetype because of having the most restrictive alignment in the game. It's a hard thing to mechanically define well, but it basically shapes the entire class.
As soon as you deviate from that alignment and open things up, the idea starts to lose all flavor and becomes bland and flavorless, which is the exact opposite of what people want to have happen. They want something unique and special for their own pet alignments, and 'clerics' obviously don't fit their criteria. The fact it would make the LG paladin as bland as clerics would just be icing on the cake.
I do believe you could make off-alignment 'holy warriors', but you'd have to follow the Plethora article, which largely divorced the other paladins from gods and pretty much invented unique philosophies that defined each class...and in the modern game, those philosophies are much more easily justified by taking a feat or archetype or devoted ability. It doesn't require an entire class.
For instance, the aarikhan and myrikhan were nothing more then religious, devoted rangers, guardians of nature. They were simply more pious and got more bonuses then rangers at the time. Garath's were CG Church guardians...which didn't fit the alignment, but was unique enough in its defined role. CN Farans were tribal protectors, devoted to their people and considering everyone outside the tribe 'little more then intelligent animals'. Neutral paramanders and paramandyers had advanced philosophies dedicated to manipulating the balance of alignments to keep the universe going, one by guile, the other by murder. LN Lyans had their own special patron of Law, which they kept secret and obviously considered superior to all the other patrons of law, with their own objectives independent of any other church or organization. LE Illriggers were multi-talented warriors and assassins with magical powers, the murderous arm of LE churches with few scruples and all the right tools to dispose of those in their way.
Defining a paladin as his powers, and having those powers change simply by alignment, will never, ever work to define a paladin. A paladin's role has always been his defining characteristic, a champion of the highest tenents of LG, and the powers to try and make that a reality.
JJ's article was highly unsatisfying because it was so generic. If you want other 'paladins', don't call them that, and don't call them 'warriors of LE'. Define their role, give them the powers to match. And don't be afraid to go back to existing classes and just give a feat, archetype or totem path to make it happen instead. If the 'paladins' of CG are the barbarians who take the Celestial Totem path, that carries an IMMENSE amount of flavor right there.
==Aelryinth