| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Take Bloodrager, pick the Celestial bloodline, pick whichever alignment you want, call yourself a Paladin, call it a day.
Alternatively, just ignore the alignment restrictions of the Paladin class. Or just ignore alignment entirely.
There is not a way to play a Paladin non-lawful. They only just released an archetype for the Antipaladin that allows you to be non-chaotic.
Here's another possibility from before the Core Rulebook came out (but still Paizo) that isn't satisfactory for emulating full Paladinhood, but might do for light duty:
1. Take 6 levels of a full BAB martial class or 8 levels of a 3/4 BAB martial or skill class (either way, get BAB +6).
2. While doing the above, undergo a challenge requiring great heroism, such as contributing to an encounter that is at least 3 levels higher than yours. Maintain Good alignment while doing this (Law/Chaos does not matter).
3. Also while doing the above, put 1 point in Diplomacy and 1 point in Knowledge (Local).
4. Take 3 levels of Chevalier. The 1st level gets you Aura of Courage (stuck at 3rd level Paladin equivalent); the 2nd level gets you a reroll against an Enchantment spell or effect; the 3rd level gets you Smite Evil once per day.
Really, I wish that they had made Paladin part of a set of Holy Warrior prestige classes for various religions, along the lines of a hybrid of the D&D 3.5 Paladin and Paladins of the four corner alignemtns, or like the Kirthfinder Prestige Paladin. Hellknights (both types) are good examples of prestige classes like this on the Lawful side of things (although both of these prestige classes, especially Signifer, need updates to make them work well with more modern base classes).
There is not a way to play a Paladin non-lawful. They only just released an archetype for the Antipaladin that allows you to be non-chaotic.
Which one is it? Is it still too new to be online?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't see the problem - but then, I'm playing a LN monk (who will likely wind up LG) who is not 'laws of man' lawful, but 'personal structures and strictures' lawful, who lives his life in an orderly manner.
Truth is, one should consider it to be Good and Evil, Order and Chaos - the Paladin is a champion of Orderly Good - but good more than order. If someone is using a law to turn the screws on some poor innocent shlub, the paladin isn't going to sit back and let it happen; he's going to move in and do something so that Good is served. If he can preserve order, so much the better - but if a legal or societal stricture is being used frequently to deliberately do harm to others, it ain't something that a paladin can stand.
As well, a paladin has to be pro-choice. Good must not be enforced; it must be selected out of free will. (Evil is good with forcing you into it.) That flexibility can ennable a paladin - especially one working in a highly difficult campaign, with 'chaotic' characters - to work closely with such individuals.
It would help if we knew more about your campaign, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Archetype is called the Insinuator, from the most recent Player Companion. Doesn't seem to be on the PFSRD yet. Basically you commune and deal with evil outsiders all along the alignment spectrum and can even arrange for a Smite Law or Smite Chaos, making the Insinuator actually usable in non-evil campaigns. It's pretty nice.
Nope , as far as i know paladin must be LG.
With that said , if he doesnt care about what he gets as long as it is a paladin , the iroran archetype tells that the paladin makes up his own code , which might help you in this case.
I wouldn't be asking if alignment wasn't a thing. this is a by the book game and I am enforcing alignment. The only option I have found is the war priest but they (to me) seem like they are trying to be a little if everything and really end up being nothing because of it. They get slightly more spells than a paladin but have worse BAB, but to counter that they get increase weapon damage similar to a Monk but they get a gimped version of channel energy they do at lease get some access to Fighter feats. While all this seems cool the main problem is, it is still not a Paladin.
Go back and look at a lot of what they can do... Swift action personal buffs is HUGE as are the spell options. Sacred Weapon and Armor more than make up for the lack of a High BaB.
I wouldn't be asking if alignment wasn't a thing. this is a by the book game and I am enforcing alignment. The only option I have found is the war priest but they (to me) seem like they are trying to be a little if everything and really end up being nothing because of it. They get slightly more spells than a paladin but have worse BAB, but to counter that they get increase weapon damage similar to a Monk but they get a gimped version of channel energy they do at lease get some access to Fighter feats. While all this seems cool the main problem is, it is still not a Paladin.Go back and look at a lot of what they can do... Swift action personal buffs is HUGE as are the spell options. Sacred Weapon and Armor more than make up for the lack of a High BaB.
Warpriest is really strong, but it's not a Paladin. Paladins are, without question, exceptionally charismatic; if the Champion of the Faith was charisma-based like it should be then that would work but Paizo dropped the ball on that.
Rather than a "prostitution" of the class I'd like to see see specific archetypes o artenate classes for the extreme alignments.
Like a CG freedom fighter and a LE tyrant
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can simply roll up a Warpriest with a 14 in WIS and a 14 in CHA. Then you have your "charismatic non-Paladin Paladin"
I wouldn't be asking if alignment wasn't a thing. this is a by the book game and I am enforcing alignment.
Well, you are the GM. Make an exception, I'd bet it won't destroy the game.
In my group there is a CG, two CN, one N character - and a LG paladin. Friction happens, but it cooled down and there never was a real threat for the campaign.
|
It's perfectly possible to play a Paladin in a mostly chaotic party. The "lawful" part of the paladin code is self-directed, not outwardly focused. A Paladin is mostly concerned with imposing discipline on himself, not others - it's GOOD that he wants to impose on the rest of the world, not law.
There's a more detailed discussion of the Paladin Code in this book, and if you're making Alignment a big part of your campaign, you might want to check it out for some really cool roleplaying ideas.
the whole "lawful to his own code" thing may work, but wouldn't that just be Neutral Good? oh and to add to my previous statement, also no auras or smites or immunities.
The problem is that lawful and chaotic are so loosely defined as to be meaningless, unless you are on the far extremes of that alignment. It is just too easy to justify the average action as being lawful, chaotic or neutral.
I really wish the chosen one archetype would have allowed neutral good. The flavor really suggests that it should.
|
the whole "lawful to his own code" thing may work, but wouldn't that just be Neutral Good? oh and to add to my previous statement, also no auras or smites or immunities.
As was said above - 'lawful' is really more of an 'order' thing. It doesn't mean that you have to follow all external laws. (though it might be part of your own code that you DO follow the law - at least of a particular nation) That's why monks are required to be lawful - it's their internal discipline which allows them to fight the way that they do.
Also - paladins shouldn't try to force everyone to follow their code. (Such lies the path of the Lawful Stupid.) For example - a paladin who would never even consider lying, but he would have no problems with keeping his mouth shut while the group's rogue told tall tales. If they had a long working relationship, the paladin might even say about the rogue "I trust him with my life" while remaining entirely truthful.
(I figure that the paladins' never lying is sort of a long term thing. Sure - in the short run they might achieve their goals by lying. However - people inherently trust paladins because they know that they never lie/poison/steal etc. - helping them greatly in their missions - and that trust would be broken by a single lie.)
3.5 had the Paladin of Freedom or whatever. It was basically a CG Paladin. I think there might have been a couple of other relatively minor differences.
If it's your game you're GMing, there's really no reason you can't reskin a Paladin to be CG as opposed to LG.
I'd nudge him towards Champion of the Faith Warpriest.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have three options:
1) Relax the alignment restriction. It's there because the devs and many players have a particular conception of paladins that they want to maintain, not for balance reasons, and if it's getting in the way of your fun it should go.
2) Recognize that alignment is flexible enough for a paladin to play nicely with chaotic characters. As other posters have pointed out, many lawful characters are more concerned with their own behavior being well-ordered than the behavior of others. Worshipping a NG deity such as Sarenrae or Shelyn is a good idea for such a paladin.
3) Suggest other classes for the player. I personally consider Celestial Bloodrager and Battle Oracle better paladin substitutes than the Warpriest (even the Champion of Faith type), but if the player mostly wants a holy warrior then the warpriest works fine. Note: Celestial Bloodrager with a level of Battle Oracle works rather nicely as well if you take the Lame curse for fatigue immunity.
I strongly suggest you talk with the players about this to figure out what will be the best solution for your group.
You can simply roll up a Warpriest with a 14 in WIS and a 14 in CHA. Then you have your "charismatic non-Paladin Paladin"
Since the warpriest also needs physical stats, this will be too MAD for some campaigns.
the funny thing is when I read every thing the paladin gets, ALL of it works with any good alignment. the only thing that doesn't work is the axiomatic ability that they could put on their weapon... and even then why couldn't they put that on their own weapon if they wanted too.
The paladin gets a Code that he must follow that doesn't work with Chaotic Alignments.
Specifically, there are tons of actions a Paladin cannot do that a Chaotic adventurer can, without a hint of conscience. (Flagrantly breaking laws being the most obvious of them.)
He gets a rather nice set of abilities because he accepts those restrictions on behavior.
The standard "I want a CG Paladin" is, to put it bluntly. It attempts to shift the view from "All his abilities work with X alignment, just change it to CG required!" from the REAL kicker...the paladin code.
The paladin code does not work with any other alignment, and LG is by its very nature the most restrictive of alignments.
So, what you are really asking is "Can I play someone with all a paladin's powers, but any alignment I want him to be, not a 'true blue hero' type?"
Which is alignment munchkinism, I'm sorry to say.
It's because the restrictions on behavior are not a 'per level' thing that people think it's just about 'LG = Alignment = sub any alignment and we're fine' arguments. It's not. It's about the Code and LG together, earning the paladin those abilities.
Someone just wants the paladin powers without the restrictions on actions. That's all that is. It's power-gaming.
===================================
That said, do what you want to do.
But the fact remains, if you can get all a paladin's powers and NOT have to be LG, you'd be an idiot to stay LG and obey the code. You immediately devalue the worth of the class, make a mockery of having a true code, and may as well write off the whole meaning about what it means to play a paladin.
Paladins still exist in 3.5 and PF BECAUSE of those restrictions. BECAUSE they have to be LG goody-two-shoes. Waiving them just makes them lose all their flavor and value. Certainly I can't remember anyone thinking there was anything special about Paladins in 4E, which did exactly what you wanted and basically removed anything special about it whatsoever.
==Aelryinth
Paladin of Freedom variant someone came up with (on pfsrd) that's basically the updated 3.5 version of the class, if you're curious.
It's a Paladin but with a personal liberties bent, etc. Mentioned it above, but just found the link for a (quasi-3PP) PF version, so thought I'd include it here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aelyrinth thinks you need to have a stick up your butt to have honor and integrity confirmed
The codes for, for example, a Paladin of Sarenrae or Shelyn could easily be followed by a Chaotic Good character without being any less chaotic.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure whether I find the "nonlawful paladins = powergaming" funny, sad, or offensive.
First, don't powergamers go for full casters?
Second, I have played two characters with paladin-style honour and self-imposed behavioral restrictions. Neither of them was an actual paladin. One is possibly more zealous than the party's actual paladin. I don't consider myself an "idiot" for accepting the restrictions without a power bonus. It's called roleplaying.
Third, I've seen "true-blue heroes" of CG alignment, including a ronin who sacrificed her life alongside my LG Inquisitor in order to save an orcish infant. Dislike of order or authority does not inherently make you any less willing to sacrifice for the welfare of others.
People who want to play heroes will play heroes - you don't need to bribe them with special powers. And you shouldn't bribe people who don't want to play heroes because they will half-ass it, and that's bad for your game.
Do warpriest, its pretty dang close.
I mean, at best I could forgive the occasional slip into neutral good so long as the circumstances/action was truly good and came from "the right place". Because of this I will not let him play a Paladin.
Well, you could simply try it out. Tell all players about your concerns and allow the paladin for now, but also tell them the class will be replaced by something else if too many problems occur.
I'm not sure whether I find the "nonlawful paladins = powergaming" funny, sad, or offensive.
First, don't powergamers go for full casters?
Second, I have played two characters with paladin-style honour and self-imposed behavioral restrictions. Neither of them was an actual paladin. One is possibly more zealous than the party's actual paladin. I don't consider myself an "idiot" for accepting the restrictions without a power bonus. It's called roleplaying.
Third, I've seen "true-blue heroes" of CG alignment, including a ronin who sacrificed her life alongside my LG Inquisitor in order to save an orcish infant. Dislike of order or authority does not inherently make you any less willing to sacrifice for the welfare of others.
People who want to play heroes will play heroes - you don't need to bribe them with special powers. And you shouldn't bribe people who don't want to play heroes because they will half-ass it, and that's bad for your game.
One, Powergamers go for anything that will maximize their options while minimizing the downsides for what they want to do.
having the powers of a paladin without the nasty restrictive moral code is powergaming.Two, neither of those characters was REQUIRED to have that code, however, were they? Furthermore, did they lose all their class powers if they didn't obey that code? No? Not as restricted as a paladin.
Third, you are, again, REQUIRED to play the true blue hero if you want to play a paladin. I said nothing about not being able to be a hero in other alignments, so don't fill in the blank that wasn't there. And your CG ronin can rob from the rich and give to the poor, lie freely, make free use of sleeping poison, be heroic, and definitely 'not' be a true blue hero in the classic sense (being a roguish hero is another thing), while still be willing to sacrifice herself for innocents.
Again, restrictions on allowed behaviors, things you CANNOT do as a paladin. Changing the alignment and ditching the code is all about getting rid of those things.
If you don't want the restrictions, don't play a paladin.
If you have a personal code that is similar to a paladin, great, your choice. You don't lose it all if you change alignment, however. Nice to not have that hanging over your head, right? Even clerics can 'just' get a new god.
FOurth, yes, people will play heroes. But the paladin class forces you to play the most restricted type of hero there is, the 'true blue' hero. And people who play heroes often don't want to play THAT kind of hero, but they want the paladin perks. So, they are still fighting against the restrictions and the code. In which case, you should have them prove their commitment by taking another class, if they truly want to be heroes, they shouldn't need to be paladins.
Heroic is about the spirit AND the letter, and alignment-gussing the paladin is just a test of both. If they want to change the alignment, they just don't want to be heroic enough. They want their wiggle room without thinking too hard about it. And naturally head right for CG and/or CN, where you can justify anything fairly quickly.
As has been said, let them make a warpriest. That's basically WHY they were invented.
===Aelryinth
I can get not allowing chaotic good, because then they may get too flighty, but a neutral good character seems even better at being good above all else, since they don't have to worry about the conflict between good and law.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your problem, Aelryinth, is that you consider Lawful Good to be the Most Good, which is a falsehood that Pathfinder does not abide by.
Rather than "more good" it should be the most fettered
Your problem, is you are putting words in my mouth. Which is a falsehood you should avoid on the internet, Arachnofiend.
LG is the most RESTRICTED good. It adheres to the most severe and limited definition of what is 'truly Good'. NG has looser strictures on what is considered 'Good' BY DEFINITION. CG is looser yet.
So, simply make up your Penn Diagram of Goodness. You'll see LG is at the center. Everything LG can do a NG can do, but NG can pull off other stuff if need be. Everything NG can do, a CG can do, but they have even fewer limits on their behavior, and so their circle of choices is even larger.
So, if YOU want to define the smallest circle as the 'most Good', you wouldn't be wrong. Some people may want to define the middle circle as the 'most Good', and they aren't wrong, either. And maybe the circle which is least restrictive of all is the best and 'most Good'.
But LG is definitely 'core good' by however you want to model it, and NG and CG extend off from it. SOme may want to call it 'highest quality' of Good, where CG is 'highest quantity' of Good.
But you can stop telling people my beliefs, which you have no idea on.
==Aelryinth
I wouldn't be asking if alignment wasn't a thing. this is a by the book game and I am enforcing alignment. The only option I have found is the war priest but they (to me) seem like they are trying to be a little if everything and really end up being nothing because of it. They get slightly more spells than a paladin but have worse BAB, but to counter that they get increase weapon damage similar to a Monk but they get a gimped version of channel energy they do at lease get some access to Fighter feats. While all this seems cool the main problem is, it is still not a Paladin.
You overlook the big thing about the class... it's swift action self buffs. They also get up to sixth level access of the cleric spell list. Having played one it's a lot more than just reading the separate class features would indicate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure whether I find the "nonlawful paladins = powergaming" funny, sad, or offensive.
{. . .}One, Powergamers go for anything that will maximize their options while minimizing the downsides for what they want to do.
having the powers of a paladin without the nasty restrictive moral code is powergaming.
{. . .}
Having the powers of a Paladin but having a different restrictive moral code (usually one set by the associated deity, but could come from another source) is not powergaming.
And what's up with Lawful Good being portrayed as the only true Good, with all other forms of Good being inferior? By definition (except when it gets confused, which is unfortunately quite often), Neutral Good and not Lawful Good is the purest Good.
{Edit to take into account intervening stuff}
{. . .}
LG is the most RESTRICTED good. It adheres to the most severe and limited definition of what is 'truly Good'. NG has looser strictures on what is considered 'Good' BY DEFINITION. CG is looser yet.So, simply make up your Penn Diagram of Goodness. You'll see LG is at the center. Everything LG can do a NG can do, but NG can pull off other stuff if need be. Everything NG can do, a CG can do, but they have even fewer limits on their behavior, and so their circle of choices is even larger.
{. . .}
On the contrary, Good is itself restrictive. The restrictions change going from Lawful to Chaotic, but they are still restrictions, even though they feel vastly different due to Lawful restrictions being outside-oriented (even when a matching Lawful authority is nowhere near) and Chaotic restrictions being inside-oriented (whether or not external matters also impose Chaos). Either one can get in the way of Good, thus creating risk of diminishing it. Chaos can prevent a Good character from doing things as well as Law, by preventing committment.
And that's fine. And I don't care if that's how you do it.
Lawful Good is still the most restricted good simply because of 'Lawful', by definition. Because of it, others are indeed going to call it the highest Good, with other definitions of Good being tacked onto the central codes and restrictions of Lawful Good, either loosening the restrictions or rejecting them entirely.
Regardless, LG is still going to sit at the center of the Penn Diagram. Which circle you call the 'best' is up to you.
I like to think that LG is the 'best' good for civilization/society, because it tries to disseminate good and equality to everyone the most rigidly. It's the alignment of a faithful citizen who believes good neighbors and working together overcomes everything.
I like to think of NG as the Good that tries to preserve civilization/society, realizing that LG allows for the greatest advancement as a whole, but that exceptions arise and sometimes you have to step outside the Law to get things done. It's the alignment of kings, true nobles, and vigilantes.
I like to think of CG as the Good which rejects any limits society can place upon them, staunch individualists who are willing to take advantage of the benefits of society, but refuse to abide by the rules and set their own instead. They want civilization/society to continue and don't want to hurt it, but they want more then it is going to offer them and are willing to do things society won't accept to achieve their individual dreams. It's an alignment for independent loners, radicals, artists/performers, and rebels without a cause.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^But that's the thing: Lawful Good is NOT at the center. Neutral Good is actually at the center of the Good alignments. And Lawful Good and Chaotic Good both put on additional restrictions that tend to interfere with Good.
^But that's the thing: Lawful Good is NOT at the center. Neutral Good is actually at the center of the Good alignments. And Lawful Good and Chaotic Good both put on additional restrictions that tend to interfere with Good.
But when it comes to building societies.... Chaotic Good is essentially tribal level where as your great cities and civilisations with huge populations are almost always going to be lawful. So while they may occupy equal areas on a number graph, they won't be equal when it comes to sheer population numbers.
At their ultimate expressions Lawful Good is about the greatest good for the greater number decided by a mass system. Chaotic Good is about "Good as I see it".
Venn Diagram shows LG at the middle in terms of what is/is not permissible. Thus LG is the most restricted, and at the center.
For the other alignments, you either ease the restrictions or simply add permissible actions, increasing the quantity of 'Good' acts allowable.
So, yes, it's at the center, and is the reason why some people argue it is the 'highest Good.'
Arguing NG is highest good because it's at the middle of a grid space between law and chaos is an argument based on 'position', or because it HAS no bias...not permissible actions.
==Aelryinth
I agree that Lawful Good is the most restricted. I disagree that others must necessarily be compared to it or spring off from it. One could just as easily argue that Neutral Good is the Most Good, and that LG and CG are limits put in place by ideals of how to promote general goodness. ^^
Yes, but by the entire pont is considering Lawful Good more restrictive in what you can do compared to the two others, as under this assumption a NG/CG Paladin would have the same power level but less restriction and thus being inherently superior mechanically
This obviously under the assumption that Lawful Good is more restrictive in what you can do compared to Neutral and Chaotic
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But when it comes to building societies.... Chaotic Good is essentially tribal level where as your great cities and civilisations with huge populations are almost always going to be lawful. So while they may occupy equal areas on a number graph, they won't be equal when it comes to sheer population numbers.^But that's the thing: Lawful Good is NOT at the center. Neutral Good is actually at the center of the Good alignments. And Lawful Good and Chaotic Good both put on additional restrictions that tend to interfere with Good.
Good has the wondrous property of being stronger then the sum of its parts.
CG prospers most at the edge of LG societies, being able to take shameless advantage of the advances, prosperity and predictability of LG folk to thrive in their own way. CG becomes the escape valve from the rigidity of LG, while benefiting immensely from LG's depth of knowledge, moral center, and culture to draw on. (You always want your neighboring kingdoms to be more LG then you are, after all).
LG prospers from the presence of CG by having individuals willing to do the right thing when laws bind their hands, and by exploiting the inspiration of CG individualism to disseminate those advancements slowly and steadily across their civilization, preventing stagnation and the tendency of Law to try to subvert Goodness.
NG is the bridge that keeps the two halves together, instead of massively irritated with one another, realizing that everyone is stronger together and keeping the whole system working.
==Aelryinth