Circumventing the LG requirement on Paladins.

[Garetek]

So, we have a current game that I am in, but I have noticed that we lack a really effective main tank. We have a barbarian who uses two weapons so has a low ac.

I am perfectly willing to drop my character and play a paladin with sword(or axe or what not) and board. problem is we have a diverse and relatively neutral to evil party.

I cant say that I like the paladin variants in UA. They are two evil. I wanted to find something in the middle ground. If we were high enough level I would just do the greyguard but we are not that high level yet.

Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated.

[Veyr]

Why do you specifically want the Paladin? It's not a particularly good tank; plenty of other classes can fill that role better; if the Barbarian already in the game is not fulfilling that role, the Barbarian is, itself, a decent option. Personally, I strongly recommend the Crusader (Tome of Battle) for this.

Anyway, there are variants for the Paladin for the other five alignments; they're in some issue of Dragon but I don't remember which.

[Garetek]

They happen to be my favorite class to play. Kind of a pocket carrier of self heals, self buffs, and all around fun to play. For me anyways.

[Tvtyrant]

They happen to be my favorite class to play. Kind of a pocket carrier of self heals, self buffs, and all around fun to play. For me anyways.

Have you considered asking your DM to just let you play a LN Pally?

[DogbertLinc]

As Veyr mentioned, you should try looking for the other alignment variants from Dragon Magazine.

Otherwise, the Crusader is probably the best option, and can still have a paladin-ish feel (some minor healing and buffing here and there)

If not, consider tripping, rather than sword&board. That tends to be a more effective defender.

[Garetek]

Well I found the Incarnate on
http://dndrealmsofadventure.tripod.com/Classes.htm

which might work.

[ILM]

I cant say that I like the paladin variants in UA. They are two evil. I wanted to find something in the middle ground. If we were high enough level I would just do the greyguard but we are not that high level yet.
Well there's also the CG version if you'd prefer.

[Darth Stabber]

Crusader is better in every way (except the whole free horse aspect), while preserving 99% of the fluff. Honestly, barring 2lvl dips and PRCs, paladin hasn't existed since ToB. Crusader has the fluff and function you want (including healing) while moving up to tier 3, as opposed to 5. They have no alignment restriction, but are dedicated champions to what ever cause they choose. You can always create your own RP restriction if the lack of mechanical restraints on your actions bothers you. Their manuevers are 1000% better than smite evil, and some of them heal your allies while you attack an enemy. You can still buff your self and allies with the right maneuvers and stances. You know how fighter doesn't exist after 6 (and that's assuming dungeoncrasher), well it's like that with paladin too (except the cap is 2). If you want a horse, buy one, if you want cure disease x times per week, buy that many potions of cure disease every week.

[Gray Mage]

Crusader is better in every way (except the whole free horse aspect), while preserving 99% of the fluff. Honestly, barring 2lvl dips and PRCs, paladin hasn't existed since ToB. Crusader has the fluff and function you want (including healing) while moving up to tier 3, as opposed to 5. They have no alignment restriction, but are dedicated champions to what ever cause they choose.

Well, they do. They can't be TN. /nitpick

Other then that I agree 100%.

[Veyr]

Honestly, barring 2lvl dips and PRCs, paladin hasn't existed since ToB.
This is a misleading statement; it comes up a lot in discussions of Tome of Battle.

Tome of Battle didn't do anything in particular to obsolete the Fighter, Monk, and Paladin any more than they already were. Stabber's statement was true before ToB was released, as well as after. Those were never good classes; they're actually quite awful. The designs behind them simply fails miserably: the Fighter has no class features, the Paladin is just shafted way too hard for its improved HD and BAB, and the Monk doesn't know what it wants to be and doesn't particularly succeed at doing anything. These things have always been true, and ToB didn't change that. ToB just finally supplied the replacements we'd been needing since the PHB was published.

[Greenish]

Bone Knight lets you keep most of the fun stuff of a paladin, while removing alignment restrictions and the possibility of falling. You can qualify after Paladin 4. It's only medium BAB, but has great immunities that'll help.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Paladin 7/ Bone Knight 1/ Divine Crusader 1/ Bone Knight 9/ (anything that doesn't lose BAB) 2, pick the Wrath domain. You would still be better off using Crusader.

[Darth Stabber]

This is a misleading statement; it comes up a lot in discussions of Tome of Battle.

Tome of Battle didn't do anything in particular to obsolete the Fighter, Monk, and Paladin any more than they already were. Stabber's statement was true before ToB was released, as well as after. Those were never good classes; they're actually quite awful. The designs behind them simply fails miserably: the Fighter has no class features, the Paladin is just shafted way too hard for its improved HD and BAB, and the Monk doesn't know what it wants to be and doesn't particularly succeed at doing anything. These things have always been true, and ToB didn't change that. ToB just finally supplied the replacements we'd been needing since the PHB was published.

There is a lot of truth to that statement, what I meant to say was that paladin doesn't even have an excuse anymore, neither do fighter, monk, and ninja. Their jobs are covered, except for what you can get out of dipping them (not much to get out of dipping ninja though, so that class is fully dead)

[Greenish]

There is a lot of truth to that statement, what I meant to say was that paladin doesn't even have an excuse anymore, neither do fighter, monk, and ninja. Their jobs are covered, except for what you can get out of dipping them (not much to get out of dipping ninja though, so that class is fully dead)Well, ninja was always the rogue's deranged cousin.



Ninja: Hey, look, look, I can turn invisible!
Rogue: *without looking up from the documents he's forging* Oh, that's nice.

[Coidzor]

I cant say that I like the paladin variants in UA. They are two evil. I wanted to find something in the middle ground. If we were high enough level I would just do the greyguard but we are not that high level yet.

CG Paladin of Freedom (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinofFreedomClassF eatures)is too evil for you?

I think you're confused about what the law-chaos axis of the alignment means. LG is not more good than NG or CG. :smalltongue:

[Leon]

Number One most important thing to do is talk to your DM.

Ask if you can play a Paladin without the Alignment tag or at most require Lawful in some aspect(there is a Dragon mag issue some where that has a Paladin for all nine alignments if your really that keen), if you have a reasonable DM then they will probably go with it.

If not then your only options is to hope to be allowed to play one of the variants or select another class that works similar.

As to S&B - perfectly valid and fun play style with a decent amount of feat support and magic options for both weapon and shield.

[Luckmann]

The only "circumvention" to that rule is to ask your DM.

Just don't call it a Paladin if you do. It grinds my gears. :smallsigh:

[The Dark Fiddler]

Just don't call it a Paladin if you do. It grinds my gears. :smallsigh:

Why? All that defines a paladin is being a defender of a cause, really. :smallconfused:

[Taelas]

It annoys me also, because of a long history of D&D. I do not like when CG "Paladins" of Freedom are mentioned, because I do not consider them paladins. Champions of a cause, fine, but I have an iconic view of what constitutes a paladin, and CG it ain't.

[HalfDragonCube]

It annoys me also, because of a long history of D&D. I do not like when CG "Paladins" of Freedom are mentioned, because I do not consider them paladins. Champions of a cause, fine, but I have an iconic view of what constitutes a paladin, and CG it ain't.

You might not want to look at this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinofSlaughterClas sFeatures) then... :smalltongue:

[Mr. Zolrane]

The only "circumvention" to that rule is to ask your DM.

Just don't call it a Paladin if you do. It grinds my gears. :smallsigh:

It annoys me also, because of a long history of D&D. I do not like when CG "Paladins" of Freedom are mentioned, because I do not consider them paladins. Champions of a cause, fine, but I have an iconic view of what constitutes a paladin, and CG it ain't.

Why? All that defines a paladin is being a defender of a cause, really. :smallconfused:


I gotta come down on Luckmann and Szar's side here. Paladins are paladins because they are Lawful Good, and that is where their power comes from.

For 2 cp, I would say if you're set on a pally, beg, plead and offer to do any degrading thing he asks if he'll let you play a Pathfinder paladin. It's so much better than the 3.5 version and converting it back is a snap.


You might not want to look at this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinofSlaughterClas sFeatures) then... :smalltongue:

I'm sure he was aware of that, he just said he didn't like it.

[Luckmann]

Why? All that defines a paladin is being a defender of a cause, really. :smallconfused:There's two kinds of Paladins. The historical ones and the fantasy ones.

If we're discussing the historical ones, they have little or no relation to what we discuss or generally engage in. They generally didn't even wear plate and they weren't "defenders of a cause" - they were simply certain members of certain courts, more often warlords or leaders of armies than anything else.

If we're discussing the fantasy paladins, I'd say that it's generally accepted that Paladins are holy knights and defenders of a faith, noble and good, inspired by the Knights Templar, the Knights Hospitaller or similar orders. Rarely there are "Neutral" or "Evil" "Paladins" in fantasy, nor does people regularly refer to Paladins in a manner which would suggest such.

Now, in settings that fully eschew alignments, what constitutes a Paladin may be a bit more ambigious, but I would at the very least insist on there being an Order and that that Order at the very least considers itself Good and are willing to defend those beliefs in an objective (or perceived objective) sense, dogmatically or otherwise.


I gotta come down on Luckmann and Szar's side here. Paladins are paladins because they are Lawful Good, and that is where their power comes from.

[...]I actually consider the Chaotic Good Paladin variant even more stupid. What defines Paladins even more than their regal or good nature to me, is their knightly-ness. They belong to an Order of Warriors, a group of knights, structured in everything they do, nobles not by blood but by deed.

Their entire being just oozes Lawful to me. I can't objectively defend this position, because it's inherently subjective. I could stretch myself to even accept Lawful Neutral "Paladins" by name. But I'd really prefer if it was more along the lines of Paladin-Knight-Blackguard, but always Lawful.

Just my 2 cents.

(if anyone have a better name for a neutral "Paladin", please suggest one; I'm not a fan of "Grey Guard" and "Knight" sounds too generic)

[Coidzor]

It annoys me also, because of a long history of D&D. I do not like when CG "Paladins" of Freedom are mentioned, because I do not consider them paladins. Champions of a cause, fine, but I have an iconic view of what constitutes a paladin, and CG it ain't.


I gotta come down on Luckmann and Szar's side here. Paladins are paladins because they are Lawful Good, and that is where their power comes from.

It's not your game, so it's really not your concern here on that point. :smallconfused: The variant classes are named what they are and if you don't like that, then there's the Dragon Magazine versions which do have different names. :smalltongue:


Telling the OP to beg for something else when there's already a variant class of what he seems to want that he hasn't addressed yet seems to be jumping the gun a little bit guys.


Just my 2 cents.

I find that hard to believe, because you're ranting to us and trying to get other people to agree with you to tell the OP that he's doing it wrong to not want a LG Paladin. That's not so much 2 cents as it is counter-productive.


(if anyone have a better name for a neutral "Paladin", please suggest one; I'm not a fan of "Grey Guard" and "Knight" sounds too generic)

Dragon Magazine has some names for them, IIRC.

[Luckmann]

[...]

I find that hard to believe, because you're ranting to us and trying to get other people to agree with you to tell the OP that he's doing it wrong to not want a LG Paladin. That's not so much 2 cents as it is counter-productive.

Wait, what? :smallconfused: I'm not saying that OP is "doing it wrong". My only comment was

The only "circumvention" to that rule is to ask your DM.

Just don't call it a Paladin if you do. It grinds my gears. :smallsigh:Which hardly constitutes ranting. Now, it may not be entirely correct, what with the alternate class features, but the simplest way of doing it is to simply ask the DM if you can play a non-LG Paladin, to which I added a personal remark that I dislike calling non-LG Paladins Paladins. I don't see how that constitutes "ranting", telling someone "you're doing it wrong!" or being "counter-productive". :smallannoyed:

This then prompted The Dark Fiddler to ask me "Why?" to which I explained my reasoning, explaining that it is entirely subjective and that I just plain don't like it, a position I concede that I cannot objectively defend, since it is a matter of personal definition, viewpoint or taste; inherently subjective. :smallmad:

Discussion about a variety of topics, most not cut-and-dry, is what goes on on most internet forums. What is this? Why does it do that? How does it look? Do you like it? Why do you like it? What made you feel that way? How did you come to that conclusion? If any or all these questions or their possible answers offend you, you should probably isolate yourself posthaste! :smallamused:

[Elvencloud]

How horrible is a prestige paladin? Houserule a variant on that? I always liked the idea of allowing my paladins to be part cleric anyways...

[Taelas]

It's not your game, so it's really not your concern here on that point. :smallconfused:
I did not say it was. I merely stated an opinion on a rather subjective matter (i.e. what constitutes a paladin). I could stretch my definition to include Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral paladins, but not Chaotic or Evil. It is like calling a dog a cat.

[Luckmann]

How horrible is a prestige paladin? Houserule a variant on that? I always liked the idea of allowing my paladins to be part cleric anyways...If you're going to houserule a non-LG Prestige Paladin to be a Paladin, why not just straight-up houserule a non-LG regular Paladin? :smalltongue:

That said, Prestige Paladin can be great for dips I hear. For very small dips, you can grab a paladin mount, Divine Grace or Aura of Courage. If a Cleric takes 3 levels in Prestige Paladin, you'd get several good things from the Paladin base class, with only 1 caster level lost.

[Coidzor]

If you're going to houserule a non-LG Prestige Paladin to be a Paladin, why not just straight-up houserule a non-LG regular Paladin? :smalltongue:

Prestige Paladin is better even taking it the whole way, since it still gets 13th level Cleric spellcasting.


I did not say it was. I merely stated an opinion on a rather subjective matter (i.e. what constitutes a paladin).

So what were you trying to accomplish then? :smalltongue:

[Taelas]

So what were you trying to accomplish then? :smalltongue:

Like I said, I was voicing an opinion.

[Coidzor]

Like I said, I was voicing an opinion.

Why though? Is attempting to discourage others from playing with variant paladins really so near and dear to your heart? :smallconfused:

[Luckmann]

Why though? Is attempting to discourage others from playing with variant paladins really so near and dear to your heart? :smallconfused:How did he discourage others from playing variant paladins?

You're reading way too much into this.

[Taelas]

Why though? Is attempting to discourage others from playing with variant paladins really so near and dear to your heart? :smallconfused:

No. People can play whatever they want. I would prefer if they didn't call alternate alignment paladins for 'paladins', but that is a personal issue.

I would never discourage people from playing anything. I can, however, discourage calling a variant class something I feel is incorrect.

[Coidzor]

No. People can play whatever they want. I would prefer if they didn't call alternate alignment paladins for 'paladins', but that is a personal issue.

I would never discourage people from playing anything. I can, however, discourage calling a variant class something I feel is incorrect.

Ok, now I get ya. Sorry about that.