Chaotic Good Paladins?

[Wightsbane]

Despite the "Paladin of Freedom/Tyranny/Slaughter" variants, I'm inclined to go with AnnandaleGaming* that Paladins are LG, people who say "other deities need champions" don't know about clerics, and that even if other deities have more combatative, warrior champions, which they should, the champions shouldn't be called paladins.

Also, evil champions should not be a base class: Evil cares about rewarding proven strength more than on encouraging growth, taking from the weak so as to afford to give more to the strong, so they would only grant combat powers to proven warriors like Blackguards (See? "Paladin of Tyranny" was already taken care of, and it even makes more sense as is.).

It would even be harder for CEs to become champions, as the chronic backstabbing disorder could only be controlled by something like the Sith code - "Two there shall be, not more, no less: one to embody the power, the other to crave it" - whereby one champion would have to be killed before somebody could take his title.

But Chaotic Good, on the other hand, could have "religious champion" be a base class (Perhaps it could be called a "Pentewyn," the Welsh for "firebrand"?). These people would fight oppression as Paladins fight subversion, although any "orders" of warriors would be far more egalitarian and informal: a brotherhood instead of a chain of command.

----------

Mechanical differences between Paladins and "Pentewyns:"

"Protection from ..." (1), "Magic Cricle Against ..." (3) and "Dispel ..." (4) Chaos would be changed to "... Law."

Pentewyns do not have "Zone of Truth" (spell level 2) or "Mark of Justice" (spell level 4), because they do not believe in this kind of compulsion, although "Discern Lies" (spell level 3) would not be a problem for them.

To make up for these lost spells, "Break Enchantment" would be moved to spell level 1 instead of 4, as CG deities would care very much about their "servants" freeing people from mind-control, etc. Therefore:
At Level 6-13, they would have 1/day instead of 0
At level 14, they would have 2/day instead of 0
At level 15-17, they would have 2/day instead of 1
At level 18, they would have 3/day instead of 1
At level 19, they would have 3/day instead of 2

----------

Also, to address Annangale's fear that too many CG "Paladins" would multi-class as bards once they got all of their basic abilities, instead of getting more/day, and that such multi-classing makes no sense:

1) I don't feel that a CG deity would have a problem with their champion of liberty wanting to try different ways of accomplishing the same goals of ridding the world of evil.

2) Bards are based on CHA, which would mesh really well with Paladins if not for the alignments, but "Pentewyns" divine spells don't have to based on CHA; in fact, CG deities probably wouldn't give their champions power based on CHA because they don't want people's ideas to be based on the person, but on the idea.

Since CGs ONLY obey an order if it can be given with a VERY good explanation for why it is a good idea, rather than a personal power play, they would value INT far more than CHA, the ability to come up with good ideas far more than the ability to make personal power plays sound good, so maybe a Pentewyn would use INT for any prayers for which a Paladin would've used CHA, because that's what their gods consider more important?

*(http://annandalegaming.blogspot.com/2007/05/paladins-are-lawful-good-that-is-all.html)

[theUnearther]

Replies ahoy!

Primus, are you actually looking for feedback on this? I assume you were, obviously.

Secundus, replacing the "law/chaos" spells for their "chaos/law" versions is, in fact, what the Paladin of Freedom did. Same for the other two. Also, the "Aura of", which you seem to not have touched.

Tertius, their names are just that, names. You can change them if you want, no need to invent yet another wheel just because of that.

Quartus, the Blackguard does not reward proven strenght. It very specifically rewards failure.

Quintus, you are wrong about Chaotic Evil and/or Chaotic Good. Neither is inherently more "backstabby" than the other. Chaotic Evil groups are perfectly capable of organizing and acting for the ill of the world. Necessary evil (law).
Conversely, if you ban any Chaotic Evil character from acting rationally towards the long term ruin in favor of short therm mayhem, you should ban Chaotic Good ones from acting towards the long term wellbeing of the world while there are feel-good dramatic acts to be done NOW, however ill-advised they may really be on close inspection.

Sextus, I love latin.

Septimus, having a high INT would make them more UNlikely to obey reasonings why something is a good idea, since they are more capable of disecting the argument to see if it really is (very few things are). You seem to be confusing the moral meaning of "good" with the, let's just say "other" meaning of good; namely efficient.
Intelligence is all about the second. Having a high intelligence means you do whatever you want to do efficiently, however good or however evil it may be.
Dungeons and Dragons really lacks a "compassion" mechanic, but the closest to it is actually Wisdom, being the ability to "perceive" the suffering of others and their potential and whatnot. I admit it gets a bit iffy because it also helps you to perceive everything else, including literally perceive things, as in physical objects.
The only other good option I can see is homebrewing your own "goodness" score, to be moved up and down by roleplay. You can hijack the Leadership rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#leadership) and Unearthed Arcana's reputation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/reputation.htm) and honor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/honor.htm) for inspiration on how such a thing would be handled. The various organizations across the books may be inspiring to this too.

Octavus, removed a typo.

[Psyren]

Also, evil champions should not be a base class: Evil cares about rewarding proven strength more than on encouraging growth, taking from the weak so as to afford to give more to the strong, so they would only grant combat powers to proven warriors like Blackguards (See? "Paladin of Tyranny" was already taken care of, and it even makes more sense as is.).

This makes... no sense to me. Evil enjoys corrupting from a young age/perverting the inexperienced every bit as much as turning a seasoned warrior. The struggling artist who sells his soul to be better at his craft, the apprentice who poisons his master to seize power, the overlooked lover who betrays his rival/friend to get the girl - these are all very common story tropes.

And remember that Bards only have to be nonlawful. That doesn't mean they're chaotic.

[Wightsbane]

1) Yeah, sorry about the confusion

2) I actually just forgot about "Aura:" will edit. Also, it seemed to me like "zone of truth" would be a bigger problem than "discern lies"

3) I was thinking that the class features for "Paladin of Freedom" were to close to that of a LG, and there there should be at least one more significant difference the way Blackguards were more significantly different (although, now that I write that, it occurs to me that not only was "more Break Enchantments" not very significant, but the fact that I was treating the G/E difference as more significant than the L/C meant that even that probably wasn't as important as I thought)

4) I had never heard that before; I'm intrigued

5) Good point, I hadn't thought of that, I'll get rid of it

6) Intelligo mihi, completiue

7) I felt that that was the point, that CGs would want to disobey bad ideas and figure out which ideas are bad

8) I don't see a typo :smallbiggrin:

----------

Also, it seems to me that while Evil would love corrupting from a young age and would want to promise just enough power to be tempting, they wouldn't want to give too much power to somebody that could pose a threat to them, as non-Lawful Evils are almost exclusively out for themselves and would know that others are too, and even Lawful Evils probably wouldn't want to actively make a weak person stronger, as there would be one less subject for them and their existing allies.

----------

All in all though, it really looks like I should've talked to more people before working that much on the details. Thanks

[Keld Denar]

My primary problem with Pally of Freedom actually less with it and more with the base paladin. Normal paladins are anti evil, not anti chaos. A paladin who idealizes freedom should still be very anti evil. After all, evil oppresses more folks than law does. Taking away smite evil and giving them smite law makes them less good at their job. Same with spells and other abilities that help them fight evil. A pally of freedom shouldn't fight law, they should fight evil in a chaotic manner. That's my opinion.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

My primary problem with Pally of Freedom actually less with it and more with the base paladin. Normal paladins are anti evil, not anti chaos. A paladin who idealizes freedom should still be very anti evil. After all, evil oppresses more folks than law does. Taking away smite evil and giving them smite law makes them less good at their job. Same with spells and other abilities that help them fight evil. A pally of freedom shouldn't fight law, they should fight evil in a chaotic manner. That's my opinion.Looking at the variant paladins on the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedom SlaughterAndTyranny), paladin of freedom does have smite evil, not smite law. (In fact, the all smite good or evil, not law or chaos.) They also don't lose any of the base paladin's anti-evil spells, it's the anti-chaos ones that are replaced with anti-law spells.

Am I missing something or are you?

[Keld Denar]

Probably me...its still early in West Coast time, and my blood caffeine levels are dangerously low...

[Lord Il Palazzo]

No worries and no offense intended with the "Am I missing something or are you?" bit. Anything before noon is too early for me.