PDA

View Full Version : Alternate Paladin Rules



Rumpus
2007-03-12, 12:10 AM
Hey folks!

I'm running a campaign in a few months, and I've never been comfortable with the way the paladin is normally interpreted. What follows is my work-in-progress revamp. I'm sure I'm not the first to try this, feel free to point me to anything more developed (published or otherwise) that captures the spirit of what I'm trying to do. Feedback always appreciated.

First, my vision: Paladins are called to serve as consecrated warriors by a specific diety. They serve as exemplars of the diety's will made manifest. Depending on the god, this could mean many different things. However, as a general rule, if a god calls a divine warrior, there is probably someone who the god wants to have their teeth kicked in (in defense of the innocent, naturally, for good gods). A truly pacifist god, (ie "I won't inflict harm even to defend the life of an innocent") would have no paladins. If he wanted someone exclusively to evangelize and minister to the poor, he would have called the individual as a cleric or adept.

Ok, so here's my changes:

1. A Paladin may be in service to any diety or higher power (though not neccessarily in an organized church). His alignment must match that of his diety. Evil paladins gain rebuke undead. Smiting varies by alignment: NG smites Evil, LN smites chaotic, CN smites lawful, NE smites good, TN picks one based on their diety. Extreme alignments pick one based on their diety (ie LG smites either Chaos or Evil, but not both).

2. Any player who wants to play a paladin must come up with a list of his diety's ten elements of his own paladin code. Some of these may be minor, but at least 5 should have the potential to seriously impact gameplay. Examples of major ones include: never lie, never let an innocent be harmed, oath of poverty (magical arms and armor exempt), never refuse an honorable challenge, never run from a fight, never attack from ambush, no poison, never hurt any animal except in self-defense, never hurt a certain type of animal, never ride a mount, always obey your liege, never break the law (even when unjust), sacrifice a small animal weekly, sacrifice an intelligent being once a year, no shedding of blood (cleric weapons only), mildly disabling physical disfigurement, etc.

The remainder of the rules can be less severe. They should still be real restrictions but may never come up in gameplay (more along the lines of social mores): never cut your hair, chastity, celibacy, don't eat meat, never refuse offered hospitality, never harm a guest, always wear your holy symbol prominently, pray a certain number of times a day, be kind to widows and orphans, no graven images, prominent facial tattoos, never destroy a written document, etc.

3. The player must declare one overriding mission, such as protect the innocent (any good), advance the interest of the church (any), uphold the law (LN), spread pestilece, protect the forests, seek knowledge, or something else similar that can serve as the central precept of his service. Violating either the code or the overriding mission will result in the loss of paladin powers as with the standard class.

The code of a paladin does not normally change, however, it may evolve over time either through divine revelation or simply maturing in his faith. The code should only change in response to a paradigm shift on the part of the character, probably in response to a crisis. This assumes that the abilities of the paladin are granted in response to his devotion and commitment to the overriding mission, and presumes that the diety is unconcerned with the outward trappings. It also makes the paladin's faith a personal affair, so two paladins of the same power may have different codes (especially if they come from different cultures).

A more organized option would be to have multiple orders of paladins devoted to the same diety. The Militant Order of the Vigilant Fist and the Order of the Little Sisters of the Poor may both serve the same diety in the same region, but they probably have vastly different codes for their members.

Anyway, there's my starting point. What do you fine folks think?

dead_but_dreaming
2007-03-12, 07:41 AM
There are at least two threads on this board concerning what you speak of (paladins of alternative alignments). There are also paladins of slaughter, tyranny and freedom in the Unearthed Arcana.

dsuursoo
2007-03-12, 10:04 AM
why fix something that isn't broken? there are, as said before, the paladins of freedom, tyranny, and slaughter, as well as blackguards.

plus, all the other things you've spoken of, they're really in the broader interpetation of the paladin code.. it just seems like you're putting a lot of effort into doing work that's already been done before you came along.

EvilElitest
2007-03-12, 02:31 PM
Sombody did a really good thread on how to play a paladin. Try to search it.
from,
EE

Rumpus
2007-03-12, 09:37 PM
If it's not broken, why are there so many threads on this topic? :smalltongue: Actually, I don't think it's broken, I just think it could be better. I'm trying for something less radical (and expansive) than the total revamp offered by ought-to-be 2.0, but a little more comprehensive than the two-line code included in the PH class description. Anyone know of a place online I could view the 3 variants from Unearthed Arcana? I'm currently traveling light with just the PH, DMG, MM, and a fistful of dice (plus my soon-to-be players).

With a system this flexible, there would obviously room for abuse, that's why the player has to discuss all this stuff with the DM before play starts to prevent players from lists of exclusively goofy restrictions ("Never break bread with a one-armed man", "Never spill the salt", etc). How many major/minor restrictions do you think are fair? I'm thinking of the old "Complete Priest's Handbook" or something similarly titled from 2nd Ed, and remembering how it included variant clerics for what seemed like 100 different dieties. That just got me thinking that it would make sense for the paladins of different gods to have very different standards of behavior.

dsuursoo
2007-03-12, 10:32 PM
d20srd.org has all three variants, under 'variant rules' and then 'classes'

most people don't like paladins and thusly try to change them, mostly because they're not able to think around the rules the class sets out. they're the same ones who try to do true neutral monks.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-03-12, 11:47 PM
In all honesty, reviewing the Variants I saw them as kind of weak. The Codes of honor and abilities seem to be a bit contrived so as to fit the alignments. Tyranny paladin is okay, but Freedom Paladin is a walking contradiction; You shouldn't just define Chaos as personal freedom to fit the alignment restriction; I mean, if strictly lawful paladins cause problems in RP situations when played badly, imagine a strictly chaotic paladin!

I like the variant presented, as it fixes one of the main problems with the RAW paladin: a strict RP requirement you have no control over. This way, a character will be able to build a character that's much more likely to work out for him.

Icewalker
2007-03-13, 12:06 AM
Great reworking, love the new rules. I think these are a good reworking, nice and simple, and playable and customizable by character, which can make it a lot easier to avoid those badly played paladin RP situations. Long as no one tries to, or is allowed to abuse the system, I think this would work really well.

Rumpus
2007-03-13, 03:00 PM
Nice Protoss Avatar!

I read over the three UA variants, and paladin of freedom seems to need major refinement before being playable. In a world where everybody who isn't a king is the personal property of somebody higher in the food chain, what does it mean to respect personal liberties? Even if there is a fantasy equivalent of the Bill of Rights, would a paladin of freedom lose his abilities if he brought a murderer to justice? How about an arsonist who made sure his buildings were empty first? Does the firebug's freedom to burn things override the property rights of the owners? Obviously, as we move into the less evil crimes (tax evasion, unlicensed gambling, urchin pickpockets) hunting those people down becomes more lawful and less good, but's a pretty fine line. Which, of course, makes for good roleplaying opportunities so long as everyone understands what they are getting into.

The two evil varieties are more playable, but I'd question exactly what constitutes a "Good" act worthy of losing Dark-Paladinhood. Helping someone when you have been promised a reward? That's pretty standard for good characters too (though REALLY good ones might refuse rewards). Adopting a stray puppy because you're lonely in your evilness (but not if you train him to be a viscious attack dog)? I don't know, it seems like being truly evil doesn't require that you constantly be commiting evil acts, an adventurer might be evil in mindset while still commiting acts that end in the common good (Belkar for example), or purely mercenary characters who generally do legitimate work but have no problem robbing widows or killing children.

I guess I'm saying that being Good generally requires that you be good all the time, while being Evil only requires the occassional despicable act.

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-03-13, 09:49 PM
My own two cents:

I like your idea, a lot. I've always disliked the Paladin as written. However, your rules, well-written as they are, could be abused by munchining players with unobservant GMs.

Here's my proposed solution:

The *GM* sets the major/minor elements of the code of honor of every paladin order. Then the player gets to choose what order he wants to be in, and play continues from there.

For example:

The Lightbringers of Pelor
This is a very militant Paladin order dedicated to the eradication of Undead.

Smite: Evil
Overriding Directive: To seek out and destroy Undead wherever ye may find it
The Code: Thou must meditate for one hour each day at sunrise to contemplate on and glorify Pelor rising, and one hour at sunset to meditate on the deeds done this day. E'en should there be battle, your prayers must come first, save if the foe is Undead. If such is the case, then thou mayest slay them, howsoever then thou must meditate an extra hour following the fight. If thou art in an area where you may not see the sun (for oft do Undead live in such places), then use your best estimate on when to pray, and make up any difference when you emerge victorious. All Undead you encounter must be slain. If the undead is so powerful that you honestly doubt your victory, then retreat and sound the alert, that sufficent forces may mustered to defeat the foe. Parley not with Undead, nor their living minions, nor any who pledge fealty to them or are beholden to them in any fashion. You seek only their destruction. Thou must investigate any report of undead sightings, for we must be ever vigilant in our duty. We seek not to hide in the shadows, display our symbol proudly and clearly, that our allies know whom to help. Unless you are tracking down Undead, journey not Underground and away from Pelor's blessed light.

The reason why the GM must create the Orders is twofold: 1) It keeps Players from Metacheezing and choosing meaningless restrictions, and 2) It helps the GM incorporate the Orders into the world he has created, which gives a lot more flavor and depth to the character and the world as a whole.

Duke Malagigi
2007-03-13, 10:55 PM
My own two cents:

I like your idea, a lot. I've always disliked the Paladin as written. However, your rules, well-written as they are, could be abused by munchining players with unobservant GMs.

Here's my proposed solution:

The *GM* sets the major/minor elements of the code of honor of every paladin order. Then the player gets to choose what order he wants to be in, and play continues from there.

For example:

The Lightbringers of Pelor
This is a very militant Paladin order dedicated to the eradication of Undead.

Smite: Evil
Overriding Directive: To seek out and destroy Undead wherever ye may find it
The Code: Thou must meditate for one hour each day at sunrise to contemplate on and glorify Pelor rising, and one hour at sunset to meditate on the deeds done this day. E'en should there be battle, your prayers must come first, save if the foe is Undead. If such is the case, then thou mayest slay them, howsoever then thou must meditate an extra hour following the fight. If thou art in an area where you may not see the sun (for oft do Undead live in such places), then use your best estimate on when to pray, and make up any difference when you emerge victorious. All Undead you encounter must be slain. If the undead is so powerful that you honestly doubt your victory, then retreat and sound the alert, that sufficent forces may mustered to defeat the foe. Parley not with Undead, nor their living minions, nor any who pledge fealty to them or are beholden to them in any fashion. You seek only their destruction. Thou must investigate any report of undead sightings, for we must be ever vigilant in our duty. We seek not to hide in the shadows, display our symbol proudly and clearly, that our allies know whom to help. Unless you are tracking down Undead, journey not Underground and away from Pelor's blessed light.

The reason why the GM must create the Orders is twofold: 1) It keeps Players from Metacheezing and choosing meaningless restrictions, and 2) It helps the GM incorporate the Orders into the world he has created, which gives a lot more flavor and depth to the character and the world as a whole.

So what classes if any would you let these paladins multiclass into? Deathslayer, anatomist, what?

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-03-14, 06:13 PM
So what classes if any would you let these paladins multiclass into? Deathslayer, anatomist, what?

That is a whole 'nother kettle of fish...

Multiclassing and PrC's is always another touchy subject with Paladins as written. In short, there's no reason to continue straight paladin for 20 levels. Once you hit about 3rd, you've gotten just about everything you'd want out of a Paladin, and no reason to continue. However, Paladins are not something that I'd think would want to PrC, just from roleplay perspective.

that's why I'm revamping Paladin, to make it more worthwhile to go all 20 levels. Well, actually I'm changing the Prestige Paladin and making it worthwhile, since it has always been my opinion that a Paladin shouldn't be a base class.

Rumpus
2007-03-14, 09:20 PM
[QUOTE=ShneekeyTheLost;2188531]
However, your rules, well-written as they are, could be abused by munchining players with unobservant GMs.
[QUOTE]

Absolutely! I guess I should have specified that the player submits his proposed code to the DM *FOR HIS APPROVAL*. Frankly, I play with an older group, so I tend to assume everyone is role-playing, not roll-playing (no judgement implied, if number crunching makes you happy, get down with your bad probabilities!). Having the player come up with it had two purposes: 1) The presumption that the paladin interacts with his diety (even if only indirectly or through messengers), and hence is qualified to interpret his diety's will as to his own conduct, and 2) to take the load of creating personalized material off the back of the DM, who is busy running the rest of the world (that's a lot of work that is only benefitting one player). DMs who don't trust their players that much could certainly dictate the codes available or make it a collaborative effort.

BTW, I love the Pelor Code above: internally consistent theme that matches the diety, just enough ethical inflexibility to make it a challenge to roleplay, and the refusal to travel underground could lead to some opposed Bluff/Sense Motive checks ("No, Sir Roland, we swear that there are plenty of... ghouls! Yes, ghouls! in the abandoned dwarvish silver mine!" "Oh, ok, Bennie, I guess I can accompany you down then"). This is exactly the kind of thing I'm hoping my players will bring me. Of course, I'm going to feel silly if it turns out none of them want to play a Paladin.

Collin152
2007-03-14, 09:31 PM
why fix something that isn't broken?

it's that kind of attitude that left us in the dark ages for so long! :smallfurious:

Rumpus
2007-03-19, 01:28 PM
So what classes if any would you let these paladins multiclass into? Deathslayer, anatomist, what?

Personally, I've never liked the no-multilclassing rules, for the same reason I've never been fond of alignment restrictions: Classes represent what you can do, not who you are. Barbarians, for example, can be honorable, loyal members of their tribe. If they obey the tribal elders, honor their traditions, protect the clan, and stomp evil when neccessary, that's LG in my book. The no-lawful requirement made sense when the rage had a blind-rage berserker component (confusing friends and enemies and unable to stop at will), but now that's it's essentially an adrenaline surge the no-lawful rule no longer makes sense. While Chaotic people often avoid civilization, preferring the wilderness to the city does not automatically make you Chaotic. I can see why most Monks are Lawful and disciplined, but I see no reason a neutral or chaotic individual could master the unarmed fighting techniques, though he probably learns from a wandering master rather than in a proper monastery (this could especially be the case if the teaching of Monk skills is suppressed for empowering peasants).

Learning other skills does not change who you are, it just expands your skill set. I don't see a reason why developing skills other than smiting the wicked (or whoever) should disqualify you from further serving your diety. To answer the question you actually asked: I'd allow any class that makes RP sense for the diety. Ask the player to explain how taking another class will allow them to better serve their overarching cause. If some of the class abilities are likely to lead to code violations (the above Palor paladin taking a level in Rogue, for example) we would have a serious talk. However, paladins of Ollidamra will probably be looked at askance if they don't have a few levels of rogue or bard. Fighter and Cleric would pretty much always be okay, on the assumption that he's spent the last level either 1)practicing his swordplay or 2) praying in the temple, instead of the mixture of both you'd expect of a paladin.

[Edit] In my god of beasts example a few posts down, I'd say multi-classing into barbarian, ranger, or druid are obviously compatible with being a paladin of the Beastlord. Others might be okay, depending on the explanation the player gives.

Haedrian
2007-03-19, 01:45 PM
Explain to me how a chaotic paladin will obey his god's rules... he's chaos, he does what he wants

If you're going to have 10 rules, thats a sign of pure law.

.: Lawful

Lawful evil would be a blackguard
Lawful Good would be a normal Paladin

You don't have much left ...

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-03-19, 05:57 PM
Check out my variant Anti-Paladin (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36834) which was designed to replace the Blackguard PrC.

In general, I agree that Chaos Paladins don't really... fit. Champions of Chaotic alignments would be more along the lines of Zoro (for CG) than anyone clanking around in full plate.

Also, I've never seen Paladins or any variant thereof to be a base class. They are a fighter with clerical training or a cleric with martial training... to me that smacks of a PrC.

Fax Celestis
2007-03-19, 06:10 PM
You may want to check out my How-It-Should-Be Paladin (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33551). It sounds mechanically similar to what you'd like to do.

Rumpus
2007-03-19, 06:56 PM
Explain to me how a chaotic paladin will obey his god's rules... he's chaos, he does what he wants



If he does what he wants, then he's obviously not devoted to a diety's cause, and hence is totally unsuitable for this class as I wrote it.

So are you saying that Chaotic Good gods never call paladins? Actually, by that logic, Chaotic dieties should never have any guidance for their followers, because that would impinge on their personal freedom. And in that case, Chaotic dieties don't have followers, they have... buddies? admirers?

Maybe I need to rename my revamped character something like Divine Champion. Ok, here's my non-flip answer: he embodies the ideals of the god, and champions a cause the god strongly supports. If he doesn't meet the standards of the god, he loses his powers (granted, chaotic gods would probably be much more fickle about who loses their powers (and who should but doesn't)). I can't think of any gods in the standard pantheons who are gods of pure entropy. Yes, an entropic god wouldn't have any paladins, but my silly answer above actually applies to him: no worshippers are possible, because by any human standard, a being of pure entropy is batsh*t-out-of-his-mind-insane (or at least too much so to reliably grant divine powers). A requirement for all-chaotic, all-the-time, would require breaking every law every chance you got, which would quickly devolve into evil behavior ("What? There's a law against kidnapping and murder? Crap, I'll add it to my to-do list..."). Chaos is like evil in this: you don't need to constantly be chaotic, even someone with no regard for the law can't help obeying most of them most of the time. A few significant but regular Chaotic actions a month puts you squarely in the chaos camp.

Ok, for the sake of my house rule, here's an (off-the-cuff, be gentle) example of what a CN god of beasts might require of his paladin: 1) never chain anything, better to kill than to imprison, for imprisoning kills the spirit, a far worse crime, 2) never kill an animal you do not intend to eat, 3) protect your swamp from any who seek to drastically alter it to the point where the beasts can no longer live there, 4) hunting is a part of the natural order, but not eating what you kill is not. Have no truck with those who kill for sport, and drive them from your territory, 5) the beasts provide all you need, clothe yourself not in metal drawn from the earth, 6) nature knows no mercy, show none to your enemies, and 7) never get between a hunter and it's prey.

In this case, I'd probably be open to letting the paladin trade in heavy-armor proficiency for an extra fighter-only feat since he chose to give up metal armor.

10 rules was is just my real-world choice as a starting point for developing any given character. By the end of the collaborative process, we might end up with more or less.
________________________________________________
You don't get to ignore the rules just because your character is Chaotic.

thehothead
2007-03-19, 07:12 PM
This is pretty sweet.... That god of beasts pladin rule list is cool, so was the pelor one.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-03-19, 08:33 PM
The God of Beasts Code sounds LN, or at least N.
Sticking strictly to a Code of Honor is Lawful, even if that code swears to "Freedom" or "the Wild".

The "Freedom Paladin" would probably be LG himself, but he may protect many people who are CG. After, because Lawful people believe that their Laws apply to all people, by extension they believe that the protections that the laws grant apply to everyone.

Duke Malagigi
2007-03-19, 10:03 PM
The God of Beasts Code sounds LN, or at least N.
Sticking strictly to a Code of Honor is Lawful, even if that code swears to "Freedom" or "the Wild".

The "Freedom Paladin" would probably be LG himself, but he may protect many people who are CG. After, because Lawful people believe that their Laws apply to all people, by extension they believe that the protections that the laws grant apply to everyone.

To me following a code is niether inherently Lawful or non-Lawful. A given code can be Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic, Good or Evil. Following a Lawful code would be a Lawful act, while following a Chaotic code would be a Chaotic act.
See The Law-Chaos Axis Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37267) for differing (including my own) views on Law and Chaos.

Haedrian
2007-03-20, 05:00 AM
I really can't understand what you'd mean by a "Chaotic code".

A chaotic person doesn't lyke following rules, even if they allow freedom.

Any person who has a code of conduct, which he HAS to keep or else he loses his stuff, is lawful. Had he been chaotic, he'd need an atone every 5 minutes.

Rumpus
2007-03-20, 05:18 PM
A chaotic person doesn't lyke following rules, even if they allow freedom. Any person who has a code of conduct, which he HAS to keep or else he loses his stuff, is lawful.

I disagree. Do priests of Chaotic gods tell their followers what constitutes a virtuous life according to the diety? If there are no teachings, there's not much point to having priests or worshippers. Potential convert: "So, tell me what your god teaches." Chaotic priest: "We don't believe anything, man. Everything is flux, there is no truth. Here, have a hit, it's good stuff." P.Convert: "In that case, why do you worship [Chaotic god]?" C.Priest: "I don't! Do whatever feels right! All gods are the MAN! Nobody can tell me what to do! I'm CHAOTIC! LA-LA-LA! THERE IS NO SPOON! WHEE, I'M A FUNGUS!"

Returning to the serious, if orcs burn and loot a town and slaughter everyone in it, is it a lawful act if they believe they are acting according to the will of Grummush? Is picking a pocket lawful for followers of Ollidamra? I submit that both are still Chaotic acts, regardless of whether a patron diety approves.

If following the will of your diety is lawful no matter what, then the only chaotic people are atheists. Wait, atheists isn't the right word, you can't have atheists in a world where the gods demonstrably exist (Well, I guess you could deny their divinity, if not their existence). What I meant was that the only chaotic people are those who follow no god? And, by definition, no god can be chaotic unless they have no teachings for their worshippers. *Paradox* To resolve this, I would suggest that Law and Chaos exist independent of the gods, just like good and evil (in D+D, at least).

Metaphysics aside, a chaotic paladin wouldn't have a defined "code" carved on stone tablets, and might not even have thought about it enough to have one in his head, but he is devoted to the teachings and a cause of his god. To represent this, player and DM need a game mechanic to determine whether he is living in accordance with the teachings of his diety. If the diety approves of chaotic behavior, then following his teachings will be probably be chaotic.

thehothead
2007-03-20, 06:41 PM
If following a code IS lawful that doesn't nescecarily mean a chaotic person can't follow it. Chaotic is DISLIKE of following rules, not outright rebellion.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-03-20, 07:55 PM
Returning to the serious, if orcs burn and loot a town and slaughter everyone in it, is it a lawful act if they believe they are acting according to the will of Grummush? Is picking a pocket lawful for followers of Ollidamra? I submit that both are still Chaotic acts, regardless of whether a patron diety approves.
Ollidamara doesn't tell followers that they must pick pockets, or that their code of honor demands them doing so. He simply allows such actions and honors them.

Nobody is chaotic or lawful all of the time (unless you're a Slaad.) A chaotic person can still follow a code, but doing so is a lawful act.

Chaotic implies being unpredictable, likely to go against the norm when situations even slightly suggest doing so. If you can be counted on to always do something, no matter what it is, that is a lawful aspect of your personality.

Haedrian
2007-03-21, 07:57 AM
haotic priest: "We don't believe anything, man. Everything is flux, there is no truth. Here, have a hit, it's good stuff." P.Convert: "In that case, why do you worship [Chaotic god]?" C.Priest: "I don't! Do whatever feels right! All gods are the MAN! Nobody can tell me what to do! I'm CHAOTIC! LA-LA-LA! THERE IS NO SPOON! WHEE, I'M A FUNGUS!"


Aka Sceptic :P

Beleiving in gods is one thing, but having a 10 rule code of conduct, which as soon as you break it, you lose your abilities requires OBIDIANCE... law.

Thats all I'm saying

I'm not saying they have to be lawful stupid, but come on...

knightsaline
2007-03-23, 01:47 AM
question: what happens if the paladin has chosen no poison use and uses a ravage? ravages are detailed in the book of exalted deeds and allow the paladin to use weakened poisons that only work on evil things that would be suseptable to poisons. look at my ravages to see some examples of ravages tailored to defeating those with any of the seven deadly sins (working on gluttony and greed)

Rumpus
2007-03-30, 03:37 AM
Not familiar with Ravages, haven't read the BoED. BUT, I'd say if the player had selected no poisons, I'd make him stick to it, regardless of whether the poison was non-lethal or only effects evil creatures (a chemical compound that detects alignment? Whoa...). If he wants to use weak poisons (or any poisons), choose other code elements. His commitment to his code is a measure of his devotion to the diety, attempting to fudge, bend, or get around the rules would probably indicate a souring of their relationship, and a need to either retool his code or not take any more Paladin levels.