Paladins and fairness

[pugna_magus]

What are your opinions on paladins and fairness? Specifically, I want to roll a pragmatic Paladin or Greyguard who thinks that a cause worth fighting for is a cause worth winning for. There are still lines he's hesitant to cross, like harming civilians, but in combat all bets are off with use of backstabs, poisons, hidden blades, ambushes, possibly a sneak attack feat. Basically, against someone who rose in arms against him and his cause almost all bets are off. He would also have no problem with lying to anyone as long as they are not harmed by it, looting corpses or associating with Evil characters if necessary to further the cause of Good. He'd still be Lawful Good and respect legitimate authority as long as it was Good-aligned.
I'd like to run this idea by somebody else before talking to the GM. Do you think a paladin fall for such behaviour? Am I right in assuming I have to play a greyguard for this? At what point do greyguards fall?

P.S. A secondary question is if there are non-core classes that replace Divine magic with Arcane, preferably not spontaneous.

[Albions_Angel]

Its DMs disgression. Such a paladin would not fall in Jarlheimr (my main world) as its a martial world. A paladin would give plenty of verbal warning, but as soon as combat is joined its to be ended swiftly. If he spots an opportunity, non lethal is an option, but a paladins job in combat is to end it quickly and with minimum collateral.

I would allow your paladin to not fall, though if he goes out looking for fights, he will get a stern talking to. He would fall if he attacks without determining the situation, but thats between him and his gods.

A paladin wont come home all happy from conquest and be stripped of his powers. Oh no. He will violate some tenant in the heat of the moment, one of many such infractions, and suddenly he will go to smite evil/good and nothing will happen. That said, I have never had to make a paladin fall.

[Deophaun]

Specifically, I want to roll a pragmatic Paladin or Greyguard who thinks that a cause worth fighting for is a cause worth winning for.
This is pure Chaotic Good. Fortunately, there's a Paladin for that (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinofFreedomClassF eatures).

There are still lines he's hesitant to cross, like harming civilians, but in combat all bets are off with use of backstabs, poisons, hidden blades, ambushes, possibly a sneak attack feat.
Unfortunately, 3.5 classifies poisons as evil. Period. He falls. The rest is fine for any Paladin.

Basically, against someone who rose in arms against him and his cause almost all bets are off.
Chaotic.

He would also have no problem with lying to anyone as long as they are not harmed by it, looting corpses...
Whu? So, he won't have a problem with the party as long as they stay poor by not taking advantage of the nice magic items the bad guys have on their broken bodies? This is a problem from a game play perspective. Don't do it.

[Albions_Angel]

Unfortunately, 3.5 classifies poisons as evil. Period. He falls. The rest is fine for any Paladin.

I thought 3.0 thought that, but 3.5 didnt attribute any alignment to poison use, just made them expensive.

[SovelsAtaask]

Whu? So, he won't have a problem with the party as long as they stay poor by not taking advantage of the nice magic items the bad guys have on their broken bodies? This is a problem from a game play perspective. Don't do it.

They said they don't have an issue with looting.

[Gemini476]

I thought 3.0 thought that, but 3.5 didnt attribute any alignment to poison use, just made them expensive.

I don't remember if there's anything about poisons being evil, but there is a bit in the Paladin Code of Conduct where it notes that poisons are dishonorable and thus can make you Fall.

That said, the Book of Exalted Deeds has a bunch of totally-not-poison poisons that are really Good and only hurt Evil people and definitely aren't poisons.

[Albions_Angel]

I don't remember if there's anything about poisons being evil, but there is a bit in the Paladin Code of Conduct where it notes that poisons are dishonorable and thus can make you Fall.

That said, the Book of Exalted Deeds has a bunch of totally-not-poison poisons that are really Good and only hurt Evil people and definitely aren't poisons.

Good point about them being dishonorable. Though here is how I would play it. Pay an assassin to poison some guys food? Dishonorable, liable to fall. Stab someone with a poisoned weapon in a crowd? Dishonorable, liable to fall. Coats weapon in paralysis or sleep poison for use in battle to end it quickly? Totally fine. But thats just me.

[Keltest]

As a general rule, I say no poisons for paladins. Whether or not it is technically evil or dishonorable, Paladins in part stand as an example for other people to aspire to, which means they don't go around even toeing the line on behavior they don't want people to do lest they give the wrong message. Sneak attacks and flanks are simply using tactics and taking advantage of openings your opponent leaves. As long as you aren't unnecessary and cruel about it, its a legitimate way to fight. Poisons and drugs are too slippery a slope though.

[Necroticplague]

I don't remember if there's anything about poisons being evil, but there is a bit in the Paladin Code of Conduct where it notes that poisons are dishonorable and thus can make you Fall.

That said, the Book of Exalted Deeds has a bunch of totally-not-poison poisons that are really Good and only hurt Evil people and definitely aren't poisons.

Humorously enough, the page that says poison use is evil in the page right before Ravages (the totally-not-poisons, for those playing along at home). Except it's not all poisons, just ones that cause ability score damage (because apparently that's painful). Poisons that do other things, like paralyze them or make them unconscious, are O.K (specifically calls out Drow Sleeping Poison as an example of something that's not Evil).

[nedz]

Price
The cost of one dose (one vial) of the poison. It is not possible to use or apply poison in any quantity smaller than one dose. The purchase and possession of poison is always illegal, and even in big cities it can be obtained only from specialized, less than reputable sources.

Evil ?
Apparently it's just not lawful (note lower case l here).

Ed: Oops missed this
The Paladin's code doesn't mention anything about poison.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
So Paladin's can't use Poison - for two reasons.

[Inevitability]

Well, let's analyze the individual aspects of your concept.

-Backstabs are not against the paladin code. The Shadowbane Stalker and Shadowbane Inquisitor class make that perfectly clear.
-Poisons are evil... sometimes. Knockout poison, positoxins and ravages would be fine, though. Ask your DM if using poison is still 'honorable'.
-Hidden blades. Again, ask your DM if it's honorable. Note that the 'Secret Weapon' spell appears on many lists, including the blackguard's, but not on the paladin list.
-Ambushes. If your DM makes you loudly announce your presence every time you consider attacking something; find a new DM.
-Sneak Attack. See backstabs.

All things considered, the Paladin of Freedom might be a better option.

[LTwerewolf]

Ravages were made specifically because the "poisons are evil and no good people should use them" thing was stupid.

[Florian]

Paladins should inspire others by showing them how things can be "done the right way".
That is, if that is possible and feasible.
Going beyond that, a Paladin is not always "the Charlemagne/King Arthurs Round Table" kind of knight, but has to be adapted to his or her culture. More tribal or more urban? Things shift.
Also, the Paladin is combat-trained and capable at that, they should know when to conduct an Ambush and when to declare an open challenge.

Just keep in mind that "the ends justify the means" is what does not count for Paladins, the rest is wide open and up to personal interpretation.

[LTwerewolf]

If we're talking about chivalry, I think we can say that King Arthur's knights are considered paragons of that title, yes? Most of whom have stories about specifically using relatively underhanded tactics in order to win. Lancelot found out his opponent's horse was a male, so he went out and got himself a mare that was in heat so his opponent's horse would be distracted (something I'm sure people recognize as being used by martin in his stories). Gawain breaks his word and gets a simple nick on the neck. Lamorak was known for having a fiery temper and still being considered the third best knight. Bedivere lied to Arthur twice while he was on his deathbed, and at no point was his honor ever brought into question.

What people seem to think of as paladin-esque behavior is that of Galahad, Bords the younger, and Percival. The significance of this is those are the three youngest, and thus inexperienced in the ways of combat and tactics (and in one story called foolish by Both Arthur and Bor the Elder). They weren't being any more knightly than the others, they were being foolish. Somehow this very specific foolishness became what people think of when they think paladins.

There's supposed to be some leeway, remembering that not even the good gods act perfectly, and that there's room for using combat tactics appropriately (you know, not being completely stupid). It's clear they should strive to be examples and to be the best they can be, but they don't always and except in the most heinous of circumstances (open rebellion, adultry, etc.) were they ever called out for being less than they should have been.

[icefractal]

"Poison is evil" has been on extremely shaky ground from the very start of the edition.

Bite +12 melee (1d3+6 plus poison)
...
Always lawful goodAnd it's never made much sense. I could see indirect attacks (by poison or any other method) being considered dishonorable, so don't go around poisoning people's food. But if you're fighting someone already, how is having a more effective blade dishonorable? Using a magic sword against a crude wooden club isn't considered dishonorable, after all, and that's a lot more of a disparity.

[Waazraath]

P.S. A secondary question is if there are non-core classes that replace Divine magic with Arcane, preferably not spontaneous.

You can take the feat Sword of the arcane order from Champions of valor, it lets you cast spells from the wizard list. It's not really clear if they are cast as arcane or divine spells. Further, there are several good prestige classes that have their own arcane spellcasting, based on cha, which makes 'em usable for a paladin, like Suel arcanamach (up to 5 or 6th level spells I think), and knight of the weave.


As for the poisons / ravages: I agree with the comments on the sillyness, both on 'poison is evil' and the existence of ravages; but since they are there, and you might have a DM that follows a strict interpretation of RAW, just use ravages. They are actually quite good (pun intended)! Since 1) the damage they do depends on the targets cha (so stronger monsters get more damage), and they bypass immunity to poison, which a lot of creatures have.

[Âmesang]

If a paladin beat someone with a pipe, would that count as "lead poisoning?"


What people seem to think of as paladin-esque behavior is that of Galahad, Bords the younger, and Percival. The significance of this is those are the three youngest, and thus inexperienced in the ways of combat and tactics (and in one story called foolish by Both Arthur and Bor the Elder). They weren't being any more knightly than the others, they were being foolish. Somehow this very specific foolishness became what people think of when they think paladins.
So was it Bor the Younger who dared challenge the White Rabbit? :smalltongue:

[Gemini476]

You can take the feat Sword of the arcane order from Champions of valor, it lets you cast spells from the wizard list. It's not really clear if they are cast as arcane or divine spells. Further, there are several good prestige classes that have their own arcane spellcasting, based on cha, which makes 'em usable for a paladin, like Suel arcanamach (up to 5 or 6th level spells I think), and knight of the weave.

Aren't those prestige classes about three separate orders from two separate settings? :smalltongue:

Although I suppose that the Arcane Order and Guardians of the Weave both follow Mystra in some way? I'm not really that knowledgeable in Forgotten Realms lore, though.

[Waazraath]

Aren't those prestige classes about three separate orders from two separate settings? :smalltongue:

Although I suppose that the Arcane Order and Guardians of the Weave both follow Mystra in some way? I'm not really that knowledgeable in Forgotten Realms lore, though.

yes :smallsmile:

But these options also exclude each other also mechanically, not just fluff-wise. As for the prestige classes, knight of the weave, or the suel arcanamach, they overlap (and for both goes, it's prolly better to switch after a few levels to the next prestige class, like abjurant champion). As for the feat Sword off the Arcane order: in flavor, these serve Mystra, while the knights of the weave serve the weave itself, for what that difference is worth (I'm neither very much into Forgotten Realms fluff). But since the feat SotAO helps only paladin casting, it also excludes prestige classes (like the 2 mentioned) that have their own casting progression.

Lots of different roads to the same end: a pally with decent arcane spellcasting power. The SotAO route combines well with illumian (aeshkrau), practiced caster feat, and the mystic fire knight substitution levels for a total of 18 CL.

[Slayer Lord]

A paladin is meant to be a holy warrior, but a warrior nonetheless.

Ambushes, sneak attacks, not trumpeting your presence to an enemy and the like are just good tactics. And good tactics save lives. Poisons and hidden weapons are a bit trickier since it's about honor, but I think the best paladins are the ones that prioritize being good over being lawful. And don't just lump it all under one heading- take it on a case-by-case basis. Coming into the presence of the good king and weapons are not allowed, then don't bring any if there's a reasonable chance that nothing dicey is about to go down. When brought under the evil emperor with the same rules, however, then it's a smart idea not to waltz into the bad guy's lair completely defenseless. For poisons, think about what your goals are. In a duel of honor or (arguably) even your daily adventuring, but when you need to capture someone alive then paralyzing or sleep poisons could be useful if you don't have a more reliable way to immobilize them. Looting is even trickier because you shouldn't allow the dead to be desecrated, but with the way DnD works that's often where you get some of the best loot, and you won't be doing much saving when you're the poorest person in the party. Definitely something to discuss with your DM.

A paladin is meant to be an exemplar of conduct, but how does one idealize war? By trying to save as many lives on both sides as is humanly (or elvenly, dwarvenly, etc.) possible. If practical, give the enemy a chance to come to a peaceable solution without fighting. When they're demoralized and on the ropes, give them the opportunity to surrender. Whenever you go into combat, think about what options will keep the fewest people from being hurt for the least amount of time. Your code of honor is there to keep you from drifting into Well Intentioned Extremist territory. Be good and honorable, but don't be a moron about it.

A good rule of thumb is to work with your DM and figure out what your paladin's code looks like, and try to customize it to fit their god and the social mores of your character's society. Or even how your paladin operates. If you're the knight errant type called by your god to battle evil and right wrongs, you might have a more relaxed paladin's code; whereas if you're a member of a larger order, the code might be more strict simply because they have to hold a lot of people to one standard and making exceptions can cause more problems than they fix. And any code needs to make allowances when you fall short of the paladin standard, because you're mortal and you will fall short, but you shouldn't need a Redemption spell every time you do. There's a lot of room to play around with without going the Lawful Stupid route, which is by far the worst paladin you can possibly play.

[GreyBlack]

What are your opinions on paladins and fairness? Specifically, I want to roll a pragmatic Paladin or Greyguard who thinks that a cause worth fighting for is a cause worth winning for. There are still lines he's hesitant to cross, like harming civilians, but in combat all bets are off with use of backstabs, poisons, hidden blades, ambushes, possibly a sneak attack feat. Basically, against someone who rose in arms against him and his cause almost all bets are off. He would also have no problem with lying to anyone as long as they are not harmed by it, looting corpses or associating with Evil characters if necessary to further the cause of Good. He'd still be Lawful Good and respect legitimate authority as long as it was Good-aligned.
I'd like to run this idea by somebody else before talking to the GM. Do you think a paladin fall for such behaviour? Am I right in assuming I have to play a greyguard for this? At what point do greyguards fall?

P.S. A secondary question is if there are non-core classes that replace Divine magic with Arcane, preferably not spontaneous.

A Shadowbane Inquisitor is what you're looking for. These are the Paladins who sneak around in the dark and slay evil for the light. Nothing in the Paladin code prevents espionage, and I even remember a line from the Paladin handbook of 2e that, while paladins can't lie, they don't have to tell the truth. However, it must be in service to the people and Good. You may assassinate someone trying to call a demon into the world, but you'll need to be certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person is guilty before you do it.

Walking that path with the Paladin is possible, but be prepared for moral conundrums beyond the scope of the normal paladin.

ETA Clarification on the "not tell the truth": If someone asks why you're in town, you don't have to say, "I'm a servant of the light here to punish evildoers." A simple, "I'd rather not talk about it" will suffice. If you need information from a captive, bend the truth by saying you have the information already, but just require some corroboration (You _do_ have it; he just hasn't told it to you yet). And, if he helps you out, you'll even promise to put in a good word to your companions for his safety (you won't force your friends to not hurt him, but you can give a Willy Wonka style, "no, stop, wait."

[OldTrees1]

I'd like to run this idea by somebody else before talking to the GM. Do you think a paladin fall for such behaviour? Am I right in assuming I have to play a greyguard for this? At what point do greyguards fall?

DMing for a Paladin:
Step 1 - Cross out the Paladin code as written in the Player's Handbook
Step 2 - Design a corrected Paladin code with the player

The conceptual difference between a Paladin and a Greyguard:
Paladins strive to always abstain from immoral action. Greyguards believe sometimes the best path to take is the immoral action because it serves/causes/enables more good. Greyguards fall in similar cases to Paladins but they expect this and their order allows and expects the need for atonement (although even the order will establish limits on what is allowed).

[Zaq]

Naturally, the long and short of it is that it all depends on your GM. If your GM thinks this character sounds cool and wants to let it happen, it'll happen. If not, it won't fly. But we all knew that already.

As far as how I personally feel? Depends on the game, really. There are some games where I think this would be a fun concept. There are some games where I feel like it's less appropriate than playing a Paladin "straight" (meaning someone who at least tries to uphold ideals of honor, even if they don't go full Miko stick-up-the-butt, because nobody likes full Miko). Part of it would depend on how effective the character was as a whole, part of it would depend on the rest of the group, and so on. I can see it being fun, but I can certainly see times when it may be less appropriate. (In a vacuum, I think it'd be fun, but not automatically in every game, you know?)

Basically, you're playing around with assumptions and stereotypes. This is in no way a bad thing (that's part of what makes fantasy roleplaying so much fun), but different groups will appreciate it more than others, and more importantly, different groups want you to go about it differently from others.

Sometimes it's most effective to play the stereotype straight. You've got the honorable Paladin in shining armor who stands up for what's right and genuinely helps everyone he can, aspiring to be a hero in every sense of the word. You've got the savage and primitive Barbarian who's boorish when not Raging and a blood-crazed berserker when Raging—or the fairly normal and unassuming fellow who totally hulks out when he loses his temper. You've got the tree-hugging Druid who respects the "natural order" of all things and disdains urban living, or you've got the "obsessed with balance in all things" Druid who somehow tries to go on adventures without actually changing anything about the world, or whatever. Yeah, they're cliche and we've seen them before, but that doesn't mean they can't be fun or that you can't play a unique character who still seems pretty stereotypical.

Sometimes it's effective to basically do a full 180 on the stereotype and do your best to completely reverse it. For a Pally, you're either looking at a full-CE Paladin of Slaughter or else a pure Miko "all the worst parts of LG" type of character (I mean, if your group views Miko as a "normal Pally," then maybe a genuinely nice and heroic guy would be the 180, but whatever). For a Barb, you've got the dignified and sophisticated gentleman who is energized by battle but who never loses his cool or even raises his voice; you can also do the hot-headed and impulsive guy who becomes icy calm and super-focused in the heat of battle. For a Druid, you've got the Urban Druid who believes that humanoids are part of nature too and who's just as comfortable expanding civilization as the stereotypical Druid is planting trees, or maybe you've got the "wilderness will swallow the earth" Druid who strives to let vague "forces of nature" conquer everything (if your stereotypical Druid is the "obsessed with Balance" kind of guy), etc. You're still beholden to the stereotype (even if you're defined as being "exactly the opposite of X," you're still in the mold of X, just a different color). Yeah, it's not going to win you any creative writing awards to just take a stereotype and turn it on its head, but that doesn't mean it's not fun.

Sometimes it's effective to completely smash the stereotype and basically act like it doesn't exist at all (so you're neither defined by the original cliche or defined by being the exact opposite of the cliche). I mean, you can go overboard with trying to make sure you don't include ANYTHING that can be considered cliche (you'll end up as Fe5ac5 (http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2128)), but I think you get what I mean overall. Some groups like this sort of thing because they think they're too cool to be influenced by cliches (which isn't an entirely bad outlook, but I don't also think it's entirely good), and some groups really like the cliches and get kind of weirded out by someone studiously ignoring them. (Like everything else, this is a spectrum.)

Sometimes, though, it's effective to incorporate elements of the stereotype into the character while changing enough to make it clear that you're intentionally playing with the stereotype. This is something like your Paladin who still tries to be a good guy but who doesn't care about underhanded tactics. Maybe you've got a Barbarian who's still cool-headed until he Rages and a bloodthirsty monster when he does Rage, but perhaps he thinks of himself as a pacifist when he's not in his battle-frenzy and actively seeks nonviolent solutions (until he flips out and kills people). Maybe you've got a Druid who thinks of himself as a gardener who specializes less in "the balance of wilderness and civilization" and more in putting natural things where they don't belong, just because he can. You're still clearly working with the stereotype, but you're neither playing it completely straight or playing it completely backwards. And of course, like everything else, different groups will like this more or less. Sometimes it's a fun way to poke fun at the cliches without having to abandon them entirely. Sometimes it's a way to nudge people out of their comfort zones without going cartoonishly overboard.

These aren't the only ways to interact with stereotypes, and none of them are completely divorced from each other (like I said, spectrum). Nor do any of them have to completely define your character—you might start out fitting neatly in one box and end up as something totally different, or you might have plenty of individual elements that defy characterization, or something else entirely. Like alignment, it's a start and not a finish.

Anyway, as far as the specific tactics go? Let's start with poison. Poison's always a dicey issue, mostly because there's a lot of (unnecessary but still extant) rules text on it. We can argue all day about how "evil" it is or isn't (and of course, this thread's brought up lots of the typical talking points already, between ravages and couatl venom and drow juice and whatever), but unfortunately, it's one of the few concrete things explicitly banned by the Paladin's Code. So even if you get a GM willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on most of your tactics, you need an explicit houserule (actively overriding the RAW, not just siding with you on an ambiguous matter) to get away with a Pally using poison. That's the RAW, at least.

Personally, I've never seen why it's considered "worse" to shank someone with a poisoned dagger than it is to charge them with a greatsword. In some universes, I can understand the argument that "poison gives you an advantage you haven't earned, while attacking head-on is based on your own honest combat prowess," but I honestly don't think that makes any sense in the D&D universe, at least not when we're talking about PCs and the kind of folks PCs typically encounter. Someone using poison earned their effectiveness with the same XP that anyone else does; if you're good enough to land enough poisoned hits on someone for them to fail their save (and good enough to survive long enough to do so, not to mention good enough to have the resources to afford useful poison), you've got enough combat prowess (again, earned with XP like everyone else) to be involved in that encounter. In a universe where CR and ECL don't exist, fine, I can see poison being "unfair" compared to just hitting something with a sword (because while some people will obviously be better at fighting than others, you won't have the same hard-coded expectations of who should and shouldn't be on par with each other), but CR and ECL do exist, so I don't think it really applies. I don't personally have a problem with a Paladin smearing some kind of poison on their sword before charging in and Smiting away, assuming we're in a situation where it would be appropriate to use violence at all (because, of course, fantasy universe, combat is expected, yada yada).

I do agree that it's less than honorable to assassinate someone with poison (slipping it in their food, stabbing them with a hidden poisoned needle in a scenario where they weren't expecting combat, and so on), but that's more a matter of assassination being dishonorable than of poison itself being dishonorable. A Paladin who isn't okay with CdG'ing Dark Lord Eviltyrant in his sleep probably shouldn't be okay with slipping Dark Lord Eviltyrant some black lotus tea, because in both of those cases, Dark Lord Eviltyrant didn't have a chance to fight back. Now, if we're talking about a Paladin with a somewhat looser outlook? A Paladin who IS okay CdG'ing Dark Lord Eviltyrant in his sleep? I would think a Paladin like that (again, assuming a GM tweaking the Code to remove the specific poison ban) would probably be okay with the black lotus tea. Dead is dead, after all. And while D&D does have some methods of death (or similar effects) that are worse than others (sword to the gut vs. anything that binds or destroys your soul, for instance), I think swords and poison are pretty much on the same end of that spectrum.

From a mechanical standpoint, how effective this character would be would really depend on exactly how you intended to go about your "underhanded tactics." If you're just going for a really basic set of tactics like trying to take advantage of the system's baked-in conditional bonuses (always trying to get flanking, aiming for surprise rounds or otherwise attacking flat-footed targets, going for that +1 from attacking from higher ground, etc.), well, Paladins can already do that (in contrast with the PHB2 Knight, who can't take advantage of flanking or of flat-footedness). Hell, Paladins should already be doing that (if they're involved in life-or-death struggles, it doesn't do them or their cause any good to be intentionally stupid), though of course if you play with people who don't think like that, maybe that's exactly the kind of notion this character is meant to challenge. If you want a bigger mechanical advantage from these sorts of tactics, you'll need to look outside the Paladin class itself (most likely to something that gives you a source of Sneak Attack, although Aura of Courage prevents you from doing the obvious tactic of taking 1 level of Rogue and then picking up the Craven feat to keep that one die of SA relevant). Shadowbane Stalker and Shadowbane Inquisitor are both sort of designed for this kind of thing, though they're not the strongest classes as a whole. Gray Guard does exist, but it's more interesting in concept than in execution (making it easier to atone for breaking your Code still means you're losing and regaining class features on a regular basis, which is pretty disruptive to gameplay unless your source of Atonement is in the party, and even then it's annoying).

Honestly, though, if you're not looking for actual Sneak Attack or something similar, you can always just not be stupid with your Paladin's tactics, though then of course you're only as effective as the Paladin class itself (which is to say, not generally very effective in most games). If your group typically plays Paladins as being so obsessed with some nebulous view of "honor" that they wouldn't ever flank or ambush someone, just asserting that you're willing to do that can be enough to set your character apart. If that wouldn't be shocking in itself, though, I think you just need to figure out exactly what tactics you want to use to set yourself apart from everyone else (Paladin or non-Paladin) and then figure out how best to shove them onto your character.

Associating with Evil folks is another one of those things that needs a GM involved (since the Paladin RAW explicitly bans it, though it's worth noting that the "Associates" section is SEPARATE from the Code). I think 9/10 people (at least 9/10 people on the Playground) will tell you that it doesn't really make for a good story if the Paladin can just flat out never join forces with someone who doesn't believe in their same ideals. I mean, few people will tell you that it's appropriate for someone dedicated to upholding ideas of honor and justice to be BFFs with someone playing Stupid Evil (and/or Chaotic Stupid, which often looks pretty similar to Stupid Evil), but a Stupid Evil partymember is usually a problem for more than just Paladins. There's a zillion ways to roleplay a Paladin working with an Evil teammate—there's the Greater Good argument, there's the idea that the Paladin can be working to reform the Evil guy, there's the idea that the Paladin can hopefully be channeling the Evil guy's actions towards non-Evil ends (see Roy and Belkar), there's the idea that the Paladin might just believe that it's not their place to strike down the Evil guy for one reason or another, and so on. But of course all of this requires a GM willing to intentionally ignore one bit of very clear (if very narrow-minded) rules text; like with poison, this isn't just siding with the player in the case of a gray area, it's intentionally ignoring what's in the rules text. (I 100% support doing just that, but let's be clear about what we're talking about.) If your GM goes for it, though, I think it makes for a more interesting story than the Paladin turning the party into a Secret Club with a sign on the door saying "NO GIRLS EVILS ALLOWED."

[Metahuman1]

Honestly, the majority if what the OP is asking would come right out of the box with Paladin of Freedom, and maybe add on a dip of Gray Guard. (Perhaps some sub levels/AFC's to keep the 2 from overlapping as much. Say that one in champions of valor at level 2 so that you don't get none stacking divine grace twice and instead get 1 ability giving Cha to all saves and another giving Cha to AC.)

[Inevitability]

Honestly, the majority if what the OP is asking would come right out of the box with Paladin of Freedom, and maybe add on a dip of Gray Guard. (Perhaps some sub levels/AFC's to keep the 2 from overlapping as much. Say that one in champions of valor at level 2 so that you don't get none stacking divine grace twice and instead get 1 ability giving Cha to all saves and another giving Cha to AC.)

Note that PoF/Gray Guard would require houseruling. Gray Guard requires a LG alignment, after all.