Pathfinder DM: Allowing Lawful Neutral/Neutral Good Paladin's.

[DevonH]

Hello! I am DMing a Pathfinder game tomorrow, but I am planning on making a minor change to the alignment restriction of the Paladin class. I intend to make it so they can be still be those Lawful Good guys, or they can break away from the norm a bit by being Lawful Neutral(with leaning towards good) or Neutral Good(with leaning towards Lawful).
Why? Well I am thinking that even tho the paladin orders and deities frown upon Chaotic or Evil acts, it is okay to do those kind of actions provided it is for a good reason... and in turn I am trying to make it so Paladins can be more open-minded, and allow certain multi-classes.
The whole idea is to make it so that they can still be holy knights, but they aren't perfect embodiment's of the concept of good and law. The catch is the Paladin still has to ACT like a paladin, but I am allowing them a wider amount of options for my players who are interested in the class. Tho I do intend to make it a bit harsher on fallen paladins so to even it out, paladins are punished a bit harsher then simple loss of class features, they will have to work harder to get forgiven for sins when they fall depending on how overboard it went. also, Clerics can be one step away from their Deity's alignment, so this is a way to give Paladins a similar treatment(I will not let them worship Evil or Chaotic deities, just Good/Lawful Good ones).

I only am doing this since I got a couple of 5e Paladin regulars tonight and want to ease up the pain a little, but will hurt them a tad bit more if they take to much advantage of my generosity... Does this tweak all sound about okay, or do you guys suggest a small edit to something?

[fishyfishyfishy]

You may want to petition the mod staff to have this thread moved to the proper sub forum.

[DevonH]

You may want to petition the mod staff to have this thread moved to the proper sub forum.

Odd... I could of sworn I put it in the right area, it appears to have moved here for some reason.

[Geddy2112]

I see no problem with it. For the most part, my group has embraced paladins being like clerics but matching the deity alignment instead of being within 1 step of their deity(and if evil deity or CN you are an antipaladin). I see this as extra okay if the paladin's deity is Lawful Neutral/Neutral good, as they would be matching their alignment.

Also, there is some mechanical support for this in 1st party material, the grey paladin (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo-paladin-archetypes/gray-paladin-paladin-archetype/)

[Luccan]

My houserule is to allow paladins within a step of their usual alignment restrictions, so long as it's on the same part of the good/evil axis (this is for 3.5, so I consider the CG, LE, and CE paladin variants when I do this). So, I don't see why this would be a problem.

[ElChad]

It's your campaign, and can tweak the alignment restrictions as you see fit. Nobody will send the DM police to your door if you decide to lighten the restrictions :tongue:. Allowing a Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral Paladin will not make any real difference in a Paladin's actions to the point where your players may not even notice.

If you are looking for flavour, use the Cavalier's Order mechanic with Edicts for non Lawful Good paladins. They must dedicate themselves to a clear purpose. Definitely works better than just keeping within the subjective imaginary goal posts of your Alignment. As your players are 5E regulars, it will feel just like a 5E Paladin with their Sacred Oaths.

[stack]

I always allow NG paladins. Never had an issue.

[TotallyNotEvil]

Honestly? I see Paladins more as someone "fighting for something worth dying for". Some with a capital-C Cause. A fanatic through and through, not necessarily about a deity.

A crusader, one could say.:smalltongue:

[Elder_Basilisk]

You may need to adapt the code a bit. As written, the code is pretty clearly designed for a lawful good character and trying to play a neutral good character who still keeps the code might be challenging (depending upon your and your player's interpretation of neutral good--the Law/Chaos axis is not very philosophically consistent so results will vary depending upon which aspects of Neutral you focus on. For my part, I allow Neutral Good paladins because of how I adjudicate (or for the most part ignore) Law/Chaos and it hasn't caused problems, but if that axis is important in your games, I could see it causing problems).

On the other hand, the paladin class as written is designed to be Holger/Ogier the Dane, Galahad/Percival, or Lancealot (or Gawaine in some of the legends): a holy knight whose powers depend upon his righteousness. The need to maintain perfection is an important part of the concept and if you make it difficult to fall--or even possible for the paladin to be less true to the ideal than other knights without falling--then that element of the legends is gone. Galahad doesn't simply need to avoid being Mordred in order to have his powers. He needs to be the perfect knight. If you relax the code and alignment restrictions, it will be easy to lose that aspect of the paladin's heritage.

[Kurald Galain]

On the other hand, the paladin class as written is designed to be Holger/Ogier the Dane, Galahad/Percival, or Lancealot (or Gawaine in some of the legends): a holy knight whose powers depend upon his righteousness. The need to maintain perfection is an important part of the concept and if you make it difficult to fall--or even possible for the paladin to be less true to the ideal than other knights without falling--then that element of the legends is gone. Galahad doesn't simply need to avoid being Mordred in order to have his powers. He needs to be the perfect knight. If you relax the code and alignment restrictions, it will be easy to lose that aspect of the paladin's heritage.

Basically this. The concept behind the Paladin is drawing power from a Strict Code Of Righteousness (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RightMakesMight), and although it's a common request from certain players, drawing the same power without any code (or from a Code Of Just Do What I Feel Like, Really) is missing the point.

In game terms, the idea is to set up an in-character conflict that there is an easy way out of the situation (e.g. cowardice, torture, blatant lies, or whatnot) and you're not going to that because You Are The Hero. Bear in mind that certain players love this kind of conflict (and other players don't, but these players shouldn't be playing this particular class). In terms of player types, this is a class designed for Timmy and Vorthos, not for Johnny and Spike. Obviously I'm not endorsing the kind of antagonistic DM who will make you fall because he can (har har).

That said, I'm not a big fan of the alignment system and there's common discussion about what each alignment means exactly, so if you want to argue that a particular code is really LN or NG then that can surely fit the paladin well. Arguing that the lack of a code (e.g. chaotic alignment) or the lack of ethics (e.g. evil alignment) could give the same powers as a paladin, or the same powers with a slightly different label, is really missing the point.