Paladin-ish

[Morghen]

So I'm probably going to be running a game in the near future and one of the players has told me he wants to play a Paladin but he's hung up on the whole LG thing. Also, our group is almost always Chaotic Expedient or Neutral Selfish, so a by-the-book Paladin may have a tough road in front of him.

So what I need from you (The Playground) is some character classes from 3.5 or Pathfinder or... well... wherever, really for a Paladin of Vengeance or something like that.

Pertinent:

• We'll be playing HackMaster 4E, but we can rejigger whatever you come up with.
• He's looking for a class that wears a lot of armor and probably rides around on a horse.
• He's NOT just looking for a Fighter with a cool backstory who wears a white skull on his chest.
• He IS looking for spells and duty to a god. Or at least an ideal. Maybe not as strict as bushido, but that kind of thing.
• I've probably got access to whatever splat you reference.

Thanks in advance for any help.

[Dilb]

So let him be a paladin and toss out all the LG stuff. It's not like paladins are overpowered, and even if they were it's not like the paladin code would be a good way to balance it. If you hate refluffing things yourself, then lots of places have you covered.

Alternatively be a cleric who can ride a horse, because your class isn't your identity.

[navar100]

Inquisitor, from Pathfinder.

A built-in warrior/divine spellcaster gish, pronounces Judgements for bonuses to himself or penalties to enemies. Has spells that cater to combat, finding out the Truth!, and smiting your enemies for their atrocities. It's a medium BAB class and a bit spellcastery, but Inquisitor class-specific spells do help for smackdown. The class loves vengeance.

[Jay R]

Some things really are all or nothing. You cannot be sort of a virgin; you cannot be kinda pregnant; and you cannot be paladin-ish.

He has two choices. He can expand his playing experience and play a true Lawful Good, or he can play something other than a Paladin.

Don't mess up the paladin concept; use something else.

[The Bandicoot]

The way my DM has always played it is Paladins are similar to Clerics. You gain your abilities through your service to your god. If that god happens to be true neutral guess what? You're true neutral. All it takes is a bit of tweaking and refluffing.

[Dilb]

Don't mess up the paladin concept; use something else.

So by that you mean he needs to be one of the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne, right? I sure hope you aren't endorsing some upstart idea of paladins invented in the last few decades, as opposed to the proper centuries old usage.

[Peregrine]

Don't mess up the paladin concept; use something else.

As much as I love the classic D&D paladin concept, I have to agree with Dilb here: that paladin is not inherently more valid that any other paladin concept, and only loosely related to the historical origins of the "paladin". If you want to scrap the 3.5e LG Paladin (like 4e did), I will sigh, shake my head, and feel that you're missing out on something, but I won't say you're wrong.

That said, are you/your player sure you don't want a vanilla paladin, Morghen? I've spent more than a few words championing the concept, and I still believe it doesn't have to be -- nay, shouldn't be -- Lawful Stupid, impossible to adventure with, or have a stick inserted as a class feature.

Ultimately, if the problem is the paladin code, that's easy to refluff and tone down as necessary. If the problem is the LG alignment, I'll gladly share some thoughts on why that alignment isn't a straitjacket; or failing that, Dilb's already linked to the CG/LE/CE paladin variants.

[Jay R]

So by that you mean he needs to be one of the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne, right? I sure hope you aren't endorsing some upstart idea of paladins invented in the last few decades, as opposed to the proper centuries old usage.

If somebody were talking about running a game about the twelve paladins as portrayed in Song of Roland or Orlando Furioso, I would cheer, I would get excited, I would want to play, and I would strongly urge them not to use D&D, in which the paladin has a clear, specific, and conflicting meaning.

The situation here is very different. As near as I can tell, somebody wants to play a game of D&D, using all the strengths of a given character class and none of its limitations. If I were the DM, I would say "no".

I might try to invent a new class, with the advantages he wants and a very different set of limitations. If I did so, I wouldn't call it "paladijn", because that means something else in D&D.

Yes, I really am endorsing D&D rules in a game of D&D. More importantly, I am endorsing keeping the advantages and the limitations together.

[hamishspence]

Dragon magazine issue 310 has the Avenger (CG) and the Sentinel (NG). Unearthed Arcana has the Paladin of Freedom (CG)- which is also in the SRD. Biggest difference between Avenger and Paladin of Freedom- Avenger has better spell List, and Smite Law + Aura of Chaos, not Smite Evil + Aura of Good.

[Dilb]

If somebody were talking about running a game about the twelve paladins as portrayed in Song of Roland or Orlando Furioso, I would cheer, I would get excited, I would want to play, and I would strongly urge them not to use D&D, in which the paladin has a clear, specific, and conflicting meaning.

I see where you're coming from, and if you want a character built around obeying a code of behaviour that's great. Clearly the OP doesn't want that, but that's no reason to throw the crunch out with the fluff. Taking the paladin and throwing away the code leaves you with a divine warrior with a mount and a few spells, exactly what the guy wants.

Enforcing the code as a trade off for the 'power' of the Paladin class is bad both ways. It's annoying for people who just want a magic pony and some smiting, and it cheapens the code for people who do want to do the right thing. A player shouldn't be coerced into being a paragon of virtue, they should be a paragon of virtue because they want to.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Did anybody else read in the first post that this is HackMaster, not 3.5?

[Morghen]

Some clarifications:

• Yes, it's HM. But we'll be able to flip whatever non-HM stuff exists into a HM-based Franken-class. Mostly, that means nerfing the bejesus out of it.
• I'm NOT trying to just take a Paladin and cull the LG stuff to make a class with all the cool stuff and none of the hindrances... or I would just cull the LG stuff to make a class with all the cool stuff and none of the hindrances.
• I'm looking for an armor-wearing, horse-riding, code-following warrior who is NOT Lawful Good. Spells aren't QUITE a requirement.
• I know I mentioned that bushido is maybe a little too strict for what he's looking for, but I may reconsider. Anybody know of a western-y style Samurai class? (There is no "Eastern" culture in this world.)

The problem with playing a standard Paladin in our group is that there will likely be 2-3 people who are LE or NE. Now, it's all well and good to play the "Tee-hee! We're tricking the paladin!" game as a group, but I'd like to go with a bit more RP than that. I don't want the player or character to have to turn a blind eye to torture, body-looting, theft, etc.

[Shadowknight12]

I have nothing to officially contribute to the topic, other than "Play a paladin with another alignment, rewrite the Code to your tastes." Which is what I always encourage.

You cannot be sort of a virgin;

Yes, you can.

you cannot be kinda pregnant;

Yes, you can.

you cannot be paladin-ish.

Yes, you can.

Don't mess up the paladin concept; use something else.

Perhaps it'd be more productive to try to understand what the player wants and help them realise their vision within the constraints they're given? I dunno, just a thought. Sounds like it'd be more helpful than an attempt to preserve an ideal that others do not share.

[Sith_Happens]

You cannot be sort of a virgin;

Yes, you can.

you cannot be kinda pregnant;

Yes, you can.

Wait, what?
...On second thought, don't answer that.

[Figgin of Chaos]

Knight from 3.5 Player's Handbook II might fit. They're only limited to Lawful alignments, and their code is easier to deal with than the Paladin's. They don't cast spells, but they do ride horses, wear armor (and have d12 hit dice!) and follow codes.

[dehro]

Wait, what?
...On second thought, don't answer that.

this..very much


that said, I do agree to the idea of paladins having a code that reflects the allignement of the deity of choice.. and their powers attuned to such a moral inclination..
rather than laying on hands to cure, an evil paladin would lay on hands to do some damage. rather than being member of the order of saint Wulfric, protector of orphans, jelly beans and the color green, he'd be a member of the order of Karosh the Damned, protector of prostitutes, hairy armpits and the color red
(any reference to the green lantern comic is not a coincidence..)
If you're open to tweaking.. tweak it that way..it's simplest, because you already have a frame of reference.

[hamlet]

So, wait a second.

You're playing Hackmaster with the original books? The ones designed to emulate AD&D on crack? Or are you playing the new version of Hackmaster?

If the former, then you have the Knight Errant right in the PHB. No need to go any further. It is, essentially, precisely what you're looking for. Or even the Cavalier from the same book. Might have to rejigger some alignment restrictions, but that's very easily done.

If the later . . . well . . . I don't think they have one yet, but could be easy to set up with what we know of the Paladin and Knight classes which are coming in the PHB which will be out soon.

[Hiro Protagonest]

So, wait a second.

You're playing Hackmaster with the original books? The ones designed to emulate AD&D on crack? Or are you playing the new version of Hackmaster?

*grumbles*

• We'll be playing HackMaster 4E, but we can rejigger whatever you come up with.

[hamlet]

*grumbles*

Yes, yes I know what the original poster said, but it has been my experience that most people don't actually know the distinction of Hackmaster 4e and HMB/HMnew. I've seen HM4e confused as the new system so many times that it's become my standard operating procedure to first clarify precisely what the person is talking about before offering advice/opinion.

[Shadowknight12]

Wait, what?
...On second thought, don't answer that.

Virginity: Depends on what you define as a "virgin" you can have someone who has performed certain acts with others and still remains technically a virgin.

Pregnancy: There's something called Pseudocyesis.

[Deepbluediver]

There's a prestige class I remember playing a few games as called the Holy Liberator, from the book Complete Divine.

Mechanically, I think it plays a lot like the Paladin of Freedom (chaotic good variant from Unearthed Arcana), but since it's a prestige class you can take a few levels in barbarian or fighter first if you want more hacky-slashy-stab capability.

Of course, you have to be at least level 5 or 6 to get into it, so if you're starting off at level 1 it might be a few sessions before your player can advance, but you might want to check it out.

[LibraryOgre]

Pertinent:

• We'll be playing HackMaster 4E, but we can rejigger whatever you come up with.
• He's looking for a class that wears a lot of armor and probably rides around on a horse.
• He's NOT just looking for a Fighter with a cool backstory who wears a white skull on his chest.
• He IS looking for spells and duty to a god. Or at least an ideal. Maybe not as strict as bushido, but that kind of thing.
• I've probably got access to whatever splat you reference.

In HM 4e, what's wrong with the Knight Errant for him?

[shimmercat]

I'm currently playing a Paladin-ish character who is Fighter and Pious Templar (from Complete Divine). Basically I wanted to play a religious, LG fighter-type but I knew that there would be evil party members and NPCs. I couldn't be a true paladin in this game and do... anything... without Falling.

Pious Templar gives paladin spells without the alignment restriction. I wasn't interested in the mount, though, and I don't think Pious Templar helps with that. You still may want to check it out.

[Crazyfailure13]

You could try the cavalier from PF, it's got horses, and orders, from the party the order of the cockatrice might work nicely.

[Sith_Happens]

Virginity: Depends on what you define as a "virgin" you can have someone who has performed certain acts with others and still remains technically a virgin.

Pregnancy: There's something called Pseudocyesis.

I'll give you the second one, but the "some people define it differently" line on the first one is cheating. Especially since within any one definition it is still a binary state.

[Shadowknight12]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Sith_Happens]

{{Scrubbed}}

None of those cases are "gray areas," they're just someone fitting one definition but not another. Considering any one definition at a given time, you either have or have not done the thing upon which that single definition is based.

[Shadowknight12]

None of those cases are "gray areas," they're just someone fitting one definition but not another. Considering any one definition at a given time, you either have or have not done the thing upon which that single definition is based.

Yes, but like I said, virginity carries a connotation of sexual purity, regardless of what specific act you design as the one that removes virginity. The "sort of virgin" term is applied when you have a character who has engaged in sexual acts (and therefore lost their sexual purity) yet they are technically still virgins by virtue of not having done the act that properly removes it.

[Knaight]

None of those cases are "gray areas," they're just someone fitting one definition but not another. Considering any one definition at a given time, you either have or have not done the thing upon which that single definition is based.

However, given that there are likely several definitions in play, "sort of" clarifies that it fits some definitions and not in others, which is absolutely fine. Moreover, you're assuming a level of coherency to definitions that may not exist.

[Kudaku]

Have you considered the Cavalier from Pathfinder's Advanced Player's Handbook?

It's a heavy armor class focused on mounts and melee fighting that chooses from several Orders. Each order has a "motto" and a set of ethics the cavalier should follow that goes from "I'm awesome and everyone should realize it" to "My friends come first and I will do whatever I can to protect them from harm" with quite a few different flavours sprinkled in the middle.

Best of all? There's no alignment restrictions whatsoever. Order of the Cockatrice, linked above, would fit in well in a chaotic selfish party .