[3.5/3.P] Feat for Paladins: Because Lawful Good Should not mean Lawful Stupid

[Dayaz]

Code of the Favored

You don't know why, but your deity seems to like you, and doesn't mind you occasionally straying from the path of Righteousness.

Prerequisites: Must either be 1st level, or it can be the first feat gained after taking a level of Paladin.

Benefit: You may be within one step of the Paladin's normal alignment (Such as Lawful Neutral, or Neutral Good) without falling and becoming an ex-Paladin.

Normal: If you aren't Lawful Good, you fall and become an ex-Paladin

______________________________________

With DM discretion, this feat can be modified for other Paladin variants, such as Paladin of Freedom, Paladin of Tyranny, and Paladin of Slaughter.

[nonsi]

I'd make it a houserule rather than a feat - no justification in taxing paladins in such manner.

[Xuldarinar]

Its an interesting idea. Though personally I feel its better to just play a variant if you want a different alignment, far more variants exist in dragon magazine, of every alignment. Dip in Boneknight frees you from the code, as does arguably Shadowbane Inquisitor. Greyguard reduces restrictions but doesn't entirely free you of them. House rules also can help in the matter. Also, you can achieve the flavor of a paladin without taking any levels in it, pending on what particular aspects of it your after. Don't get me wrong, some campaigns could stand to strongly benefit from this, but I'm just saying there are already existing official ways of handling the restrictions (Some more creative than others), and less restrictive ways too (a single feat can be quite the impact.)

[Dayaz]

I figured that since there are some DMs who are really attached to the Paladin's needing to be LG, it would be fair to be able to pay a feat tax to play a bit less restrained Paladin

Mainly, this is from playing with my RL group, who hate paladins for having to be LG, but refuse to just houserule it away so I just usually take a feat tax to be able to play a LN paladin. I thought it might help some people, maybe show up in an odd build that isn't mine, and it'd be worth a smile at least.

[Omnicrat]

I find your thread title odd, as the feat lets one be a non-lawful good character, not a less restricted lawful good character.

[Kish]

I find your thread title odd, as the feat lets one be a non-lawful good character, not a less restricted lawful good character.

Yes, this.

"Because Lawful Good Should Not Actually Mean Lawful Good"?
"Because Being A Paladin Should Not Mean I Can't Do Whatever I Want"?

[Gnorman]

While I understand what you're trying to do here, a feat tax to allow a particular class the same amount of roleplaying freedom as other classes is a bad idea. You shouldn't need a feat to free the paladin from his (incredibly stupid) baggage.

[Yitzi]

To me, the alignment restriction is part of the core idea of a paladin, and so does not belong. Furthermore, the feat smacks of favoritism, which is very much not what Lawful Good is about.

I'd say instead require Lawful Good, but a more intelligent reading (in particular, occasional mistakes don't change your alignment if they aren't a pattern, there's more than one way to hold any given alignment, and every situation has some intelligent course of action fitting with each alignment), and then make it a houserule (well, actually it's not even a houserule, just playing things as intended) rather than requiring a feat.

[Gnorman]

I'd say instead require Lawful Good, but a more intelligent reading (in particular, occasional mistakes don't change your alignment if they aren't a pattern, there's more than one way to hold any given alignment, and every situation has some intelligent course of action fitting with each alignment), and then make it a houserule (well, actually it's not even a houserule, just playing things as intended) rather than requiring a feat.

While I disagree with the concept of a paladin requiring a Lawful Good alignment (there is plenty of traction for "devoted warrior" in the other alignments), I agree with the ideas here about A.) the flexibility within the alignment and B.) the fact that it should be a houserule, not a feat.

But Lawful Good not playing favorites? Don't buy that.

[Omnicrat]

Well, in theory at least, deities of alignments actually represent the fundamental force of said alignments, not the ideals show by mortals. If that is the case, then Lawful Good deities wouldn't bend/break the rules ever, let alone out of sheer favoritism. And even if the gods are a bit more mortal with regard to alignment, bending/breaking the rules out of favoritism seems more NG or even CG, and outside the purview of LG deities.

[Yitzi]

While I disagree with the concept of a paladin requiring a Lawful Good alignment (there is plenty of traction for "devoted warrior" in the other alignments)

Yes, but for that to be a paladin requires rewriting the basic idea of the paladin. Which might not be such a bad thing, but is far too fundamental to be a feat.

But Lawful Good not playing favorites? Don't buy that.

Why, what makes you think it does? It seems to me that playing favorites in that way is not-justice and therefore not part of being LG (though it might be found in NG people with LG tendencies, or in LE people pretending to be LG.)

[Waker]

Aside from dropping the alignment restriction or making this a houserule, you might also consider making a paladin code for each deity rather than a universal one. After all, why would the code be identical for paladins who worship Yondalla, Heironeous and Wee Jas?

[Xuldarinar]

Every deity would have their own variants on the codes. If we keep to the base theme, Lawful or at least non-chaotic is almost a necessity (You have a code).

A paladin of Pelor (Standard or Burning Hate), for instance, might have in their code to destroy undead at every opportunity. A paladin of Wee Jas however, might have a different take.

[Gnorman]

Every deity would have their own variants on the codes. If we keep to the base theme, Lawful or at least non-chaotic is almost a necessity (You have a code).

Having a code does not mean you can't be chaotic.

[Kyuu Himura]

Having a code does not mean you can't be chaotic.

Having a code means there are things you don't do. Ever.
Having things you don't ever do is a restriction.
Chaos is unrestricted.
Therefore a code is non-chaotic.


On the other hand:
A self imposed code is followed voluntarily.
Something you do out of your own free will is not a restriction.
Therefore a code is chaotic.

The idea of having a code can be rationalized as chaotic and non-chaotic, so, unless your idea of chaotic and the OP's idea of chaotic are the same, that bit of info is not so relevant.

Finally, my take on paladins:

I do not believe paladins to be champions of a deity, but champions of justice and honor. Or at the very least that's what the whole thing always looked to me. They may be religious folk, but they follow the religion because of their moral standards, not accept the moral standards of the religion.

Now given, that's just a personal opinion. I never saw the paladin as an armed priest/clergyman, cleric does that pretty well. As OP said, his/her group sees paladins as clergymen, more involved with churches and deities, and in that regard, yes, the alignment restriction is certainly silly.

[JusticeZero]

Or you could just, you know, not be a nitpicky perfectionist trying to passive-agressively ruin the paladin all the time.

[jebbewocky]

...then why play Paladin?

[Gnorman]

...then why play Paladin?

Because "holy warrior" is a great archetype that should not hinge on one person's interpretation of what a particular alignment means.

[Xuldarinar]

Without touching the paladin class:

'Paladin' of Bahamut
Dragon Shaman[Gold]/Vassal of Bahamut

'Paladin' of any deity
(Any*)/Pious Templar
(Any*)/Divine Crusader
(Any*)/PrC with deity's name in it.
So on..

*Any appropriate class(es).

A paladin without deity
Knight, Samurai, ect.
If you still want the 'good' flavor, consider the Anointed Knight PrC.



Oh, and a neat trick if you don't mind using prestige paladin.

Spoiler

Show

Race: Hellbred
-
Pious Templar of x (enter while lawful neutral/evil, pick the blackguard spells)
(Take a level in a generic class to get Turn Undead, if you don't already have it)
Turn Lawful Good and Enter Prestige Paladin

Or

-
Pious Templar of x (Enter while lawful neutral/evil, pick blackguard spells)
(Take a level in a generic class to get Turn Undead, if you don't already ave it)
Turn Lawful Good and Enter Prestige Paladin
Enter Bone Knight (for paladin conversion)

x: Any Lawful Neutral Deity.


The result? You can freely cast blackguard and paladin spells. One caster level, one pool of spells per day.

[Dayaz]

Wow, this seems to have generated some hate O.o

and yes I know the title is bad, but it was like, 3 in the morning when I posted this and it sounded catchy lol. This was just me trying to get into the homebrewing and getting a feel for it, but it looks like 90% of you hate it.

[Gnorman]

Wow, this seems to have generated some hate O.o

and yes I know the title is bad, but it was like, 3 in the morning when I posted this and it sounded catchy lol. This was just me trying to get into the homebrewing and getting a feel for it, but it looks like 90% of you hate it.

It's not that anyone hates the feat per se, it's that we don't agree with the idea that a feat should even be necessary for this kind of thing. But don't get us wrong, that doesn't mean that your creation doesn't have its uses. In a game with a stringent MC, for example, it might be helpful. Better to have it and not need it than the other way around.

[undead hero]

Why not play one of these...

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/cl...hterAndTyranny

[Humble Master]

I'm sorry but a feat tax for roleplaying opportunity is just a very bad idea in my opinion. I personally rework the paladin to be a holy warrior that can be any good alignment. It always struck me as odd of how the roleplaying opportunities of Paladin were so narrow compared to all the other classes, so I just took out the restriction.

[Siosilvar]

Wow, this seems to have generated some hate O.o

and yes I know the title is bad, but it was like, 3 in the morning when I posted this and it sounded catchy lol. This was just me trying to get into the homebrewing and getting a feel for it, but it looks like 90% of you hate it.

It's probably because most DMs that would allow this homebrew feat are likely enough just to dump the alignment restriction entirely. It's a decent idea, but the number of DMs who allow homebrew to change the alignment restriction but don't simply do away with it is likely small.

[Yitzi]

Having a code means there are things you don't do. Ever.
Having things you don't ever do is a restriction.
Chaos is unrestricted.
Therefore a code is non-chaotic.


On the other hand:
A self imposed code is followed voluntarily.
Something you do out of your own free will is not a restriction.
Therefore a code is chaotic.

The idea of having a code can be rationalized as chaotic and non-chaotic, so, unless your idea of chaotic and the OP's idea of chaotic are the same, that bit of info is not so relevant.

No, what it means is that a voluntarily-followed code* isn't really a code in the first place.

*This is not the same as a self-imposed code; a code may be voluntarily self-imposed, but then, once it is imposed, followed out of obligation.

[Kish]

Wow, this seems to have generated some hate O.o

and yes I know the title is bad, but it was like, 3 in the morning when I posted this and it sounded catchy lol. This was just me trying to get into the homebrewing and getting a feel for it, but it looks like 90% of you hate it.

At the risk of being harsh, I would suggest that "I should choose titles with more care/if it's 3 in the morning, I'll save the potential thread on my hard drive and actually post it the next morning when I can think about it" would be a better take-away from people going, "Your feat doesn't at all address what the title indicates it does" than "O.o ."

[Steward]

I kind of like the feat. I'm not sure if I'll ever have a chance to apply it -- in general, most DMs that I've played with that were extremely rigid about the Paladin Code and prohibited variants also prohibited homebrew, and the few that DID allow homebrew would be comfortable whipping up a 'homebrew' Paladin variant that was NG or LN.

[Dayaz]

At the risk of being harsh, I would suggest that "I should choose titles with more care/if it's 3 in the morning, I'll save the potential thread on my hard drive and actually post it the next morning when I can think about it" would be a better take-away from people going, "Your feat doesn't at all address what the title indicates it does" than "O.o ."

Yeah, I'm planning on being more careful about that kind of stuff next time I post something. I'm also puzzling out how powerful different abilities are with Pathfinder archetypes, because I've sort of got an idea for a bard one based off the Men In Tights movie lol Just having trouble balancing it, so it might have to be an alternate class.

EDIT: also, is there a tutorial for how to make the coding boxes everyone uses for their homebrew? because I have no idea on how to make those.

[rexreg]

somewhere back in 2nd ed. Planescape, it was mentioned that playing a Paladin in Sigil would be a death wish were one to play Lawful Stupid...err, Good...
a Paladin has his sights on something bigger than a Thug walking by on the opposite side of the road...
the Paladin sees the Thug, knows he is evil, but realizes trying to stomp out every little brushfire is either pointless or suicidal...there is a Lich to be killed...or a Lower Planar baddy to beat upon, or a big bad evil kabob that needs taking care of...the Paladin mutters under his breath, prays for patience & continues on to the bigger, more important goal...
i guess what i am saying, w/out a Feat tax (interesting idea, though), allow for a Paladin to keep his eye on the bigger picture...
to err is (Demi)Human(oid), to forgive Divine