Perversions?

[PaladinBoy]

I saw the following posted in this thread. It wasn't quite the proper place to have this discussion.

*snip*
I want the possibility of blighter druids who are tricking nature for their powers, paladins of highly questionable morality, lawful barbarians, lawful bards, chaotic monks.

I can see the last three. Maybe.

What really caught my eye was the first two. The way the classes are described in the SRD leads one to believe that a druid is a person who reveres nature, and a paladin is a person of (nearly) unimpeachable morality that dedicates his life to fighting evil. At least, that's the impression I gain from them.

I can see people opposed to those causes (like the blighter or the blackguard), but not really see perversions of those causes. The powers of a paladin in particular and a druid to a lesser extent seem to be rewards and gifts given by the gods for dedication to a cause. If you have a druid that disrespects and destroys nature, is he really a druid? If you have a paladin willing to torture evil creatures to death simply for being evil, or a paladin willing to steal, lie, and cheat to destroy evil...... well, I suppose you could call him a Grey Guard, but is he really a paladin?

It seems to me that if you want something like that which seems so different from the base material, if you will, then you might as well create a new class. Perhaps with similar abilities, but the idea of a druid that tricks and destroys nature or the idea of a paladin that supports good while being evil seems different enough from the base class that you might as well create a new one. It really strikes me as a matter of entirely different concepts for the class.

Thoughts?

[melchizedek]

I agree with you to some extent, but I would say that most of the differences there are fluff. It shouldn't be too difficult to say that my character has all/most of the abilities of a paladin or druid, but is different in that they are actually against nature, or that they are less obviously good. You would definitely need to change the fluff, and some of the abilities might not quite fit, but these characters probably aren't going to be far from the original class.

[kjones]

For evil paladin's that aren't just blackguards, look at Fax's The As-It-Should-Be Paladin. As for evil druids, how exactly do you "trick" nature? It's nature. If you hurt Nature, it'll know.

[JaronK]

The word "Paladin" actually just means Warrior Servant. The one in the PHB is a Warrior Servant of Heironeous, but why shouldn't there be ones for other causes or gods?

Unearthed Arcana answers this with the Paladin of Freedom, Paladin of Slaughter, and Paladin of Tyranny, which are CG, CE, and LE, respectively. They also call the base Paladin a Paladin of Honor.

I think it works great.

JaronK

[PaladinBoy]

Oh, I understand Fax's paladin, or other things like it. They're champions of a different cause than Good, which seems fine to me. What I have trouble identifying with is a paladin that says he's supporting Good while being evil.

I can see Paladins being steadfast champions of a particular point of view, but not a major, steadfast servant of good with questionable morality. Well, maybe I can, but I wouldn't call it a paladin. Likewise with the druid....... I can't really see a druid that hates and tricks/ destroys nature. I can see a blighter, or other class or person that destroys nature out of habit.

Really, I can see people like a paladin of questionable morality or a druid that hates nature...... I just wouldn't use the druid and paladin for their abilities. I would use a Grey Guard or a blighter. Nor would I call them a druid or a paladin.

[Enzario]

Well, if you like the idea of a Grey Guard or a Blighter for those ideas, yer gonna hafta get yerself a 'hole new class.
Honestly, blighters are terrible PCs. Good BBEGs, but bad PCs. The requirement to destroy several square miles worth of forest is something that is too easily brought to either end of the spectrum: being incredibly strong/abusable or incredibly pathetic. The blighter abilities, too, are flawed in that they require the destruction of a huge amountof land, and are incredibly powerful. See reasons above for why that just doesn't work. So, using the blighter as the base idea, work your way out from there. Weaken the abilities, and make it easier to get those abilities available for use. Maybe change a few other things if you feel like.

The grey guard is a terrible class, from what I've heard. Just use the paladin variants from UA (they work well, trust me). Now, on the issue of a fallen paladin, just use "cleric-ish" rules on changing gods/outlook, and maybe throw in a slightly large side quest for atonement. Bam. Problem solved.
Now, on the issue of a paladin who says he's good but is actually evil, just use rule 0; don't allow him any spells or abilities that rely on him being good, switch his alignment to evil, and then start him on an atonement/conversion quest. If he refuses/argues, remember that D&D is based around an agreement between the DM and the players, and that violation of that agreement is grounds to stop playing, since you have violated the basic principle of the game. Example: No one plays chess with someone who moves two pieces at a time.

I definately see and agree with your point. But fluff is probably the easiest thing to change about a class or character. And alignment is iffy. Use your best judgement, good luck, and above all, since it's just a game, have fun!

[Diggorian]

I know fully what ya mean.

A non-LG paladin or nature destroying druid are contraditions in terms, like a killer-healer. The concept cant cohere on it's own, but can be a mechanical basis of a new class.

The variants in UA I could play and run with, but I have to change their name: Enforcer, Slayer, or Liberator. A nature killing druid could evolve into a Divine casting Defiler, not a variant druid.

[Whiplord]

Well for the paladin idea, if I may pull out a very nerdy example:

If any of you watch anime, than you have probably either heard of or seen an anime/manga called Death Note. In it a young boy recieves a notebook with which he can kill anyone as long as he knows their name and face. In fact, he can specify the way they die up to the smallest detail.

When he first finds it, he is very nervous about it. After all, isn't it wrong? But then he decides to purge the world of all evil by killing all the criminals, and anyone he sees as doing wrong. This includes anyone who gets in his way, including a man who he was very good friends with on some level.

Light (the main character) is convinced he is doing good, but his actions show otherwise.

[melchizedek]

I'd actually like to see some sort of Paladin type class for each of the gods. The paladin variants in UA come close, but they don't allow for a LN pally, who was focused on upholding the law for the sake of the law, or any similar ideas. Some of those could be cool. A Paladin of St. Cuthbert could be an interesting character or NPC, but wouldn't be possible under regular rules. Likely, he'd have similar abilities to a regular pally. (You might want to swap out chaotic for evil, but even that wouldn't be necessary.)

[Xaros]

Does this idea of perversion versus purity extend into thoughts as well as actions? The reason I ask is that I'm playing a Paladin of Freedom (by DM's request) in Sigil. The problem, as I see it, is that he's surrounded by Baatezu and Tanar'ri every day. Some are even quite close to the character. Does such a paladin risk his alignment through such associations, and effectively become "less good" or less a paladin (or both)?

For the record, I'm minimizing the chaotic aspect of his alignment only because I play it practically as neutral.

[SurlySeraph]

@ Enzario: Oh, you better not have just dissed Greyguards... okay, they're kinda weak in a conventional campaign, where you won't get many chances to kill non-evil things in the name of the greater good... but they're still the best paladin PrC ever, flavorwise.
Everything else you said is absolutely right, though.

[DreadArchon]

A non-LG paladin or nature destroying druid are contraditions in terms, like a killer-healer. The concept cant cohere on it's own, but can be a mechanical basis of a new class.

I disagree. (Which is why I unbound alignment restrictions on classes in my campaign.) I have no problem with the idea of a chaotic evil core paladin who slaughters everything that doesn't read on Detect Evil, or a druid who thinks that he has authority over nature--and hates it, thus prompting him to tear it down and remake it to his liking. I view the classes as portrayals of study, training, experience, education, and practice, rather than tracks used by the Union Pacific Fluff Line.

[Jack Mann]

A Paladin of St. Cuthbert could be an interesting character or NPC, but wouldn't be possible under regular rules.

Actually, it is. St. Cuthbert has paladins called Votaries of Communicants. St. Cuthbert is (often) lawful neutral, but he has good tendencies and has a strong focus on the destruction of evil, so much of his clergy and church is composed of lawful good people. And this isn't even going into setting where he's lawful good with lawful neutral tendencies.

[melchizedek]

Actually, it is. St. Cuthbert has paladins called Votaries of Communicants. St. Cuthbert is (often) lawful neutral, but he has good tendencies and has a strong focus on the destruction of evil, so much of his clergy and church is composed of lawful good people. And this isn't even going into setting where he's lawful good with lawful neutral tendencies.

What book is this in? I might have to look it up. I'm not denying what you're saying, I just want more information.

[Diggorian]

@ Dread Archon, I'm all for diversity within a classes theme.

The paladin you describe can still be lawful good, although a zealot. A pally that kills good people cant be a paladin.

A creative druid, shaping nature, can still be a druid. One that seeks to turn all the world into a desert is some kind of insane fallen druid.

EDIT: I've had a paladin of Cuthbert in one of my games. We just tweaked his Code to emphasize the lawfulness over the good.

[Matthew]

Saint Cuthbert, apparently, used to be Lawful Good and is now Lawful Neutral or something. Weird stuff, but there you go.

Paladins who aren't Paladins. Paladins for every Alignment. Paladins for every Religion/Cause/Deity. It's easy to see why this would be attractive. Indeed, this proposition is at least fifteen years old (which is when I think I first heard it voiced in Dragon Magazine). It's not my cup of tea, but it's probably tolerable when done right. I wouldn't be inclined to use the word Paladin, as the connotations are well established in modern English. Divine Champion, perhaps, or simply Champion. Something like that.

I don't really get why it has to be a Paladin; surely just creating a more generic Class with appropriate generic fluff (as with the Cleric) would be sufficient, without having to incorporate the Paladin into it?

[barawn]

As for evil druids, how exactly do you "trick" nature? It's nature. If you hurt Nature, it'll know.

You're not hurting it. You're convincing it that what you're doing is good.

Is it "not a druid"? Of course it's not a druid. Not in the sense that you're thinking. It's nearly identical in terms of abilities, though.

That was kindof the point of the comment - it'd be nice to have very basic, balanced classes, which could then be added onto.

[Matthew]

You mean like the Generic Classes in Unearthed Arcana?

[Shoyliguad]

Here are my two cents, in game you aren't a paladin, your a crusader. You might be a druid but more called the protecter of the forest. There are no "classes" that meta-gaming. Alignments are how a charecter acts, limiting it is not cool and i usually say, "If you can role play it out, I'll let you do anything within reason" (no auto crits, making a level ones arrow kill a great wyrm dragon etc etc). If the rules don't allow it just work with the dm/player to make a class that fits what you need.

[Starsinger]

Light (the main character) is convinced he is doing good, but his actions show otherwise.

That would be nice if D&D was in a game of abstract alignments. But idiotically so, it's a world where Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are defined, and real forces in the universe. You can kill all the puppies and orphans that you want, thinking that you're doing something good, but it won't make it so. Paladins and to a much greater extent, the book of ED set extremely high moral standards and then when you fail to meet said extremely high standards, they take everything away from you.

As to the question of a paladin of a different alignment... I much prefer the Champion class from Arcana Unearthed, it's customizable, allows you to champion a cause, and doesn't straight jacket you into an extreme alignment.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Perhaps you could have a cabal of Evil "Paladins" who captured and tortured some celestial being to gain their holy powers...

Oh wait. That's a stupid idea even in the game it was written for. Still, there's possibilities for non-LG Paladins. There are variants for Paladins devoted to different alignment ideals in Unearthed Arcana (though they aren't all that well thought out), and the Crusader in Tome of Battle has much the same idiom as the Paladin, but can devote himself to any ideal.

[asqwasqw]

The real question is who is more important to decide on the druid/paladin's fate, the person committing it, the god overseeing the druid, or what? If the druid thinks he is doing good, but others think he is doing bad, does he loose his powers? No, by my interpretation of RAW, because he still reveres nature in his own twisted way. So you need to define the limits of the class first, and work up from there.

[Koji]

I played a game online where paladins and clerics had no generic form. A cleric of one of the nature gods was a druid, and a paladin of such was a ranger. A cleric of the fire god was a fire wizard, and a paladin was some kind of mage knight. The list went on and on.

The best way to build variant paladins is to multiclass them and change the alignment restrictions to match the god. A paladin of Orcus would have his abilities and code of conduct flip-flopped and his steed would be undead. There is no way to do this for every god in advance, so it's best to work it out beforehand.

Still, the church of Mielekki might call a ranger a paladin of Mielekki (God help me on the spelling there, I can't remember), so long as he upheld the worship of the goddess. Something to consider if you want to be a paladin of some non-traditional god.

[DreadArchon]

A pally that kills good people cant be a paladin.

One that seeks to turn all the world into a desert is some kind of insane fallen druid.

Sure, by RAW. That's why the alignment removal thing is a house rule.

[Diggorian]

Even without the alignment striction or the code of conduct, to me Paladins arent anything but lawful and good. The title just has too many connotations for me.

[barawn]

You mean like the Generic Classes in Unearthed Arcana?

Exactly. The generic classes themselves aren't the big deal, though (although I don't agree the Generic Classes themselves are balanced, but that's another discussion). The thing you really want are the "tack on modules" (let's call them "background modules") which convert the generic classes into the specific ones.

As an example, you've got a Generic spellcaster. The difference between him and a sorcerer? The sorcerer gets 1 additional spell per day per level, a familiar, and has no bonus feats. So you'd have a background module called "Magical Heritage," which says "Benefits: You gain 1 spell per day per level, up to a maximum of 6. You also gain a familiar at level 1. Costs: You lose all of your class feats. Your heritage must include some exposure to high level magic, and thus among those well-versed in high level magic, you are likely to have notoreity." (Note that to me, this doesn't seem very balanced at all.) Even smarter would separate out the "gaining familiar" (one class feat) and "spell per day per level" (four class feats) benefits/costs.

[DreadArchon]

Even without the alignment striction or the code of conduct, to me Paladins arent anything but lawful and good. The title just has too many connotations for me.

Oh, you're correct. But in ignoring class fluff, I saw no reason to pay any more attention to the name of the class than to its code of conduct. Much as the party I DM for has a Succubus that acts like a 2nd Ed. Planescape Ghaele and two assassins who are good-aligned and typically don't murder or even hunt down villains (they usually travel around and broker trade agreements, actually).

[Tormsskull]

When people say that a class is just a collection of skills/abilities, it makes me wonder why they are playing a game that uses classes? Why not simply play a game that doesn't use classes, and allows you to pick skills/abilities to make up your character?

From what I have heard, there are far better systems than D&D at doing what you want.

In my eyes, a class is a collections of skills, abilities, and fluff twined together. If you try to edge out fluff because you just don't like it, then you should just homebrew a new class. I think that players want their classes to be more legitimate than homebrew (lets face it, anyone can homebrew a class, even if it isn't any good), so they take existing classes and cut out what doesn't have a specific mechanical effect (fluff), and then call it balanced.

Really, cutting out the fluff from a Role Playing game is pretty odd IMO.

[Matthew]

I think I tend to agree. Most Base Classes are just modified Generic Classes.

[Counterspin]

There seem to be some people in this thread who are expressing misconceptions about my quote. I think this is because I was incompletely quoted. To quote myself at greater length.

"I want the classes stripped down to sleek little building blocks which I can combine and then festoon with fluff. I want the possibility of blighter druids who are tricking nature for their powers, paladins of highly questionable morality, lawful barbarians, lawful bards, chaotic monks."

I don't need the game to give me fluff, and I certainly don't want there to be any fluff(the word fluff as used here includes alignment restrictions to classes and rules for falling out of grace with one's deity or nature, as well as things like 2e tithing) that restricts my capacity to build. D&D is a framework, and I would like the tent to be as big as possible. I don't see why I should throw out perfectly good crunch because it conflicts with fluff, or why I should be expected to homebrew when the crunch that I want already exists.

Again, I don't want to cut out the fluff, I want to supply my own, better fluff, and I would rather the rules moved away from restricting that.

As for why I play D&D, it's because it produces the kind of combat that I want. D&D harkens back to its wargame roots in a way that I find agreeable.

Additionally, on a parlimentarian note, if you could send me a message when you start a thread based on one of my quotes, informing me of such, that would be appreciated.