What if Paladins need to do Good instead of not do Evil?

I'm starting to think that the current rule that a paladin will lose his powers if he willfully commits an evil act tends to create an apprehensive and defensive mindset in paladin players, and tends to result in paladin PCs that act more like insipid bureaucrats than pro-active heros.

So, what if we turned that rule on its head? Instead of requiring paladins to avoid doing evil or face a penalty, require them to do good in order to gain their abilities. Let's say that before a paladin can gain another paladin level, he has to do at least one of the following since the time he last gained a level:

- Earned at least (Character Level x 500) XP from the defeat of evil creatures.
- Saved or spared a life.
- Spent a day tending to the injured or sick.
- Resolved a conflict through non-violent means.
- Stopped someone from committing an evil act.
- Inspired someone to do a good act.
- Made a tithe (in gold or useful items) to his church or a Lawful Good organization equal to 10% of the standard wealth level for a character of his next level (so a 1st-level paladin will need to tithe 90 gp, 10% of the standard wealth of a 2nd-level character).
- Any other significant act of good (as determined by the DM).

The character must still retain his lawful good alignment in order to use his paladin abilities, but unless he actually changes his alignment, a single evil act will not cause him to lose them.

How do you think this will change the way that paladins are played?

Rewarding good behavior is always more productive than punishing bad behaviors, although in the real world, you need both (a little negative consequences of un-desirable behaviors) to achieve positive results.

FireLance said:

How do you think this will change the way that paladins are played?

Click to expand...

People would consider Paladins wusses instead of smiters.

And yes, that's bad.

Numion said:

People would consider Paladins wusses instead of smiters.

Click to expand...

Says who? May I direct your attention to the Knights Hospitaler?

Nobody's saying that they would have to eschew the more martial aspects of the class, just that a Paladin would have to actively do good, rather than just not do evil. Note that one of the optional prerequisites in the OP is to earn XP totalling 500 x lvl destroying evil. If that's not smiting, I don't know what is...

FireLance said:

How do you think this will change the way that paladins are played?

Click to expand...

Looks like a good idea.

I think paladins will do good deeds more or less automatically, though they have some leeway in how to do that.

The prohibition against doing evil is there to make sure they don't stray from the path. And let's not forget the proverb:

"For evil to prosper all it needs is for good people to do nothing."

In my opinion, paladins should do good deeds not so that they can cross off a list and collect enough bonus points until they get a reward (= another level). They should do good things because it is the right thing to do. The penalties for doing evil exist as a reminder that the end should not justify the means.

Players will play paladins in a way that gets them rewards. If the DM is handing out XP for a paladin who helps old ladies across the street, then that's what players will do with their paladins...

Dave

From a game mechanics standpoint, I think your re-imagining of the paladin's code works well, but from an rp standpoint it allows for the straying off the path, so long as the "good quota" is met.

Snarky Player of a level 2 Paladin: "Well, that's 1000 xp of evil outsiders, I'm off to roast a baby."
DM: "..."

I think the best solution is to merge your suggestions into the existing prohibitions on evil acts, ie do no evil acts or your powers go away AND do these good things, or you can't level up, works well mechanically, though I know some people will be upset by the idea of having their actions so railroaded, so it's not the solution for everyone, just for the people who want mechanical descriptions of what it means to be good in terms of a paladin and their code.

From a metagame standpoint, I think you've done a good job sumarizing Good, without getting too specific, which is always a problem with sumarizing the nature of good and evil.

DJC

DJCupboard said:

From a game mechanics standpoint, I think your re-imagining of the paladin's code works well, but from an rp standpoint it allows for the straying off the path, so long as the "good quota" is met.

Click to expand...

As long as the "good quota" is met and he maintains his Lawful Good alignment. If the PC makes a habit of roasting babies, his alignment is going to slip sooner or later.

I like DJCupboard's suggestion - that you can lose powers for Evil (or violations of your deity's edicts), AND that you only gain levels after prerequisite Good (or acts of special service to your church/deity).

- Torm the True, posting "me, too"s like some braindead AOLer since 1993.