Pathfinder 1E Paladin Alignments - More than just LG?

Traveon Wyvernspur said:

How about for Neutral Good Paladins and Neutral Evil Anti-Paladins?

Click to expand...

Chaotic (anti)paladins might get more "strikes" (chances to fail at their code) than neutrals, who might get more strikes than lawful.

Taking away a paladin's power isn't necessarily "punishment" from the PoV of the god, but taking back a bad investment or registering disappointment.

IMO, the ability to arbitrarily gain or lose power has nothing to do with game balance, and the real problem paladins have run into is unclear alignments and very poorly-written codes (plus DMs and other players who turn into jerks when there's a paladin around, and paladins who turn into holy rollers who cramp everyone's style or are clearly not playing their alignment).

A player gets fair warning if they're given as clear a code as possible.

I find it interesting that you say that the different Law/Neutral/Chaos would get a different amount of "strikes" Psi. I'd say that they'd have the same amount of strikes vs their particular codes. For example if a CE Paladin willfully does good acts and perhaps kills high ranking members of his clergy (not for power, but to help some good guys succeed) he'd be in some serious trouble with his deity. That deity wouldn't want to invest their powers into him anymore as he's obviously not up to the job. So I guess the codes will have to be from something like the Faiths of Purity/Faiths of Corruption under the deities, at least that's what I'll probably be going with. I'll have to look at those books a bit more closely and mold them with some of the paladin, anti-paladin, and paladin variant codes from the UA. I also like the stuff posted about Palladium and will have to take some of that into account.

I made a CG Paladin Alternate Class for my own setting, called the Freedom Knight. A bunch of powers are different for the FK than for the base Paladin, so I won't go into detail on that, but I decided it would make things more interesting to have the CG and LE Paladin variants focus on the other alignment axis- you know, the one most people and fantasy authors whose names aren't Michael Moorcock ignore. Here's the Freedom Knight's Code of Conduct lines:

• Code of Conduct: A Freedom Knight must be of Chaotic Good alignment, and loses all class features except proficiencies if he or she willingly commits Lawful acts simply because those acts happen to be in accord with the local legal code. Freedom Knights must keep watchful for authorities misusing their power, and do their best to free those caught under the thumb of such tyrants from the grip of oppression. This does not mean that Freedom Knights are prohibited from obeying the law in a given jurisdiction; it only means that the Freedom Knight must undertake such actions because they happen to agree with his or her own moral and ethical code (and in particular, that the character never lets abuses of power go unpunished). For this purpose, "abuse of power" may be taken to mean any action taken by any being with authority such that it curtails the freedom of choice (or lessens the quality of life) of beings who according to the local law are subject to that authority. This can include anything from a police officer beating a prisoner for information, to a tax official taking a bribe so as to "find a tax code loophole" for a rich citizen that poorer citizens are unable to take advantage of.
• Associates: Freedom Knights may adventure with characters of any Chaotic or Neutral (with respect to Law and Chaos) alignment, but are not allowed to associate with creatures or people of Lawful alignment unless those individuals consistently try to use the law to help other people rather than hurt (or merely control) them. Under exceptional circumstances, a Freedom Knight can ally with Lawful associates who are trying to use the law for other ends, but only to defeat and subvert them from within (and preferably, to get the laws in question changed or entirely repealed). A Freedom Knight does not need an Atonement spell during such an unusual alliance, as long as the goal of greater freedom (meaning, less pressure from the law) is met in the end- Chaos cares about the result more than the method. A Freedom Knight may only accept henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are Chaotic Good.
• Ex-Freedom Knights: A Freedom Knight who ceases to be Chaotic Good, who willfully commits a Lawful act purely for the sake of the law, or who violates the code of conduct above loses all Freedom Knight spells and class features (including the Divine Freedom, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). He or she may not progress any further in levels as a Freedom Knight. He or she regains the lost abilities and advancement potential if he or she atones for the violations (see the Atonement spell), as appropriate.

The FK gets Detect Law and Smite Law instead of Evil, of course. And the LE version focuses its ire against Chaos rather than Good- though I actually haven't finished working out its full power suite yet. Anyway, hopefully the above can be of some use to somebody.

Paladins are LG ("sinister agents"), never cared for the variants.

I agree with @paradox42 that the Paladin has traditionally been expected to be lG, not Lg, and prioitize Good over Law. If we are taking the step of converting the Paladin to a crusader for one alignment, whatever that alignment may be, perhaps we should step back from that viewpoint. A NG Paladin would espouse Good only. He would Detect and Smite Evil, and Law and Chaos would be unimportant to him. Similar the other "pure" alignments. A CN Paladin would believe in freedom and indiviuality above all else. The CN Paladin would not believe one's right to swing one's fist ends where another's nose begins - nothing can curtail individual freedom - where the CG paladin would balance that freedom with the wellbeing of others, probably having the more traditional view that the right to swing one's fist ends where another's nose begins.

Perhaps this requires non-polar alignments select one of the two elements to predominate. The classic lG Paladin will compromise Law in the interests of Good, detects evil, smites evil and will lose his powers from commission of even a single Evil act. But the Lg Paladin will compromise Good in the interests of Law, detects chaos, smites chaos and will lose his powers from commission of even a single Lawful act. Unlike the traditional Paladin, who tends to work with other Good characters, and even Neutral (but not Evil) characters, the lG paladin might be more comfortable in a mixed group of LG, LN and even LE companions than in a group of LG, CG and NG companions.

This posits Paladins of alignments, rather than paladins of deities. However, I think the key to the Paladin is a dedication to an ideal, and unswerving devotion to same.

I don't think a different alignment or devotion should allow the Paladin more "chances" before losing his powers, merely different standards. While they might approach Good differently, both the lG and cG Paladin would lose their powers for the intentional commission of and Evil act. Chaotic or Lawful, both are sworn to the tenets of Good, and expected to be a shining example of those principals. Failing in that devotion would cause both to fall from grace.

Remove this devotion to an ideal, and I think we no longer have the Paladin at its core. That devotion is the crux of both Paladin and Anti-Paladin, and should remain at the core of any other "alignment archetypes".

Traveon Wyvernspur said:

I find it interesting that you say that the different Law/Neutral/Chaos would get a different amount of "strikes" Psi. I'd say that they'd have the same amount of strikes vs their particular codes.

Click to expand...

I'd certainly agree with this. If nothing else, it wouldn't be fair to hold one alignment to a higher standard than another, especially given that the loss associated with falling from grace is so significant.

For example if a CE Paladin willfully does good acts...

Click to expand...

Actually, I disagree here. For the Evil variants, I would suggest that they shouldn't be required to refrain from doing good, as such, but rather they should be required to actively do evil. And if a character is not evil enough (the Diet Coke of evil), then they should fall.

I'll have to look at those books a bit more closely and mold them with some of the paladin, anti-paladin, and paladin variant codes from the UA. I also like the stuff posted about Palladium and will have to take some of that into account.

Click to expand...

At one point, I was looking at the possbilities of removing alignment from the game, but retaining the Paladin code. One of the things I considered would be that Paladins would be bound by a code made up of 4-8 specific, easily-stated oaths. (I actually lifted the code from the "Knights of the Old Code" from "Dragonheart".)

If the Paladin were to fall short of one of these strictures, the infraction would be listed as either a minor or major infraction. Of course, a major infraction would result in an immediate fall, after which the Paladin should seek an atonement/ spell, and probably a quest to recover his powers.

However, for minor infractions, this would simply be recorded, and the Paladin continues as before. But if the Paladin should record a minor infraction on each of his strictures then, again, the Paladin would fall, and require atonement and a quest.

One further detail: the Paladin should not be able to use atonement to clear his record of minor infractions until such time as he has actually fallen. The reason for this is two-fold: firstly, it allows for the portrayal of a flawed Paladin (because once he's fallen short once on his oath of chastity, he might as well continue), but secondly because it just makes it all that little bit too easy - they can claim atonement when it's convenient and easy, rather than having to deal with the consequences of his character flaws.

But I never quite got around to implementing such a thing - truth is, nobody in my current group is particularly interested in playing a Paladin anyway.

I think there's a balance to be struck here, as well. If the character's sole reason for keeping to his vows is that he doesn't want to lose his kewl powers, then he's not much of a Paladin to begin with, and should play something else.

At the same time, the GM should not view it as his mission in life to set Paladins up for failure. My basic rule of thumb is that, unless there is a "right answer", no answer can be wrong. "Moral Dilemma" is an opportunity to explore the personality and mindset of the Paladin, not to screw the player over. If his only choice is "a lesser evil or a greater evil", then to me, that's a GM screwup - the Paladin should be able to succeed without compromising his moral code. If he is placed in a situation where some compromise is unavoiable, then he should not be penalized for playing the cards he has been dealt.

@delericho - I guess the way that I meant by not actively doing good was the same in my mind as always doing evil. I looked at the Anti-Paladin code again last night and it says they will work with good aligned characters and so some good as long as it furthers their evil ways. So as long as they have a plan in place in order to screw over good, they can do it to get to the end product. I'm thinking la double-agent type of situation would be a perfect example where they pretend to be good to get in with someone and then once inside they initiate their evil plan.

I also agree that a system of marks against paladins should be a part of the process for how they far and how long it takes them. Good point on the atonement, I'll make sure to put that into my rules for them.

That's too bad that no one in your group is interested at this time, perhaps someone will do it later on.

@N'raac - Totally agree with you. When I GM I don't like to present too many of those moral dilemmas where there isn't a right answer to a paladin. They are as fallible as the next person, even if they try to adhere to a stricter code. No one is perfect, so unless they do something seriously against their codes I don't "ding" them for choosing the greater good in those situations. The same can be said for how I play my Paladins. I don't always make the best choices, but I try to make good choices that I can live with and stick as close to my codes as possible.

To everyone: Great stuff, it's giving me a lot to think about and a lot of great ideas for how I'll implement my own system. Keep it coming!

gamerprinter said:

The question I have, is how people are playing the edicts of cavaliers and samurai? Are they as restrictive on cavalier/samurai edicts, as they are with with a paladin's edicts?

Click to expand...

Broadly speaking, there are two ways to model such characters. Either they're essentially 'just' Fighters, perhaps with a few specific abilities chosen (to model their mounted combat abilities, etc), or there's something mystical about them - that is, the Samurai gains some of his powers as a consequence of oaths he has made to serve his lord (and therefore would lose should he ever become ronin).

In the former case, the codes followed by such characters are purely a matter of flavour text, and can be broken with impunity.

In the latter case, I would adopt the stuff I wrote about Paladins having a small number of specific oaths to follow, plus the stuff about minor and major infractions, atonement, etc. After all, once you move from "must follow alignment X", there's no reason the code has to alignment-esque at all.

delericho said:

Broadly speaking, there are two ways to model such characters. Either they're essentially 'just' Fighters, perhaps with a few specific abilities chosen (to model their mounted combat abilities, etc), or there's something mystical about them - that is, the Samurai gains some of his powers as a consequence of oaths he has made to serve his lord (and therefore would lose should he ever become ronin).


In the latter case, I would adopt the stuff I wrote about Paladins having a small number of specific oaths to follow, plus the stuff about minor and major infractions, atonement, etc. After all, once you move from "must follow alignment X", there's no reason the code has to alignment-esque at all.

Click to expand...

I can agree that cavaliers are pretty much fighters with a few special abilities. However I treat samurai a bit differently, especially since I helped develop a 3PP product specifically about samurai, Rite Publishing Way of the Samurai. While that supplement describes player classes of the samurai caste, not just the samurai player class, there are 4 samurai archetypes - one of which has some spell-like powers, as well as powers granted by a specific samurai order.

The Tajiya samurai archetype is a kind of paladin-like samurai archetype built around the concept as an oni-slayer, though other outsiders and undead slaying fall in their purview as well. And the Order of the Tajiya applies and perhaps reflects the problems that paladins seem to have. Being paladin-like means that following required edicts have greater ramifications than standard samurai.

I do realize of course, this being a 3PP class, and not well known, it has a much lower impact in discussions about D&D/PF class issues.

I really posted because, paladins are one of those concept classes that seem to generate endless arguments regarding alignment and edicts. In the face of new PF classes that also have their edicts, I never see threads about them. I was wondering why there is no real issues with those classes, but always and endlessly so about paladins. Of course, alignment seems to be the real issue here.