Neutral Paladin

[Aeric]

Waaay back in 1E there was an issue of Dragon magazine that had a paladin class for each of the other eight alignments. The LN paladin was all about enforcing law and order, the CN paladin was all about freedom and anarchy, and the N paladin was all about preserving the balance. In its concept, it was fairly unplayable; the character was expected to switch sides in any conflict where one side had the advantage over the other.

Something to keep in mind is that paladins (as written) are not champions of a specific god; those are clerics. While a particular god/dess may suit the paladin's philosophy, and some gods may exist only to serve as a patron for paladins (like Heironeous), paladins serve a higher calling: The Code. They actively promote the ideals of their alignment. A paladin of tyrrany (LE) from UA is not simply an evil warrior; he strongly believes in the LE philosophy, and goes out of his way to show everyone around him that his way is the right way.

With this in mind, a paladin of neutrality seems to be a contradiction in terms. Paladins are very proactive characters, travelling the land, working to shape the world according to their philosophy and Code. Neutral characters by definition don't go out of their way to do anything, good or evil. They take care of themselves and their friends and that's it. Unlike in previous editions, neutrality isn't an ethos, it's a lack of ethos. And since paladins are defined by their strong dedication to an ethos, neutrality just wouldn't fit.

All of this is, of course, my opinion. YMMV, etc.

 

[Aeric]

Depends on the local cosmology and your beliefs. If you think something really bad is going to happen to the cosmos if Good gains the upper hand, then trying to balance Good with Evil might be justified.

I read a really interesting book based on that idea a couple of years back. In it, the forces of good had finally triumphed over evil, and the world was on the brink of being consumed by positive energy. The protagonists of this book were essentially a bunch of evil PCs who go on a quest to bring evil back into the world, in order to restore the balance. The whole thing was done slightly tongue-in-cheek, but I've always wanted to run a game based on it.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

In BECMI/Rules Compendium D&D, there were Paladins exclusive to lawful fighters, Avengers exclusive to chaotic fighters, Knights for any alignment fighters. BECMI/Rules Compendium D&D did not have a good/evil alignment axis.

 

[Tuzenbach]

It's hard to figure out what the code of a TN paladin is supposed to be. I mean, the code is supposed to be hard to follow, but probably the majority of all people are True Neutral, so how difficult can it be?

I mean, I can see a True Neutral long-term political agenda (prevent both overly large political entities that dominate the world and areas of total anarchy), but it's hard to envision smaller, day-to-day events where the True Neutral response would be clear and obvious.

IMHO, a True Neutral Paladin would be nothing more than a spell-less Druid with really nice armour and a huge sword.

 

[Bardsandsages]

I reject the "active balance neutrality." If you seek to balance good with evil, then you are evil.

Karla the witch is neutral or evil, depending on your view (she possesses/mind controls innocent people; that's definitely an evil act).

That depends on your worldview. Remember her history. She was there when Lodoss was first cursed and saw firsthand what happens when one power gets out of control. In order to insure that that never happens again, she takes it upon herself to actively maintain the balance.

Look at the Jedi. They would probably be considered True Nuetral. They tolerated slavery, which is obviously an evil institution. They mind control innocent people all the time (Jedi Mind Trick). But they were taking a more long term view of the cosmos.

And remember, some things one culture defines as "good" are "evil" in another. In some parts of the world, cows are sacred creatures. McDonalds is definately "evil" by those standards. I've met vegetarians who think meat eaters are murderers. A true nuetral person would aspire to insure that no one particular view is imposed on everyone. And that might mean committing what others would believe are "evil" acts in order to meet that goal.

 

[BroccoliRage]

Not in my game.

 

[molonel]

Ah yes. The Paladin of Apathy. He can "Smite the Strongly Opinionated" once per day.

No. I wouldn't allow a neutral paladin. If I had a Paladin of the Balance, it would be Lawful Neutral.

 

[seans23]

This makes me wonder what an appropriate Neutral version of Blasphemy/Dictum/[un]Holy Word would look like.

Apathy, affects non-neutral creatures in a 40-ft.-radius spread centered on you...

 

[smootrk]

The old dragon magazine article had Neutral Paladin types... called Paramander for the the 'maintain balance' frame of mind. I liked it. It also had the Paramandyr which had a more militant mindset, of 'fixing the balance' mentality achieved through directly fighting those who have bent the balance to one side or another. Essentially one was a bit more peaceful hippy way, and the other was more like militant P.E.T.A. or E.L.F. members who 'fight' to restore the natural order of things.

 

[Fieari]

I always thought TN Paladins were just called Harpers.

Man do I loathe harpers. I despise them, in fact.