What DO you DO for... Paladins?

[StreamOfTheSky]

IMC we use something very similar to the UA variant, with four "Paladin" subclasses: the Guardian (LG), Crusader (CG), Blackguard (LE), and Shadow Knight (CE). Anything saying "Paladin" refers to all four subclasses.

The differences:
1> The "Smite" and "Detect" abilites are switched to the Law/Chaos axis. We really hated how Detect Evil became carte blanche to attack things.
2> All of the disease immunity/removal abilities are removed.
3> When he first gains spellcasting ability, each Paladin selects one domain of his patron deity. He can now swap any spell for the domain spell of that level, in a manner similar to how Clerics swap.
4> The mounts were completely reworked to be more useful at high level. I posted it on these boards way back three years ago here, but we've updated it a little since then. For one thing, we now have half the abilities come at even levels and the other half come at odd levels, so you always get something at each level.
5> "Avenger" weapons come in all four varieties (Holy, Unholy, Chaotic, Axiomatic); each Paladin subclass qualifies for two based on its alignments.
6> "Fallen" Paladins can switch to one of the other three subclasses if their alignments shift far enough, using Atonement to gain the analogues of the abilities they lost.

Other than that, most of our changes were similar to those in the UA versions, so when those variants were put in the SRD we changed parts of ours to match.

#1 Did you also go more lenient on the code of conduct? Good paladins cannot willingly/knowingly cooperate with evil characters normally, nor have followers and such that are evil. Without detect evil, their code is MUCH harder to follow as written.

#2 What did you replace this loss with? Being the only class with magical disease immunity is pretty sweet. For example, when fighting mummies.

#3 Is there a house rule in there? Because normally, clerics don't swap out a spell for a domain spell, they just get an extra slot for a domain spell.

#4 Alright, sorry. I guess this is to counter-balance number 2. Still, I never really liked the mount and if I were the player and lost a class ability, I'd rather not replace it by strengthening an ability I don't plan to use. My biggest issue is, unless you're a small paladin on a riding dog, why bother investing in a combat style you can't even use in most dungeons? Oh well, sorry for the rant.

#5 and #6 Nice ideas, perfectly understandable.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Also, I'd like to see if anyone shares my viewpoint on this: I like the idea of the UA varients, but I just think they aren't all 'balanced". Especially the LG and CG paladins. CG gets immunity to compulsions (and charms, too, I think) and gives bonus to party members against it. The LG paladin gets this for fear. I have never even seen fear used in a game yet. Even if it were used, all it does is either give small penalties or force the party to flee or fight at reduced strength (if the fearful ones flee). Compulsions, on the other hand, get used A LOT. Not only that, but turning the meat shield on the wizard is just far more devastating. In the first case, if the PC runs away, the party's at -1. In the latter case, party's at -1 AND the enemy's at +1.

Plus, the code for CG is less strict, which while sensible, seems unfair to the LG paladin. Finally, the gain of bluff as a class skill, for a class that has a high cha makes them potentially better at feinting than a rogue. Not to mention all the wonderful skill synergies from ranks in bluff.

Anyone else feel the same way?

 

[Spatzimaus]

#1 Did you also go more lenient on the code of conduct? ...
Without detect evil, their code is MUCH harder to follow as written.

That's the point. Players were using detect evil as a crutch; as long as the party detected as non-evil, they just wrote this limitation off. If an NPC detected as evil, they'd automatically treat him as an enemy; refuse to deal with him, attack him, whatever. This isn't a good thing; it ruined roleplaying, and made any kind of complex evil characters infeasible.

Because of these issues, we had house-ruled detect evil early on. The "evil creature" line was basically removed; simply having the evil alignment wasn't enough to trigger a magical reaction. You had to either have spells with an [Evil] descriptor on you, have items created with [Evil] spells on you, be a cleric/paladin of an Evil-aligned deity, be a creature with the [Evil] descriptor (outsiders), be Undead, or be IN THE PROCESS of committing an extremely evil action/praying to an Evil deity. Point is, there's a difference between "evil" and "Evil".

So, replacing detect evil with detect law didn't drastically affect the code of conduct; in either case we were already requiring the Paladin to put some actual effort into maintaining his code. Oh, and sense motive and bluff became pretty popular.

#2 What did you replace this loss with? Being the only class with magical disease immunity is pretty sweet. For example, when fighting mummies.

#3 Is there a house rule in there? Because normally, clerics don't swap out a spell for a domain spell, they just get an extra slot for a domain spell.

#2 is more than balanced by #3. Also, I should mention that we added a custom Purification domain for Paladin-heavy deities, whose granted power is, you guessed it, disease immunity, and whose low-level domain spells are bless, lesser restoration, remove disease, and neutralize poison. So, Paladins could swap for those and still get the same functionality as before.

As for #3, two points:
1> When I said "as cleric", I meant "they swap for this domain spell in the same way Clerics swap for cure/inflict spells", meaning in regards to casting time, metamagic, etc.
2> But now that you mention it, we DID alter Clerics. Instead of getting an extra spell slot per day for domain spells, they pick one domain spell for each spell level (ie, fill the domain slot with it, as normal), and THAT is the spell they swap a given spell level for. So, an Air/Travel Cleric decides whether to swap his 1st-level spells for obscuring mist or longstrider for the day, and so on.

#4 Alright, sorry. I guess this is to counter-balance number 2.

Actually, no. In terms of raw power, the mount isn't really any stronger than before. Much more flexible, and with access to a few extra abilities, but one possible end result of this system is pretty much identical to what'd happen if you used the DotF rule that let you wait a level to take a Celestial Warhorse as a mount. We had basically made this change LONG before we made the others I've mentioned.

Part of this was to get around the fact that certain Mount items became "must-buy" items for Paladins, depleting their resources. Part of it was to give access to spell-like abilities that'd let the mount still keep up with the party at high levels. And part was just for flavor.

At one point, we had two Paladins in the group.
One was an Elven LG Guardian, basically a conversion of an existing Paladin; his horse, Misthered, had boosted STR and DR, with a smite ability and a 100' foot speed. He had a few of the problems you're thinking of, but really, by level 20 you're not doing too much time in cramped dungeons anyway.
The other was a Halfling CG Crusader (originally a Fighter/Ranger, I think) with a Medium-sized Dire Weasel "mount" named "Mittens", who could go anywhere the party could (and then some). Since the Paladin had taken the Feat I mentioned in the other thread, Mittens at level 20 could fly, had a 75' land speed, spell resistance 30, Darkvision 60', an AC of 31 before items/buffs, and could plane shift twice per day. Oh, and +18-19 for Hide, Move Silently, and Spot. All this was at the cost of other abilities, though; he had no DR, low STR, and so on.

I also left out one other change:
7> Paladins and Monks can multiclass freely with the race's Favored Class, as long as Paladin/Monk remains the highest class. (For Humans, the first other class they take levels in is the "Favored Class" for this purpose.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Multiple prestige classes, designed to reflect the interests/portfolios of various deities.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

7> Paladins and Monks can multiclass freely with the race's Favored Class, as long as Paladin/Monk remains the highest class. (For Humans, the first other class they take levels in is the "Favored Class" for this purpose.)

That all sounds good. Most games I'm in, the DM's change how detect evil works in a similar way as you do. i think it'd work best if there's simply an out-of-game agreement between player and DM not to use it as an instant ticket to smite, ie killing any creature that isn't powerful evil cleric/demon/etc... just due to their alignment isn't ok, not to mention unlawful. Sure, they may shirk at getting help from an evil NPC, but that's supposed to be their attitude. DM needs to provide the reason why cooperating with an evil character is for the "greater good."

#7 is nice, too. I go further and either completely eliminate the multiclassing restriction or at least let them multiclass freely in classes and PrC of "similar mentality": monk, samurai, kensai (well, they already could take this one...), cleric of their diety, etc...

 

[Spatzimaus]

i think it'd work best if there's simply an out-of-game agreement between player and DM not to use it as an instant ticket to smite, ie killing any creature that isn't powerful evil cleric/demon/etc... just due to their alignment isn't ok, not to mention unlawful.

Unfortunately, in my experience that just isn't enough. I'll give an example.

In a campaign I was in, the big enemy was... an Aristocrat! A very influential, very rich guy ("Mr. Rourke") with all sorts of fun skills and Leadership. He was definitely evil, but did all of his really nasty stuff through intermediaries (including a Werepanther Halfling Barbarian/Bard/Ranger/Fighter/Rogue/Assassin/Blackguard/Shadowdancer named "Tattoo").
He had spent a LOT of effort to make a public persona of a philanthropist and such. Of course, as an influential person he had items for mind blank and the like, because someone that important wouldn't want to be the subject of any divinations.

Now, what would have happened if any level 1 Paladin could have immediately identified him as evil? Sure, it'd be unlawful for the Paladin to just walk up and smite him, but simply announcing to the world that he was evil would have been enough to ruin his plans.

Even if the players won't use it as a ticket to smite, it still trivializes far too many non-combat encounters. Basically, it just tells far too much information for a level 1 spell/ability.

 

[green slime]

Unfortunately, in my experience that just isn't enough. I'll give an example.

In a campaign I was in, the big enemy was... an Aristocrat! A very influential, very rich guy ("Mr. Rourke") with all sorts of fun skills and Leadership. He was definitely evil, but did all of his really nasty stuff through intermediaries (including a Werepanther Halfling Barbarian/Bard/Ranger/Fighter/Rogue/Assassin/Blackguard/Shadowdancer named "Tattoo").
He had spent a LOT of effort to make a public persona of a philanthropist and such. Of course, as an influential person he had items for mind blank and the like, because someone that important wouldn't want to be the subject of any divinations.

Now, what would have happened if any level 1 Paladin could have immediately identified him as evil? Sure, it'd be unlawful for the Paladin to just walk up and smite him, but simply announcing to the world that he was evil would have been enough to ruin his plans.

Even if the players won't use it as a ticket to smite, it still trivializes far too many non-combat encounters. Basically, it just tells far too much information for a level 1 spell/ability.

I disagree. Most 1st level paladins probably wouldn't get within 60 feet of such a wealthy, influential philanthropist. And if they did, what is their motive to just throw up a detect evil check? It isn't exactly the most polite thing to do in refined society (Excuse me while I connect you to my lie detector...no,no, don't mind me at all.)

Then to be foolish enough to actually publically announce the result of said detect evil check, why, the mind bogggles. Firstly, if it is true, it reveals nothing about his plans, motives, or methods. Secondly, it will always result in you having earned an enemy, regardless of whether the reading was actually correct, or the result of someone's else's misdirection, or similar. How credible is the reading of one singular 1st level self-proclaimed Paladin?

Any collection of wealthy individuals is bound to turn up a few evil-doers, and ne'er-do-wells. Doesn't mean they are E-V-I-L.

In fact, by the book, non-Clerics and the like barely register at all. So is this first level paladin wandering around the bazaar denouncing every greedy merchant?

 

[Spatzimaus]

Most 1st level paladins probably wouldn't get within 60 feet of such a wealthy, influential philanthropist.

You don't think a person in a city can avoid being within 60' of any Paladin OR Cleric at some point in his life? Clerics get it as a level 1 spell, Paladins do this at will. I can GUARANTEE that any important person in my games has been within 60' of a Paladin or Cleric within each month, if only because they effectively run the local government. But even in a more general setting I'd say it's effectively impossible to avoid this sort of contact, especially if you're trying to maintain some sort of public persona. The only way to avoid this is to be a total recluse.

And if they did, what is their motive to just throw up a detect evil check?

Because it's "at will". There's no gameplay reason not to use it regularly, especially since you can maintain concentration while walking, talking, etc., so within a city it's a pretty fair assumption that the Paladins would have it up BEFORE the conversation started.

It isn't exactly the most polite thing to do in refined society (Excuse me while I connect you to my lie detector...no,no, don't mind me at all.)

Most middle-ages societies didn't have anything like the 5th Amendment. If you didn't have anything to hide, why would you object to being detected by a duly-appointed representative of the Law? I'm not saying that every Paladin had carte blanche to interrogate every random person they met, but if one Paladin went out of his way to scan the guy, which do you think his order would be more upset with: him, for offending the rich guy, or the aristocrat, for being EVIL?

Now, as I noted before, this Aristocrat had all kinds of anti-divination stuff, because he was publicly paranoid about his mind being read, but he had at previous times successfully been detected as good. (Due to some well-placed bribes and some high-level magic, but it was enough that most people wouldn't question it.) He'd have never been able to get away with this otherwise; Paladins are dedicated to fighting evil, they'd have never tolerated someone resisting their magic simply because it was a bit impolite.

Then to be foolish enough to actually publically announce the result of said detect evil check, why, the mind bogggles.

Any Paladin who knows of evil and helps cover it up has just given clear help to those who will use that help for evil ends (or at the very least has failed to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents"), has just violated his code of conduct in a couple different ways, and is now a featless Fighter. Congrats, you're hosed.

There's a difference between cooperating with an evil being to accomplish some greater good, and backing down from an evil being because you're afraid of offending him.

Firstly, if it is true, it reveals nothing about his plans, motives, or methods.

Err, yes it does. He has an evil alignment, this pretty much DOES reveal his motives and/or methods. And I quote:

""Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."

It doesn't give specifics about what exact methods he uses, but simply proving the merchant is evil in a good-aligned town would be enough to get him run out on a rail, at the very least. A neutral town might not care as much, but even they'd be a bit iffy. The reason isn't that you've discovered some clear evidence of a crime; you've just proven that he's committed many crimes in the past, and a little digging and/or divinations should reveal them. If he hadn't committed crimes, he wouldn't have an Evil alignment in the first place. (Just one of many problems with the D&D alignment system.)

Secondly, it will always result in you having earned an enemy,

As I said before, any paladin who compromises on this simply because of those sorts of worldly consequences has just violated his code of conduct. Second, it's an enemy who's entire basis for power has just disappeared, assuming he even survives the inevitable investigation into his earlier activities.
Third, even the non-Paladins in my groups wouldn't back down out of fear of making another enemy; they'd go after him anyway, and just add another bad guy to the "To Do" list.

regardless of whether the reading was actually correct, or the result of someone's else's misdirection, or similar. How credible is the reading of one singular 1st level self-proclaimed Paladin?

Does the spell, as listed, have an inherent chance of failure? Nope. Sure, the target can argue that some other enchantment changed the result, but the burden of proof is now effectively on him; people will be suspicious of him, and would ask for confirmation from someone with access to higher magics.
For misdirection or undetectable alignment, one good dispelling (and a detect magic to confirm no enchantments are on the target) would ensure the detection spells report correctly. So, it wouldn't take very long to confirm or disprove the original reading.

Any collection of wealthy individuals is bound to turn up a few evil-doers, and ne'er-do-wells. Doesn't mean they are E-V-I-L.

Would you go into business with a man you know to be evil, even assuming the town would tolerate his presence at all? There's a difference between someone who does the occasional evil act (meaning they're probably a Neutral alignment) and someone who actually has an Evil alignment.

In fact, by the book, non-Clerics and the like barely register at all.

Evil Creature is HD-based. If non-Cleric class levels count as "HD" for these purposes (which I'd say they should), then a high-level (11+) Aristocrat would have a Moderate aura. That's well above "barely register"ing; it's the same as what an 8th-level Evil Cleric would register as.

 

[green slime]

You don't think a person in a city can avoid being within 60' of any Paladin OR Cleric at some point in his life? Clerics get it as a level 1 spell, Paladins do this at will. I can GUARANTEE that any important person in my games has been within 60' of a Paladin or Cleric within each month, if only because they effectively run the local government. But even in a more general setting I'd say it's effectively impossible to avoid this sort of contact, especially if you're trying to maintain some sort of public persona. The only way to avoid this is to be a total recluse.

Which would you believe? A pillar of the community, a reknown doer of good-deeds and life-long donater to various charities, with a record of previous good alignment detection on him, or some down-on-his-luck, low level adventurer, with a symbol of the god of justice slapped on his shield in a makeshift fashion? Guess who looses this popularity contest? WHY would they have reason to do it? DO they check each and every beggar, townsmith, crier? And of what crime do they then accuse them? He is (moderately) Evil! Well.... with a decent chunk of the population registering as faintly Evil, he has a lot of work to do...

Because it's "at will". There's no gameplay reason not to use it regularly, especially since you can maintain concentration while walking, talking, etc., so within a city it's a pretty fair assumption that the Paladins would have it up BEFORE the conversation started.

There is: It takes three rounds of concentration to get the information you want. IMG, this concentration is obvious, and regarded as impolite action in genteel society. Like, you do not trust anyone. Do it, and people get snotty with you. Try it on a shopkeeper, and they might thow you out for insinuating they are not trustworthy, and you can forget about any bargain discount. Try it on a beggar, and they'll hound you. Try it on a Duke, and you'll get sent to some far off region to count snowflakes. Because this is what people do when you imply that they are not trustworthy.

Most middle-ages societies didn't have anything like the 5th Amendment. If you didn't have anything to hide, why would you object to being detected by a duly-appointed representative of the Law? I'm not saying that every Paladin had carte blanche to interrogate every random person they met, but if one Paladin went out of his way to scan the guy, which do you think his order would be more upset with: him, for offending the rich guy, or the aristocrat, for being EVIL?

As I point out below, he is only just EVil.... along way from EVIl and definitely not EVIL.

Now, as I noted before, this Aristocrat had all kinds of anti-divination stuff, because he was publicly paranoid about his mind being read, but he had at previous times successfully been detected as good. (Due to some well-placed bribes and some high-level magic, but it was enough that most people wouldn't question it.) He'd have never been able to get away with this otherwise; Paladins are dedicated to fighting evil, they'd have never tolerated someone resisting their magic simply because it was a bit impolite.

That's fine for your campaign. But just because invasion of personal privacy was generally acepted in your campaign, doesn't mean that it has to be in every campaign. Paladins will generally abide by the laws of society that they operate in, if the society is generally just and fair. IF the laws state that only appointed individuals may cast detect magic in a court of law, while under oath, and with another, different appointed individual using detect lie, then, by Tyr, they will abide by that law while operating within the City limits or face severe consequences.

Any Paladin who knows of evil and helps cover it up has just given clear help to those who will use that help for evil ends (or at the very least has failed to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents"), has just violated his code of conduct in a couple different ways, and is now a featless Fighter. Congrats, you're hosed.

There's a difference between cooperating with an evil being to accomplish some greater good, and backing down from an evil being because you're afraid of offending him.

No, there is a difference between knowing when you are out of your league (and this can be the case even in a social situation) and regrouping your forces to better combat him on his own terms, or stepping into a complete horn's nest, a situation beyond your understanding, making yourself a mark in the process, and ending up stupidly dead.

Interpreting a Paladin's Code of Conduct is something that should be cleared up really early in the game, so the player and DM don't have any misconceptions.

Besides, the EVil Aristocrat, has not actually, to the Paladin's knowledge, committed any harm to innocents, nor threatened them. He is moderately EVil, that is the only conclusion the Paladin can draw. Perhaps the aristocrat sits at home and tortures small animals... Or draws horrendous, nightmarish pictures of his fantasies which he sells to depraved individuals on the sly.

Err, yes it does. He has an evil alignment, this pretty much DOES reveal his motives and/or methods. And I quote:

""Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."

It doesn't give specifics about what exact methods he uses, but simply proving the merchant is evil in a good-aligned town would be enough to get him run out on a rail, at the very least. A neutral town might not care as much, but even they'd be a bit iffy. The reason isn't that you've discovered some clear evidence of a crime; you've just proven that he's committed many crimes in the past, and a little digging and/or divinations should reveal them. If he hadn't committed crimes, he wouldn't have an Evil alignment in the first place. (Just one of many problems with the D&D alignment system.)

No it only implies hurting, oppressing, and killing. It isn't limited to that at all. Evil merchants (registering faintly) try to squeeze more profit out of a deal than is fair. This is against fair trade rules, and IMC, is an evil act. However, there will always be people who are willing to pay an unfair price, for various reasons. There is no evidence of crimes, but there is evidence of a willingness to do evil. The person who registers as evil, may never have committed a truly evil act at all, but is willing to evil, wants to do evil (may feel too incompetent, or be unable to, from position or inability, and fears getting caught), and probably dreams of nasty doing nasty evil things.

This is why people fail to understand the D&D alignment system. Most people are not good. Many people are not even neutral.

A Lawful Good society is something unacheivable on the Material Plane. I'd like to see a list of its laws. It is a Utopia, and deserves to be reserved for the Upper Planes, IMO. AS far as I can see, the best any place can ever hope for is Lawful Neutral, with good tendancies.

As I said before, any paladin who compromises on this simply because of those sorts of worldly consequences has just violated his code of conduct. Second, it's an enemy who's entire basis for power has just disappeared, assuming he even survives the inevitable investigation into his earlier activities.

I can't argue about how you run your campaign, but in speaking in general terms; No compromises. Justice is patient. No, there is no inevitable investigation, and there wouldn't necessarily any investigation, unless the suspecting paladin did it himself. A wealthy aristocrat is not without friends and influence beyond that of the church, unless it is somekind of theocratic church state run by the paladin order themselves.

Third, even the non-Paladins in my groups wouldn't back down out of fear of making another enemy; they'd go after him anyway, and just add another bad guy to the "To Do" list.

To DO list is good. Announcing yourself publically to your 11th level enemies prior to their knowledge of your very existance, as a feebly, unimportant 1st level paladin might be theatrical, and cool in some games. Or it may be just a shortcut to repeat those character generation steps. Check with the DM.

Does the spell, as listed, have an inherent chance of failure? Nope. Sure, the target can argue that some other enchantment changed the result, but the burden of proof is now effectively on him; people will be suspicious of him, and would ask for confirmation from someone with access to higher magics.
For misdirection or undetectable alignment, one good dispelling (and a detect magic to confirm no enchantments are on the target) would ensure the detection spells report correctly. So, it wouldn't take very long to confirm or disprove the original reading.

But it requires that the caster of the detection spell is one that is trusted by both parties not to lie. And people, even high level clerics, are subject to bribery, blackmail, and coercion. As these methods are therefore also subject to manipulation, which a high level aristocrat is certainly capable of, and with a high enough Bluff score, said aristocrat can certainly can create a credible excuse for the reason behind the necessity of these "minor" transgressions.

Would you go into business with a man you know to be evil, even assuming the town would tolerate his presence at all? There's a difference between someone who does the occasional evil act (meaning they're probably a Neutral alignment) and someone who actually has an Evil alignment.

No, IMG, they wouldn't be neutral. You just don't casually, "occassionally commit evil". But I guess I have a lot more people in my towns registering as "barely evil", and very few registering as "good" because that is the way I see most humans: Greedy, Vain, and self-serving & Self-interested. You can't run the majority of the merchants out of town.

Evil Creature is HD-based. If non-Cleric class levels count as "HD" for these purposes (which I'd say they should), then a high-level (11+) Aristocrat would have a Moderate aura. That's well above "barely register"ing; it's the same as what an 8th-level Evil Cleric would register as.

No, it is just the same as a 2nd level Evil Cleric.... And this is the "Evil" the High level paladin is worrying about? A 5th level Cleric of Evil registers as "Strongly Evil", the next level, and an 11th Level Evil Cleric as "Overwhelming".

What's more, you deliberately set 11th level Aristocrat, which is precisely the level at which aristocrats tip over from faint (i.e. Barely register). No mention prior was made of 11th level.

Suffice to say detect evil functions just as you wish it to in your games, and that is good. But I just see it differently. Typically, "Good" cities accept even Evil citizens, until solid proof of Evil activities are brought forth. The coins of Evil people weigh the same in the merhant's till.

 

[Nyaricus]

Guys, can we please not make this a thread about Paladin morals? Please? This about tweaking the class, not a debate about it.