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

[Arnwyn]

People I would consider Paladins wusses instead of smiters.

Fixed that for you!

 

[Cosmic.Justice]

It's an interesting idea. It would place emphasis on a Paladin player thinking about how he could help or aid others, which is a good thing.

 

[Brimshack]

In principle, this is an interesting idea. It puts in practice what I have always maintained, that the extra restructions of the Paladin class are in effect the means of earning the Divine benefits. Another way of dealing with this is by rewarding proper conduct through role-playing. Honourable Paladins may advance in their order, gain holy weapons or the benefits of high level spells, etc. all by living up to their code, however strict/loose.

I actually don't think the majority of the problems stem from the "good" requirement of teh Paladin, or even the "Lawful" part. It's the conventions of honour, the part of the class that is plausibly construed as above and beyond the norm, that seem to generate the most objections.

 

[Voadam]

Players would be looking at what to do rather than what not not to do. Which I think would be preferable in general.

Half xp from directly smiting evil creatures is a lot, half of the total xp. This might be too tough if fighting significant numbers of neutral beasts or constructs, I'd want it to be just defeat/work against an evil creature.

 

[Seeten]

I dont think it meets the requisite for making this class hard enough to play.

Because the class is named "Paladin" it must be incredibly difficult to play, and DM's must go out of their way to screw the player of the Paladin, this code does not assist in that, and so, I must vote no.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Not a bad idea. Make the Paladin pro-active.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I dont think it meets the requisite for making this class hard enough to play.

Because the class is named "Paladin" it must be incredibly difficult to play, and DM's must go out of their way to screw the player of the Paladin, this code does not assist in that, and so, I must vote no.

Seconded!

This would change the way a paladin is played in my games... not at all. IMO (and I'd like to think that others share this opinion), someone who doesn't commit actively good deeds is not going to qualify for a Good alignment. The sin of omission is pretty damning in this regard.

As to the "wuss" issue: It strikes me that there's an idea floating that heroic fantasy games have to cleave to some kind of bloody-minded crusader morality. I see nothing wrong with viewing alignment through a more ecumenical humanist lens. We are products of the modern world, after all, and there's no reason we shouldn't hold the "moral" individuals of fantasy to the same moral standards we hold dear. It's a pretty common trope in lots of fantasy literature, after all (Texan rugged individualism for Conan, conservationalist-feminist for Earthsea, contemporary "common sense" for The Belgariad, etc.). It seems to me that we hold in high regard nonviolent, charitable people who are dedicated public servants, teachers, and ministers (small "m"). Why not allow LG characters to show some of the same qualities instead of hacking and scourging evildoers all the time?

 

[Cosmic.Justice]

Actually, this would significantly change the way Paladins are played as proposed, since it would remove the "one step out of line and you lose all powers" side of the class.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Pretty much how I do it anyway. Though I don't let Evil acts slide in my games anyway. So ... how about both.

My current character is a non-paladin "Paladin". I wanted to explore the traditional "Lawful Stupid" Paladin concept without actually playing a paladin. So he's a Barbarian/Cleric of St. Cuthbert who smites for great justice ...

It's been a blast, really. I've gotten to roleplay with totally evil creatures (because they hadn't done anything evil YET) and I've gotten to smite other members of the party (for their own good). No Detect Evil ability, so he has to use his Pass Judgement On Others ability instead. Since he gets to see the transgressions of his friends more often than those of the NPCs, he's more apt to give tham a little helpful schooling from time to time.

And now I know why Steven Colbert loves his job.

--fje

 

[ruleslawyer]

Actually, this would significantly change the way Paladins are played as proposed, since it would remove the "one step out of line and you lose all powers" side of the class.

Hence the phrase "in my games."

Note, of course, that the paladin's code as written requires that she ... help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents," which covers most of the good deeds that the OP listed.

As for committing a single evil act: It depends on the DM's determination of what constitutes an "evil act." I have only once ever had a paladin "willingly commit an evil act" IMC by my definition of the term, and that's because he was trying to become an anti-paladin. What's an evil act? Plainly, garden-variety infractions of the CoC like lying, cheating, or using poison are dishonorable acts according to the code, but that doesn't make them evil (and in fact implies otherwise). Failing to respect legitimate authority is non-Lawful, but not evil.

Note that the rules do not say "one step out of line and you lose your powers." They say that you lose your powers if a) you're no longer Lawful Good (reasonable); b) you willingly commit an evil act; or c) you grossly violate the CoC. Thus, the RAW stipulate a major step out of line. IMX, someone who actually wants to play a paladin also isn't going to take that major step (unless being a fallen paladin is a desirable character concept for him). If poisoning your weapons is SOP, you flout authority at the slightest whim, and you lie, cheat, and steal, then yes, you're not cut out to be a paladin. But what kinds of threshold violations are we likely to see in play? Killing innocents? Enslavement? Torture?