PDA

View Full Version : Pathfinder [Pathfinder 2nd Edition] Paladins of Unconventional Deities



Xuldarinar
2018-08-05, 10:36 AM
The following homebrew (house rule really) is based on the Playtest of Pathfinder 2E (http://paizo.com/pathfinderplaytest). As the game progresses, this may be changed based on adjustments in the game system. Most of my attempts at brews in this window will generally be less detail oriented, falling mostly into the realm of house rules, minimizing what may ned to be done by time of the proper full release of Pathfinder 2E. Thank you.

Optional Rule: Paladins of Unconventional Deities
Typically paladins are relegated to following deities that are Lawful Neutral, Lawful Good, or Neutral Good in alignment. You may, however, have players that wish to attempt to follow far less conventional deities for paladins. Doing so may be more difficult than the standard, considering the anathema they must keep in mind along with their code of conduct, but it is not impossible. Here we'll discuss the different deity choices they may make, their anathema (drawn directly from the open playtest), and suggestions on how to make them function. Any additional rules a paladin should follow while abiding by one of these deities, like a paladin of Gozreh being restricted to non-metal armor and shields, or any changes of rules or mechanics, are up to the GM (Though I welcome discussion here!)

If you are using this rule, you may of course also allow clerics of similarly removed alignments. Again, one must consider the edicts and anathema of one's deity and abide by it. This may make maintaining distant alignments difficult but not impossible.

For sake of discussion, here is the (current) code of conduct for paladins:
1. You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or the casting of an evil spell.
2. You must not use actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and potential to attempt to protect an innocent.
3. You must act with honor, never cheating, lying, or taking advantage of others.
4. You must respect the lawful authority of the legitimate ruler or leadership in whichever land you may be, following their laws unless they violate a higher tenet.

You may ignore a lower tenet in favor of a higher tenet if two tenet come to conflict, but you cannot purposefully engineer a situation to allow you to ignore lower tenets using higher ones.


Now, the non-traditional paladin deities:

Asmodeus:
Anathema: Break a contract, free a slave, insult Asmodeus's pride.
Considerations: As a paladin of Asmodeus, there is no direct conflict between your code of conduct and your anathema except in the possible instance of freeing a slave. However, so long as you are in a land in which slavery is the law of the land there should be little conflict there.

Calistra:
Anathema: Become too consumed by love or a need for revenge, let a slight go unanswered.
Considerations: As a paladin of Calistra, you will find remarkably little conflict. Edicts on personal freedom, taking revenge, and seeking hedonistic thrills can be abided by without creating any conflict so long as you view them in the right light. Remember to deliver retribution upon your foes but never let that consume you.

Cayden Cailean
Anathema: Abide slavery, be mean or standoffish when drunk.
Considerations: So long as you are not resident in lands in which slavery is legal this one is easy to follow, if you are not a mean drunk. While slavery is not a good thing, allowing it to exist in of itself does not conflict with the paladin's code of conduct. In cases of conflict when in such lands, consider the Anathema a higher tenet of the code than respecting authority provided it does not clearly put anyone into harm's way.

Desna
Anathema: Cause fear or despair, cast nightmare or use similar magic to corrupt dreams.
Considerations: Only in the most specific circumstances would a Paladin of Desna's anathema come into conflict with their code. In short, if we consider nightmare and such magic to be akin to evil spells, and paladins shouldn't generally be causing fear or despair anyways, there isn't any place of contention.


Gorum
Anathema: Kill prisoners or surrendering foes, prevent conflict through negotiation, win a battle through underhanded tactics or indirect magic.
Considerations: Already a paladin should be giving quarter to surrendering foes, nor do they tend to have cause to kill a prisoner. Curiously honor is important to this Chaotic deity, so you ever have greater cause to abide by it. I can see conflict arising from preventing conflict through negotiation, but generally speaking such a paladin simply then shouldn't be in charge of negotiating anything except terms of surrender and should focus instead upon glorious combat.


Gozreh
Anathema: Bring civilization to intrude on the wild.
Considerations: In my opinion anyways, a paladin of Gozreh would be in truth somewhere between a paladin and a druid in nature. Such a paladin isn't going to be encouraging the making of settlements, and will as much protect nature as they will the innocent.


Lamashtu
Anathema: Attempt to cure a madness or deformity, provide succor to Lamashtu's enemies.
Considerations: Finally we meet one that could actually be difficult. Now, so long as you don't consider madness and deformity in of itself a bad thing then that part is fairly simple. Deep such things the will of the Gods, and abide such. The problem arises with providing succor to your deity's enemies. Although the playtest calls out Desna as a specific example, in truth Lamashtu considers all other gods her enemies. In short, a Paladin of Lamashtu would likely have to refuse to provide aid to Clerics and Paladins, and other divine agents, of other faiths. While this can be workable, no doubt this could easily become a source of contention.


Norgorber
Anathema: Allow your true identity to be connected to your dark dealings, share a secret freely, show mercy.
Considerations: While all aspects of Norgorber's anathema could present difficulty, only the inability of showing mercy is the one I see that could be of conflict and even that isn't technically a conflict with the code. As a Paladin of Norgorber, you'd have to disguise yourself all the time, perhaps even by means of a mask. You cannot lie generally, but that does not mean you have to tell the truth either. Silence may be a common answer from you. No tenet of the paladin code states you cannot hold secrets however. For simplicity's sake, you could simply consider your deity's anathema a higher tenet, allowing you to lie when it comes towards actual secrets, but I would advise against abusing this. You will likely follow him as the Reaper of Reputation or as Blackfingers.

Pharasma
Anathema: Create undead, desecrate a corpse, rob a tomb.
Considerations: Unless you consider your standard adventuring to be robbing tombs, a Paladin of Pharasma should have little trouble functioning. Since I cannot find any spells that create undead (in this version of the game) it is unknown if they would fall under evil spells, not that paladins would get access to such abilities normally anyways.


Rovagug
Anathema: Create something new, let material ties restrain you, torture a victim or otherwise delay its destruction.
Considerations: For a chaotic evil deity, you will find little conflict between the rules you have to abide as a paladin and the ones you have to as a follower of Rovagug. Simply put, be a relatively ascetic paladin. Not torturing people is fairly simple, and in battle do not stay your blade if you can help it. Not creating something new is a matter of interpretation, whether it means you cannot invent or if it means you cannot craft anything. Your edicts may be difficult to follow, being that you have to destroy all things and work on freeing Rovagug, but starting with what paladins would focus on anyways and trying steering things towards his release, you could certainly manage.


Urgathoa
Anathema: Deny your appetites, destroy undead, sacrifice your life.
Considerations: This largely depends upon what your appetites are. Certainly take care of yourself so that you can help others, this is not of issue. Destroying undead may become difficult not to do depending upon what you are put up against, be it the classical skeletons or later down the road a lich. Now, edicts can make this more difficult as you are to, among other things, create or protect the undead. We do not know if creating undead is an evil act, or done by evil spells, in 2nd edition pathfinder. Protecting them however is easy enough, especially if they are intelligent, good, and/or not opposed to the party. in short, this one is in some ways the most situational.


Zon-Kuthon
Anathema: Create permanent or long-lasting sources of light, provide comfort to those who suffer.
Considerations: Do note it says you cannot provide comfort, but that doesn't mean you cannot save people who suffer. A Paladin of Zon-Kuthon is not going to be the most kind hearted soul, a flagellant whom has to help those in need but they cannot comfort those who suffer.


Optional Ability: Retributive Hand
If you follow a deity that provides an option of channeling negative energy, or perhaps exclusively provides the option, then Lay on Hands may clash with this. Instead, you may allow paladins devoted to one such deity to utilize a reversed version of Lay on Hands: Treating living creatures as undead and undead creatures as living, making this an effect of negative energy instead of positive.

Additionally, such a paladin would have at 4th level the option of Channel Death instead of Chanel Life, functionally granting the harm spell instead of the heal spell. Following this trend, and depending upon your deity, other abilities may take on other similar minor changes.

Why?
You may be wondering why would a deity allow this or why would someone follow a god of such a distant alignment? Well, thats certainly up to you. Paladins are great for public relations, spreading the faith, and here is a follower with a differing view point and yet they are handing over their soul. An evil god certainly has a great deal to gain, and even chaotic good ones can appreciate having an armored paragon of good under their name. Maybe the deity will try to get them to turn to a more standard alignment, or maybe they'll want them to remain a paladin as long as possible.. they and their followers making certain the paladin is not put in a position to fall. Besides, paladins are some of the best equipped to strike down fiends and even the evil aligned deities don't get along with other evil deities and their followers.

Mechanically speaking, there is an additional reason to allow this and that comes in the form of a first level paladin feat: Deity's Domain.

As for why a paladin would follow a non paladin deity? In most cases its a matter of their perspective and culture. For evil ones, maybe they are misguided and don't know the deity is evil or feel the greater good is served ultimately by their deeds, were just raised to follow or even they owe a debt. For non-evil ones, why does anyone follow any particular deity?

khadgar567
2018-08-05, 12:20 PM
you know you might hit the nail on the gorum since its perfectly fits barbarian who multi classes into cleric in a way that makes kinda hard to fall via any way as long as be the honorable barbarian as pc can be.

Kish
2018-08-05, 12:32 PM
Tenet, not tenant.

I don't really see the value in trying to cram an explicitly Lawful Good-only class into variant-clerics, who can uphold evil ("never free a slave." "never show mercy," "never give hope,") while maintaining a pretense that they're doing so in a Lawful Good fashion. If you want to import no-alignment-restriction paladins from 4ed or 5ed D&D, my advice is to just go whole hog and house rule away the "must be Lawful Good" requirement from your paladins, effectively making Asmodeus' paladins non-prestige Hellknights.

In other words: If you want paladins of Asmodeus, Norgorber, and Lamashtu, what value is the "must be Lawful Good" requirement providing for your campaign?

khadgar567
2018-08-05, 12:38 PM
Tenet, not tenant.

I don't really see the value in trying to cram an explicitly Lawful Good-only class into variant-clerics, who can uphold evil ("never free a slave." "never show mercy," "never give hope,") while maintaining a pretense that they're doing so in a Lawful Good fashion. If you want to import no-alignment-restriction paladins from 4ed or 5ed D&D, my advice is to just go whole hog and house rule away the "must be Lawful Good" requirement from your paladins, effectively making Asmodeus' paladins non-prestige Hellknights.

In other words: If you want paladins of Asmodeus, Norgorber, and Lamashtu, what value is the "must be Lawful Good" requirement providing for your campaign?
no need to house rule only playtest focuses on lawful good the main game we gonna have all alainments for paladin

Xuldarinar
2018-08-05, 01:37 PM
Tenet, not tenant.

I don't really see the value in trying to cram an explicitly Lawful Good-only class into variant-clerics, who can uphold evil ("never free a slave." "never show mercy," "never give hope,") while maintaining a pretense that they're doing so in a Lawful Good fashion. If you want to import no-alignment-restriction paladins from 4ed or 5ed D&D, my advice is to just go whole hog and house rule away the "must be Lawful Good" requirement from your paladins, effectively making Asmodeus' paladins non-prestige Hellknights.

In other words: If you want paladins of Asmodeus, Norgorber, and Lamashtu, what value is the "must be Lawful Good" requirement providing for your campaign?

One: Thank you. Some I had got right, others I clearly did not. That has been fixed.


Two: It isn't that they are upholding evil while being lawful good. For sake of the list, I'll give you examples.


Asmodeus: He is the ultimate god of Law (even to the point there are those in Pathfinder 1e that can treat him as a Lawful Neutral deity). He is a deity of contracts. Perhaps you were raised by followers of Asmodeus. Perhaps you never were confronted with his malevolent aspects. Also, him being followed is common among hell knights, and paladins can become ones. Asmodeus benefits from someone who is adept at striking down evil, which while does include allies of his, also it includes demons and other agents of chaos.

Also, never freeing a slave. If that is the law of the land, you can argue that a paladin must allow it. In the context of the setting, it may not be deemed evil.

Calistra: Not evil. She is a goddess of revenge, an aspect that can be viewed as retribution. She promotes personal freedom, and a paladin can fight for that against tyrany. They have to respect the laws of a land but if the laws would go against their code they can do something about it. Also, again, consider a character's culture of origin. They may not view her with orthodoxy, and she does have good aligned followers.

Cayden Cailean: A good deity. You can bet someone, out there, would love to be a paladin who's core tenets include promoting drink. Further, if you view slavery as an evil thing, that is something you can do something about as a paladin. Besides, at that point your tenets include doing something about it, which would be placed higher than respecting the authority of the land you are in.

Desna: Another good deity, a goddess of stars and dreams. Imagine someone like a paladin of Shelyn, but more entranced by the night and their dreams. It is a differing flavor, and a starknife in the hands of a paladin could certainly present an interesting image.

Gorum: Again, not evil. Gorum is a god of battle, of strength, of weapons. A paladin in service of the Lord in Iron, a chaotic deity that promotes honor? Honor being a core tenet of being a paladin? In spite of alignment conflicts on the surface I see little issue here.

Gozreh: Neutral, and yet you can still find good here. A paladin who champions the wind and sea, calling to them as they protect the innocent. Save for alignment, I see no problem here, and in the right party I could see it being wanted, desired, needed even.

Lamashtu: Chaotic evil, but hear me out. When we discuss CE deities we often talk about matters of a heretic or a heterodox. Someone who's beliefs, be they by self conclusion or ignorance, differ vastly from standard dogma. The Mother of Monster presents challenges to overcome. She could be seen as a patron of advancement, of change. Perhaps even, one could see her as a goddess of truth. And again, if one is raised in such a culture but holds a moral compass, they may yet still honor her while taking on such a distant alignment, for any number of reasons. Maybe you have a paladin who belongs to a race that owes their existence to her even.

Nethys: Neutral and a god of Magic. Imagine if you will a paladin with the background of scholar. They want to promote and keep to the tenets of being a paladin, perhaps they are even serving through exploring and learning all they can about that particular path of magic. True, they could of become a cleric, but that would of been a different path of magic. Paladins may wield sword and shield, but that doesn't mean they are not a magical path.

Norgorber: Evil, yes, but there are ways of working this. Again, we have matters of being raised in the faith, and misunderstanding. Maybe you have paladins who wish to keep something secret, something quiet. Maybe they dwell in hostile lands and a god who encourages alternative identities and such methods would be seen as potentially supportive. Perhaps you have a paladin who also holds interest in alchemical pursuits, and how they learned of those was through followers of Norgorber. You may also note that poison is no longer explicitly against the rules for a paladin.

Also, you did address the matter of never showing mercy. If a paladin is striking down a truly wicked individual and that person begs for mercy, do they have to give it if their deity does not mandate it? What if you are certain that the person's ways will not change or that it even could be a trick?

Pharasma: Neutral, so normally invalid, but hear me out. She judges of all who dies. She is goddess of the dead. She is also a goddess of prophecy and fate. Can you not see a paladin, sworn to strike down the undead, offering their prayers to the Lady of Graves? In some regards, paladins are the best suited to it.

Rovagug: Chaotic evil, and in some ways the hardest to argue for, but even I can make a case for it. Rovagug wants for the destruction of all things, that includes evil. Rovagug (though not known in setting) is an ascended Qlippoth, enemies of demons. A paladin who wishes to destroy all demons, creatures born of sin, could see such things as patrons against sin. A would be paladin could view his tenets as ascetic in nature, an often Lawful thing. No torturing victims, no material possessions, destroy all things (which one could narrow to evil) and free your deity? Also, what if the paladin believes in freeing Rovagug, he would cleanse all reality of evil and suffering? What if freeing Rovagug from his prison could be a path to redeeming the rough beast? And what greater challenge can a paladin face, what greater foes are known, than the children of the beast? These could be viewed as the ultimate tests or even steps in freeing him.

Urgathoa: Evil, yes, but her focus is not evil. Her focus is gluttony, disease, and undeath. All of these could be bent into a positive or at least neutral light, and someone raised among those that revere her might be inclined to follow. A paladin who is accustomed to undeath by their upbringing, or even sees that if they become one after their time has come they could continue to help people.

Zon-Kuthon: Evil but not always. ZK was once a good deity, and perhaps you follow what he once was. Perhaps, like a cleric in one adventure path, you view ZK as a being who made a great sacrifice to protect his sister. Maybe you are a flagellant, feeling that self-mutilation is a means of atonement or even a process of self-perfection. Delivering pain to a foe rather than death, you can spare them and hopefully drive them towards redemption. Maybe you see that people are more true to their natures in the dark, and while you want to promote good you want to promote it as truth. If a man would steal in the cover of the dark, and the light is always on, are they good? And, again, maybe you were raised to follow ZK. He is worshipped by a nation, and there are already some groups that hold strange views of him, such as the Uskwood druids.

Also, you brought up never giving hope and this was the only one I could think of you were ascribing it to. Here it is not to give comfort to those who suffer. Lawful Good doesn't mean nice. You could save innocents and not comfort them. That isn't evil. It isn't right, in my opinion, but it isn't evil.


-

Now, three: The notion of making paladins non-lawful good. That unfortunately carries much more work with it. If you make it so they can be any Good alignment, some mechanical changes have to come. If you make it so they can be evil, do they still fight against evil, or do you have to change other alignment aspects? What does the code become? Also, as for the matter of them being another type of cleric.. that is what a paladin is. Pathfinder 2e paladins can get domain access, have to follow a deity, and are very focused on that sort of thing along with the whole Lawful and Good thing. At least in Pathfinder (and related games) Paladins and Druids are basically offshoots of the Cleric: The former taking more of a combat role and narrowing on a single alignment, merging them with knights, and the latter focusing upon nature (or a nature deity) as their patron.. thus drawing upon a different flavor of magic (and in pathfinder 2e a different type of magic).

Kish
2018-08-05, 01:46 PM
Also, never freeing a slave. If that is the law of the land, you can argue that a paladin must allow it.
Not if "Good" is to have any meaning, you can't. But I gather that we have a fundamental disconnect here, so I'll bow out there.

MoleMage
2018-08-06, 10:56 AM
Not if "Good" is to have any meaning, you can't. But I gather that we have a fundamental disconnect here, so I'll bow out there.

The paladin oaths in 2e PF don't actually say they have to take "good" acts. The pertinent ones here are (paraphrased) 'don't knowingly commit evil acts' (meaning the paladin is barred from owning slaves, but no mention of other slaves) and 'you must not through action harm an innocent or through inaction allow an innocent to come to immediate harm, if you could reasonably prevent it' (emphasis mine).

If a paladin in 2e sees a slave being beaten, he is obligated to take reasonable action to stop it (at the risk of his paladin powers). If he sees a slave, living a healthy, lawful life with a fairly benign master, he is likely to want to stop it (as he is a good-aligned character), but he does not lose his paladin status for not stopping it.

It's also worth noting that deity-granted tenets in the playtest book are not specifically ordered within the code; in fact, actions anathema to your deity are listed outside the code in the class description (implying that you cannot treat a deific edict as a "higher tenet" allowing you to break a lower tenet, but that you must follow all of your deity's edicts and also the paladin's code). My reading is that paladins whose deities have edicts that conflict with the paladin code must be treated as having broken one or the other.

That doesn't mean that the idea of non-standard paladin deities is bad. It just means paladins of those deities need to be extra careful and creative about taking the third optio. In this case, they could have an ally who legally buys mistreated slaves and treats them fairly (preventing the harm to an innocent without actually freeing the slave), or they could buy a slave and allow it to work off its debt at harmless tasks, improving its life in the short term (a good act), and not freeing it so much as allowing it to buy itself (an act in keeping with the letter of Asmodeus's edict).

Xuldarinar
2018-08-08, 04:03 PM
One thing I would like to bring up is not only does this encourage creativity with currently available deities, but imagine what sort of anathemas will come up for deities to come. For instance, what rules would an insane Paladin serving a Great Old One or Outer God have to consider?

noob
2018-08-08, 05:24 PM
In dnd 3.5 paladins gets their powers from being awesome and not from gods and so could worship anything or worship nothing or even be an atheist.
I guess Pathfinder paladins lost that if you now start indicating paladins as varying in function of their gods.
I did read pfsrd and I see nothing preventing a paladin from naming a potted flower "god" and then serve their potted flower (which is "virtuous" through its beauty) or call virtuous some evil god and serve that evil god within the limits of its code and of its lg alignment.
(technically you are not working with the evil god: you are working for the evil god so it is not an offence against the code of conduct)

MoleMage
2018-08-08, 05:39 PM
In dnd 3.5 paladins gets their powers from being awesome and not from gods and so could worship anything or worship nothing or even be an atheist.
I guess Pathfinder paladins lost that if you now start indicating paladins as varying in function of their gods.
I did read pfsrd and I see nothing preventing a paladin from naming a potted flower "god" and then serve their potted flower (which is "virtuous" through its beauty) or call virtuous some evil god and serve that evil god within the limits of its code and of its lg alignment.

That was true in the original Pathfinder, but the new playtest for Pathfinder 2 isn't on the SRD yet. From page 105 of the book: "Paladins are divine champions of a deity. You must be lawful good and worship a deity that allows lawful good clerics."

They now are obligated to have divine backing, at least for the duration of the playtest (it seems likely that allowing worship of a cause will return in the full game, and if it doesn't for that to be a common house rule). The house rule in this thread lifts the "that allows lawful good clerics" restriction, while leaving the rest of them in.