The How-It-Should-Be Paladin, v2.0

[PaladinBoy]

Wow. This new paladin is devastating.

While I do like paladins, I get the feeling that this is a little too powerful. From what I can see, the detect evil, special mount, turn undead, divine health, aura of courage, and remove disease abilities have been removed. These are replaced by the mantle of faith abilities, more frequent smiting, and divine transformation.

I did notice (I only looked at the Good mantles) that many of the removed abilities can be replaced with mantle abilities. And many of the mantle abilities can do even more. As written, it seems that this paladin will beat the crud out of an unchanged paladin.

The restrictions don't seem to help much. Sure, they limit what you can do, but what if you don't mind the limitations? For example, the Humility mantle:

The Paladin understands that, to be truly great, one must remain humble. He loses all aspects of this mantle if he ever boasts or exaggerates about his accomplishments or uses social status to influence another.

That's just a roleplaying restriction. I don't like to boast anyway, so I lose effectively nothing. How about the Mercy mantle?

The Paladin has sworn an oath to never willingly harm non-evil creatures. He loses all aspects of this mantle if he ever knowingly kills a non-evil creature or performs a Coup de Grace attack.

I'd never do that anyway. And Purity?

A Paladin must stand against the forces of evil without becoming evil himself. He holds himself to a strict standard: do no evil, lest ye become like one of them. He loses all aspects of this mantle if he ever willingly commits an evil act or associates with evil or undead creatures.

Same as above.

This just seems way too powerful.

Just as a side note, Fax, have you ever seen the Book of Exalted Deeds? Several feats in that book seem similiar to the mantles-the Good ones, at least.

[Mewtarthio]

Purity's mantle is just the most oft-maligned part of the code: Sure, it's a roleplaying restriction, but it's a really big one at that. Just look at all the paladin debates out there to see why "you cannot perform a single evil act or assosciate with a single evil creature" is such a nasty restriction. Also note that this should be interpreted even more harshly than the normal paladin restrictions, since you willingly accept the mantle.

Mercy is a bit softer, though, as nothing prevents you from knocking the guy unconscious, tying him up, and then sitting back and watching the Rogue slit his throat. There should be a clause in there that requires you to ensure that your companions do not harm disabled or surrendering opponents.

Humility is mostly roleplaying, but the clause about using "social status" to influence others is a bit more murky. As far as I can tell, it really prevents you from being the party face and also forbids you from accepting anything offered to you on the basis of your palidinhood alone (fair and honest payment is fine, but no "I am a paladin, so this is how you must act" or maybe even "Oh great and noble paladin, accept this tribute"). More roleplaying-related than crunch-related, though. This should be cleared up some.

[Eighth_Seraph]

Er, smiting ends up being the same. Seven times per day, as the core paladin. Also, the Divine Transformation ability is really just something the myself and Proven_Paradox cooked up for the core paladin as a capstone, and it is quite balanced at that level, I assure you. Furthermore, it is true that a good deal of the restrictions are role-playing restrictions, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

That's just a roleplaying restriction. I don't like to boast anyway, so I lose effectively nothing.

That's 'cause you're special. same for your comment on Mercy. It really does help to be able to kill the Chaotic Neutral sorcerer that knows Disintegrate and took both Still Spell and Silent Spell, rather than tie him up and hope he doesn't turn you into a pile of dust when it's your watch. Furthermore, Purity means no Assassin in the party as well as great tension with the party's necromancer wizard. Humility could effectively mean no scaring your opponents into thinking you're stronger than you are, and possibly attracting bandits who see what a 'wimp' the paladin is, because he refuses to accept any praise and helps housewives clean up around the house.

Roleplaying restriction are often the most powerful kinds. If used correctly.

(EDIT) D'oh! Ninja'd by Mewtarthio. Bah, serves as reinforcement.

[Proven_Paradox]

Yes, this paladin is stronger than the core version. Probably a LOT stronger than the core version. But I say core Paladin was way too weak. I say that about pretty much all of the core melee classes. I was under the impression that Fax was trying to go with a Tome of Battle power level. Though I haven't seen this book myself, I see statements all over the boards that the classes in there are a lot more powerful than the core classes, in a good way. According to Fax, this paladin isn't even quite as strong as they are.


My point is, yes, this paladin is stronger than the original. But is that really a bad thing?



Back to the actual critiques, you might want to mention something about eating at least 2/3 meals a day for the Extravagance mantle. Otherwise, you'll see paladins negating that with rings of sustenance or any other ways to not have to eat that often. I personally don't think evil paladins who take that mantle should be allowed to do that.

And I'm not sure how I missed the law smiting in Bravado. Oh well. *Facepalm*

[Shazzbaa]

Oo, oo, I just noticed another little thing.

"Conviction" and its counterpart, "Triumph," appear to have weapons count as being "holy" at 15th level... however, they are Lawful and Chaotic mantles, respectively. If you're a LE Tyrant Paladin, does your weapon still count as holy if you take "Conviction?"

[Grey Paladin]

What about true neutral paladins? (think 2E druid True Neutral)

pal·a·din (pāl'ə-dĭn)
An heroic paragon and defender of a noble cause
These words caused me to wonder why Paladins were always viewed as virtues made flesh when they are in fact a certain belief manifested, given the subjectivity of alignment a Chaotic Evil paladin, unlike a blackguard, would believe that he is in fact serving a noble cause and making the world a better place, Thus zealots of all alignments fit to the description and Paladins of the same alignment may even oppose each other because their view of the alignment may be extremely different.
That means that a nearly endless variety of Paladins is possible given the number of ideals in existence, and that Paladins can be of each and every alignment.

[Fax Celestis]

What about true neutral paladins? (think 2E druid True Neutral)

pal·a·din (pāl'ə-dĭn)
An heroic paragon and defender of a noble cause
These words caused me to wonder why Paladins were always viewed as virtues made flesh when they are in fact a certain belief manifested, given the subjectivity of alignment a Chaotic Evil paladin, unlike a blackguard, would believe that he is in fact serving a noble cause and making the world a better place, Thus zealots of all alignments fit to the description and Paladins of the same alignment may even oppose each other because their view of the alignment may be extremely different.
That means that a nearly endless variety of Paladins is possible given the number of ideals in existence, and that Paladins can be of each and every alignment.

Making this paladin neutral would be far, far too difficult. Sorry.

Oo, oo, I just noticed another little thing.

"Conviction" and its counterpart, "Triumph," appear to have weapons count as being "holy" at 15th level... however, they are Lawful and Chaotic mantles, respectively. If you're a LE Tyrant Paladin, does your weapon still count as holy if you take "Conviction?"

Fixing.

Yes, this paladin is stronger than the core version. Probably a LOT stronger than the core version. But I say core Paladin was way too weak. I say that about pretty much all of the core melee classes. I was under the impression that Fax was trying to go with a Tome of Battle power level. Though I haven't seen this book myself, I see statements all over the boards that the classes in there are a lot more powerful than the core classes, in a good way. According to Fax, this paladin isn't even quite as strong as they are.


My point is, yes, this paladin is stronger than the original. But is that really a bad thing?



Back to the actual critiques, you might want to mention something about eating at least 2/3 meals a day for the Extravagance mantle. Otherwise, you'll see paladins negating that with rings of sustenance or any other ways to not have to eat that often. I personally don't think evil paladins who take that mantle should be allowed to do that.

And I'm not sure how I missed the law smiting in Bravado. Oh well. *Facepalm*

Pretty much on the nose. And I'll fix Extravagance.

[Last_resort_33]

I think that a set of Balance mantles would be great... A person dedicated to keeping everything balanced... hates overzealous do-gooders but won't stand for evil... and the same with law and chaos... In fact I had a character based on that very premise before... she had a holy anarchic weapon in one hand and an evil axiomatic weapon in the other.

Edit: simud... Do we have anyone who would be willing to try to come up with some neutral mantles, so Fax only has to look over them instead of create them from scratch

[Fax Celestis]

I think that a set of Balance mantles would be great... A person dedicated to keeping everything balanced... hates overzealous do-gooders but won't stand for evil... and the same with law and chaos... In fact I had a character based on that very premise before... she had a holy anarchic weapon in one hand and an evil axiomatic weapon in the other.

Edit: simud... Do we have anyone who would be willing to try to come up with some neutral mantles, so Fax only has to look over them instead of create them from scratch

The problem isn't so much coming up with them as making the class "feel right". After all, how can one be a crusader for all things balanced and even? Wouldn't your zeal make you...unbalanced?

I suppose a True Neutral version, with access only to Neutral mantles may be possible, but I don't see it fitting with the rest of the class.

[Grey Paladin]

What my post was aiming to point out that limiting paladins by alignments at all is silly, as two paladins of the same alignment may very well oppose each other, and that there is no reason for no neutral zealots.

Instead you could simply offer many mantras and not categorize them by alignment, this way each Paladin will, in essence, write his own code, thus making paladins what they should be.


ninja-edit:
And neutral Paladins are easy

Neutral X: X alone, no regards to Y
True Neutral: 2E Druids, The most famous example is that if a 2E druid would observe a conflict, he would go around, help the losing side in a conflict, then once that side begins winning, help the other side, in other words, True Neutral paladins would take Balance to the extreme

[Fax Celestis]

True Neutral: 2E Druids, The most famous example is that if a 2E druid would observe a conflict, he would go around, help the losing side in a conflict, then once that side begins winning, help the other side, in other words, True Neutral paladins would take Balance to the extreme

And it was utterly ridiculous then too. It makes for a completely unplayable character, since you might turn on your party at any moment to help the losing side.

I'm afraid that, if you're looking for neutral, you'll have to wait for the Ranger rewrite.

[Grey Paladin]

Can't you say the same about a chaotic evil paladin that belives all others should obey him? using extremes (err, within extremes) solves little, I am just saying there is very little difference.

[Fax Celestis]

Can't you say the same about a chaotic evil paladin that belives all others should obey him? using extremes (err, within extremes) solves little, I am just saying there is very little difference.

The Chaotic Evil Paladin, in this case, is a crusader for destruction, entropy, and slaughter. He has a conviction and faith in what he is doing, and believes it to be the best thing for this world.

Trust me, I had a hard time justifying making this as open as it is; the first draft was LG-only.

[Grey Paladin]

I still fail to see the difference, you have just stated some facts that have no impact on the discussion.

[Mauril Everleaf]

Well if you remove the idea that a paladin is a righteous warrior for his deity (which is still how I see them) you can maybe see this working. I've taken the stuff for an LG pally and discarded the rest.

[Fax Celestis]

I still fail to see the difference, you have just stated some facts that have no impact on the discussion.

Um, no I haven't. Here's the bottom-line: there are no neutral Paladins because Paladins uphold an ideal (those ideals being LG, CG, LE, or CE, respectively), and being neutral isn't idyllic enough. See also: flavor text for the Incarnate class.

Also:

pal·a·din (pāl'ə-dĭn): A heroic paragon and defender of a noble cause

.

The key word here is "paragon" (par·a·gon (ˈpærəˌgɒn, -gən): a model or pattern of excellence or of a particular excellence). And since we are dealing with alignments that are not LG, "heroic" and "noble" are replaceable with more appropriate terms. The Paladin, in these terms, is an example to his followers, regardless of alignment, of a higher faith that is hard to adhere to. Being partially neutral or wholly neutral is not exemplary, it is ordinary. Paladins should be anything but ordinary.

[Khantalas]

See also: flavor text for the Incarnate class.

Of course, Soulborn would be much closer. Do they have such fluff text?

[Fax Celestis]

Of course, Soulborn would be much closer. Do they have such fluff text?

I may be mixing them up. I only got MoI yesterday. ;)

[Shazzbaa]

Re: neutral paladin
(gotta put my 2cp in)

Here's the thing: the corner alignments work well because you can mix and match all of them, any which way, and get a very extreme alignment that it is easy to imagine someone zealously upholding. Neutral?... not so much.

I can possibly see a LN paladin, but it has been pointed out to me that a knight would work just as well for this.
CN? No. NG? Certainly not. NE? Doubtful. TN? Maybe.

Honestly, the only things you could (in my mind) conceivably get out of this are LN and TN. The defenders of the balance already exist in druids, and the defenders of honour and law already exist in knights. It would be... superfluous to make a mantle for Neutrality, to me.

[Matthew]

I have to admit, I am rather attached to the Alignment descriptor for Paladins. Paladins of Evil, Chaos and Neutrality just don't do it for me.

[Fax Celestis]

I have to admit, I am rather attached to the Alignment descriptor for Paladins. Paladins of Evil, Chaos and Neutrality just don't do it for me.

Well, I hope you take the Lawful and Good mantles and give them a shot.

[Matthew]

I do like what you have done, Fax. I might convert my Paladin Character to see how he fares, when I get a chance (Hell, he started out in Second Edition, so it wouldn't be the first time...).

[Grey Paladin]

First of all, I forgot to tell you you did an excellent job.

Secondly, the idea that the corner alignments are any more extreme then the others is completely wrong, you have brought your example of WotC claiming so in one source, perhaps this is just the translation but my 3.0 PH says that an alignment with a neutral descriptor represents the second alignment standing alone without anything else, thus Neutral Good can also be called Pure Good, to me, this seems far more extreme then Lawful good and all the other so called "extreme" alignments when in fact the corner alignments are the true compromises between a pair of alignments.

And according to my PH True Neutral is the rarest alignment.

Thirdly, even in the Light-grey and Dark-grey universe of D&D alignment still mostly depends on your perspective, thus any paladin can hold any cause and see it as noble following the definition of something that deserves to be done for the "greater good".

Heroic
1.Also, he·ro·i·cal. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a hero or heroine.

2.suitable to the character of a hero in size or concept; daring; noble: a heroic ambition.

3.having or displaying the character or attributes of a hero; extraordinarily bold, altruistic, determined, etc.: a heroic explorer.

4.having or involving recourse to boldness, daring, or extreme measures: Heroic measures were taken to save his life.

5.dealing with or describing the deeds, attributes, etc., of heroes, as in literature.

6.of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the heroes of antiquity: heroic mythology.

7.larger than life-size: a statue of heroic proportions


Sounds like everything Paladin to me.

[Fax Celestis]

First of all, I forgot to tell you you did an excellent job.

Secondly, the idea that the corner alignments are any more extreme then the others is completely wrong, you have brought your example of WotC claiming so in one source, perhaps this is just the translation but my 3.0 PH says that an alignment with a neutral descriptor represents the second alignment standing alone without anything else, thus Neutral Good can also be called Pure Good, to me, this seems far more extreme then Lawful good and all the other so called "extreme" alignments when in fact the corner alignments are the true compromises between a pair of alignments.

And according to my PH True Neutral is the rarest alignment.

Thirdly, even in the Light-grey and Dark-grey universe of D&D alignment still mostly depends on your perspective, thus any paladin can hold any cause and see it as noble following the definition of something that deserves to be done for the "greater good".

Heroic
1.Also, he·ro·i·cal. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a hero or heroine.

2.suitable to the character of a hero in size or concept; daring; noble: a heroic ambition.

3.having or displaying the character or attributes of a hero; extraordinarily bold, altruistic, determined, etc.: a heroic explorer.

4.having or involving recourse to boldness, daring, or extreme measures: Heroic measures were taken to save his life.

5.dealing with or describing the deeds, attributes, etc., of heroes, as in literature.

6.of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the heroes of antiquity: heroic mythology.

7.larger than life-size: a statue of heroic proportions


Sounds like everything Paladin to me.

It does indeed sound that way. However, in order for the Paladin to be able to follow an extreme code of conduct (as per the Mantles), he has to represent more than a single virtue. That's the fluff argument anyway.

The crunch argument is this: It would be inordinately difficult to revamp the entire class to work with a neutral alignment. Neutral mantles would require balance with all four of the other mantle types and would be far more readily accessible. They would also probably introduce redundancy and/or nonaccess to certain things. For instance: with Alliance being Chaotic and Communion being Lawful, how would a NG Paladin obtain a mount? I could make a neutral mount mantle, but that would introduce the capability of a paladin with two mounts, which is redundant and ridiculous. There are many many examples of this throughout the Mantle system here.

Furthermore, how would one handle some of the special features of the Paladin that currently rely on alignment, such as the smite attack of a neutral paladin? Or the Lay on Hands? What about turning/rebuking undead: does a LN Paladin turn, rebuke, neither, or both? Or what spells does a CN Paladin have access to? As it is now, it's simple: #G Paladins get Paladin spells, while #E Paladins get Blackguard spells.

To be perfectly frank: it'd be a mechanical nightmare, I'm happy with this how it is (except for fine-tuning of existing features and/or introduction of new mantles in existing types).

[Grey Paladin]

Personally I find mounts to be ridiculous as is so I am happy when paladins lose that silly ability =P

secondly, if the only thing that truly stops this from happening is it being a mechanical nightmare, would you mind if I gave it a try?

[Fax Celestis]

Personally I find mounts to be ridiculous as is so I am happy when paladins lose that silly ability =P

secondly, if the only thing that truly stops this from happening is it being a mechanical nightmare, would you mind if I gave it a try?

Go right ahead.

[cferejohn]

Another problem with "neutral" imho, is that the "neutral" in "Lawful Neutral" means something substantially different than the neutral in "Neutral Good" (and in point of fact probably something different than the one in "Chaotic Neutral").

And as for the roleplaying restrictions not being "hard" enough, that depends alot on the sort of campaign you are in/DM you have. Some DMs are going to be constantly looking to put the Paladin in tricky moral positions. Do you work with the Duke's morally questionable mercenaries to take down the evil necromancer? What do you do with the good dragon that can't understand that by eating local cows and sheep, he is depriving pesants of their livelyhood? Also, realize that Purity means you can never kill an animal. A hungy owlbear is terrorrizing the populace? You're going to have to relocate it, cuz you can't kill it (and yeah, knocking it out and letting the Rogue kill it is definitely an alignment violation).

Otoh, some campaigns are more straight-forward "there's the evil, let's go kill it" dungeon-crawl/hack-and-slashy sorts of things. Nothing wrong with that; I enjoy those sorts of games too, but it's true that this Paladin is natrually going to be more powerful when he doesn't have to make tough moral choices as often; of course, that's true with the PH Paladin too...

[Shazzbaa]

my 3.0 PH says that an alignment with a neutral descriptor represents the second alignment standing alone without anything else, thus Neutral Good can also be called Pure Good, to me, this seems far more extreme then Lawful good and all the other so called "extreme" alignments when in fact the corner alignments are the true compromises between a pair of alignments.

Ehhh... if you wanna be Pure Good, just be LG or CG and take all of your mantles from the "Good" section. That would give you the feeling of "Pure Good" a lot more than a "Balance" mantle would, IMO.

That's actually one of my favourite parts of this paladin -- you can prioritise your alignment. Mostly because I've had this redemption/mercy-themed paladin in the back of my mind for a while, and this would make her very, very possible, by prioritising Good over Law.

[Mauril Everleaf]

Not to get into an alignment battle, but I change the way alignment is done, just a bit, with major and minor alignments. You can be Major Lawful Minor Good or Minor Lawful Major Good for a traditional paladin, emphasizing Law or Good respectively. These mantles do a good job of that, too. If you want a paladin of law then take all the Law Mantles, a pally of Good then take the Good Mantles, etc.

[Grey Paladin]

Both of you are presenting your views of the alignment system with no evidence or examples, back your words up if we are to have a discussion.

Thing is, a neutral good paladin is actually more like "good-nothing" paladin, the neutrality of a neutral good paladin doesn't appears by him seeking balance, it manifests by the paladin caring of good alone, with no regards to Law and Chaos.

the same goes for all other alignments, beside True Neutral, that would be the only, aham, truly neutral paladin out of them all.

And given the fact that True Neutral is the rarest alignment, True Neutral paladins would be the rarest of them all as well.

And I take it that you have never played a Druid in 2E if you think that being True Neutral carries no hard moral decisions- there are two types of True Neutral, they who care for absolutely nothing (and cannot become paladins) and they who care for everything equally and strive to preserve balance- they who are more often then not Paladins or Druids

You must understand that often enough being truly neutral does not represents you not caring about good or evil, but you understanding that they are both needed for the world to function! You could very well be extremely like the Classical Paladin, but would have to make tough decisions that do not always seem "good", for the GREATER good- Balance.

Will you wipe out all vile beasts in a certain forest simply because they raided the village nearby, knowing full well that the they did that because the villagers expanded too far and killed all their natural prey?

Will you slaughter everyone in a small village simply because the death of one of them will cure the disease that inflicted the nearby city?

What about helping to research a spell that destroys, say, every single orc in existence?

While this dilemmas may also apply to other Paladins, each of them will act upon it differently, fitting their own agendas, True Neutral Paladins will always act upon the option that is for the better of the world as a whole, as an eco system (see Gaia theory), be it good or evil.