Post/Author/DateTime	Post
allenchan 01-16-07, 06:35 PM	Note, this involves a discussion about variant paladins, I know some people are like "zomgz no!", so this might not be for you. I noticed something when skimming over the variants in UA. Associates While he may adventure with characters of any evil or neutral alignment, a paladin of tyranny will never knowingly associate with good characters unless it serves his needs, nor will he continue an association with someone who consistently offends his moral code. A paladin of tyranny may accept henchmen and followers of any alignment, but may only accept cohorts who are lawful evil. ... While he may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin of freedom will never knowingly associate with evil characters (except on some sort of undercover mission), nor will he continue an association with someone who consistently offends his moral code. A paladin of freedom may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are chaotic good. My thoughts are that a Paladin (of Honor) should have a similar addendum, such as "a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, unless she's trying to redeem them." I think this is flavorful, logical, allows Evil PCs in the party (assuming your group is smart enough to realize evil /= stupid and crazy), and helps remove the assumption that paladins are "I smite evil babies!". Opinions?
Shmeff 01-16-07, 07:15 PM	That seems logical.
tsuyoshikentsu 01-16-07, 07:20 PM	Seems only fair.
elsajeni 01-16-07, 08:04 PM	It seems perfectly reasonable to me -- in fact, I'm currently playing a Paladin (classic LG, allowed to build my own code with DM approval) and have built in the principle that any evil creature with the capability of free will can in theory be redeemed, and it is therefore her duty to attempt to bring about that redemption.
Penchant_Conjurer 01-16-07, 11:29 PM	How can we have a paladin moral thread that goes on for ten pages if everyone agrees? Comeon people! Argue for no good reason! BTW, I agree and you go on wit' cha bad self.
mcnoo 01-16-07, 11:41 PM	I'm still looking for a suitably oppressed campaign world to start my chaotic good "freedom fighter" (read: benevolent terrorist) paladin concept in.
cseptr 01-16-07, 11:44 PM	No way!! Lawful Good means Lawful and absolutely Good...his skin crawls at the thought of evil he can't abide to be near...no - no you're right. It makes total sense that he would seek to redeem his evil companions. Sorry, really thought I was going to get that ten page thread going there, man. Bummer.
MikeN 01-17-07, 12:35 AM	And here I thought it would be modifying it to allow a Paladin to lie... That part of the code is the biggest drawback to playing a paladin...
ZombieDragon 01-17-07, 02:29 PM	I went a step further, I reworded the Paladin in my games into the Vanquisher. I removed the code of conduct and replaced it with 'A vanquisher despises evil and has a desire to see evil stricken from the world. The vanquisher also wishes to be a stalwart of the deities ideals and as such acts in a way following their deities dogma'. A Vanquisher can ONLY follow a good deity. They still must remain lawful good and now must follow their deities dogma. It has proved to loosen the shackles, in most cases, but pick a strict god and it pretty much stays the same.