Chapter 1: The Righteous
This chapter opens with a quote from some paladin about how he's a sinner, but fighting that nature slowly redeems him; and that no-one has an excuse not to fight as he does,
not even his father (or possibly priest?). Despite the catholic overtones, as a one paragraph piece of expository characterization, it's not bad, though it doesn't really fit the material that immediately follows. Which is a discussion of Good in general and the three Good alignments in particular.
Good and Evil
The general discussion of Good is a bizarre contrast with the introduction. It is all about altruism, about 'fighting the basic impulse of self-preservation so that others can survive,' and going on about how 'many a hero has died a lonely, uncelebrated death saving the lives of total strangers.' This is exactly the kind of shit that should have preceded the question of why people choose to be Good in the intro, except that it's hard to be rewarded with true friendship, popularity, and endorphins after you've just given your life for strangers.
There is then a brief mention of idealism conflicting with practicality, and how balancing those can be difficult. No examples to clarify that aggravatingly vague statement, though. Maybe they come later?
The first Good they get into is Chaotic Good, and it becomes clear that the version of Chaos they are going with is 'disorganized,' with a side order of individualistic. The exact term 'rugged self-reliance' is actually used. Other traits that are brought up are decisive/impatient and flexibility. Chaotic societies apparently prefer barter to coinage (a little weird, since the coinage is *also* barter) which reads like a way to screw players who are frequently long on gold and short on bales of linen. Finally, it mentions that Chaotic Good characters under charm effects should count more commands as 'against their alignment,' because their alignment doesn't follow orders, man. It's a bit strange, but I think it's actually more coherent than the PHB.
Next up is Lawful Good, which is unusually not fellated. They are portrayed as potentially hidebound, the attention paid to law (work within the system, stick to the plan) diluting the attention paid to good, which nicely mirrors how the chaotic behaviors do the same. There's also mention that Lawful Good societies tend to be 'aggressively expansionist, and view their conquests to be in their enemies' best interests' (creepy). Editing is still bad, because there's a chunk in here which is specifically about paladins implying falsehoods through carefully phrased truths. There's also a bit about how LG is the most self-sacrificing alignment, and how an LG character might voluntarily fail a reflex save against a lightning bolt to shove a friend out of the way and give them a bonus. Regardless of utility, that's not even as mechanically rigorous as the CG anti-charm effect; odds that they will introduce this as a formal optional rule later on: Jim Slim to Senator Sam Nunn.
Neutral Good is a maddening combination of intriguing and incoherent. The conceit here is that while NG characters aren't distracted by Law or Chaos... they aren't anchored by those things either, and without the extra principle it's easier for them to say 'no matter the cost,' go fanatic, and slip into evil behaviors in pursuit of their ideal. That's actually pretty cool and combines with the first two to lay out some pros and cons for each of the three Goods.
The problem is that in a three-page screed about Good, there's basically no actual mention of what Good might actually
be, except dying so others can live. It's implied that the CG guy believes that Good is 'freedom,' and the LG guy believes in some form of utilitarian Good, but the NG section has nothing but self-referential bullshit to work with. They also don't get any special powers for some reason.
The problem is that nobody was willing to sit down and write either '
this is Good' or 'here are some options for what Good could be in your game.' I don't know if it was cowardice or laziness or whatever, but that failure sharply limits the use of this whole section, because it's about motives and methods for promoting a thing that nobody knows what it is.
Orange juice doesn't help.
Why Good?
Oh, here we are again. The answer they give is loyalty, even though in the Chaotic Good section they talked about how those guys specifically
don't hang together and right here they mention how Lawful Evil guys honor their obligations. There's a real Lensman vibe here, where they talk about how Good societies form mutual supports while Evil societies are cut-throat competitive and discard failures Darth Vader-style.
Good as Bad
Holy cow, a ray of light; actual discussion of conflict between Good people. Okay, sometimes there are just hard resource limits and there is no diplomatic solution; hardcore. Sometimes both sides are Good but so alien that they don't recognize each other as such. How is that possible? What? That would require knowing what Good is? Motherfucker.
Next up, tribalism; some people are Good but also bigots, apparently. Also, Good people may tolerate slavery if the slaves are treated well.
I'm suddenly glad they didn't do a 'this is Good' section, because I don't
want to know what would have been in it. The light was a train.
...and now clerics and paladins of Dwarf and Elf gods are approaching genocidal and apparently those Gods who are Good are also bigots. We have just reached 'Good is what my God tells me to do' territory. Now, we are told that this sort of thing is actually evil, which is confusing when the very next section is...
High Good vs. Low Good
High Good is about how those who have no choice but to be Good - celestials, metallic dragons, people under helm of alignment effects - are intolerant of the minor or rare lapses that other people might tolerate. How is that coherent with ostensibly Good gods condoning genocide? Who edited... never mind.
Low Good is about how crapsack peasants can be Good too, if only in small ways. Very patronizing.
Alternate Paladins
Oh good, game mechanics; that seems less likely to enrage me.
So first up, a whole bunch of alternate class features so Paladins can be tailored to more specific deities. You're stuck with Divine Grace, Divine Health, Aura of Courage, Turn Undead, and spellcasting. You can trade Detect Evil for Detect Chaos or Detect Law if your deity is Lawful or Chaotic, and nobody cares.
You can trade Lay on Hands for a bullshit small ranged touch energy damage effect, or a bullshit inflict effect, or a poorly-worded ability to boost saving throws that I can't parse. You can trade Smite Evil for Smite Law or Chaos, or one of your deity's domain effects (I'd say Travel would be a real winner, but that ability references your
Cleric level), or a 1/day gimpy version of a Barbarian's rage, or spontaneous curing like a cleric.
You can trade Remove Disease (sold!) for
any 3rd-level or lower spell from your deity's domains. The per week uses are still bullshit, but trading out Remove Disease for something proactive like Fly or Detect Thoughts is a plus. You can trade your mount for any CR 2 animal which will get the same bonuses, which is cool, now Medium characters can reliably take that class feature into the dungeon.
All told, nothing to write home about, because at the end of the day: still paladins and not classes that are good.
The Avenger is the specifically Chaotic Good paladin variant. The flavor text is that these guys are loose cannons who don't protect or heal, only punish the wicked. They also specifically have a problem figuring out who's wicked, because their Detect Evil also Detects Law at the same time and does not distinguish. I am not kidding.
At level 1, they lose proficiency with heavy armor and shields, also lay on hands and divine grace; in exchange they get a good Reflex save, which is clearly not worth it. At level 2, instead of Aura of Courage they get Aura of Righteousness, which is a +2 to Intimidate Evil and Lawful beings. That's terrible. Instead of Smite Evil, they get Unbridled Wrath, which is +Wisdom mod to hit (instead of Charisma) and on a successful hit staggers the target for (Wisdom mod) rounds, which is admittedly better than a little extra damage. Instead of a special mount, they get a hunting beast like a hound or hawk who gets bullshit small sneak attack as the Avenger levels up.
Instead of Remove Disease they get nothing. Until level 8, when they get Summary Judgement, an ability with 4e levels of flavor/effect disconnect.
An Avenger's Wrath is a terrible all-consuming force which the unrighteous can never escape. At 8th level, the Avenger can perform a coup de grace as a move-equivalent action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
The Defender is the NG paladin variant, and its conceit is that it seeks out good people to protect, so it actually has Detect Good instead of Evil, which is not uninteresting.
At level 1, it loses Divine Grace and Divine Health in exchange for Tower shield proficiency, a good Will save, and Shield Familiarity, which is Ambidexterity only for shield bashing. At level 2, instead of Aura of Courage or Smite Evil, they gain the ability to shove people around or pin them with their shield.
Instead of a special mount, they get nothing. Instead of Remove Disease, they get the ability to give their shield bonus and their Expertise-related bonuses to AC to a character in their threatened area, the use of which provokes an attack of opportunity. This is a class whose design is unsullied by math or playtesting. How else could nobody notice a complete inability to actually y'know, protect people from things.
Okay, I actually can't take any more of this just now, but there are a couple extra non-paladin classes here that weren't mentioned in the introduction. I'll try to get to them later tonight as a bonus round.
