PDA

View Full Version : Why Paladin?



Varamil
2007-05-30, 09:32 AM
I've always wondered this, why be a paladin, instead be a cleric or favored soul and have more spells and be useful to the party, not trying to shut pallys out just wondering what would make them good?

Imrahil
2007-05-30, 09:41 AM
For me, playing a paladin is more about the role than the roll. It allows me to try and work through problems that I might face in my own life (given that I'm on a path to becoming a Crown Attorney, there are parallels that become apparent). What happens, say, if the crown orders you to track down a man who might just not be guilty of the crime he supposedly committed? Do one's duties to the law surpass those of attaining 'true justice'?

I realize that one does not necessarily have to be a paladin to have these same decisions thrust upon them, but the idea of playing a paragon of virtue in a corrupted world just has its appeal.

B!shop
2007-05-30, 09:43 AM
My two cents:

Paladins are the ultimate defenders of the faith.

Clerics are faith spreaders, prophets, clergymen, missionaries. They know and teach the faith.
Paladins defend it, it's their main purpose.

In game terms paladins are more warrior-like and gets abilities (immunities, smithe evil, the special mount) barred to the core clerics.

RoadBlock
2007-05-30, 09:49 AM
Between the full BAB, martial weapon proficiency, and +CHA to all saves, the paladin CAN be a smiting machine if properly played.

The biggest obsticle to playing a martially-minded cleric is the choices that need to be made. Do I cast the Divine Power, or do I cast the Magic Circle against Evil? Do I hit that guy, or do I throw a Cure Serious Wounds on the wizard? I found that even though my guy wanted to get into the fight, there was almost always a spell to be cast, or a guy to be healed. I realize that a cleric's not just a band-aid, but my guy's dispostion was to help his teammates, which resulted in only 1 character death up until the final battle of the story. Contrast that to my current party's cleric. He's NOT one to help his team that way, and we've lost 5 or 6 characters in that campaign.

Playing the paladin eliminated many of those choices, and keeps the character's focus squarely on killing evil things in battle. Do smite or not to smite is really the only hard choice to me made on many turns. That and how much to power attack for. :P

Playing both is pretty fun though. I'm wanting to play a "diplomatic" sundering/disarming fighter/pally next campaign.

Matthew
2007-05-30, 09:57 AM
Arrghh... Paladin talk again... [joking]

Paladins in default D&D are almost completely different from Clerics or Favoured Souls. Where these two Classes are usually associated with a particular religion and Deity (though not in all cases for the Cleric), Paladins usually are not (as can be discerned from their fluff). Paladins also draw their Divine power directly from the 'Divine source of Law and Good'.

Mechanically, the difference is obvious. If you want to play a Character with the discrete ability set offered by the Paladin Base Class, play a Paladin.

Paladins are not really 'defenders of the faith', that's Clerics. Paladins are defenders of Law and Good (which might happen to coincide with a particular Deity's interests).

Varamil
2007-05-30, 09:57 AM
Allright thanks for clearing that up. I know my dnd group doesn't find anything good about pallys except the role playing rights, but what mainly happens with that is one person says "I'm being a paladin", while the other begins planing on making a rogue multiclass into assasin which caused interesting problems ingame lol. But thanks again for clearing it up i've wanted to try a pally but never had enough urge to play one.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-05-30, 10:04 AM
What got me into fantasy in the first place were stories of Knights. Not just any knights- the Bravest and purest ones, like Galahad and Roland. They didn't just ride off for glory, they fought to protect the people and lofty goals, things they were willing to lay down and die for.

A Paladin represents a very specific kind of person in fantasy fiction. He is not a Fighter, or a Cleric, or Even a Cavalier- not only is he a brave and noble warrior with an untouchable spirit, or one of the faithful, he is heroism personified, willing to lay down his life for perfect strangers. No matter how hard the quest, or grueling the battle, the Paladin refuses to surrender- in spite of the fact that the thanks he will get is probably death at a young age.

Sure, its a much maligned class, mainly because of the stupid ruling that they cannot even associate with evil characters ( Even if evil means that they are just cowardly or selfish.) But its always going to be my favourite.

Mechanically, they can be decent, but not compared to say, Crusaders or Clerics. So if you want to play one, it has to be for the flavor.

Aquillion
2007-05-30, 10:09 AM
For me, playing a paladin is more about the role than the roll. It allows me to try and work through problems that I might face in my own life (given that I'm on a path to becoming a Crown Attorney, there are parallels that become apparent). What happens, say, if the crown orders you to track down a man who might just not be guilty of the crime he supposedly committed? Do one's duties to the law surpass those of attaining 'true justice'?

I realize that one does not necessarily have to be a paladin to have these same decisions thrust upon them, but the idea of playing a paragon of virtue in a corrupted world just has its appeal.Ooo, that reminds me... I wanted to make a Phoenix Wright-based attorney class, for use in Eberron! With Objection / level-per-day to prevent the opponent from doing anything, and you get to keep your usage of it if you make a successful Knowledge: Law check in the next round to find a valid legal argument against whatever action you just stopped. Just imagine how much fun BBEG fights would be!

"At last, I have you all where I want you! Now, when I activate this symbol of death..."

"OBJECTION! That symbol of death is illegal... and I can prove it!"

"W-what? Impossible! I object... this is... objectionable!"

"I submit to the court this Delayed Blast Fireball, which you left as a trap for us in the hall approaching the throne room."

"Yes--that was clever! What about it?"

"It isn't about the fireball... look closer. Count the number of damage dice!"

"But... nngh!"

"Yes! 13d6... exactly the dice of a 13th level caster! Are we to believe that you gained two levels in the time it took us to get here... with enough rounds left for Symbol of Death's 10-minute casting time?"

(The surrounding monsters gasp and start murmuring among themselves.)

DM: "Order! Order! I will have order!"

(to be continued)

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-05-30, 10:12 AM
A player in my new campaign is a wizard with high profession: lawyer named Marcus Phoenix Wright. He plans to design and wield a repeating crossbow with a wound flail attachment later on. He already yells objection and uses his lawyer check in place of diplomacy and bluff.

PMDM
2007-05-30, 10:18 AM
Nice, I like the lawyer idea, but we're off topic.

We need the paladin, becuase if we didn't have it, WoTC would be insane.

As for the game mechanic, the paladin does a good job of being a cleric/fighter hybrid.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-30, 10:28 AM
Nice, I like the lawyer idea, but we're off topic.

We need the paladin, becuase if we didn't have it, WoTC would be insane.

As for the game mechanic, the paladin does a good job of being a cleric/fighter hybrid.

Paladin should be a Cleric prestige class, not a base class. But I'll agree with you there.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-05-30, 10:36 AM
A player in my new campaign is a wizard with high profession: lawyer named Marcus Phoenix Wright. He plans to design and wield a repeating crossbow with a wound flail attachment later on. He already yells objection and uses his lawyer check in place of diplomacy and bluff.

Funny thing- I had a Harvester Devil based off Von Karma just a couple sessions ago...

On topic: Paladins are awesome.

Even :miko:

Matthew
2007-05-30, 10:37 AM
Paladin should be a Cleric prestige class, not a base class. But I'll agree with you there.
Nah, Paladin should be a Fighter Prestige Class...

Green Bean
2007-05-30, 10:39 AM
Nah, Paladin should be a Fighter Prestige Class...

Nah, they should combine Paladin and Cleric into a 'Divine Warrior' base class, and use Cloistered Cleric as the primary divine caster.

Morty
2007-05-30, 10:41 AM
Paladin should be a Cleric prestige class, not a base class.


Nah, Paladin should be a Fighter Prestige Class...

Or both. You could make a PrC that requires both fighter and cleric levels to go into. Of course, that'd need fighter having any class abilities.
But really, paladin deserves being separate base class. It'd just require cleric not being tank. Or at least not every cleric.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-30, 10:42 AM
Nah, Paladin should be a Fighter Prestige Class...

What I meant is that it should be set up as enterable at L6 if you take, say 3 levels of cleric and 2 of fighter and take the right feats.

Matthew
2007-05-30, 10:47 AM
What I meant is that it should be set up as enterable at L6 if you take, say 3 levels of cleric and 2 of fighter and take the right feats.
I know, I was being facititious (I think, or maybe I'm using that word wrong...). Anyway, yeah. Paladin is fine as a Base Class in my opinion.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-05-30, 10:48 AM
I do like the prestige paladin. It's a lot sexier then the standard paladin, and is ripe with roleplaying possibilities.

Matthew
2007-05-30, 10:53 AM
Paladin can already act virtually as a Prestige Class, though. You just Multi Class into it...

Fax Celestis
2007-05-30, 10:54 AM
I know, I was being facititious (I think, or maybe I'm using that word wrong...). Anyway, yeah. Paladin is fine as a Base Class in my opinion.

Yes, you're using the word right. No, I don't agree with you.:smalltongue:

Matthew
2007-05-30, 10:57 AM
Heh, heh. Then we shall just have to agree to disagree (or have a long drawn out debate and then agree to disagree...)

B!shop
2007-05-30, 10:58 AM
So if you think paladin should be a fighter/cleric PrC, what about rangers? Druid/rogue PrC?

:smalltongue:

The White Knight
2007-05-30, 10:59 AM
Fax & friends:

Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm#prestigePaladin)'s what you're talking about, almost to a T. I also like it over the standard Paladin.

Spiryt
2007-05-30, 11:00 AM
Paladin is , i think "knight" in other word. But not kinght from PHBII but stereotypical medieval knight, defender of poor and bullied. Prestige class is good idea i think but not necessary only Clerics or Clerics/Fighters should be able to become a paladin. Completely non spelcasting fighters or knights from PHBII should too - they will be able to do some divine after becoming paladin (as they have spells now).

However, even in one Complete warrior we have knight of the chalice and Knight protector who are basically prestige paladins so it probably don't have sense...

Matthew
2007-05-30, 11:02 AM
So if you think paladin should be a fighter/cleric PrC, what about rangers? Druid/rogue PrC?

:smalltongue:
Druid/Rogue/Fighter PrC... (Warrior/Priest/Rogue once upon a time)


Fax & friends:

Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm#prestigePaladin)'s what you're talking about, almost to a T. I also like it over the standard Paladin.

I thought that was what we were discussing?

Paladin is , i think "knight" in other word. But not kinght from PHBII but stereotypical medieval knight, defender of poor and bullied.

A Roland or a Lancelot, yes. More like Fantasy Knight than Medieval Knight, but yes (though Knighthood is itself not necessarily a prerequisite it is strongly hinted in the Base Class description).


Prestige class is good idea i think but not necessary only Clerics or Clerics/Fighters should be able to become a paladin. Completely non spelcasting fighters or knights from PHBII should too - they will be able to do some divine after becoming paladin (as they have spells now).

Very true. I agree.


However, even in one Complete warrior we have knight of the chalice and Knight protector who are basically prestige paladins so it probably don't have sense...

Interesting observation.

elliott20
2007-05-30, 11:09 AM
Am I the only one who felt that we have far too many Paladin imitations? I mean, most of the fluff between most of these different knights are virtually identical. they just have slightly different mechanical abilities.

PinkysBrain
2007-05-30, 11:10 AM
Paladin is a bit like fighter, useful to dip.

Spiryt
2007-05-30, 11:19 AM
Druid/Rogue/Fighter PrC...

More like Fantasy Knight than Medieval Knight, but yes.



Rangers are kinda strange thing.
I always seen them as wanderers who hadn't to be druidic, don't have to like nature at all - just don't like civilisation or don't fit to civ. More lik Barbarian/ Figher.
It would be no problem but their animal companion and some spells (tree shape ::smallconfused:) make them more druidic...


And, Matthew, maybe stereotypical is wrong word. I mean like them were supposed to be in medieval. In theory, probably imagined by bards and priests.

And little off topic but with reference to "druidic (or not)'' rangers - is it -mechanically- good to take ranger variant from PHBII ?

Matthew
2007-05-30, 11:31 AM
Well, Paladins were actually inspired by Three Hearts, Three Lions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hearts_and_Three_Lions), which itself was drawing on the Pseudo Modern/Victorian view of Knighthood, heavily influenced by Romanticism, such as was present in books like Ivanhoe or reworkings of the Arthur/Charlemagne mythos. It's a very particular view of 'Medieval', rather than a generic 'supposed'. The Medieval view of Knighthood does not itself necessarily coincide with the Victorian/Modern one, which is an important distinction to draw.

Rangers, on the other hand, were blatantly ripped right out of The Lord of the Rings, but have since undergone something of a transformation that associates them with Druidism, for some reason. Druids used to be a Sub Class of Priest (Second Edition), just like Cleric, but before that were a Sub Class of Cleric (First Edition). You could pretty much replace Druid with Cleric as a prerequisite, but to qualify for the Prestige Ranger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm#prestigeRanger) the Cleric would have to have access to the Animal Domain to get the prerequisite 'Calm Animals Spell'.


And little off topic but with reference to "druidic (or not)'' rangers - is it -mechanically- good to take ranger variant from PHBII ?

Very much depends on what you want.

EvilElitest
2007-05-30, 11:33 AM
.

Sure, its a much maligned class, mainly because of the stupid ruling that they cannot even associate with evil characters ( Even if evil means that they are just cowardly or selfish.) But its always going to be my favourite.

Mechanically, they can be decent, but not compared to say, Crusaders or Clerics. So if you want to play one, it has to be for the flavor.

The first part isn't quite true, acording to the BOED, a paladin can work with an evil person, just can't allow them to commited evil deeds or work for evil ends
from,
EE

Person_Man
2007-05-30, 01:26 PM
If your DM allows it, you can use the Leadership feat to get a Cohort.
The Paladin can make its Cohort its Special Mount, gaining all of its nifty benefits. This one often overlooked core rule allows Paladins to be on par with virtually any class, because you essentially get to play two characters for the price of one. Of course, it requires DM approval, which is difficult unless everyone else in the party is a full caster of some kind.

Also, Paladins make excellent mounted builds. Spirited Charge+Divine Might+Smite Evil+Power Attack with a magical lance wielded with two hands = 3(1d8+Cha+Paladin level+[2*BAB]+lance's bonus+[1.5*Str]+buffs from spells). An impressive number that should kill most enemies, without having to dump your AC using Shock Trooper. A 9th level human (or strongheart halfling) Paladin with no flaws can attain this combo just by using the SRD, and easily deal an average of 150 damage on a charge attack. Also note that the Spell Compendium has a lot of useful Paladin spells, and the mount gains the share spells ability relatively early. This makes buff magic a very potent for a mounted Paladin.

But I agree that if you're going to play a Paladin, do so for fluff reasons. A pure Cleric (or any other full caster) will generally be more powerful.

PlatinumJester
2007-05-30, 01:33 PM
Paladins would be great except that you have to be LG. I mean, it's the lamest elignment. Any party with a paladin in is automatically restricted in their actions i.e. if it's not a lawful good thing to do then it's evil and you must die for the peace of the nation.

Technically, Paladins cannot loot chests/corpses because it's stealing/imorale.

Matthew
2007-05-30, 01:52 PM
Well, that's one interpretation.

Morty
2007-05-30, 01:56 PM
Probably the worst thing about paladins is their alignment restriction. Paladin should be warrior of the "cause", but this cause doesn't have to be good or even lawful.

Green Bean
2007-05-30, 01:58 PM
Paladins would be great except that you have to be LG. I mean, it's the lamest elignment. Any party with a paladin in is automatically restricted in their actions i.e. if it's not a lawful good thing to do then it's evil and you must die for the peace of the nation.

Technically, Paladins cannot loot chests/corpses because it's stealing/imorale.

I don't see why they can't loot chests or corpses. It isn't listed in the LG alignment description or the paladin's code. And there's nothing that says that they have to think that anything non-lawful good is evil. Nor does anything say you must attack anything that is evil.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-30, 01:58 PM
If your DM allows it, you can use the Leadership feat to get a Cohort.
The Paladin can make its Cohort its Special Mount, gaining all of its nifty benefits. This one often overlooked core rule allows Paladins to be on par with virtually any class, because you essentially get to play two characters for the price of one. Of course, it requires DM approval, which is difficult unless everyone else in the party is a full caster of some kind.

Also, Paladins make excellent mounted builds. Spirited Charge+Divine Might+Smite Evil+Power Attack with a magical lance wielded with two hands = 3(1d8+Cha+Paladin level+[2*BAB]+lance's bonus+[1.5*Str]+buffs from spells). An impressive number that should kill most enemies, without having to dump your AC using Shock Trooper. A 9th level human (or strongheart halfling) Paladin with no flaws can attain this combo just by using the SRD, and easily deal an average of 150 damage on a charge attack. Also note that the Spell Compendium has a lot of useful Paladin spells, and the mount gains the share spells ability relatively early. This makes buff magic a very potent for a mounted Paladin.

But I agree that if you're going to play a Paladin, do so for fluff reasons. A pure Cleric (or any other full caster) will generally be more powerful.

Funnily, lance-charger builds are the one instance where Monkey Grip has some merit (due to the multipliers).

Just a note.

Talya
2007-05-30, 02:04 PM
Arrghh... Paladin talk again... [joking]

Paladins in default D&D are almost completely different from Clerics or Favoured Souls. Where these two Classes are usually associated with a particular religion and Deity (though not in all cases for the Cleric), Paladins usually are not (as can be discerned from their fluff). Paladins also draw their Divine power directly from the 'Divine source of Law and Good'.

Mechanically, the difference is obvious. If you want to play a Character with the discrete ability set offered by the Paladin Base Class, play a Paladin.

Paladins are not really 'defenders of the faith', that's Clerics. Paladins are defenders of Law and Good (which might happen to coincide with a particular Deity's interests).

Maybe it's because I've mostly seen Forgotten Realms, but I've never gotten this impression with paladins. Paladins belong to a church, and can only worship deities within one step from their own. They are templar warriors, the holy knights defending the faith.

fractal_uk
2007-05-30, 02:14 PM
Paladins would be great except that you have to be LG. I mean, it's the lamest elignment. Any party with a paladin in is automatically restricted in their actions i.e. if it's not a lawful good thing to do then it's evil and you must die for the peace of the nation.


If it's not a lawful good thing to do, it may be evil, but it may also be chaotic.

I should point out that killing someone for not being lawful good is clearly an evil act and therefore is not something a Paladin can possibly do. Even killing someone for being evil is by no means a good act, Lawful Good characters are all for proper judicidal processes.



Technically, Paladins cannot loot chests/corpses because it's stealing/imoral.

That's not neccessarily true. A Paladin who cleares out a dungeon, drags the villain (and his loot) back to the lawful authorities to sort out is acting perfectly properly. It would be reasonable to expect that you would be given some sort of reward for your trouble.

As for corpses - A Paladin should not be leaving many corpses in his wake, if he is, he's not going to be a Paladin for much longer.

Matthew
2007-05-30, 02:19 PM
Maybe it's because I've mostly seen Forgotten Realms, but I've never gotten this impression with paladins. Paladins belong to a church, and can only worship deities within one step from their own. They are templar warriors, the holy knights defending the faith.
Well, it probably is because you have only seen the Forgotten Realms, as if you check the PHB, you'll see it's exactly the way they work in Greyhawk/Default D&D 3.x. However, it's not quite the way they used to work in (A)D&D 2.x, which was a little more ambiguous. The Paladin was assumed to serve a Lawful Good Religion, as he had to pay a tithe to them, but that was the extent of his prescribed involvement. The (A)D&D 2.x Complete Paladin's Handbook presents a number of options for how a Paladin fits into the Social Order.
In any case, no, Paladins aren't Templars or Holy Knights; even in the Forgotten Realms the situation isn't as clear cut as all that.

Aquillion
2007-05-30, 02:52 PM
The first part isn't quite true, acording to the BOED, a paladin can work with an evil person, just can't allow them to commited evil deeds or work for evil ends
from,
EEHmm? From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm):

Associates
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.I don't think BoED is meant to override that. BoED has some... odd... opinions on alignment and so forth, really.

...now, I'd imagine that that restriction is one of the most commonly houseruled away (or house-ignored) for when people just want to play different character concepts. Honestly, I don't think it should be stated in such extreme terms (core classes shouldn't be designed to create that kind of nasty party incompatability.)

fractal_uk
2007-05-30, 02:57 PM
Well, it probably is because you have only seen the Forgotten Realms, as if you check the PHB, you'll see it's exactly the way they work in Greyhawk/Default D&D 3.x. However, it's not quite the way they used to work in (A)D&D 2.x, which was a little more ambiguous. The Paladin was assumed to serve a Lawful Good Religion, as he had to pay a tithe to them, but that was the extent of his prescribed involvement. The (A)D&D 2.x Complete Paladin's Handbook presents a number of options for how a Paladin fits into the Social Order.

I hesitate to have a debate about this again, after we had exactly the same discussion in the last thread. Given that there is no requirement for even Clerics to worship a certain deity by the core rules and the fact that both Paladins and Clerics cast Divine spells there is clearly Religious or at least Spiritual involvement.

It is also, as someone pointed out before, a very common house rule to require Paladins to worship a specific deity. I am yet to play in a game that hasn't required Paladins choose a God.

Anyhow - I suggest you take a look at the Complete Champion, which came out recently, it has some more information on how Paladins fit into a religious environment - specifically emphasing their role as holy warriors and defenders of the faith.

Unfortunately however, a lot of our respective views derive heavily from our own opinion of the Paladin Class so it's difficult to say who is actually right or even if one view has more merit than other. From my perspective, however, your view of a Paladin is what I see as the Cavalier prestige class from the Complete Warrior.

Matthew
2007-05-30, 03:01 PM
Indeed, Clerics do not have to worship a Deity, but you'll notice in their fluff, that should that be the case they are typically not ordained and do not belong to a religious institution.
It may be a fairly common House Rule for a Paladin to worship and be empowered by a particular Deity, but it certainly is not default RAW. As can be read in the Magic Section of the PHB, a Paladin's Spells are powered by the Divine force of Law and Good.

I would imagine that the Complete Champion and other ancillary books would contain a lot of information for running Paladins by other methods or as champions of a particular Deity. Wizards have consistantly shown that they don't know their own rules or otherwise don't care about contradicting themselves. I doubt I will be picking it up, but I certainly wouldn't begrudge people playing Paladins who are empowered by Deities (that is one of the options presented in Deities and Demi Gods, after all).

To be clear, there is absolutely nothing stopping a Paladin becoming a Templar, Monk or member of the Clergy of a Lawful Good Religion any more than there is anything stopping a Fighter, Rogue or Wizard doing the same, it simply is not typical of that Class in default D&D.

The reason I see it worth even bothering to defend this view is to keep a clear distinction between the Paladin and Cleric Classes, mainly so people don't whine on about them being too similar.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-30, 03:26 PM
My two cents:

Paladins are the ultimate defenders of the faith.

Clerics are faith spreaders, prophets, clergymen, missionaries. They know and teach the faith.
Paladins defend it, it's their main purpose.

In game terms paladins are more warrior-like and gets abilities (immunities, smithe evil, the special mount) barred to the core clerics.

No, Paladins are the attackers of the faith.

Nero24200
2007-05-30, 03:48 PM
Probably the worst thing about paladins is their alignment restriction. Paladin should be warrior of the "cause", but this cause doesn't have to be good or even lawful.

Holy knights shouldn't be chaotic (since chaotic characters are -far- less likely to obey a code of honour passed down from their order)
And if you want to play an evil knight, theres this little presitege class called "Blackguard"

I've yet to see a problem with LG Paladins, only the poorly RP'ed ones who play as LN/LE

Droodle
2007-05-30, 05:13 PM
@Mathew: You do realize that Paladins need a divine focus (holy symbol) in order to cast a most of their spells, right? Doesn't that kind of go against the whole "Paladins don't get their powers from a deity idea?" While their fluff says that they don't have to worship a specific deity, it's important to remember that Clerics work the exact same way. The Clerics fluff is no different than the Paladin's fluff on this matter. They don't have to worship a specific deity, either. They, too, can worship a concept, code, or ethos. Or even a puppet. Paladins and Clerics get their powers from the exact same place. Nothing in their fluff indicates otherwise.


Feel free to argue that Paladins don't need to draw their powers from a deity. I agree with that. Just remember that this is no different than the way Clerics work. The fact that Paladins don't need to draw their powers from a deity doesn't mean that they never do. If it did, that would mean that Clerics also never draw their powers from a deity since they aren't required to worship a specific deity, either.

Matthew
2007-05-30, 05:30 PM
Droodle, did you miss this? Paladins not only do not need to, they flat out don't in default D&D.


Divine Spells
Clerics, druids, experienced paladins, and experienced rangers can cast divine spells. Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells. The divine forces of law and good power paladin spells. Divine spells tend to focus on healing and protection and are less flashy, destructive, and disruptive than arcane spells.

As for the Holy Symbol, that can be anything appropriate to faith:


Divine Focus (DF)
A divine focus component is an item of spiritual significance. The divine focus for a cleric or a paladin is a holy symbol appropriate to the character’s faith.

What exactly that faith may be or the symbol of it, is undefined. A Paladin could have his Sword be his Holy Symbol, presumably (or perhaps a Puppet if it somehow was appropriate to his Lawful Good faith).

A Cleric who worships a cause may be like a Paladin (so long as they draw their power from Law and Good), but that does not make a Paladin like a Cleric who worships a Deity. Also, remember that a Cleric who worships a cause is not ordained nor related to an organised religion (according to the fluff) [Edit] Sorry, 'religious institution or a particular practice of worship'.

Droodle
2007-05-30, 06:16 PM
Mathew, you are playing semantics. Sure, the fluff makes mention of the fact that Paladins draw their powers from the divine forces of law and good. It doesn't change the fact that all the literary fluff (and not just Faerun) and even half the stuff you find in dragon magazine or other splat books allows something different. The prestige Paladin, for example, is able to draw his powers from a deity. Faerunian Paladins have to draw their powers from a deity. It isn't wrong to create a Paladin who draws his powers from a deity who has both the Law and Good domains.

EDIT: Here's another good one. If Paladins draw their powers from a different source then Clerics, why does a Paladins Turn Undead score stack with his Cleric levels? The fluff contradicts itself over and over on the issue of Paladins and Clerics.

Matthew
2007-05-30, 06:29 PM
That's because Turning Undead is Channeling Positive/Divine energy; what difference if you draw half from a Deity and half from a Divine Force?

I'm not the one playing with semantics here. The PHB outright states where the Divine Power comes from and in the rules section, not the fluff section (that quote is from the SRD). The fluff section makes no mention of a Paladin having to worship/serve a Deity, in fact stating that most do not. There's no two ways about it. The RAW makes it clear.

I'm not saying you cannot create a Paladin who draws his power from a Deity. What I am saying is that the Paladin in the PHB does not.

Droodle
2007-05-30, 06:45 PM
I'm not saying you cannot create a Paladin who draws his power from a Deity. What I am saying is that the Paladin in the PHB does not.If the only place you ever look is the PHB, you are absolutely correct. However, if you start including Splatbooks or nearly every literary iteration of the Paladin class ever put in print, you'll find that Paladins who don't draw their Paladins from some deity or other are the exception. This is probably because Paladins have, since their very first iteration (AD&D), always been required to worship a specific deity from which they drew their powers. 3E is, in the grand scheme of things, quite new, and fantasy authors, along with anyone who can remember 2E, aren't about to change their paradigm.

Matthew
2007-05-30, 07:02 PM
Well, actually where I look to for default D&D is the Core Rulebooks. Splat Books and enhancements are all very well, but they do not refer to the default Paladin, they provide variants on a model.

I know full well how Paladin's were in First and Second Edition.

In First Edition they have even less affiliation with any religious group. About the only reference I can think of is in how they gain Cleric Spells, which is largely left undefined. Clerics are outright stated to be inspired by the Miliitary Orders.

In Second Edition Lancelot, Gawain and Roland are invoked as Paladins. The only actual religious obligation they had was to tithe 10% of their wealth to a religious institution. Again granting of Spells might have been a different story, but was hardly well defined. Regardless, they are absolutely defined by the historical/literary figures they are supposed to embody (i.e. not Clerics). Clerics in the same edition are again outright stated to be inspired by the Military Orders.
The Complete Paladin's Handbook similarly goes into depth and detail as to how the Paladin can be expanded and varied.

To be clear. I don't care how people choose to play Paladins. What gets on my nerves is people complaining about them and misunderstanding their presentation in the PHB as some sort of Ordained Pseudo Clergy, then making faulty statements about what it has to mean to be a Paladin in D&D.

Droodle
2007-05-30, 07:09 PM
In 2E, the fact that Paladins serve a religious organization is spelled out several times in both the PHB and the DMG. The Complete Paladin's Handbook spelled it out even further. 3E was a change.

Matthew
2007-05-30, 07:18 PM
Please do point to the relevant passages in the 2.x PHB and DMG. There is only one instance I can think of in the PHB, which relates to his tithing of 10% of his goods to a religious institution that he serves. A diversion from the 1.x PHB to be sure, but hardly definitive of the Paladin as having to belong to a specific church. Indeed it is directly contradicted by how he atones for sins, which merely requires a Cleric of Lawful Good Alignment. He does, however, conduct Turning via his Deity, according to the DMG, but not because he is a member of the Deity's clergy. Presumably, the Paladin also has his Spells granted by a Deity as well, but (for obvious reasons) this wasn't spelt out in those pc times.

As I said, the Complete Paladins Handbook provides many options for expanding Paladins. They don't have to belong to churches (though we might assume they are) and, indeed, those few that live long enough apparently are inclined to declare independence (an odd clause).

Here's an excerpt:


What comes to mind when you think of the paladin? For many of us, his image is indelibly linked to that of the medieval knight, the supreme hero of the Middle Ages. Clad in shining armor, his lance gleaming in the morning sun, the knight is the quintessence of gallantry, the champion of the powerless, and the personification of courage—at least as we remember him from history.
Though The Complete Paladin's Handbook encompasses aspects of the historical knight, it casts a much wider net. While you'll find the horse soldiers who served the lords of the feudal age, you'll also meet riders of unicorns, killers of dragons, and nemeses of the undead; men and women who ride majestic war horses and wield magical swords; and worshippers of ancient religions and followers of arcane philosophies, some serving powerful churches and monarchies, others answering only to their own consciences.

Droodle
2007-05-30, 07:30 PM
Try anything regarding atonement. Paladin must seek a high level lawful good priest, confess, and do penance as prescribed by the Cleric in order to regain his abilities.
Try reading up on how Priests cast their spells in 2E since Paladins cast and prepare their spells exactly as priests in 2E. I'm not going to waste my time dredging up quotes because, frankly, I'm lazy.
Try reading any Paladin described in literature prior to the release of 3E (or after, for that matter).

Or read The Complete Paladin, since those books were absolutely essential back in 2e.

Roderick_BR
2007-05-30, 07:31 PM
Ooo, that reminds me... I wanted to make a Phoenix Wright-based attorney class, for use in Eberron! With Objection / level-per-day to prevent the opponent from doing anything, and you get to keep your usage of it if you make a successful Knowledge: Law check in the next round to find a valid legal argument against whatever action you just stopped. Just imagine how much fun BBEG fights would be!

"At last, I have you all where I want you! Now, when I activate this symbol of death..."

"OBJECTION! That symbol of death is illegal... and I can prove it!"

"W-what? Impossible! I object... this is... objectionable!"

"I submit to the court this Delayed Blast Fireball, which you left as a trap for us in the hall approaching the throne room."

"Yes--that was clever! What about it?"

"It isn't about the fireball... look closer. Count the number of damage dice!"

"But... nngh!"

"Yes! 13d6... exactly the dice of a 13th level caster! Are we to believe that you gained two levels in the time it took us to get here... with enough rounds left for Symbol of Death's 10-minute casting time?"

(The surrounding monsters gasp and start murmuring among themselves.)

DM: "Order! Order! I will have order!"

(to be continued)
:belkar: You just forgot one little detail. I'm chaotic.

Matthew
2007-05-30, 07:33 PM
No, they were absolutely optional, but look above for the introduction to the Complete Paladin's Handbook (Sorry, just thought to quote it late on).

As I said, they are assumed to be granted Spells and Turning by a Deity in 2.x, but that doesn't mean they serve a Church. The actual Cleric can be of any religion, so long as he is Lawful Good (an odd way to be atoned).

The Complete Paladin's Handbook does say that most Paladins serve a Church, but it appears to be a matter of personal choice and social norms (i.e. campaign specific). Even so, that doesn't make them the same as Clerics. Indeed, the emphasis is entirely on how few Paladins actually exist, so they can hardly form an order of their own. Interestingly, it also provides for Paladins who serve philosophies or natural forces:


Chapter 8: Faith

All paladins have an abiding faith that serves as a moral compass and foundation for their ethical principles. Although most follow established religions, others draw spiritual sustenance from non-traditional philosophies and even natural forces. All paladins, however, believe in something: Their faith provides them with not only their spells, but also their special powers.
This chapter looks at the medieval relationship between paladins and the church, as well as some alternatives to the historical model. It also examines the paladin's duties and responsibilities to his faith, along with the penalties imposed for violating religious edicts.

All the same, I would concede that most Paladins according to the Complete Paladin's Handbook do serve a Church in some manner (though interestingly they can renounce that church if it becomes corrupt).

However, I would still be interested to see where the PHB and DMG state that the Paladin must serve one particular church.

Of course a lot of (A)D&D was variable (which was the intention) so looking for a RAW definition of a Paladin is a difficult business, as the definition is broad, though I think when it defines a Cleric as Turpin and a Paladin as Roland we're pretty clear about their respective roles. In any case we are rather straying off the point, which is how Clerics and Paladins are differentiated.

PaladinFreak
2007-05-30, 07:54 PM
That's not neccessarily true. A Paladin who cleares out a dungeon, drags the villain (and his loot) back to the lawful authorities to sort out is acting perfectly properly. It would be reasonable to expect that you would be given some sort of reward for your trouble.

As for corpses - A Paladin should not be leaving many corpses in his wake, if he is, he's not going to be a Paladin for much longer.

Who says that the loot has to be brought back to the authorities? Unless a Paladin is specifically asked to bring the loot back to the authorities, they have no need to do so. Often, it would be in the best interest of Law and Good if they would use the loot to do more good.

Also, I think that the number of corpses is by no means a sign one way or the other about the Paladin's goodness. If a group of say, Orcs attack a caravan the PCs are with, do you expect a low level Paladin to not attack for lethal damage? Obviously, it would be evil to attack them still if they are trying to surrender. In short, the only way a body count is a sign of a Paladin's goodness, is if the creatures were killed for little or no reason.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-30, 08:42 PM
Try anything regarding atonement. Paladin must seek a high level lawful good priest, confess, and do penance as prescribed by the Cleric in order to regain his abilities.
Try reading up on how Priests cast their spells in 2E since Paladins cast and prepare their spells exactly as priests in 2E. I'm not going to waste my time dredging up quotes because, frankly, I'm lazy.
Try reading any Paladin described in literature prior to the release of 3E (or after, for that matter).

Seeking penance doesn't make you a religious official. We do it today all the time. The Catholics call it the Rite of Reconciliation.

Droodle
2007-05-30, 08:51 PM
Seeking penance doesn't make you a religious official. We do it today all the time. The Catholics call it the Rite of Reconciliation.True. But Hindus don't go to Catholic confession. Neither do Baptists, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc. My point was that Paladins were subservient to a church. If they weren't, they wouldn't need to seek out Lawful Good priests (in other words, priests that have the same religious beliefs as the Paladin) for atonement. This requirement was loosened in 3E to anyone that can cast Atonement, so it's a purely a 2E argument.


@Mathew: The reason I consider the "Complete X" books absolutely necessary for 2E is because without them, you really don't have a uniform set of rules. Playing 2E with just the PHB, DMG, and Monstrous Manual caused more player/DM meltdowns than I'd like to talk about. When we started using the splat books, there weren't the rampant interpretational arguments that had previously plagued our games.

Matthew
2007-05-30, 08:52 PM
But since it can be a Lawful Good priest of any religion, how does that make them subservient to a particular church?

Droodle
2007-05-30, 09:01 PM
If they weren't subservient to a church, why exactly did they need to get atonement from a priest at all? Why couldn't they just commune with the force of law and good from which there power was derived on their own?

I'll not argue with you about what the rules say. They say what they say. My point is that the water is a lot muddier than you'd have us believe. The difference between the sources of the Paladin's and Priest's power isn't so clear.

Matthew
2007-05-30, 09:31 PM
A fair question and one that also reinforces my own view. Why can't they get atonement from a higher level Paladin? If Paladins are so closely linked to the church, why do they have to seek out an agent of that institution who is not a Paladin? Viewing Lawful Good Clergy as better equipped to absolve them of their sins doesn't strike me as evidence of formal subservience to one church.

It's fairly obvious why the waters are muddy, given the Paladin's genesis and the way in which that interacts with D&D mythology, but the question is whether we can see a fundamental difference between a Paladin and a Cleric (or perhaps whether we should)? Of course they share some similarities, as does the Paladin with the Fighter, but does that make them the same?

In 3.x the PHB is clear that default Paladins do not draw their Divine Power from Deities (but Deities and Demi Gods offers other options). In 2.x the PHB is clear that they do receive their Spells and Turning effects from a Deity (but the Complete Paladin's Handbook offers several alternatives). In 1.x the PHB is not clear where the hell they get these abilities, but Unearthed Arcana says they must serve a Cause, Deity, Noble, etc...

In 3.x the PHB is clear that most default Paladins do not serve any particular one church above others. In 2.x the PHB does not make it clear if they do or they don't, though the Paladin, like the Cleric, is assumed to have a Deity or Deities. In 1.x there is no comment one way or the other.

No edition suggests that a Paladin is by default ordained in a Religious Institution, Military Order or Monastic Order, but no edition prohibits that from being the case. The Cleric, on the other hand, almost always belongs to a religious organisation and is ordained. Both 1.x and 2.x refer to the Military orders as the inspiration behind the Cleric Class and whilst 3.x does not explicitly, the Cloistered Cleric variant suggests the Monk/Warrior Monk dichotomy.

What most players who complain about this seem to want is to make the Paladin more of a Cleric and the Cleric more of a Cloistered Cleric. They want to take away the Alignment restrictions and make him generic to a religion. Essentially, they want a Warrior Priest and a Non Warrior Priest...

So what we end up with is the Cleric and the Cloistered Cleric (both, perhaps, with some minor tweaking). The Paladin is essentially gone.

Is that really worth all the hassel? Why not just leave Paladins as they are, instead of conflating them with Base Classes intended to represent Spell Casting versions of Monks and the Priesthood?

I suspect that were this to happen we'd soon end up with a 'new class', you know a Fighter with a bit of Divine Power. A bit like the Ranger, but for Clerics...

Droodle
2007-05-30, 10:04 PM
Truthfully, I'm not terribly fond of the non-LG paladin paradigm. I like the Blackgaurd and Holy Liberator PRC's, but I think that if the word "Paladin" is in the class description without an Anti- prefix, then the class should require a Lawful Good alignment. Seriously, if we keep going like this, Drizzt is going to end up taking a fourth base class.:smallannoyed:


My major Paladin rant, though, is about the fact that the Paladin picks up Divine Grace at level 2. The absolute best Paladin ability (and one of the best class abilities in all of 3E for Charisma based characters).......and he gets it at level 2? No wonder everyone wants a hand in the cookie jar. What bard isn't going to want to take a 2 level Paladin of Freedom dip before jumping into Sublime Chord? What Spontaneous Gish build isn't going to have a 2 level Paladin dip? If I ever get around to DMing again, I'm moving Divine Grace to level 7.

EDIT: Incidentally, adding Atonement to the Paladin Spell list certainly wouldn't destroy game balance. I don't see why they don't get it, honestly.

Aquillion
2007-05-31, 12:44 PM
Here's an interesting idea... could you have a cleric or paladin who is officially a member of a church, but actually gets their power from their inner ideals? It seems legal to me.

Another thought: If I worship a god / concept involving higher thought, can I make my brain my holy symbol? :smallbiggrin:

Matthew
2007-05-31, 01:08 PM
Yes for the Paladin, it's not only legal, it's default. However, it is not possible in certain Campaign Worlds (such as the Forgotten Realms), which require Divine Sponsors.

For the Cleric, it's slightly different, as the fluff suggests this is not normal (and perhaps not possible), but there is nothing mechanically preventing it being the case. The only problem is when the 'Cause' or whatever conflicts with the Religion Organisation. What happens when a Cleric has a change of heart, the organisation does something against the Cause of the Cleric or the Deity has an Alignment change (I'm not clear if this last is strictly possible)?

These are potentially very interesting RPG plotlines that were discussed to some degree within the (A)D&D 2.x Complete Paladin's Handbook. Not sure where you would find 3.x guidelines, maybe Complete Champion (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/955647200)? Deities and Demi Gods (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881650000), the Manual of the Planes (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/882420000) or the Planar Handbook (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/179200000) might also provide some information, or perhaps the Complete Divine (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/880360000). Somebody else might know exactly how useful these books actually are.

doorknobdeity
2007-05-31, 01:39 PM
What got me into fantasy in the first place were stories of Knights. Not just any knights- the Bravest and purest ones, like Galahad and Roland. They didn't just ride off for glory, they fought to protect the people and lofty goals, things they were willing to lay down and die for.

A Paladin represents a very specific kind of person in fantasy fiction. He is not a Fighter, or a Cleric, or Even a Cavalier- not only is he a brave and noble warrior with an untouchable spirit, or one of the faithful, he is heroism personified, willing to lay down his life for perfect strangers. No matter how hard the quest, or grueling the battle, the Paladin refuses to surrender- in spite of the fact that the thanks he will get is probably death at a young age.

Sure, its a much maligned class, mainly because of the stupid ruling that they cannot even associate with evil characters ( Even if evil means that they are just cowardly or selfish.) But its always going to be my favourite.

Mechanically, they can be decent, but not compared to say, Crusaders or Clerics. So if you want to play one, it has to be for the flavor.

Whattup, fellow chivalry fanboy?

Anyway, I think many of the problems of the paladin is that it was probably envisioned as the perfect, chivalrous knight of old, while most people today are looking for holy warriors-- not quite the same.

Person_Man
2007-05-31, 02:13 PM
Funnily, lance-charger builds are the one instance where Monkey Grip has some merit (due to the multipliers).

Just a note.

Monkey Grip? Heresy! Sadly you might be right though. You'd get an average +7.5 (2.5*3) bonus to damage & -2 to attack for one feat, assuming you charge on every attack. Not great, but not horrible either. If I had an extra feat to throw around though, I'd take Headlong Rush, Knockback, Frightful Presence, Cavalry Charger, or Cleave.

Runa
2007-05-31, 02:38 PM
Truthfully, I'm not terribly fond of the non-LG paladin paradigm. I like the Blackgaurd and Holy Liberator PRC's, but I think that if the word "Paladin" is in the class description without an Anti- prefix, then the class should require a Lawful Good alignment. Seriously, if we keep going like this, Drizzt is going to end up taking a fourth base class

Because I am sure all real Holy Knights in the past were Lawful and Good both. The Crusaders? Totally all Lawful Good. All those civilians they killed in the Middle East? Including fellow Christians? Obviously, they were really orcs. Evil orcs.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Paladin (as opposed to paladine, which inspired the Paladin) is a made-up concept in fantasy and the game just as much as Wizard or Sorcerer is. Think about it - what in say, Christian lore actually says "a wizard learns their spells, a sorcerer just kind of knows them"? Nothing, it's an arbitrary difference in D&D. If you asked a medieval Christian, it is likely they'd find no difference between the two I'd wager.

So when you imply that a Paladin is not a "real" Paladin in a game unless they are Lawful Good and worship a deity, it seems to me it's kind of silly, especially when the RAW in the rule books for such a game don't all say "you have to be Lawful Good and worship a deity to be a Paladin"; in fact, by all rights a true paladine would worship the Christian God - who does not appear to exist in D&D. So, the whole concept in D&D already naturally differentiates itself from the real-world historical paladines. Who by the way, were only required to be obedient to the Christian Church - they did not actually have to be Good aligned, technically, in fact if I recall a fairly large number of the Crusaders were actually criminals who had been told that if they went on a Crusade and took back the Holy Land, they would kind of automatically get forgiven for many or all of their previous sins. The concept of the Paladin in D&D was based less on the real paladines so much as the mythical Arthurian, romanticized knights - themselves mostly if not entirely fictional figures. Again - what exactly is so inherently wrong with tweaking something that already is so very loosely inspired by something else?

The concept of a Paladin in D&D is a warrior who draws power and strength from their faith. All else is variable. Even the alignment isn't nearly as stringent - nor should it be - as people keep arguing it is. A default Paladin is Lawful Good, yes - but if you see nothing wrong with a Blackguard, who is Evil aligned (and therefore arguably the least like what inspired the Paladin class, if we assume the authors weren't keeping nasty Crusaders in mind), what is so inherently wrong with a Chaotic Good-aligned knight figure, the Paladin of Freedom? The Good (and presumably noble) intentions clearly fit with Arthurian legend quite well. The Chaotic aspect is a little unusual, but if you look at the actual variant, it makes sense; the equivalent of many, positive religions: "People should be free as well as safe". This ideal isn't as young as one might think - how many revolutions did we have throughout history precisely because commoners got sick of getting pushed around? A few at least. And one would think that it would fit the image of a righteous knight quite well.

As for Lawful Neutral, well, what about the knights of old who served a Lord or King? They were quite militaristic you know and it is not uncommon to see militaries kind of just say "Look, just follow orders buddy" to their soldiers. Seeing that in another, fictional world doesn't make any less sense. Think about it and it does kind of make sense, albeit not if you're only looking to the idealized Arthurian style knights, but still.

Personally, I like my Paladins Good-aligned, but I've played Lawful and Chaotic both and been perfectly happy. I also like the idea of a Paladin following a God, for the record, but that's only because it gives them a good motivation - which helps in roleplaying (also, my last Paladin didn't even know who her Goddess was until after Level 5, another perfectly way to play even under house rules that say the Paladin should be following a deity). That's my personal preference, and personal preference only. The variants give flexibility to the game, and in the end that's what it is: a game. It's not just an adaptation of Arthurian legend or the Crusades or whatever, it's a game, which borrows - not merely copies - concepts from mythology, folklore and fantasy literature. Nothing more, nothing less.

So in the end, you may not like these variants but that doesn't make them any less extant or valid in the game for other people. Really what your argument is based on is personal preference more than anything else; I will acknowledge that I can see how you would prefer a Lawful Good Paladin following a deity - but saying "if the word "Paladin" is in the class description without an Anti- prefix, then the class should require a Lawful Good alignment" seems just off to me. I realize you prefixed it with "I think"; I'm not saying you're a complete pompous jerk or anything. :P But it would probably be more accurate to say you feel that way. Because your opinion on that matter is rather highly subjective.

All of which doesn't really address why people play Paladins in lieu of other classes, which is actually the topic of the thread. :P

On that subject, I have this to say:

When I played a Paladin, I originally picked it for two reasons: 1,) it was a fighting class that got some cool abilities and 2.) it was funny to have a class that's typically (granted, not universally if you play by not just the core rulebooks) Lawful Good-aligned, when my character was going to be a Fey'Ri (half Sun Elf, half evil outsider by blood). Seriously, I just thought the concept was funny, and the DM allowed it. After that though it became interesting to roleplay a character of semi-evil origins who turned almost painfully good. :P Lotta character development, fun stuff.

Also, our party did not admittedly start out with a Healer or Cleric (one got added later), so Healing Hands was the only thing keeping us alive sometimes. XD But, like someone else pointed out, if you're a Cleric you don't get to do much compared to a Paladin. The Paladin is more of a fighting build than your usual Cleric, and Clerics usually end up (in my experience) hanging back and all, what with having to heal everyone. My Paladin also got good rolls on Ability scores, so she was like a frickin' tank in combat, far more so than either the Ranger or the Fighter in our party. Things such as Smite Evil only made her more so.

Plus, as for why not just multiclass... why multiclass Fighter/Cleric when you can just have the best of both worlds, a little bit of divine magic and a heck of a lot of fighting power, all in one, from the same class? It cuts down on time, really. No need to multiclass to be effective in combat and occasionally effective at healing and other Clericish things. :)

Again though, it was largely thematic and character-driven, as a choice.

In other words, Because it Was Fun. ;)

Droodle
2007-05-31, 03:16 PM
@Runa: Some of us have played D&D since the '80s. The Paladin has been Lawful Good and only Lawful Good in fantasy since around 1980. I'm not looking at what originally inspired the Paladin (which I feel compelled to point out was most assuredly was not Paladine, given the fact that the Paladin class actually pre-dates the Dragon Lance setting), but at what the Paladin has been for the last 25 years.

The original Paladin could only be human (which I was glad to see changed) and could only be Lawful Good. Even if he performed a Chaotic or Evil act under magical compulsion, the original Paladin lost all his powers (I'm glad that this rule was lightened, too). If the original Paladin ever willingly committed a Chaotic act, he lost his powers until receiving an atonement. If he ever willingly committed an evil act, he lost his powers for good. No passing go, no collecting $200, and no atonement. I fully agree that Law, Chaos, Good, Evil, Chaotic Evil, etc all should have their Paragons, too, but the name "Paladin" is already taken. I have no problems with the idea of a Paragon of Chaos and Evil, but just want to see him called something else. 2E actually had a system for that, too.

Matthew
2007-05-31, 03:28 PM
Runa, we cannot really discuss sensitive real world political and religious topics, as it is prohibited by the Forum Rules.

Paladins may or may not be Holy Knights. Holy Knights may or may not be Paladins. It's not mutually exclusive (or inclusive). Anywho, you are right that the Class lends itself to some fun and diverse methods of play. The 2.x DMG was really leery of Elven Paladins, but that certainly didn't stop them turning up in our games!

Fax Celestis
2007-05-31, 03:44 PM
Monkey Grip? Heresy! Sadly you might be right though. You'd get an average +7.5 (2.5*3) bonus to damage & -2 to attack for one feat, assuming you charge on every attack. Not great, but not horrible either. If I had an extra feat to throw around though, I'd take Headlong Rush, Knockback, Frightful Presence, Cavalry Charger, or Cleave.

I'd personally go for Cometary Collision on a charger build, if I had an extra feat. Besides, MG-ing a large lance with Spirited Charge is 2.5*4 for a -2 (average +10), not +7.5.

Person_Man
2007-05-31, 04:10 PM
I'd personally go for Cometary Collision on a charger build, if I had an extra feat. Besides, MG-ing a large lance with Spirited Charge is 2.5*4 for a -2 (average +10), not +7.5.

*4? I thought Spirited Charge with a lance was *3? Where does the extra multiplier come from?

Otherwise, good call on Cometary Collision. Another +4 bonus to damage that would be multiplied thanks to Spirited Charge, and its a good way to intercept an attack against one of your more squishy party members.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-05-31, 11:22 PM
The first part isn't quite true, acording to the BOED, a paladin can work with an evil person, just can't allow them to commited evil deeds or work for evil ends
from,
EE

D'oh. My age is showing, in 2nd Edition they were not allowed to associate with evil characters.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-05-31, 11:24 PM
Whattup, fellow chivalry fanboy?

Anyway, I think many of the problems of the paladin is that it was probably envisioned as the perfect, chivalrous knight of old, while most people today are looking for holy warriors-- not quite the same.

Exactly. Crusaders or Knights weren't quite Paladins. Even most of the knights of the round table didn't qualify. Not to mention, they are an ideal- something everyone seems to forget.

Glad to know someone shares my interests!

Renegade Paladin
2007-05-31, 11:49 PM
Paladins would be great except that you have to be LG. I mean, it's the lamest elignment. Any party with a paladin in is automatically restricted in their actions i.e. if it's not a lawful good thing to do then it's evil and you must die for the peace of the nation.
... What part of that is lawful good or in the paladin's code?
Probably the worst thing about paladins is their alignment restriction. Paladin should be warrior of the "cause", but this cause doesn't have to be good or even lawful.
A character championing something other than chivalry is not a paladin; that's what the word means and has meant in fantasy gaming since the beginning of fantasy gaming. Additionally, the definition out there in the broader English language is a heroic champion, especially a knightly one. Just any old champion of any old cause doesn't qualify for that either. The word is taken; get your own.
Droodle, did you miss this? Paladins not only do not need to, they flat out don't in default D&D.
Well what are the "divine forces of law and good?" Heironeous is certainly a powerful force for both law and good, is a divine being, and hey presto, loads of paladins worship him. QED. :smallamused:

Matthew
2007-06-01, 06:23 AM
Well what are the "divine forces of law and good?" Heironeous is certainly a powerful force for both law and good, is a divine being, and hey presto, loads of paladins worship him. QED. :smallamused:

Apparently it's something separate from a Deity. It's possible that Heironious draws his power from that source, I would imagine. Deities and Demi Gods is probably your best bet for an explanation of such things, but it's a very general work.

Tormsskull
2007-06-01, 06:56 AM
This is the first paladin thread I have read in probably a year or so. I generally skip every thread with "Paladin" in the title because it ends up becoming a redundant topic of "Would a Paladin lose his powers if he...".

However, this thread has interested me, so I thought I'd weigh in with my opinions.

First, I think that Paladins do not have to serve a specific deity per RAW. However, my favorite version of the Paladin-model is from Birthright (2nd edition). In Birthright, Paladins could be a variety of alignments based on which deity they were a Paladin of.

Haelyn, who is very similar to 3e Heironious, had Paladins that were LG. His Paladins acted as roaming police officers with the authority to execute justice as they saw fit. I often adapt that model for Paladins in my campaigns, where they are given law enforcement authority in any country that sponsors a LG god. And since the Paladins are required to be LG, they aren't abusing their authority, and thus the whole system tends to work well.

In addition, Paladins in my campaign world are sanctified in a church by a high-ranking cleric, that's what turns them into Paladins.

A Paladin that does not belong to any church is certaintly possible per RAW, but I don't think I'd allow it in my games unless a player had a really convincing argument. While it could be a lot of interesting RP for a farmer who always exhibited Law and Goodness to "hear the call" to paladinhood or whatnot and thus obtain the powers of a Paladin, I am not a big fan of characters spontaneously learning new abilities (except in specific exceptions, mainly the sorceror).

Matthew
2007-06-01, 07:06 AM
Well, that's up to you, but to clarify by the default RAW Paladins don't need to belong to a church and they don't draw their Divine Power from a Deity. Many Paladins may worship a particular Deity, but according to the fluff most don't.

Birthright is a great setting, though, and it's well worth stealing some of their ideas. I'm not really sold on Paladins as a police force, but whatever works.

Varamil
2007-06-01, 07:46 PM
Holy jeez lol i can't believe how much replys i got all this information is really useful and makes me want to try a paladin maybe in my next campiagn thanks again to all who have posted!

Starbuck_II
2007-06-01, 11:01 PM
D'oh. My age is showing, in 2nd Edition they were not allowed to associate with evil characters.

Nope, 3.5 Paladins can't either. PHB says so. BoED is wrong (as usual) if itr says otherwise. Primary source is the source to rely on in these cases (paladins code).

Renegade Paladin
2007-06-01, 11:13 PM
To my knowledge, it doesn't say otherwise. It does say that you can attempt to redeem an evil character, but a prisoner isn't an associate, so your relationship with one isn't really an association, which implies joining as a partner, friend, or companion.

TheOOB
2007-06-01, 11:23 PM
I personally would have no problum with the paladin as a PrC, but I don't allow them as a base class in my games, and refuse to play them in other games.

I have a problum with a base class that has such harsh built in role play mechanics. It's one thing to say members of a class usually act one way, its completly different to say you have to act a certain way or else you lose all your class abilities. The paladin class abilities arn't even good enough to justify an arbitrary restriction such as that. Whats worse is that the paladin with their code of conduct will oftentimes force other players to change the way they roleplay so they don't risk violating their party members code of conduct.

Now, I don't have a problum with a character being a holy warrior with a code of conduct, but I have a problum with your class abilities hinging upon it. Roleplay should be handled with roleplay, not game rules.

If you want to play a divine agent of justice, try the cleric, favored soul, crusader, or even my homemade Dawnblade (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27496&). You can roleplay any one of them the same way, except they gain better abilities, and allow the player to choose how their character acts, not some inane rules text.

Matthew
2007-06-02, 08:40 PM
I think Saph said it best in a previous Concepts Behind the Paladin Thread:


I've honestly never understood this.

Player: "I want to play a Paladin . . ."
DM: "Sure."
Player: "But I don't want to play Lawful Good."
DM: "Uh, then do you want to play a CG fighter, or cleric?"
Player: "No, I want to play a Paladin, but without having to be like a Paladin."

- Saph

That pretty much sums up my position as well. There are already plenty of Prestige Classes (such as the Light Warrior in Deities and Demi Gods) and Variants that fulfil the Paladin who is not a Paladin ideal, what's the big deal about the existence of the Base Class Paladin?

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-06-02, 11:07 PM
I think Saph said it best in a previous Concepts Behind the Paladin Thread:

That pretty much sums up my position as well. There are already plenty of Prestige Classes (such as the Light Warrior in Deities and Demi Gods) and Variants that fulfil the Paladin who is not a Paladin ideal, what's the big deal about the existence of the Base Class Paladin?

Of all the Classes in D&D, I think the Paladin has one of the most well explained Archtypes in literature. If you don't want to play Lawful Good, don't play a paladin, that simple.

TheOOB
2007-06-02, 11:38 PM
Of all the Classes in D&D, I think the Paladin has one of the most well explained Archtypes in literature. If you don't want to play Lawful Good, don't play a paladin, that simple.

Well, the other classes arn't archetypes, they are ability sets. A base class isn't supposed to be like a paladin where it says "You are like this and do these things", but rather "You can do these things".

A level in fighter means you train in martial ability, a level in wizard or sorcerer means you train to cast arcane spells, a level in cleric or druid means you learn to channel the divine, a level in rogue means you train to be skillful. On the other hand a level of paladin means you are a divine agent of the gods and must follow a strict code of conduct or forever be worthless to your team (not that paladins are exactally powerful in the first place.)

Matthew
2007-06-08, 02:09 PM
A level in fighter means you train in martial ability, a level in wizard or sorcerer means you train to cast arcane spells, a level in cleric or druid means you learn to channel the divine, a level in rogue means you train to be skillful. On the other hand a level of paladin means you are a divine agent of Lawful Goodness and must follow a strict code of conduct or forever be worthless to your team (not that paladins are exactally powerful in the first place.)
Fixed that for you...

Paladin is definitely more of a specific archetype than the other Base Classes.

Saph
2007-06-08, 02:29 PM
Well, the other classes arn't archetypes, they are ability sets. A base class isn't supposed to be like a paladin where it says "You are like this and do these things", but rather "You can do these things".

Well, actually, I'd say that it's pretty clear from looking at the Paladin class that they ARE supposed to be archetypes.

Some of the base classes are ability sets (Fighter, Rogue), some are archetypes (Paladin, and to a lesser extent Barbarian and Monk), and some are in between (Druid, Cleric).

This means that players who like archetype classes can play them, while players who don't, like you, can play one of the "ability set" classes instead. Isn't that a pretty good arrangement?

- Saph

GolemsVoice
2007-06-08, 02:43 PM
As other posters said, I prefer to play a class because I have a certain image in my mind. The class of the paladin always amazed me, not because of the OMGwtfroxxorskillz, but because of the history, the codex and the duty a paladin bears. I like that strict mindset, and the narrow path that a paladin must walk in order to be a paladin.
I cannot understand why some people only see the calsses skills, not what it is meant to be. Agreed, most people (me, too) do not like playing an underpowered class or being upstaged by someone else. But it's called Roleplaying because of the roles you play. And that's why I want to play a paladin. Because I like the role.

EvilElitest
2007-06-08, 02:57 PM
Hmm? From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm):
I don't think BoED is meant to override that. BoED has some... odd... opinions on alignment and so forth, really.

...now, I'd imagine that that restriction is one of the most commonly houseruled away (or house-ignored) for when people just want to play different character concepts. Honestly, I don't think it should be stated in such extreme terms (core classes shouldn't be designed to create that kind of nasty party incompatability.)

Yes and BOED goes into that in more detail (what do you find odd?) and states that a paladin can work with an evil person, just can't allow them to be evil. The rule was more focused that they can't help evil people do evil things or work for evil ends, like perventing the paladin acting like Jake Spoon (Lonesome dove).

The example used is the paladin is up against a drow house that worships lolth, and a group of male drow rebels meet up with her. The rebels are evil as well, but they hate the lolth worshipers and are willing to help the paladin fight. The paladin is allowed to work with them, but he can't let them commit any evil acts.



True. But Hindus don't go to Catholic confession. Neither do Baptists, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc. My point was that Paladins were subservient to a church. If they weren't, they wouldn't need to seek out Lawful Good priests (in other words, priests that have the same religious beliefs as the Paladin) for atonement. This requirement was loosened in 3E to anyone that can cast Atonement, so it's a purely a 2E argument.
But a paladin doesn't need to go to a priest of a god they worship to get an atonment spell, or even worship a god to begine with. Their powers are drawn from the raw powers of good and law. Their having to atone or not is irrelevant.


@Mathew: The reason I consider the "Complete X" books absolutely necessary for 2E is because without them, you really don't have a uniform set of rules. Playing 2E with just the PHB, DMG, and Monstrous Manual caused more player/DM meltdowns than I'd like to talk about. When we started using the splat books, there weren't the rampant interpretational arguments that had previously plagued our games.
Well, under than stand point, for third edition all i need is the PHB and hey, it says a paladin doesn't need to worship a god. Sweetness.


Nope, 3.5 Paladins can't either. PHB says so. BoED is wrong (as usual) if itr says otherwise. Primary source is the source to rely on in these cases (paladins code).
What is your beef with BOED?
Anyways, Raw is very vauge on what is considered working with evil, and WOTC laters states they mean working with for evil deeds or allowing them to commit evil
from,
EE

Jack Mann
2007-06-08, 03:19 PM
Though I rarely play the paladin class, I'm a great fan of the archetype. Generally, if I want to play a "paladin," I'll play a crusader (I'd pick cleric prior to Tome of Battle) and simply roleplay the other aspects of the archetype.

Which isn't to say there's anything wrong with the class, but before it rather forced you into mounted combat, and now that you have other options... Well, I still prefer the crusader. I find their abilities more fun. And they still fit the archetype fairly well.

TheLogman
2007-06-08, 04:06 PM
Meat shield
-Some would argue that a Paladin is a better fighter at higher levels than a fighter simply because instead of feats, Paladins get abilities that negate annoying stuff (Like Fear). Paladins also get smiting! Yay for smiting! I mean really, unless your DM decides to be a Giant Prick and only lets your fight Neutral people, but then make you lose your Paladin abilities, since in some respects, what those guys were doing wasn't Evil, as much as Neutral, and could have been even Good (The True Neutral Druid who wants to destroy the loggers to bring back the trees).
Spellcasting
-It's not great, but at Epic levels, they might get Epic Spellcasting, and we all know how that turns out. Plus, although it's not "Spellcasting", Lay on Hands can heal some nice stuff once you get some +Charisma gear.
Mount
-It's not great later on, but someone to flank with, and another combatant is always useful.