Paladin, a character class that should not be?

[endur]

My problem, at least, is that people may want to play a left-handed ex-ninja, but that doesn't mean there should be a class for that. Likewise, wanting to play a good guy is perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean there needs to be a Good Guy class - especially in a system that already has mechanics for making characters unambiguously Good.

Classes exist because of popularity.

Paladin has been around since AD&D PHB 1e and will likely continue to be around.

[McStabbington]

My problem, at least, is that people may want to play a left-handed ex-ninja, but that doesn't mean there should be a class for that. Likewise, wanting to play a good guy is perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean there needs to be a Good Guy class - especially in a system that already has mechanics for making characters unambiguously Good.

Should "Evil Wizard" be a different class than "Ethically Forgettable Wizard?" If you're going to do a class-based system, I don't think moral tendencies are a good basis to build classes on. Especially since there's an inevitable "but I want to be an Evil Paladin," which is a perfectly reasonable choice to make, but if you're just going to have to make another identical class with the alignment descriptors changed every time someone wants to do that.

... Or you can separate classes from alignment restrictions, allowing all the non-Neutral Druids and Chaotic Monks a player could want to play - but that would mean that the mechanical Paladin class is no longer the paladin concept, in the sense of "holy warrior of good," but instead a Fighter/Cleric that hits ideological enemies harder and can arbitrarily heal.

I think this is an excellent argument, but not for the conclusion you intended. The conclusion that you actually reached is that you aren't up for playing a paladin. This isn't in itself a bad thing. But there's no good reason for ruining it for the rest of us.

I've mentioned this several times, but it apparently bears repeating that clerics are not agents of good. They are agents of deities, and deities often have their own agenda that doesn't always match up with what is good.

Which is precisely why it is a good thing that there is a paladin class: if this thread has shown anything, it's the value of having someone who doesn't compromise in their quest to do what is right, who never says "close enough" or "greater good" or allows their desire to follow a god, or power, or love, or their own self-interest to get in the way of that quest. That is what seperates a paladin from every other class. And it is why I for one am glad that they bothered to make the class in the first place. Because sometimes I want to play someone whose only motivation is to do the right thing for the right reason.

Is the class clunky? Yeah. Will it slow a powergamer group down? Often. Could you build the class to be more effective? It's been done several times. But none of that makes the class unnecessary.

[BayardSPSR]

Which is precisely why it is a good thing that there is a paladin class: if this thread has shown anything, it's the value of having someone who doesn't compromise in their quest to do what is right, who never says "close enough" or "greater good" or allows their desire to follow a god, or power, or love, or their own self-interest to get in the way of that quest. That is what separates a paladin from every other class. And it is why I for one am glad that they bothered to make the class in the first place. Because sometimes I want to play someone whose only motivation is to do the right thing for the right reason.

Why is there a need to implement that concept mechanically as a class? To me, "good" by any definition doesn't seem like something there should be mechanics for (or associated with). Especially considering that many people don't seem to play their paladins that way.

Why can't you play a Bard (or any other class) whose only motivation is to do the right thing for the right reason? I don't see how that motivation demands the ability to Smite Evil, Lay On Hands, and eventually cast Cleric spells.

I'm not trying to say no one should play the paladin concept, but that the Paladin class gets in the way of the paladin concept. I like the concept. I've played the concept, and will probably do so in future. I don't think that means there should be a class for that. People wanted to play a Samurai; that didn't make the Samurai class a good fit with the game it was built for.

I sincerely hope that I'm not ruining anything for anyone. My intention is to bemoan what I see as a counterproductive mechanical intrusion into RPG fun. It would be a tragedy indeed if this vague and hyperbolic griping somehow ruined any kind of gaming for anyone, never mind "the rest of us."

[Cluedrew]

Why implement anything mechanically? My first major role-playing campaigns were complete free form and that worked wonderfully. I'm not sure what the answer is, but here we are talking about Dungeons & Dragons instead.

The sides have become very entrenched so I'm going to do something a little different. I'm going to go over the opposite argument that I usually do.

So the main problem with the paladin is that it represents a very singular character concept. One of a heroic idealist with a particular set of skills and powers. It cannot be used to represent other types of characters, even if those characters have similar or identical skills, because the rules say it can't.

This thin character concept is reinforced by mechanical "catches" that are tied to how the character acts. So if you attempt to move outside of the concept you will suffer the fall and resulting power loss by RAW. Plus what triggers the catch is open to interpretation leading to the "nope, you fall" problem, where the paladin falls for something that either was beyond the player's control or the player didn't realize would make them fall.

Then there is the problem that the character concept only operates in a story with a simplified, lets call it fairy tail, morality. Where the bad guys are evil, everyone is somewhere on the scale of innocent victim to noble hero and the good guys beat up the bad guys for truth and justice. In other words is can't deal with working with the bad guys out of necessity (whether these bad guys are PCs or NPCs) and many other forms of desperate measures for desperate times. The first, not working with bad guy PCs, adds an extra problem in that is does not only limit the paladin and the paladin's player but other players in the same game.

And although it is not technically part of the problem the problem is highlighted by the paladin's more flexible counterpart, the cleric. Which by choosing an appropriate religion can represent a much wider variety of character concepts. As can most of the other core classes, at least from a personality perspective. Similarly many alternate methods for representing a virtue-based character have been suggested including straight role-play and a vow bonus you can add to any class. These would be more flexible in their use to allow for more character concepts.

I think that summarizes most of the arguments against the paladin. If someone from the anti-paladin group (not to be confused with a group of anti-paladins) could let me know if I got that right or if I missed anything.

[Eloel]

That sounds about right.

[Cluedrew]

Cool. I don't actually disagree with anything there, its just it brings me to a different conclusion than "the paladin should not be". To explain exactly why is going to take a little while and I need to do some real life things today, so it will probably have to wait for tomorrow.

[Frozen_Feet]

Please do explain to me, the silly little idiot I am, what the reasons are.

Evil means debasing and harming life.

Paladin is tasked with stopping people who do that.

You don't get to have Evil alignment without qualifying as the sort of a person the Paladin ought to stop. A paladin might leave such a person alone if they don't have proof or means necessary to bring them to justice, but they won't be friends with them nor support them. Even the shopkeeper who's ripping off their customers is someone the paladin ought to boycot, even if what they're doing is technically legal and sanctioned by society. If you don't get why, ask any human or animal rights activist who are doing similar stuff in real life.

I disagree. Greater good seems like it'd be more important to a champion of good.

No. You're describing a pragmatist, almost the polar-opposite of someone focused on ideals and empowered by principles.

Agree with Mr. Moron here. Whenever you're thinking of a character who's willing to either sanction or turn a blind eye to evil thoughts and deeds, you're not thinking of a paladin. If a paladin is found doing either in the name of "greater good", they're a fallen paladin.

[Ashtagon]

That's actually a good analogy The mindset of a paladin should be akin to animal rights activist, eco-warrior, "conviction" (not pragmatic) politician, and the like. They don't compromise with those who are even merely nominally opposed to themselves. The kindest they'll be is to stay away from them for now, and any closer interaction involves doing they best to make them change their ways -- none of this "for the greater good" nonsense.

[BWR]

I would argue paladins do work for the greater good. It is constantly on their mind and the core of their beliefs, and the greater good cannot be tainted with compromise and pragmatism. It corrupts morally and sets a bad example for everyone and is a slippery slope - if you tolerate that one lesser evil to defeat a bigger one, where do you draw the line?
The greater good is not merely solving this particular problem in an expedient manner, it is the consequences of your actions and how they affect the entire world. A paladin not only fights evil, she must be good example, doing what is right regardless of what is easy or convenient, setting a good example to show others that there is a better way than tolerating evil, inspiring people to make the right choice even if it costs them dearly.

[Necroticplague]

The sides have become very entrenched so I'm going to do something a little different. I'm going to go over the opposite argument that I usually do.

So the main problem with the paladin is that it represents a very singular character concept. One of a heroic idealist with a particular set of skills and powers. It cannot be used to represent other types of characters, even if those characters have similar or identical skills, because the rules say it can't.

This thin character concept is reinforced by mechanical "catches" that are tied to how the character acts. So if you attempt to move outside of the concept you will suffer the fall and resulting power loss by RAW. Plus what triggers the catch is open to interpretation leading to the "nope, you fall" problem, where the paladin falls for something that either was beyond the player's control or the player didn't realize would make them fall.

Then there is the problem that the character concept only operates in a story with a simplified, lets call it fairy tail, morality. Where the bad guys are evil, everyone is somewhere on the scale of innocent victim to noble hero and the good guys beat up the bad guys for truth and justice. In other words is can't deal with working with the bad guys out of necessity (whether these bad guys are PCs or NPCs) and many other forms of desperate measures for desperate times. The first, not working with bad guy PCs, adds an extra problem in that is does not only limit the paladin and the paladin's player but other players in the same game.

And although it is not technically part of the problem the problem is highlighted by the paladin's more flexible counterpart, the cleric. Which by choosing an appropriate religion can represent a much wider variety of character concepts. As can most of the other core classes, at least from a personality perspective. Similarly many alternate methods for representing a virtue-based character have been suggested including straight role-play and a vow bonus you can add to any class. These would be more flexible in their use to allow for more character concepts.

I think that summarizes most of the arguments against the paladin. If someone from the anti-paladin group (not to be confused with a group of anti-paladins) could let me know if I got that right or if I missed anything.

Yep, that's pretty much it. Though, I would like to add, clerics of causes/philosophies are possible, not just clerics of gods. So a cleric of Good is entirely possible, and would be fluffwise identical to the Paladin.

[VoxRationis]

Seriously, stop comparing the Paladin to the Cleric. That's not where the Paladin comes from, that's not the core essence of their class. The paladin is not a priest. The paladin is a warrior, a knight. They are an offshoot of the Fighter, one so valiant and righteous that their purity becomes mechanically useful. Paladins are like Galahad or other Knights of the Round Table. Yes, they have certain things, like a smattering of divine spells and Turn Undead, in common with the cleric, but that's not what their class is.

[LibraryOgre]

Seriously, stop comparing the Paladin to the Cleric. That's not where the Paladin comes from, that's not the core essence of their class. The paladin is not a priest. The paladin is a warrior, a knight. They are an offshoot of the Fighter, one so valiant and righteous that their purity becomes mechanically useful. Paladins are like Galahad or other Knights of the Round Table. Yes, they have certain things, like a smattering of divine spells and Turn Undead, in common with the cleric, but that's not what their class is.

Yes and no, Vox. While the concept of the Paladin comes from a specific place, the concept of a cleric, as written, doesn't come from much different of a place. The Paladin may be Roland and the 12 Peers of Charlemagne (qv 2e PH), but the cleric is identified as coming, in part, from Archbishop Turpin... also one of the Twelve Peers.

The concept of a militant, holy, knight is the core of both the cleric and the paladin. They get compared because their inspirations are, if not the same, then very similar.

[Karl Aegis]

Oh, dang. We're back to the French. No love for the Polish Hussar, yet?

[veti]

Evil means debasing and harming life.

Paladin is tasked with stopping people who do that.

You don't get to have Evil alignment without qualifying as the sort of a person the Paladin ought to stop. A paladin might leave such a person alone if they don't have proof or means necessary to bring them to justice, but they won't be friends with them nor support them.

Thus far, you could substitute the words "good person" for "paladin", and nothing would be lost.

Even the shopkeeper who's ripping off their customers is someone the paladin ought to boycot, even if what they're doing is technically legal and sanctioned by society. If you don't get why, ask any human or animal rights activist who are doing similar stuff in real life.

Ah, here's a distinction - maybe. A good person can still deal with evil people, within reason - a paladin can't.

Or can they? It seems to me that paladins do, in fact, do deals like that fairly regularly. If a paladin buys a slave in order to set them lawfully free, that means they have to make (and honour) a business deal with a slave trader - is that fall-worthy? If an unjust ruler has appointed their own judges, does that mean the paladin should no longer turn the common murderer (who would be tried and punished appropriately) over to the corrupt authorities? If a shopkeeper runs a front for an evil criminal gang, is the paladin not permitted to buy a pair of shoes from him? Even if he's the only cobbler in town?

Sounds like Lawful Stupid to me. And it still doesn't quite explain why they need a separate class. These are roleplaying decisions. Any character can make up their own mind in each of these cases.

[VoxRationis]

Yes and no, Vox. While the concept of the Paladin comes from a specific place, the concept of a cleric, as written, doesn't come from much different of a place. The Paladin may be Roland and the 12 Peers of Charlemagne (qv 2e PH), but the cleric is identified as coming, in part, from Archbishop Turpin... also one of the Twelve Peers.

The concept of a militant, holy, knight is the core of both the cleric and the paladin. They get compared because their inspirations are, if not the same, then very similar.

But that's Archbishop Turpin, a priest, a holy man. And a significant number of the priest spells are straight from Biblical tales of the prophets. But Charlemagne and the Twelve Peers (minus Turpin), or King Arthur and his knights, are a different sort of character. They're brave and virtuous, pious yes, but that's because piety was wrapped up in medieval virtues—the bravery and virtue were more important.

[BayardSPSR]

I think that summarizes most of the arguments against the paladin. If someone from the anti-paladin group (not to be confused with a group of anti-paladins) could let me know if I got that right or if I missed anything.

I endorse that message, though I won't claim to speak for anyone else.

Seriously, stop comparing the Paladin to the Cleric. That's not where the Paladin comes from, that's not the core essence of their class. The paladin is not a priest. The paladin is a warrior, a knight. They are an offshoot of the Fighter, one so valiant and righteous that their purity becomes mechanically useful. Paladins are like Galahad or other Knights of the Round Table. Yes, they have certain things, like a smattering of divine spells and Turn Undead, in common with the cleric, but that's not what their class is.

Originally, I think Clerics weren't priests either. They were explicitly holy warriors with powers granted by their gods, and didn't even have casting at the first level. I welcome correction on this count, not actually having any "original" materials.

Oh, dang. We're back to the French. No love for the Polish Hussar, yet?

If it makes you feel better, I love that concept too, and still don't think it should be a class either.

But that's Archbishop Turpin, a priest, a holy man. And a significant number of the priest spells are straight from Biblical tales of the prophets. But Charlemagne and the Twelve Peers (minus Turpin), or King Arthur and his knights, are a different sort of character. They're brave and virtuous, pious yes, but that's because piety was wrapped up in medieval virtues—the bravery and virtue were more important.

The notes on the Song of Roland I can find on short notice describe Turpin as "fierce," "fiery," and "a great warrior," while the close personal relationship with God belongs to Charlemagne. I don't see any particular distinction between him and the other Peers.

[theNater]

Thus far, you could substitute the words "good person" for "paladin", and nothing would be lost.

A Good character is under no obligation to stop others from doing Evil. A character who donates a significant amount of money or time to feed the starving is Good, despite no attempts to stop those who are debasing or harming life.

Many Good adventurers will act to stop such things, but only paladins are obligated to do so.

[LibraryOgre]

But that's Archbishop Turpin, a priest, a holy man. And a significant number of the priest spells are straight from Biblical tales of the prophets. But Charlemagne and the Twelve Peers (minus Turpin), or King Arthur and his knights, are a different sort of character. They're brave and virtuous, pious yes, but that's because piety was wrapped up in medieval virtues—the bravery and virtue were more important.

How? One is a holy knight, granted powers by their god because of their holiness, and the other is a holy knight, granted powers by their god because of their holiness. Both swore vows to that effect, and those vows would be to a deity or their proxy.

If the class "paladin" didn't exist, making those characters would be "Mix a little cleric into a fighter."

[Necroticplague]

Seriously, stop comparing the Paladin to the Cleric. That's not where the Paladin comes from, that's not the core essence of their class. The paladin is not a priest. The paladin is a warrior, a knight. They are an offshoot of the Fighter, one so valiant and righteous that their purity becomes mechanically useful. Paladins are like Galahad or other Knights of the Round Table. Yes, they have certain things, like a smattering of divine spells and Turn Undead, in common with the cleric, but that's not what their class is.

A Cleric isn't a priest either. Last I check, priests didn't practice fighting and how to wear armor (they're called men of the CLOTH, after all). Clerics, on the other hand, sit their, knowing how to use almost as many weapons as the rogue, and being able to be dressed head to toe in solid steel, attaching extra to their arm as a shield if they feel the need. Both clerics and paladins are empowered by their belief and conviction to go forth, kick rears and take names. For a cleric of the philosophy/cause of Good and the paladin, both are empowered by their faith and conviction in Good to go forth and rid the world of evil.

[BWR]

A Cleric isn't a priest either. Last I check, priests didn't practice fighting and how to wear armor (they're called men of the CLOTH, after all). Clerics, on the other hand, sit their, knowing how to use almost as many weapons as the rogue, and being able to be dressed head to toe in solid steel, attaching extra to their arm as a shield if they feel the need. Both clerics and paladins are empowered by their belief and conviction to go forth, kick rears and take names. For a cleric of the philosophy/cause of Good and the paladin, both are empowered by their faith and conviction in Good to go forth and rid the world of evil.

Last I checked, priests weren't restricted to Judeo-Christian use, not to mention examples of battle priests in those traditions. And 'cleric' and 'priest' can be used synonymous in D&D, these days unless you use cleric for the class and priest for the position. Though in 2e a cleric was a specific type of priest. And no matter what people say, paladins can be empowered by gods and lose their powers if they fall out of favor. It's just that they must also be LG, and, like priests, are not required to worship a god.

[Brookshw]

A Cleric isn't a priest either. Last I check, priests didn't practice fighting and how to wear armor (they're called men of the CLOTH, after all). Clerics, on the other hand, sit their, knowing how to use almost as many weapons as the rogue, and being able to be dressed head to toe in solid steel, attaching extra to their arm as a shield if they feel the need. Both clerics and paladins are empowered by their belief and conviction to go forth, kick rears and take names. For a cleric of the philosophy/cause of Good and the paladin, both are empowered by their faith and conviction in Good to go forth and rid the world of evil.

There's some historical distinctions going on there. To go back to Mark Hall's point, there were militant priests, as I recall the early Pope's wore armor and led in the field. There was also a strong German ideal in, iirc, the 1700s regarding religious militarism centered around the church and enfolded the priesthood. If someone more knowledgeable wants to elaborate on the militarism found in religion I'd be more than happy to listed. Of course if we're getting into history I suspect we're looking at a political divide between paladins as religiously bent warriors/lords but not part of the church hierarchy and clerics as part of the church hierarchy engage in similar actions. Then we get into motivations between the lords etc to support the church. Can't say I'm the best source for knowledge on the topic though.

Back to the game perspective and the objection to the Paladin as being similar to the cleric or could be expressed by a fighter cleric, why is it that the paladin is singled out quite often in this? The ranger could be tossed aside as being a fighter/druid hybrid (or maybe just druids for that matter), the bard (within the scope of 3.0/3.5) could be chucked as a rogue/sorcerer. Scouts could be tossed as fighter/rogues or fighter/rogue/druids. We could go through a number of base classes, certainly several in core, and toss them aside quite easily if the objection to the Paladin is simply that it's redundant. So why don't I hear these same type of objection commonly levied against the other base classes? Because it's a 1:1 scenario?

[Necroticplague]

There's some historical distinctions going on there. To go back to Mark Hall's point, there were militant priests, as I recall the early Pope's wore armor and led in the field. There was also a strong German ideal in, iirc, the 1700s regarding religious militarism centered around the church and enfolded the priesthood. If someone more knowledgeable wants to elaborate on the militarism found in religion I'd be more than happy to listed. Of course if we're getting into history I suspect we're looking at a political divide between paladins as religiously bent warriors/lords but not part of the church hierarchy and clerics as part of the church hierarchy engage in similar actions. Then we get into motivations between the lords etc to support the church. Can't say I'm the best source for knowledge on the topic though.

That's my point. The post I was responding to, as far as I could see, boiled down to 'clerics aren't the militant arm of divine casters, paladins are', to which I was pointing out is incorrect. Clerics can already be the dude wielding the literal hammer of justice clad in glowing armor of righteousness while channeling divine power, so what niche does the paladin serve?

Back to the game perspective and the objection to the Paladin as being similar to the cleric or could be expressed by a fighter cleric, why is it that the paladin is singled out quite often in this? The ranger could be tossed aside as being a fighter/druid hybrid (or maybe just druids for that matter), the bard (within the scope of 3.0/3.5) could be chucked as a rogue/sorcerer. Scouts could be tossed as fighter/rogues or fighter/rogue/druids. We could go through a number of base classes, certainly several in core, and toss them aside quite easily if the objection to the Paladin is simply that it's redundant. So why don't I hear these same type of objection commonly levied against the other base classes? Because it's a 1:1 scenario?

Oh, I have objections to those annoying hybrids as well, I just wasn't mentioning them because this thread is about the Paladin's failings. Actually, I'm a bit more extreme, and think that Druid and Cleric are redundant as well (clerics of nature:people who's devotion to nature gives them divine magic. druids: people who's devotion to nature gives them divine magic). Barbarian and Fighter should be combined into one more generic class (whether your 1/encounter buff is a mad frenzy or a calm battle focus is your choice), bards should be a variant sorcerer, ranger and paladins should be fighter/cleric PRCs or crusaders, wizard should be replaced with fixed-list spellcasters (or Arcanists), ect.

[Brookshw]

That's my point. The post I was responding to, as far as I could see, boiled down to 'clerics aren't the militant arm of divine casters, paladins are', to which I was pointing out is incorrect. Clerics can already be the dude wielding the literal hammer of justice clad in glowing armor of righteousness while channeling divine power, so what niche does the paladin serve?

Rightyo though the "CLOTH" statement gave me an alternative impression. What I assume the poster was getting at is there are various facets of the clergy that don't coincide with this militaristic image but would still be in the purview of a cleric. Or something to that affect at any rate. I'll give it more thought after a few more cups of coffee.

Oh, I have objections to those annoying hybrids as well, I just wasn't mentioning them because this thread is about the Paladin's failings. Actually, I'm a bit more extreme, and think that Druid and Cleric are redundant as well (clerics of nature:people who's devotion to nature gives them divine magic. druids: people who's devotion to nature gives them divine magic). Barbarian and Fighter should be combined into one more generic class (whether your 1/encounter buff is a mad frenzy or a calm battle focus is your choice), bards should be a variant sorcerer, ranger and paladins should be fighter/cleric PRCs or crusaders, wizard should be replaced with fixed-list spellcasters (or Arcanists), ect.

So within the scope of 3.0/3.5 generic classes from UA are more your cup of tea then?

[Frozen_Feet]

Thus far, you could substitute the words "good person" for "paladin", and nothing would be lost.

A Good character is under no obligation to stop others from doing Evil. A character who donates a significant amount of money or time to feed the starving is Good, despite no attempts to stop those who are debasing or harming life.

Many Good adventurers will act to stop such things, but only paladins are obligated to do so.

What theNater said. A paladin who lets evil go unpunished when he has the power to stop it, or a paladin who goes "hey, it's inconvenient doing the right thing all the time, maybe if I only do it some of the time?" ceases to be a paladin and becomes a "mere" Lawful Good fighter.

Ah, here's a distinction - maybe. A good person can still deal with evil people, within reason - a paladin can't.

Or can they? It seems to me that paladins do, in fact, do deals like that fairly regularly.

Exceptions prove the rule; they don't make it.

Also, "deal with" is vague colloquial speech. There are many ways in which a paladin can "deal with" evil people. The rule is against knowingly associating with and hiring them. Those are far more specific.

1)If a paladin buys a slave in order to set them lawfully free, that means they have to make (and honour) a business deal with a slave trader - is that fall-worthy?

2)If an unjust ruler has appointed their own judges, does that mean the paladin should no longer turn the common murderer (who would be tried and punished appropriately) over to the corrupt authorities?

3) If a shopkeeper runs a front for an evil criminal gang, is the paladin not permitted to buy a pair of shoes from him? Even if he's the only cobbler in town?

1) Depends on the sort of slavery. Chattel slavery is evil by the rules, period. A paladin can't buy or own slaves in a system like that and is obligated to work towards abolishing such systems. In cases on indentured servants or debt slavery, it's acceptable for a paladin to buy a slave their freedom, even if it supports a corrupt system, but it's still less-than-ideal. In latter cases, the question is wholly about the character of the slave-trader - namely, are they evil? Will giving them money cause more people to be victimized? When the answer is yes, the paladin shouldn't pay them for anything - and if possible, should take extra legal actions to stop their business. (The concept of "honouring a deal" is a red herring. A paladin is not obliged to make nor honour illegitimate deals. We had a thread on this very question few months back.)

2) If the murderer would be punished justly and the paladin knows this, on what basis are the nominated judges unjust or evil? Who nominated them isn't important at all. A paladin hardly needs to break the Law of the Land when it's Lawful and Good, even if the one who set it is anything but.

If the paladin doesn't know... well, ask yourself: would you hand a criminal to officials who were nominated in suspect circumstances and whom you can't trust? Or would you, perhaps, demand for the presence of an official you do know and trust?

3) If the Paladin knows he's evil, then no, he's not. He'll be a goody-two-shoes and get his shoes from elsewhere. After taking necessary means to eradicate the criminal organization, of course.

If he doesn't know, he can't be penalized for buying a pair of shoes, because he's not consciously breaking his code, and the act of buying shoes is not itself evil.

Sounds like Lawful Stupid to me. And it still doesn't quite explain why they need a separate class. These are roleplaying decisions. Any character can make up their own mind in each of these cases.

You're not seeing the forest for the trees. The class and mechanics of the paladin are a method for codifying a certain character archetype and role; choosing to play a paladin is a roleplaying decision. You could play a paladin in a system with no class for it, by choosing to stick to the code and joining a militant organization enforcing those principles; but just as well, you could play a fighter in a system with no class for it by picking up a weapon and starting to kill people.

Whether to have a class like the paladin is not a question whether it is necessary, it's a question of how granular you want your system to be. In early D&D and its clones, characters are defined by broad archetypes, and then specialize to narrower archetypes. In such a system, the only way to model a paladin is to have it as a sub-class or prestige class of the Fighter. You acquire character traits in discreet packages known as levels, with little customization possible. Choosing to play a LG cleric or fighter/cleric doesn't actually give you all the traits of the paladin nor does it entail following a paladin's code - a character might still choose to follow it, but it would not have in-game effects associated with it.

As far as "Lawful Stupid" goes... most of your examples are not about what's stupid, they're about what's easy or convenient. They're about whether to pick the most obvious solution, without looking further than that. But the paladin isn't about doing those, it's about doing what's right. Often, it means going the long way and incurring costs to yourself to bring the bad guys to justice.

[Cluedrew]

OK, I've gotten support from the anti-Paladin group on my statement of faults of the paladin. Now that I have established what is wrong with the paladin I would like to explain why I'm still defending it. The question the thread is dealing with is, "Should the paladin be a class?" And despite all of its faults I say yes. I agree that the paladin-class has faults but to me all of these faults mean the paladin needs an overhaul, not that it should be scrapped entirely.

The "single concept" problem is defiantly the main issue for me. Sure there is some variations you can get but it is minor compared to the other classes. My solution would be to give the paladin multiple codes to choose from. The currant one would be the "idealist" code, maybe adjusted a little bit to replace "to not associate with evil" to straight "do not allow evil" which is really what they are going for and allows for the good+evil party mix, although there will still be a lot of friction there as the paladin will be watching the evil party member very closely, but it is not an immediate fall. Then we actually have options, does the paladin allow the evil party member more and more leeway despite evidence that is not a good idea until the paladin is essentially committing evil acts by locum or at the opposite extreme does the paladin inspire and redeem the evil party member? Now you can choose.

From there add on some other codes, such as a "greater good" type code, where evil is allowed as long it creates more good in the end for a more edgy approach. Maybe create some morally ambiguous codes as well to let the paladin traverse down the alignment chart, in terms of viable character concepts, not the same paladin unless it is a fall. Also drop the lawful-chaotic restrictions on most of them, people with a chaotic personality can be idealists. ... Actually no, not going to say anything else about alignment.

If you feel that some mechanical parts of the paladin only fit the idealist arch-type then tie some of the paladin powers to which code they follow. So the idealist gets a lot of healing, the greater good type gets some healing and some damage and a paladin that has vowed to protect something gets defence boosting magic and redirect attacks to his/herself. (I think D&D 5e does something like this, I don't have 5e materials.)

Now this does technically change the paladin class from "hybrid physical divine class dedicated to goodness" to "hybrid physical divine class dedicated to X" but I feel this is not so much changing the class as adding a bit of modularity. Of course if you are really attached to the old meaning of the paladin you could call the modified class the Oath Knight and have the idealist code be the Paladin's Code. Then have the Inquisitor's Code, the Guardian's Code, the Hunter's Code and so on as other options. So you can argue that since my solution technically makes the paladin not a class technically I'm arguing that the paladin should not be a class and technically you would be correct. But I think you are getting caught up in the semantics of the argument. The paladin would still be a mechanically supported character concept available for selection at level 1, which is close enough in my book.

I think that addresses all of the issues people have with the paladin except paladin-cleric overlap. Which I would argue is as much the cleric's problem as it is the paladin's. Now I agree it is a shame that the paladin doesn't come with all these fixes by default, but I'm not involved in the design process so there isn't a lot I can do about that. And no, I'm not saying "its not broken because it can be fixed". However since the class can be fixed while maintaining the original underlying concept the same that means the underlying concept that the paladin class was built to try to represent is valid.

"Don't through the baby out with the bath water." Don't confuse a idea of the paladin (the baby) with the problems in its implementations (the bath water). Conversely, don't be afraid to take the baby out of the bath water then throw the bath water out. Which means don't be afraid to fix the problems with the paladin so it works for your paladin-like character concept. It is not an idea situation no, but it is a salvageable one.

[Necroticplague]

Well, once we start looking for ways to fix the implementation and allowing the concept (divinely empowered martial good guy), we run into the fact that the Crusader exists. Which, as far as I'm concerned, is basically the paladin fix: uses a more appropriate mechanic, portrays more than one concept (can use same mechanics to build a paladin-type who's determination to do good lets him continue fighting despite injury, to a paladin-of-slaughter opposite who's rage refuses to let go), more easily refluffed (related to previous), and has something unique about it (instead of pre-prepping their abilities as spells, they receive theirs in flashes of inspiration).

[skulduggery]

snip

Your idea is pretty much exactly how 5e does paladin. It's actually a very simple yet diverse solution.

As for the rest of the thread, alignment hasn't been an issue for paladins since before 3e (remember paladin of freedom?).

[Eloel]

The question then becomes
"Why does the guy with conviction have to be the fullplate/sword dude with minor spells? Why can't the wizard swear such oaths? If he can, why don't we just stick the same oath to a cleric/fighter and call it a day?"

[Mr.Moron]

The question then becomes
"Why does the guy with conviction have to be the fullplate/sword dude with minor spells? Why can't the wizard swear such oaths? If he can, why don't we just stick the same oath to a cleric/fighter and call it a day?"

That's certainly one way to do it. However the fact that there are alternative ways of implementing something and some of those implementations that might be more versatile doesn't mean that the current system is some kind of egregious error.

The answer to question "Are there are there more versatile or efficient ways of implementing the paladin class?" is "Yes". It also is utterly irrelevant to the the question of if the implementation we got has any right to exist or was (broadly speaking) a mistake.

In order for it to be relevant you'd have to first:

• A) Prove that versatile or broad mechanics are necessarily an improvement over more narrow or specific ones in the context of D&D design goals.
• B) Establish a standard of versatility something must meet to "deserve" being a core class.
• C) Establish in ways paladin fails those that standards that no other D&D class does.

If any of the following things aren't true or can't be sufficiently established then the idea that there might be more versatile ways to implement the paladin concept just aren't relevant to the subject at hand.

[BayardSPSR]

Back to the game perspective and the objection to the Paladin as being similar to the cleric or could be expressed by a fighter cleric, why is it that the paladin is singled out quite often in this? The ranger could be tossed aside as being a fighter/druid hybrid (or maybe just druids for that matter), the bard (within the scope of 3.0/3.5) could be chucked as a rogue/sorcerer. Scouts could be tossed as fighter/rogues or fighter/rogue/druids. We could go through a number of base classes, certainly several in core, and toss them aside quite easily if the objection to the Paladin is simply that it's redundant. So why don't I hear these same type of objection commonly levied against the other base classes? Because it's a 1:1 scenario?

There are ongoing threads criticizing the existence of the Rogue and Wizard, and it's not impossible we could see more (though it would eventually become silly and redundant, if it hasn't already). Some of the people here do support a reduction in classes to broader archetypes, rather than the existing mix of broad and narrow ones; a few others (assuming I'm not the only one) would pursue that logic to the conclusion "and this is why classes are a silly thing that shouldn't be in RPGs except to make things simpler for new players."

"Don't through the baby out with the bath water." Don't confuse a idea of the paladin (the baby) with the problems in its implementations (the bath water). Conversely, don't be afraid to take the baby out of the bath water then throw the bath water out. Which means don't be afraid to fix the problems with the paladin so it works for your paladin-like character concept. It is not an idea situation no, but it is a salvageable one.

We seem to agree on many of the arguments, while differing slightly in conclusions: you consider the paladin class (not the just the concept) part of the baby, which should be salvaged, where I see it as part of the bathwater, which can be disposed of without injury to the paladin concept.

Unless I'm misreading you.