Vengeance Paladins are not real Paladins

[ZorroGames]

Bronze coins? What cultures used those regularly? Valuable for other uses.

Don't get me started on platinum pieces...

[Unoriginal]

Usually coins were historically made from rarer more valuable metals like Copper, Silver, Gold. In some parts of Ancient Egypt silver was deemed more valuable than gold because it was rarer.

IMO, iron or steel being used as coins takes it away from being used for tools (including weapons because weapons are just specialized tools) and if that metal is common increases the frequency of forged (bad pun, I know,) coins being in circulation. The powers that be dislike not being in control of wealth. Not to mention that Copper/silver/gold may tarnish in the case of Silver but they don't rust.

"A treasure trove... of rusted iron coins," has not the same ring as "... under the tarnish there existed a rare and valuable silver set of silver shields from the temple walls..." at least to me.

We have money made of paper. Not all societies need their currencies to be made of valuable material/material that is uncommon/material that is durable for centuries.

[ZorroGames]

Trying to stay on topic. Sorry for digression. Before I depart this thread let me say that I think Vengeance Paladins are indeed Paladins but they need a strong reason and a fierce foe to make the class really viable in play, not just some jerk Noble. Demons, Devils, Ancient Dragon (Hobbit) and such. Make the class worth playing.

[KorvinStarmast]

Steel coins do not retain value. Rust.

Stainless steel is a very new invention, metallurgy wise, and hardly fits the genre of swords and sorcery unless it's *magical*

Are you really going to make your coins out of magical stuff? Maybe.

IIRC, bronze coins with holes in them in China long time ago? (Memory Foggy) (I just checked: as far back as 1000 BC).

Paper currency. Began centuries ago as bank issued promissory notes for an amount of gold or silver. I think we are going back to the Fuggers, perhaps earlier, and by the time of the Medici bankers I seem to recall discounting of notes of that nature. (The history of that family is fascinating, but again memory may be a bit foggy on that). I think it goes back to the 7th or 8th century ...

In the US in the 18th and 19th century, paper currency was most often held to be inferior to specie among the vast majority of the population. "Your money's no good here" usually referred to paper currency.

[Unoriginal]

Bronze coins? What cultures used those regularly?

The Romain Empire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinian_bronzes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Follis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenionalis

They also had brass coins:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dupondius

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sestertius

[ZorroGames]

The Romain Empire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinian_bronzes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Follis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenionalis

They also had brass coins:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dupondius

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sestertius

Almost got away.

Just wanted to say Thanks for the links. More history to research (one of my BA degrees.) No one can retain all they learn and no one learns it all in one life time. But it is fun trying!

[Unoriginal]

Steel coins do not retain value. Rust.

Rust is far less of a problem than you're making it to be. Also, copper corrodes too, if we want to go by the "commonly used metals"

Paper currency. Began centuries ago as bank issued promissory notes for an amount of gold or silver. I think we are going back to the Fuggers, perhaps earlier, and by the time of the Medici bankers I seem to recall discounting of notes of that nature. (The history of that family is fascinating, but again memory may be a bit foggy on that). I think it goes back to the 7th or 8th century ...

And just like paper currency or our modern coins, a different society could use steel coins as promissory notes.

[KorvinStarmast]

Getting back to Vengeance Paladins for a moment:

What's the typical hire fee for one?

[HermanTheWize]

Getting back to Vengeance Paladins for a moment:

What's the typical hire fee for one?

Your Soul!!

[Unoriginal]

A few other bronze coins:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aes_signatum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aes_grave

Getting back to Vengeance Paladins for a moment:

What's the typical hire fee for one?

Depends. They can either refuse to work for anyone, accept to be hired like any other mercenaries of their level of power, or decide to work for you for free if it helps their Vengeance.

[KorvinStarmast]

Depends. They can either refuse to work for anyone, accept to be hired like any other mercenaries of their level of power, or decide to work for you for free if it helps their Vengeance.

Or one can exchange favors, a different sort of barter that is a very old form of trade.

[Unoriginal]

Or one can exchange favors, a different sort of barter that is a very old form of trade.

I would still count this as "being hired".

[Honest Tiefling]

This talk of older editions of DnD makes me wonder if this is a generational issue. I don't know about anyone else who wasn't even a glimmer in their father's eye when DnD first came out, but the whole Arthurian Romantic Fantasy angle never really made a presence in the game. Knights are far less likely to rescue the princess from the dragon then they were to have kidnapped the princess themselves for ransom. I don't think I have ever played in a game with any idea of a goodly king. Or am I alone in this?

[2D8HP]

Back in OD&D and, to a lesser degree, AD&D I tended to play Fighters and Clerics (no thieves, One Mage, one pre-AD&D illusionist from a Strategic Review magazine article, no druids) in part because 3D6 in order seemed to make it easy to roll the former and the latter really wasn't much harder...

IIRC, at the tables I knew, we mostly played Fighting-Men/Fighters even when STR was the lowest stat.

..I am becoming a fan of point buy and standard array with 5th Edition (skipped 3rd thru 4th, barely played 2nd.)

Me too.

I now think I like 1st level 5e better than the D&D I knew (higher levels are another story).

They have their downsides. One of which is all members of a class tend to look like clones in their stat arrays, especially among people that have been exposed to optimization advice. Although rolling doesn't help that much, since arrange in any order is the 'culprit' in regards to this.

The problem with roll in order is you have to choose your class after rolling, which is unacceptable to most modern-era players. The other problem is you might end up a character that many players might consider unplayable ... like Str/Dex/Con all 10, with high mental stats. (Most players seem to want medium to high Dex or Con to go with a high mental casting stat.)

I still sometimes roll stats (even 3d6 in order from time to time), but I then get grief from other players for not bringing an "optimized" PC to the table.

What really "grinds my gears", is how many times a player will roll stats, and then insist on point buy or standard array after they see what they got.

No take backs please!

....OD&D Paladins (before BECMI, B/X, AD&D) had pretty clear yet sparse guidance on how a Paladin works. Greyhawk was actually a nice balance between "enough" and "too much" rules. Concur.
Greyhawk page 8. The original game had NO min requirements for stats for a class, all it had was a bonus for XP for higher stats. The first Stat "min" requirement was the paladin, Cha 17, and the Ranger (Strategic Review 2) and Illusionist (Min 15 Dex, Strat Review 4)....

....I did not roll up a Paladin until a 4d6drop1 (AD&D 1e) some years later. Sometimes, you arrive at dumb luck. Did not play a Paladin in UA, I played Cavalier and Assassin.
If I had not rolled that 14 Charisma, I'd not have been able to play that Druid

Like I said before, I never rolled a Paladin (or Ranger, which I wanted to play even more), so I pretty much played Fighters (and sometimes thieves), which is mostly what I do since playing 5e as well, I really should finally step up and play one, now that I can.

True enough. My personal preference is point buy with role play over hyper-optimization orientation. I consider tens in non-prime stats viable...

Likewise.

....Don't get me started on platinum pieces...

Or electrum!

OMG, that brought back White Box memories!

Nice response.

Dude, you keep bringing back the memories (or is it flashbacks?) and making me feel old... dangnabbit.

Super glad to have you aboard the Forum ZorroGames!

FWIW, I (just barely played) D&D in the 1970's with a DM who used "white box" (and Greyhawk, and Blackmoor, etc.), but by the time I played the AD&D Monster Manual was already out and in use, so I didn't get to play OD&D "undiluted.

My hats off to you.

They are some other OD&D'ers on the Forum:

Well, if a player doesn't like my game they are free to take a hike. I have been running games since 74 and like my old fashion ways.

There was a point where the player base started growing and became more mainstream (compared to wargamers in the 70s) and we started getting more liberal views in the game. The "good DMs don't kill players" is part of the newer thinking I reject. We died a lot back then and it was fun. If we didn't get the stats to become a paladin you didn't play a paladin. Touch luck.

Newer players didn't like that. Why can't I be a paladin. ::cries:: No wonder they believe DMs shouldn't kill players or why a player thinks he should have a say in how a DM runs his game. It is all about them.

I'm surrounded by children.

Playing D&D in college. Not 4E, not 3e or 3.5E. not AD&D2 or AD&D1. The original three books, with fighters, magic-users and clerics. Then playing with the Greyhawk supplement which added thieves and paladins, before Blackmoor added assassins and monks. With hobbits, balrogs, and ents, before D&D was big enough for the Tolkien estate to notice

Waiting for the issue of The Strategic Review or its successor The Dragon, which could be expected to add something new to the game....

In my first serious game, my paladin betrayed and killed the entire Lawful party.

The year was 1975 or 1976, and the game was Original D&D, so Lawful means Good. I had rolled up a paladin, and joined a party of slightly more experienced characters (2nd-4th levels).

I had rolled so low on money that my paladin couldn't afford a sword, and was wielding a mace.

After a few encounters, we defeated some monsters who had knocked us down to minimal hit points. My paladin had one point, nobody had more than 3, and we were out of healing spells. In OD&D, if you reach zero points, you are dead.

The treasure included a sword, which my paladin asked for, just to have a sword. The party agreed, so I picked it up. The DM knew it was a chaotic sword, which meant that touching it would do at least two points and kill the character. The sword had a high ego, so he decided that it changed my alignment, rather than killing me. He passed me a note. "You are now Chaotic, and holding a chaotic Flaming Sword." I asked if I could ask questions in another room, so we went out and I said, "OK, I don't need to ask anything, I just wanted them to think I did." I told him my plan, we waited a couple more minutes, and walked back into the game.

"OK, everyone, listen up; this is important. This is a Holy Sword, and it's given me a quest. I have to go on the quest alone. Go back the way we came, in single file, and no matter what you hear, never turn around."

They agreed, and started to head back. The DM said, "You hear the sound of a sword blow behind you, and a body falling to the ground."

They all know the myth of Orpheus. "We keep on going, and don't look back."

"One round later, you hear the sound of a sword blow behind you, and a body falling to the ground."

"We keep on going, and don't look back."

Lather, rinse repeat. After five iterations, the DM told them that they were all dead.

After the game, I told the other players I'd try to recover their bodies, but tell me what magic items you have, so I can keep them safe. So I got a complete inventory of the items I had just looted.

My improvisation is as follows. "You want the rules set in stone? OK, make a saving throw against petrification. If you make your saving throw, you have to change. If you fail, you can stay as you are."

Of course, my characters would be saving to avoid upgrading to First Edition, because I started with OD&D. My first upgrade was Greyhawk, introducing thieves and paladins. (In fact, I just started playing with the most modern rules I've ever used -- in a 2nd edition game.)

Each "edition"/version of D&D has its quirks and strengths, the existence of "Vengeance" Paladin is one of 5e's.

I still stand by:

If the game features a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon and you play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a warrior in armor, wielding a longbow, just like the picture on the box I picked up in 1978, whatever the edition, I want to play that game!

This talk of older editions of DnD makes me wonder if this is a generational issue. I don't know about anyone else who wasn't even a glimmer in their father's eye when DnD first came out, but the whole Arthurian Romantic Fantasy angle never really made a presence in the game. Knights are far less likely to rescue the princess from the dragon then they were to have kidnapped the princess themselves for ransom. I don't think I have ever played in a game with any idea of a goodly king. Or am I alone in this?

Yeah, I think there's something to that.
We had Camelot, Excalibur, and Lord of the Rings (books and cartoon!), not Game of Thrones. Even Robin Hood's bad "King John" was a placeholder for Richard the "true King" while he was crusading.

[Unoriginal]

In some ways, 5e has a certain "back to the roots" element, though.

For exemple, the Vampire. 5e's version almost seems weird in comparison to modern depictions, as if out of a time capsule.

[Vaz]

IIRC the story had him sacrifing the rear guard in an ambush to save the king and main body. They did not know what he was doing until they were too far away to return in time.

Not sure if this he magic sword but a bad combination of pride, blind loyalty, certainly low wisdom when a messenger might have brought the rest of the army back in counter ambush mode, and the usual "nobility on steroids" attitude.

Durandal was his sword. Supposedly Unbreakable. His advisors "the wise and moderate Oliver" asked him to blow his signal horn to call for help. But rather than call for aid from the main army, he instead tried to fight it alone because it was cowardice to call for aid in view of certain death, apparently - it was only when his advisor said to him that if he survives the battle that Oliver would not let him see his sister (whom Roland loves); and it took the bishop Turpin to tell Roland to blow the horn anyway, because they were all going to die, regardless. Despite Charlemagne rushing back, Rolands force was overwhelmed. Know how he died? By blowing his trumpet too hard.

That's literally his entire story.

It is one of the earliest sources of propaganda, and is an attempt to alleviate the military disaster, and Charlemagne couldn't afford to let the reputation hurt him. Roland was hitherto unknown, really, and the Chanson turned him into a literary hero/martyr in an attempt to make the rearguard battle sound more like a desperate battle to save the rest of the army, rather than the **** up it was for Charlemagne who simply wanted to return home after fighting for too long.

[KorvinStarmast]

Or am I alone in this?

You are possibly alone in this. Reference Sir Galahad, Sir Percival. Lancelot of course was part of the love triangle and betrayed his king, but part of his charm was that she (the queen) swooned over his honor, and his healing an opponent felled in a joust by laying on his hands. (Malory)

The healing of Sir Urry of Hungary -- I had always thought that this was where the "lay on hands" skill of the Paladin came from.

[War_lord]

I think you're making the mistake of interpreting the Song of Roland from a modern perspective, where honor culture is seen as outdated and foolish. In the context of when it was written (the mid 1000's) and for who it was written (western nobility), Roland was a hero. I doubt Charlemagne had anything to do with it, he had been dead for over 200 years at that point.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've seen David Day and a few others link Roland's blowing his horn with the Horn of Boromir, last blown during his defense of the hobbits Merry and Pippin ...

[Unoriginal]

I think you're making the mistake of interpreting the Song of Roland from a modern perspective, where honor culture is seen as outdated and foolish. In the context of when it was written (the mid 1000's) and for who it was written (western nobility), Roland was a hero. I doubt Charlemagne had anything to do with it, he had been dead for over 200 years at that point.

Even within the story people are blaming Roland for his ridiculous pride.

Roland was criticized for being excessive, even if people recognized his conviction and strength.

I've seen David Day and a few others link Roland's blowing his horn with the Horn of Boromir, last blown during his defense of the hobbits Merry and Pippin ...

Not quite the same, though Boromir blowing the horn probably was inspired by it.

Roland was protecting nothing. The enemy army was already fleeing when he used his horn.


Funnily enough, there is a comedic text which involve Charlemagnes and his Paladins going to Constantinople, and while drunk making outrageous boasts in the bedroom the king gave them. So the next morning the king of Constantinople tell them to do whatever they boasted, or else, because he had a spy listen on them.

It involve Roland using his horn to destroy things with its sonic waves.

[2D8HP]

.... And Eric has to retrieve Roland/Orlando's horn to blow and end the world (and bring forth a new one) in Michael Moorcock's Stormbringer

[Syll]

Yeah

They are inspired from epic poetry from the 1100's - Perceval, Galahad, Lancelot, Gareth, who were all involved in the quest for the Holy Grail in one way or another

But the template for the original D&D one comes from a 1960's book called Three Hearts and Three Lions - if you read it you'll see a TON of D&D tropes

I haven't played the game but I'd guess it's probably informed more from a historical reading of the Knights Templar, Crusades, etc than D&D...haven't played it so that's a guess

But it is funny, if you look at the timing, the poems started being written right around the time of the Crusades, even a bit before, so they could very well be some historical whitewashing / propaganda for the actual bloodthirsty jerks in your game

By and large the knights of Arthurian legend are awful people though, obsessed with the appearance of chivalry, not the practice of it. The fact that they get held up as these paragons of goodness is downright bizarre. The same with the crusades, and the atrocities that accompanied them. It's a large part of why I cannot take the fanciful notion of what a 'real paladin' is seriously. I'm not saying that that there are no examples in lore of someone personifying those ideals, but to ascribe that as reality to an entire order/class is incomprehensible to me.... Even in a game revolving around magic.


Further, as some other posters have already pointed out, I believe blanket statements about what a 'True' paladin is or is not, are akin to declaring which religious denomination is the 'True' religion. Pointless, subjective and kind of offensive.

[Jerrykhor]

So basically, the title is the opinion of Uther Pendragon, of course he would say that. He is a Holy spec paladin, in D&D it would translate as the Oath of Devotion type. Its like a Thief saying Assassins aren't real Rogues.

But I'd say Uther is wrong. Paladins are all about justice, and justice is a form of vengeance. It is punishment on the sinned, and the punishment is usually as harsh as the crime itself, like death sentence on a murderer, for example. Even Blizzard seem to think so. If you look at the paladin in WoW, they have many abilities that are vengeance this or avenger that.

[Spore]

But I'd say Uther is wrong. Paladins are all about justice, and justice is a form of vengeance. It is punishment on the sinned, and the punishment is usually as harsh as the crime itself, like death sentence on a murderer, for example.

And as simple as that argument you have convinced me. I still feel Vengeance Paladins overemphasize one part of the equation over good but at least they follow the Paladin code. In a different twist I feel now Ancients Paladins don't feel quite right anymore.

They perpetuate good but they are possibly just good dudes with divine powers.

[Herobizkit]

1e/2e Paladins:

PC Paladin: "I use 'Detect Evil'."
DM: "The three Orcs ping Evil [as they used to be (?) Chaotic Evil]"
PC: "Evil must die raaauugh!"

PC Paladin: "I use 'Detect Evil'."
DM: "The head priest pings Evil, as do the laymen in the pews."
PC: "Evil must die raaauugh!"

PC Paladin: "I use 'Detect Evil'."
DM: "The elven warrior pings Evil. He is sitting alone under a tree."
PC: "Elves are rad. I go talk to him."

Earlier edition Paladins were just as or MORE likely to murder Evil for being Evil - because most monsters and ugly humanoids had an Evil alignment and were there to BE murdered. It was the style at the time. It also made Paladins just as racist as they were sanctimonious as a result, as most of the Good races were Pretty. Even if some outliers of the traditionally Good races happened to be Evil, they were often treated fairly with a chance of redemption.

In short, 1/2e Paladins were merciless to Evil like a Vengeance Paladin and champions of Good like the Protection Paladin at the same time.

[Vaz]

I think you're making the mistake of interpreting the Song of Roland from a modern perspective, where honor culture is seen as outdated and foolish. In the context of when it was written (the mid 1000's) and for who it was written (western nobility), Roland was a hero. I doubt Charlemagne had anything to do with it, he had been dead for over 200 years at that point.

Considering that up until that time, stories essentially propagated through word of mouth, or through writing done at the king's request by monks, how else do you think he got the idea that this individual who was a military failure had to suddenly be made a hero? The Carolingian's fractured after the death of ol' Charlie, and it was pretty much him holding it together. On advice of Ganelon, I think it was, Charlemagne put Roland in the rear. If Charlemagne publicly denounced someone who had died, and also put the blame on another advisor, in addition to losing his army, he'd put himself too politically weak.

Just because people supposedly believed in honour and make overtures about honour, Game of Thrones should tell you that life wasn't all about Honour. Politics didn't suddenly become honourable in the time between Classical Greek/Roman Times to the so-called Dark Ages, before suddenly bouncing back to being the cesspit it is currently.

[EvilAnagram]

But I'd say Uther is wrong. Paladins are all about justice, and justice is a form of vengeance. It is punishment on the sinned, and the punishment is usually as harsh as the crime itself, like death sentence on a murderer, for example.

But are justice and vengeance really interchangeable?

[Unoriginal]

By and large the knights of Arthurian legend are awful people though, obsessed with the appearance of chivalry, not the practice of it. The fact that they get held up as these paragons of goodness is downright bizarre.

Because there are a lot of versions of the stories. Many retelling remove the "unsavory" elements of the characters.

[KorvinStarmast]

But are justice and vengeance really interchangeable?

That isn't what was said. They overlap. Vengeance being a form of justice (addressing a wrong) not the sum total of it. There are also other forms of justice.

@Unoriginal
I have yet to see a story of Galahad or Percival as anything other than noble and worthy. Lancelot? Heh, dude had a dark side.

[Millstone85]

That isn't what was said. They overlap. Vengeance being a form of justice (addressing a wrong) not the sum total of it. There are also other forms of justice.

That isn't what was said either. Jerrykhor called justice a form of vengeance.