What does "Paladin" mean to you?

[LTwerewolf]

Fifth in a series of threads about redesigning all the classes. For the purposes of discussion, all of the classes are scrapped and things are starting entirely from scratch. Therefore "well a cleric can already do that" or "why not just play a duskblade" doesn't apply. I already have an idea of what I would like to do for several classes, but discussion allows me to make things far more inclusive of more concepts, not just the ones I like. It will ultimately lead to a completely new system. If there is enough interest I'll make a website or something that has all the stuff I do. Possibly revisit on the zealot, especially after feedback on this one.

The first four can be found here:
Ranger (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?493915-What-does-quot-ranger-quot-mean-to-you)
Monk (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?494795-What-does-quot-monk-quot-mean-to-you)
Zealot (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?495848-What-does-quot-Crusader-quot-mean-to-you)
Wizard (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?496419-What-does-quot-wizard-quot-mean-to-you)


Things the thread is for:
Discussion of the concept presented in terms of what you associate with it, and the things you think of when nothing else is provided.
Discussion of literary and other representations you feel are good examples of the topic.

Things the thread is not for:
Homebrew charts and specific mechanics
"This class already does that" discussion

Additionally: up for suggestions on a dark knight class name. Bonus points in not using dark or knight in the name, and a vote on the next concept thread you would like to see/discuss.

Things I currently intend to include in the design:
Mounted options
Good alignment requirement
Differing abilities based on law/neutral/chaos spectrum
Code of Conduct based on concept, not alignment argument

[LordOfCain]

Knight, paragon of good, aristocrat, mighty combatant

[Gildedragon]

a warrior for GOOD
Upright, upstanding, empowered by The Powers That Be to be able to find an Option C to a moral dilemma
He spreads hope and light wherever he goes.
Mounted is not necessary
Must be good at fighting
Must be good at taking enemies down non-lethally
Shielding others is probably something they ought be specialized in (block damage, use a shield offensively)

[digiman619]

Micheal Carpenter from The Dresden Files; honest, noble, but never judgemental of those strive to do Good, regardless of where they came from or who they are. And by Good, I mean fight the good fight with, if not honor, than at least respect. Those who routinely take the shortcut to power and violence while claiming to do it "for the greater good" do no qualify.

[Extra Anchovies]

The paladins of our world were the most esteemed knights who served under Charlemagne; the myriad tales and legends of their travels and exploits are akin to those of the Arthurian Round Table. Their title comes from the Latin palatine, the name given to the Roman Emperor's attendants due to the Imperial court's location at Palatine Hill, which is also the origin of the word "palace". A Paladin, then, can reasonably be described as a warrior sworn to serve a higher authority or purpose. Perhaps it is a king, or a divine ideal, or something else entirely, but the Paladin fights not for personal wealth or glory but because they believe their cause is righteous.

[LTwerewolf]

Where also do you think that the d&d and oathfinder paladins, outside of an overly restrictive code of conduct, had failed?

[digiman619]

Where also do you think that the d&d and oathfinder paladins, outside of an overly restrictive code of conduct, had failed?

Honestly? The way they make it seem that a non-fallen Paladin is a paragon of virtue and morality. That by having "Paladin" on your character sheet somehow automatically makes you a better person than my Sorcerer. I honestly feel that Paladin needs to be a prestige class; something you strive for and earn, not an out-of-the-box "I'm so good and noble" fighter because other than a vaguely worded Code of Conduct, there's nothing that makes that statement true. The Code of Conduct is the biggie, though; I've seen it played as everything from "Your church okayed it: burn down that orphanage" to "You have a hobby? That you do for your own personal satisfaction and not the betterment of others? You've clearly fallen."

[OldTrees1]

The Impossible Dream (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYB92jGPnlg)


I see the Paladin as all those that strive to be the ones that reach for that unreachable star. The ones that would strive to drive themselves, even to madness if necessary, to learn what they ought to do and would strive to do what they ought to do even though it may be an impossible task that entails them pay the ultimate price. They are the first heralds of utopia.

I do not expect a code of conduct. Nor do I expect all the Paladins to be right or even mostly right about what they ought to do. However I expect all of them to strive or at least strive to strive to be good.


As far as abilities? I expect them to have features that help them in all manners of good deeds. Some of these might be universal to all and some might be available to certain subgroups. Destroying evil is not enough. Seeding & nurturing good in others, as well as counseling & tending to those in need are both tasks of importance. So I would expect social skills and various healing abilities.

[Extra Anchovies]

Honestly? The way they make it seem that a non-fallen Paladin is a paragon of virtue and morality. That by having "Paladin" on your character sheet somehow automatically makes you a better person than my Sorcerer. I honestly feel that Paladin needs to be a prestige class; something you strive for and earn, not an out-of-the-box "I'm so good and noble" fighter because other than a vaguely worded Code of Conduct, there's nothing that makes that statement true. The Code of Conduct is the biggie, though; I've seen it played as everything from "Your church okayed it: burn down that orphanage" to "You have a hobby? That you do for your own personal satisfaction and not the betterment of others? You've clearly fallen."

I agree. I think the 3.P Paladin could be most improved by making it more like the 3.5 Kensai fluff-wise - a warrior who swears an oath to a specific authority or cause, and derives some or all of their power from their sheer dedication to their purpose.

Alignment requirement should be any other than true neutral. Smite should be usable against any creature of Int 3 or higher (the assumption being that animal intelligences can't even understand the Paladin's cause, let alone intentionally oppose it) and who is either already in combat with the Paladin or directly opposing the Paladin's cause, as well as any creatures led by a valid smite target, regardless of whether the led creatures would on their own be valid smite targets (e.g. controlled mindless undead, animal companions, etc). The double damage bonus on the first smite attack would apply against any enemy who directly opposes the Paladin's cause, rather than (or in addition to) just opposing the Paladin. Lay on Hands should be usable for healing or for harm at the Paladin's discretion, with the option to pick a mercy or a cruelty at every 3rd level. Channel Energy type is chosen as if they were a cleric. Alignment-linked effects (e.g. weapon bond's available properties, mount bond's template, aura of faith, aura of righteousness, holy champion) are switched to the Paladin's non-neutral alignment components.

There is also design space for paragons of each alignment, in which case valid Smite targets would be any non-true-neutral creature at least two steps away on the alignment grid (any chaotic or evil for LG paladins, any chaotic plus NG and NE for LN paladins, etc).

[SethoMarkus]

To me, a Paladin is a "knight" that is "divinely empowered".

The "knight" bit implies an armored, trained warrior. They may not have official, structured training, but the individual constantly strives towards improvement; in arms, in knowledge, in conduct. They fight for some other higher ideal, something bigger than themself. In fantasy, I generally think of this being a divine being or tangible ideal, but a noble king or other leader works just as well. They have a code that they follow, and that code always supports and encourages doing "good". They value mercy above retribution, justice above vengeance, and forgiveness above damnation.

The "divinely empowered" bit implies that they are rewarded for their devotion to a just cause with extraordinary abilities. This is what separates a Paladin from a Knight for me. The Paladin gains special strength, wisdom, and fortitude from a higher power or ideal to better succeed in their quest to spread good and combat evil. If the world has magic at all, the Paladin can access it for healing the sick and injured, purifying the impure and the evil, and protecting the weak and helpless. If magic does not exist, then the Paladin has a stronger internal fire, a willpower or mental fortitude, to keep going where lesser warriors would fall. They take the spear in the gut, push themselves down the shaft, and finish the enemy before collapsing themself.

[weckar]

Knight of Charlemagne's Court

You know, historically speaking.

[BWR]

Historical aspects aside:
Vinas Solamnus
Huma Dragonbane
Sturm Brightblade (fib aside)
Paksenarrion Dorthansdottir

People with a strong belief in community, society and law, making the greatest good for the greatest number of people without going cruel utilitarian. People who take up arms to defend civilization and good from those who would defile it. It can be dedication to a liege, a knightly order, a god or even just concepts in themselves, but it is always dedication to something greater than themselves.

[Telonius]

Active agent of a deity or cause (as opposed to Cleric, the more passive or contemplative agent).
Focused on combat and spreading the deity's influence (rather than Cleric's focus on magic and sustaining the deity's daily presence in the lives of their followers).
Receives power directly from the deity, or their own devotion to their cause.
Must have a code of conduct, with moderate-to-severe consequences (i.e. class features turn off or are somehow impacted) if the code is violated.
Typical Paladin is a weapons expert, Heavy armor. Mounted combat is preferred, but not completely necessary to the concept.
Attended by a mount or some other sort of divine helper.
Not necessarily a paragon of Good; there is nothing in the nature of an Evil deity that prevents them from powering up an active agent in the same way that a Good deity does.

[Stewzors]

Personally - I've always thought the "Divine" concept of paladin should be CG rather than LG. They do the right thing, regardless of the consequences, regardless of the law because it is the right and just thing to do.

There should be no shades of grey to a Paladin - is it right to kill an innocent man to save 100s? That's a moral argument to most of us, not to a Paladin. As Guigarci said previously Upright, upstanding, empowered by The Powers That Be to be able to find an Option C to a moral dilemma



Never violate a woman, nor harm a child. Do not lie, cheat or steal. These things are for lesser men. Protect the weak against the evil strong. And never allow thoughts of gain to lead you into the pursuit of evil.

-The Iron Code of Druss the Legend

[Gildedragon]

Personally - I've always thought the "Divine" concept of paladin should be CG rather than LG. They do the right thing, regardless of the consequences, regardless of the law because it is the right and just thing to do.

There should be no shades of grey to a Paladin - is it right to kill an innocent man to save 100s? That's a moral argument to most of us, not to a Paladin. As Guigarci said previously Upright, upstanding, empowered by The Powers That Be to be able to find an Option C to a moral dilemma


Way I see it, If a paladin promises one something one knows it will be done (as long as it is not evil).
Definitely I see the paladin as more G than L by a wide margin.
And I don't think they ought be beholden in the least to a deity.

[digiman619]

There is also design space for paragons of each alignment, in which case valid Smite targets would be any non-true-neutral creature at least two steps away on the alignment grid (any chaotic or evil for LG paladins, any chaotic plus NG and NE for LN paladins, etc).

May I have permission to use that idea for future hombrewing? I have an idea for a paladin archetype that this would be perfect for...

[Morty]

A paladin is a character championing the cause of Law and Good above all, living by a deliberately strict code of conduct. As such, it's not a proper design space for a class. Especially since there's no reason why only warriors should get to live by that code, as opposed to... well, just about any other character type.

[Extra Anchovies]

Note: When I talk about the Paladin character class, and especially about the Smite ability, I'm discussing the Pathfinder version.

On a more mechanical level, I think the Paladin in d20 is, at its core, tied to its Smite mechanic. Healy-godly-fighty-dude already exists in the Cleric; removing Smite from the Paladin pushes it into design space that's already been filled. So what does the central role of Smite tell us about the Paladin? Well, it's an ability that targets an enemy, specifically one with a moral and/or ethical alignment that clashes with the Paladin's. It provides bonuses to hit and damage against the target and a bonus to armor class against attacks from the opponent. From those facts, we can draw that the Paladin is a character who adheres to a specific alignment or cause, seeks out the enemies of that cause, and destroys those enemies while shielding themselves from the enemy's attacks. That is the Paladin on both a physical level, entering the dominions of the wicked to hunt them without fear of death, and on a metaphysical level, eliminating their moral enemies' supporters through conversion without themselves succumbing to the corruption to which they are exposed. Whether "wicked", "corruption", etc are subjective or absolute is dependent on the setting and the storyteller.

A nice contrast is with the Inquisitor, who is in some ways the shield to the Paladin's sword and whose core ability targets the Inquisitor rather than one of their foes. While the Paladin strikes down enemies of the faith/cause, the Inquisitor is empowered by their faith, that they may defend its tenets against all challenges.


May I have permission to use that idea for future hombrewing? I have an idea for a paladin archetype that this would be perfect for...

Go right ahead! I personally think it's a change that should be applied to the Paladin regardless of other alterations.

[LTwerewolf]

Healy-godly-fighty-dude already exists in the Cleric;

Cleric effectively does not exist for the sake of this discussion.

[Morty]

Removing a similar and frequently overlapping class from this discussion strikes me as omitting crucial context.

[Telonius]

I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority on this, but I do see Cleric and Paladin as two sides of the same coin. (Cleric and Paladin as I think they ought to be, anyway). Action and Contemplation; one has to reference the other or it doesn't make as much sense on its own.

[MisterKaws]

Conceptually, I think good paladins(as if there were any true evil paladins...) should not have a Smite ability. Paladins are the champions of good and righteousness, and that being the case, they should always strive to see the good in every being. Paladins should try to find even the smallest light in an evil being's heart, and bring that forward, cleansing all the evil in the process.

In my opinion, a "Purify" ability fits more a paladin than a "Smite". If nothing else, they should have both, and Smite should require having spent a Purify 'use' on the target before becoming available. If all else fails, if no light can be found in the darkness of someone's heart, then there's no choice left but to purge the source of the darkness.

I still think that the use of Smite should be extremely limited, since to a paladin, every single life counts, and the paladin should not see a failure to purify someone as them being hopelessly evil beings with no chance of absolution, but as a personal failure in finding even the smallest fragment of goodness left in their heart. That being said, it should pack that much power to compensate for all those limitations. The Paladin should be extremely merciful and kind of heart, but should punish evil with all of their might.

Mounts should be optional. When the Paladin was first imagined for D&D, they followed the "White Knight" archetype, very popular at that time, and still today, which includes a "White Steed" in the package for free. Nowadays, I think a Paladin is more seen as the more generalized "Righteous Warrior" archetype, which points to nothing else than martial prowess and a kind heart. With that in mind, I think the paladin's restrictions should be removed on the Order-Chaos axis, and the focus on melee mounted combat replaced with options for all styles of martial combat, including, but not restricted to: Unarmed, Two-Handed Fighting, Sword&Board(probably presented as the standard archetype), Two-Weapon Fighting, Ranged combat, Mounted Melee and Mounted Ranged combat.

As for the Not-Blackguard... Ahem, Dark Knight name, I can only think of really edgy and cringe-worthy names right now, so I'll refrain from trying.

[Calthropstu]

Paladins are the guys you fill their scabbards with sovereign glue and know they won't retaliate.

[LTwerewolf]

Removing a similar and frequently overlapping class from this discussion strikes me as omitting crucial context.

Please read the original post. These threads are about concepts, not classes.

[TheCrowing1432]

A martial warrior of the gods and good that strikes fear in the hearts of evil and is beloved by the forces of good.

[vasilidor]

The paladins of our world were the most esteemed knights who served under Charlemagne; the myriad tales and legends of their travels and exploits are akin to those of the Arthurian Round Table. Their title comes from the Latin palatine, the name given to the Roman Emperor's attendants due to the Imperial court's location at Palatine Hill, which is also the origin of the word "palace". A Paladin, then, can reasonably be described as a warrior sworn to serve a higher authority or purpose. Perhaps it is a king, or a divine ideal, or something else entirely, but the Paladin fights not for personal wealth or glory but because they believe their cause is righteous.

You watch the Spoony Bard? The Counter Monkey? or did you actually know that from a history book?

In any case a paladin means to me a defender and or promoter of a cause they believe to be just and right. Regardless of whether or not it is.

[digiman619]

You watch the Spoony Bard? The Counter Monkey? or did you actually know that from a history book?

In any case a paladin means to me a defender and or promoter of a cause they believe to be just and right. Regardless of whether or not it is.

With respect, learning something form the internet/a source of entertainment does not make that knowledge any less valuable that knowledge gained from a book. I mean, yeah, check your sources, but again, that doesn't invalidate it.

Also, Spoony hasn't done a counter monkey in months. He really isn't a reviewer anymore; all he does is WWE commentary and crappy let's plays. (not that LPs are bad; I just think he can't solo it very well.)

[Extra Anchovies]

Please read the original post. These threads are about concepts, not classes.

Great. In a class-based game, all the classes together need to fill the whole intended design space - if you want the game to have a class with a pet robot, and none of the current classes have a pet robot, it's time to A) make a new class with a pet robot or B) create an alternate option for an existing class to give them a pet robot (perhaps in place of some other class-granted ally). The classes also need to each be unique in some meaningful way; if two classes aren't mechanically or thematically distinct, they don't both have reason to exist and need to be consolidated. In Pathfinder, the Paladin, Inquisitor, and Warpriest are all forms of godly-fighty-dude, and their mechanical differences place them in parallel but not redundant niches. The Paladin has Smite and Lay on Hands, the Inquisitor has Judgement and Solo Tactics, and the Warpriest has Fervor and Blessings.

If you're scrapping it all and starting from zero, which do you include? I dunno, that's entirely dependent on what you want in the design space. If we're looking at "Paladin" in an absolute vacuum, then the Paladin should fill the entire design space, but if there are other classes, the Paladin should be constructed such that it A) is thematically coherent in a manner that is interesting and that fits the name, and B) is not mechanically redundant with other classes in the system. If the Paladin is the only planned godly-fighty-dude class, then it should be capable of filling the whole range of godly-fighty-dudes the system is meant to enable, but if other godly-fighty-dude classes are also present in the system then they need to be mechanically distinct such that they can comfortably share a similar thematic niche. That was what I was getting at with my discussion of the Smite mechanic. I was exploring how a Paladin should be differentiated from other sorts of godly-fighty-dude classes that may exist in the same system, with my central point being that the Paladin, with its historical roots as a warrior attendant to a religious and political authority, should be focused on proactively destroying enemies of the authority they serve.


Paladins are the guys you fill their scabbards with sovereign glue and know they won't retaliate.

Oh, that's a nice one. I'll have to keep it in mind for the next time I've got a Paladin in the party :smalltongue:


You watch the Spoony Bard? The Counter Monkey? or did you actually know that from a history book?

I just did some quick online research, actually - they've got a Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin)!


With respect, learning something form the internet/a source of entertainment does not make that knowledge any less valuable that knowledge gained from a book. I mean, yeah, check your sources, but again, that doesn't invalidate it.

I think they were just curious. Interestingly enough, the first time I encountered the paladin as a historical entity was in Rome: Total War. The Barbarian Invasion expansion includes two unit types by the name - Scholae Palatinae, who serve as Roman generals' mounted bodyguards, and Paladins, heavy cavalry available to the Franks if they convert to Christianity.

[LudicSavant]

A martial champion of the gods or a philosophy, defined by the ideals they stand for and live by. Not necessarily good guys, but all live by a set of principles they believe to be high virtues, to such a degree that they are exemplars of their chosen paradigms.

Alignment really isn't the issue for an awful lot of people. If you say "Paladin of (insert whatever concept, even if it's not Law and Good)" people will totally grok what you mean. That's why we hear people say stuff like "Paladin of Vengeance" or "Paladin of Freedom" or "Paladin of Tyranny."

[Arc_knight25]

To me a Paladin is:

A warrior that completely applies themselves to the morals and idea's of an organization(may it be good or evil). They hold these ideal's and morals to their core, living their life by them. They are also directed by said organizations.

They are pillars in a community, may it be helping the people or overseeing them.

They are protectors of those they are charged with and oppressors for those that do not see the world that they wish to see. They will attempt to redeem those that show the ability to change and damn those that refuse to change towards their idea's.

[Mlmiii]

The goal of a Paladin is to channel some manner of divine force to protect those deemed in need of protection. All offensive capabilities of a Paladin are intended to be used as a supplement to their defensive ones--concentrated, bursty damage to take down yonder demon before it can finish burning the orphanage, for example--and their defensive capabilities are empowered by virtue/connection to the divine in much the same way that the Hulk is empowered by anger. While having huge HP pools and even bigger plate mail isn't technically required, it's a popular choice so that the Paladin can eat multiple axe-swings while dashing in to protect a teammate.

Alternatively (though this may overlap with Zealot), the goal of a Paladin may be to propagate their chosen alignment through leading by example and showing the benefits of having that alignment of Paladin around. Both possible goals center mainly around preventing society at large from falling apart, whether by the hands of internal or external threats.

[NecroDancer]

An a**hole who gets mad if you try to steal stuff, use poison, raise the dead, seduce NPCs, cheat, mock religious authority, ect

[MisterKaws]

An a**hole who gets mad if you try to steal stuff, use poison, raise the dead, seduce NPCs, cheat, mock religious authority, ect

That's a Zealot.

[martixy]

Micheal Carpenter from The Dresden Files; honest, noble, but never judgemental of those strive to do Good, regardless of where they came from or who they are. And by Good, I mean fight the good fight with, if not honor, than at least respect. Those who routinely take the shortcut to power and violence while claiming to do it "for the greater good" do no qualify.

My group regularly brings that example up. I was gonna as well, but seems I'm late to the party.

This aspect is where the bulk of controversy surrounding paladins comes from too, so it makes it a doubly-important point.

As far as crunch goes, I see it as a man(or woman, or monster) who is devoted to some ideal, organization and/or god, so he would not be able to be true neutral.
I see the divine connection as an intrinsic part of the concept as well. Therefore also divine spellcasting.

Now, the PF paladin is a pretty good update on vanilla 3.5.
Another take on the concept can be found with the Dawnblade (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?190289-3-5-Dawnblade-the-duskblade-s-paladin).

Purely fluff-wise, I'd name champions of good "paladins", morally neutral, but ethical extremists "zealots" and evil champions - "blackguards".

[SangoProduction]

To me? Paladin means "You want to play something that sounds thematically cool out of the box? Screw you." - the DMs who pedantically think attacking someone who attacks your party breaks the paladin code of conduct.

Unfortunately, they are also the only DMs I run in to when I feel like playing a Paladin. So now I just go Cleric and pretend to be a Paladin.

[Larrx]

A paladin is one of god's warriors. Given that D&D is polytheistic, than paladins of various gods shouldn't resemble each other very much. A paladin of Vecna probably shouldn't have the same abilities as a paladin of Pelor.

Does this mean that there needs to be a separate base class for every god?! Yep, I think so. It's a ton of work, but that's what I do for my campaigns.

:smile:

[digiman619]

To me? Paladin means "You want to play something that sounds thematically cool out of the box? Screw you." - the DMs who pedantically think attacking someone who attacks your party breaks the paladin code of conduct.

Unfortunately, they are also the only DMs I run in to when I feel like playing a Paladin. So now I just go Cleric and pretend to be a Paladin.

I personally suggest the Cavalier, Inquisitor, or Warpriest classes if you want the feel of a Paladin without all the baggage that the Paladin class has; Cavalier if you want to feel like a knight, Warpriest is you want to be a divine warrior, and Inquisitor if you want the "enforcer of the Church" feel.

[Calthropstu]

A paladin is a person who befriends a din. Duh!

[Zanos]

An a**hole who gets mad if you try to steal stuff, use poison, raise the dead, seduce NPCs, cheat, mock religious authority, ect


That's a Zealot.
What's the difference? Hey-o!

In any case I strongly recommend against a code of honor that makes you be a controlling jerk because your party members don't have the same ideals as you. I think a benevolent code is a core part, but that the code holds you to a higher standard than others is the point. There should be no requirement, incentive, or implication that you should inflict your code upon others that you call companions.

[Agrippa]

An a**hole who gets mad if you try to steal stuff,

Usually people frown on stealing in general, or at the very least stealing from innocent people and teammates. If you're do either of the last two, you're the *******.


use poison,

That depends, is the poisoner applying some sort of sedative to his/her darts to better non-lethally subdue guards and sentries. Yeah the party paladin would be kind of a jerk to get all pissy about that. Tranqing innocent bystanders and potential witnesses, is a little iffy, but somewhat acceptable. Indiscriminate poisoning can and should get a paladin on your case and you on their hit list. Like poisoning a town's water supply or poisoning food. Speaking of poisoning food and why that's considered wrong, there's a little thing called "sacred hospitality." The basic idea of it is that neither guest nor host should harm one another while one hosts the other. Poisoning food or drink is very much a violation of this ancient principal.


raise the dead

You mean animate the dead/creating the undead. "Raising the dead" refers to raising the dead back to life. I can imagine paladins objecting to the former, but not the latter. Of course I don't see why paladins would have to object to animating the dead, so long as it requires no human sacrifice, doesn't result in predatory undead, no disrespect is shown to the dead and no corpses are mutilated.


seduce NPCs,

If you could explain what you're talking about I'll try to understand what you mean. The word "seduce" is a little vague to me, and isn't always sexual.


cheat

Are you talking about using dirty tricks and underhanded tactics in a fight or cheating in a friendly competition? Context is important.


mock religious authority, ect

Warning: In many fantasy settings there are genuine, bonifide good gods and religions. Gods and religions that actively work to make the world a better place. Mocking those religions and their non-corrupt authority figures would be considered a major league **** move.


What's the difference? Hey-o!

In any case I strongly recommend against a code of honor that makes you be a controlling jerk because your party members don't have the same ideals as you. I think a benevolent code is a core part, but that the code holds you to a higher standard than others is the point. There should be no requirement, incentive, or implication that you should inflict your code upon others that you call companions.

“A man is known by the company he keeps.” Most people won't rise to a paladin's standards, but if you pal around with unscrupulous and amoral jackasses and don't try to curb their bad behavior, that makes you an unscrupulous and amoral jackass. Just because you haven't personally committed the same crimes and atrocities of your friends doesn't absolve you of your part in enabling their evil acts, even if all you did was turn a blind eye to it.

Wow, that's a lot more obscenity than I'm used to using. Must have really gotten worked up about this.

[Calthropstu]

An a**hole who gets mad if you try to steal stuff, use poison, raise the dead, seduce NPCs, cheat, mock religious authority, ect

Gonna go out on a limb and say you like to play morally ambiguous characters.

[Âmesang]

A lot of what I imagine a paladin to mean has been colored by the Avatar from Ultima: someone striving to uphold an idea "good," to spend their time and effort to help those around them and to squelch villainy in order to create a safer and more serene world; leaving the world a better place than when they entered it. So, to make a fuller Ultima comparison, I try to play paladins as not only holding to the virtue of Honor, but also Honesty, Compassion, Valor, Justice, Sacrifice, Spirituality, and Humility.

It makes for a difficult road to walk upon, but it's walked upon because it's difficult, because you hold yourself to a better standard than most… and, in a way, it gives me a personal goal to achieve. There are days where I wish I was my chaotic evil sorceress, and on any given day I see myself as my neutral ranger… but it's my lawful good paladin that I aspire to be. It's probably why my favorite Adventure Quest character is a paladin (a rather look-on-the-bright-side, silver lining, more-good-than-lawful, mother bear type—actually kind of picture her as a paladin of freedom for Wenta, Oerthen goddess of autumn, west wind, harvest, and brewing; it'd certainly fit her farmer's daughter background).

(My help if I find some soup kitchens or community activities to volunteer for.)

I also played a demo of HeXen II when I was younger and their illustration of a paladin always felt classically "heroic" to me:

https://www.schadenfreudestudios.com/dnd/paladin.png

[Hikarizu]

So, I really feel…cheated of a good, noble death. It’s weird, but…it happened.

Due to setting off a trap, my paladin/crusader and some his comrades were trapped in a solid wall of force that was filling up with a mist that was causing us drowning checks. Our DM was being nice and making it a flat DC 16 fort check instead of a steadily rising con Check, and it took two failure to drop us unconscious.

Through trial and experimentation, we discovered that my crusaders Foehammer and Mountain Hammer maneuvers would crack the shell long enough to get one person out. So, every turn, I cracked the wall, and one person would squeeze through the opening. First out was the wizard, who had failed two saves and had to be thrown. Then the cleric, to whom the same thing had happened. Because they were lying there inert, I sent the monk (trained in heal) out there to help them. At this point, the fighter who was in there, helping me, dropped unconscious due to failed saves. The DM was not being nice to me…I made save after save trying to figure out a way to strike the wall and hurl the fighter out. It ended in me managing to put the fellow on my shoulder, slam the wall with a warhammer, and toss him out. The round I did that in, I got my first failed fort save, upon which my DM said I could feel my lungs filling with water. Still, I was able to hurl my friend out of the wall of death and pick up the gear I’d dropped. Armed and ready, I make my next fort save.

Nat 1. I drop unconscious. IRL, the group panics. And I mean they PANIC. I have been playing the laid-back moral compass of the group…My paladin didn’t police, but he was kind and noble and to many of them, a bit of an innocent…he was a farm-raised boy and it reflected in the way he treated things and people. They didn’t want him dead. Well, the rogue did, but that’s because the player hates me IRL (he’s the person my inevitable conflict thread was about). The swashbuckler’s player almost started crying. And then we switched to the portion of the party that was pursuing a hag coven.

I sat back and actually smiled, because you know what? How much of a better death can a Paladin 5/Crusader 1 with an utter devotion to his friends and his god ask for? I saved every single person in that orb with my conviction and devotion to my god, hurling a fully armored fighter to safety with my lungs filled with water before giving in. My friends would have seen nothing more than me hurling our friend to safety before the wall closed in and then…nothing but silence. The wizard player gave me a back-thumping man-hug, saying that this was the first time he’d seen a paladin played as he imagined it instead of a fighter with a superiority complex. The monk-player who plays a paladin in another game gave me a salute. All in all, I was proud. In game, enough time had passed that the monk was now flailing at the wall in a panic (his character had grown very close to mine, due to mine saving his life, trusting him, and backing him up in matters of honor) and trying to figure out if he could leap the wall and rig up a pulley system.

I stepped outside to call my girlfriend in our downtime and we talked for a while. When I returned, I was greeted with triumphant shouts of joy and given a beartackle hug by the swashbuckler. They saved me. Thanks to some shenanigans with an elixer of firebreathing and the cleric, having been healed up via wands, charging through the flames to drag my unconscious body through the opened up hole.

The party was ecstatic, I was happy, and the DM gave me a giant grin and a handshake. I was simultaneously ectstatic about this and a little sad. I felt cheated of an amazingly poetic death…while I wasn’t even there. But the party seemed so very happy I didn’t want to say anything about it.

Still, it allowed me to have a bit of a moment of badass. While the cleric and monk and wizard are all thanking me, we hear the swashbuckler’s character scream in the distance. Having recently regained consciousness, I hit myself with lay on hands, charges of a cure mod wand, and start running. The cleric catches up to me and says

Cleric: “Haven’t you done enough heroics for the day?”

Paladin, stonefaced, with water dripping off his face and still coughing up liquid as he runs: “Nope. Paladin.”

The party was really, really happy, though I was a bit disappointed. Still, I’m hoping for a heroic death again.
To me, this story sums up what paladin should be perfectly. And here's the perfect paladin song (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvaIhtIkCJ8) to go with the perfect paladin story.

[Godskook]

Paladins are courageous, not cautious; they are not idle in the face of things that should be fixed.

Paladins are judgemental, not flexible especially on what they consider to be big things.

Paladins are concerned with the pageantry of virtue as much as virtue. Its not enough that they kill bad guys, the bad guys need to know death is coming for them. Paladins can be subtle, and even lie, but not about virtue.

The Doctor would be a Paladin if he was willing to kill quicker. A Paladin would never break guest-right or parley. He'd never violate the Magic Kingdom's neutrality just to attack Charlescom. The antagonist in Serenity was a Paladin in service to a false king, as it were.

[digiman619]

Paladins are judgemental, not flexible especially on what they consider to be big things.

I personally disagree with this one. A paladin should punish the guilty, not judge the masses. A paladin should be an example; someone that you feel you should strive to be like, not someone that judges you for not being perfect. Again, Micheal Carpenter from The Dresden Files is the embodiment of "Paladin". Admittedly in a modern setting rather than a medieval fantasy one, but still.

[Godskook]

I personally disagree with this one. A paladin should punish the guilty, not judge the masses. A paladin should be an example; someone that you feel you should strive to be like, not someone that judges you for not being perfect. Again, Micheal Carpenter from The Dresden Files is the embodiment of "Paladin". Admittedly in a modern setting rather than a medieval fantasy one, but still.

Based on the wiki, Carpenter seems reasonably judgemental for my tastes.

[LTwerewolf]

It depends on what you mean by judgemental I suppose. Many people think "inflicts their views on others" when the word judgemental is used. I can see that easily not being the case.

[digiman619]

Based on the wiki, Carpenter seems reasonably judgemental for my tastes.

Sure, he doesn't like Thomas per se, but he would trust his life and the life of his kids on him (and has), so I don't think "judgemental" is really the term for what Micheal feels.

Also, the fact that he was willing to forgive Nicodemus, even though Nicky has tortured, crippled, and murdered not only countless people over the centuries, but also close personal friends of his seems to point Micheal away from "judgemental"

[Godskook]

It depends on what you mean by judgemental I suppose. Many people think "inflicts their views on others" when the word judgemental is used. I can see that easily not being the case.

Absolutely.

Although I'd point out that anytime you're killing someone for an immoral behavior they don't agree upon, you're "inflicting your views on others". Such an easy example as murder comes to mind here. That Demon actually doesn't agree with the Paladin about the morality of possession, treachery or thievery.

Shepherd Book, for instance, is judgemental, but not petty, nor does he act beyond his station as preacher, rather than actual judge+jury. The crew of Firefly knew he drew lines, sometimes quite thick, but those lines created a bit of comfort, such that Book's place on the crew was never doubted.

Personally, I think the measure you're looking for is how petty the Paladin is. Its easy to conflate petty and judgemental.

[LTwerewolf]

Absolutely.

Although I'd point out that anytime you're killing someone for an immoral behavior they don't agree upon, you're "inflicting your views on others". Such an easy example as murder comes to mind here. That Demon actually doesn't agree with the Paladin about the morality of possession, treachery or thievery.

Shepherd Book, for instance, is judgemental, but not petty, nor does he act beyond his station as preacher, rather than actual judge+jury. The crew of Firefly knew he drew lines, sometimes quite thick, but those lines created a bit of comfort, such that Book's place on the crew was never doubted.

Personally, I think the measure you're looking for is how petty the Paladin is. Its easy to conflate petty and judgemental.

Oh I agree with you, I was just pointing out how most people view the term "judgemental." I personally feel part of a paladin's job is to pass judgement, but that need not mean inflict sentencing in any situation that does not cross a certain line. Demons, using your example, tend to cross certain lines and cannot help but do so. There's a metric for it, and each paladin must choose for themselves where along that metric is "too far." Shepherd Book is actually one of my examples of paladins I've used in the past.

[Barbarian Horde]

What does a "Paladin" mean to me....

Usually means that the party will end up in PVP over something stupid cause of alignment is being taken way too damn seriously.

Judgemental is an understatement. More like super imposing your views onto the world cause every act of evil big or small causes you turmoil, that apparently, if not dealt with will cause a parasite to grow in you bursting forth from your chest like the movie alien.. At least it seems they act that way.

[Godskook]

Sure, he doesn't like Thomas per se, but he would trust his life and the life of his kids on him (and has), so I don't think "judgemental" is really the term for what Micheal feels.

Also, the fact that he was willing to forgive Nicodemus, even though Nicky has tortured, crippled, and murdered not only countless people over the centuries, but also close personal friends of his seems to point Micheal away from "judgemental"

If you're forgiving someone for moral misbehavior, you must first judge that they have morally misbehaved. Judgemental is not the same thing as unforgiving.


Oh I agree with you, I was just pointing out how most people view the term "judgemental." I personally feel part of a paladin's job is to pass judgement, but that need not mean inflict sentencing in any situation that does not cross a certain line. Demons, using your example, tend to cross certain lines and cannot help but do so. There's a metric for it, and each paladin must choose for themselves where along that metric is "too far." Shepherd Book is actually one of my examples of paladins I've used in the past.

Shepherd Book isn't a Paladin imho. In medical terms, Paladins are Paramedics, Specialists, and Researchers, Book is a General Practician Doctor. He's not far off from Paladins, but he's not proactive enough.

[Durzan]

To me I see the following:

1. A paladin is a knight or warrior (as opposed to a cleric, which is a kind of priest) that serves as a champion/disciple and representative of a specific deity, religion, or cause, wether it be it good or evil. If it is a deity or religion, The paladin is completely devoted to their primary cause... even if the deity is something as ridiculous as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Paladins are often, but not always, chosen and anointed by a deity themselves.

2. The paladin is bound by some kind of oath and/or code which he must always abide by, or else he will lose favor with his deity and lose his powers. A paladin in this state is known as a fallen paladin. A fallen paladin may be redeemed if he atones for his mistakes, or he/she may end up becoming a paladin

3. A paladin wields the power of his or her deity, and will use it to further the cause that they represent.

4. A paladin strives to serve as an example of his deity's virtues and values.

5. A paladin usually has some sense of order.

6. A paladin will fight for their deity whenever necessary, taking out threats and dealing with those that oppose the cause and deity he serves. A paladin will gladly give their life for their cause.


A good example of this would be Arthas from Warcraft III. He started out as a Paladin of the Holy Light, and although he was a bit prideful and arrogant at times, did all in his power to protect the innocent and live up to the values of the Light. He protected his people, he denounced evil, he made hard choices. However, he fell out of favor when he sought to kill Mal'Ganis out of revenge and not justice. His fall was only sealed when he picked up the cursed blade of Frostmourne, and turned his back on the Light for good.

Thereafter, Arthas became a Paladin of the Lich King Ner'Zhul. Although a fallen paladin of the Light, he became a paladin for the Scourge... aka... a Death Knight. He devoted his soul and mind completely to this new cause.

A paladin can be good or evil... many seek to separate the good paladins from the evil ones, and have even given them separate names... but they are really two sides of the same coin, both adhere to the rules I postulated above.

Most paladins we think of nowadays are based on the Knights Templar: Holy Warriors of God who serve and protect the innocent. Such beings would certainly count as paladins in my book, but they are not the only definition of the term.

As far as a game goes, I would say that a Paladin should be a prestige class, not restricted by alignment, but requiring the player to swear an oath of loyalty to a specific deity, religion, or cause. A code of living accompanies this vow, and the paladin must follow it or he falls.

[digiman619]

If you're forgiving someone for moral misbehavior, you must first judge that they have morally misbehaved. Judgemental is not the same thing as unforgiving.

With respect, there's a difference between "judging you" and "having an opinion about you". While dictionary.com just said "1. involving the use or exercise of judgement. " and "2. tending to make moral judgements", it also includes the definitions of judgement as being "2. the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, especially in matters affecting action; good sense; discretion", "4. the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from circumstances presented to the mind" and "5. the opinion formed", so what "judgement" means is variable.

On the other hand, the synonyms of "judgmental" include capricious, irrational, irresponsible, and unreasonable, and in its "words related to" segment, it suggested holier-than-thou, goody-goody, and smug, none of which really apply to what, in my mind at least, a good paladin should in any way be like.

tl;dr: Define your terms, because words can be tricky.

[smetzger]

So... could Judge Dread be a Paladin?

[digiman619]

So... could Judge Dread be a Paladin?

If you let alignments other than LG get paladins, than definitely. I could totally see him as a LN/LE paladin.

[Beheld]

Paladin means Cleric to me.

No really, I have never seen anyone say "A Paladin should do X" and "Cleric" wouldn't be just as true. At least not where I agreed with them.

[Barstro]

A Paladin is the Means that justifies the Ends.

In contrast to the Zealot (Crusader) who's goal is to destroy anything that does not go along with his ideal (through any means possible), a Paladin is the physical embodiment of his ideal.

More martial than those thinky-type Clerics, he frowns upon those who do disservice to he cause because he has proven, time and again, that one can live a wonderful life by upholding his virtues. While he will tolerate those with an opposing view (so long at it does not interfere with other people trying to be like the Paladin), he will quickly go against those that have chosen to go against him.

[Godskook]

tl;dr: Define your terms, because words can be tricky.

Y'know, I did give examples. (http://www.billstifler.org/ENGL1010/03W08-example.htm)

[digiman619]

Y'know, I did give examples. (http://www.billstifler.org/ENGL1010/03W08-example.htm) Yes, but since we've determine that to judge can mean "to form an opinion", "to assess", or "to pass judgement (in a legal or moral fashion)", so can you use a term that has less definitions?

[Godskook]

Yes, but since we've determine that to judge can mean "to form an opinion", "to assess", or "to pass judgement (in a legal or moral fashion)", so can you use a term that has less definitions?

No. Your tl;dr: was to "use examples". I did. Now you're changing what I had to do to please you... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts)

[Lorddenorstrus]

I see Paladins as a roleplay nightmare. Perhaps the players I've had try them are just bad but for some reason Lawful Good means be a pain in the DMs ass. He throws logic out the air. "I see evil thingy, I'm going to attack it." "But it's obviously stronger than you.. and is also not actively killing anything it's just sitting there. I mean seriously you're lvl 9 that's a Lich.."
Moments later and a very dead paladin for attacking a Lich who had only intended to sell information about a competitor of his he disliked (The actual villain of the story) I get a player who gets pissed at me for "intentionally killing his character." Apparently LG requires them to try to kill evil even at the cost of their own life, explaining LG isn't lawful stupid went woooosssshhh. Blah. That was a bad memory.

[digiman619]

No. Your tl;dr: was to "use examples". I did. Now you're changing what I had to do to please you... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts)

No, my tl;dr was "that word has a slew of definitions and that your example wasn't clear enough; I couldn't understand if you meant 'forming an opinion', or 'accessing moral worth'". I then suggested that since "to judge" (and therefore judgement and judgmental) had too many things it meant, for you to choose a synonym that was less vague.

[Barbarian Horde]

Then is the consensus "Paladin players generate enough issues that a DM obtains an headache." ?

[vasilidor]

With respect, learning something form the internet/a source of entertainment does not make that knowledge any less valuable that knowledge gained from a book. I mean, yeah, check your sources, but again, that doesn't invalidate it.

Also, Spoony hasn't done a counter monkey in months. He really isn't a reviewer anymore; all he does is WWE commentary and crappy let's plays. (not that LPs are bad; I just think he can't solo it very well.)

No disrespect intended, its just I rarely see anyone read history books anymore. Or admit to having read them, for strange reasons.

I am sad about the lack of counter monkey. to all things, the end comes.

[digiman619]

Then is the consensus "Paladin players generate enough issues that a DM obtains an headache." ?

No, I'd argue that the faulty base class and/or moral absolutism that are unfortunately endemic to the archetype give DM headaches.

[BWR]

Then is the consensus "Paladin players generate enough issues that a DM obtains an headache." ?

If by 'consensus' you mean 'including those who have no problems with or love paladins', then yes.

I love them. My girlfriend loves them. Never had a DM who had a real problem with them, never seen a player who has had problems with them. Paladins may not be appropriate for every group or every campaign, but only to the extent that LG in general is inappropriate.
I never knew they were a 'problem' until I started hanging out on these boards.

[LTwerewolf]

I personally love paladins, but have always been in groups that hear "he's playing a paladin" and think "wow I wonder how we get to make him fall for nothing!"

[khadgar567]

I personally love paladins, but have always been in groups that hear "he's playing a paladin" and think "wow I wonder how we get to make him fall for nothing!"
my inner warlock is proud of you sir

[Barstro]

No, I'd argue that the faulty base class and/or moral absolutism that are unfortunately endemic to the archetype give DM headaches.

Agreed. It is another class that would never join the stereotypical PC Party.

It isn't a bad class, but it's akin to Superman joining Suicide Squad.

[digiman619]

Agreed. It is another class that would never join the stereotypical PC Party.

It isn't a bad class, but it's akin to Superman joining Suicide Squad.

Maybe Captain America would be a better analogy there. I know, he's from another company, but "akin to Superman joining the Suicide Squad" as far as a D&D metaphor goes, it feels less like a "Paladins don't fit the aesthetic of most parties" aesop and more of a "Why T1s shouldn't be in a party of t4s" one.

[LTwerewolf]

I think that's more about group expectations than anything else. Of course a captain america wouldn't fit in a suicide squad, but then again a joker wouldn't fit in a justice league.

[Barstro]

Maybe Captain America would be a better analogy.

True. I spent a bit of time trying to come up with real world examples. Superman flashed into my head and I stopped there.

Even when Cap tries to get along with his team, it's a great struggle and he generally has to take leadership to bend the others to his way of thinking.

[Barbarian Horde]

I personally have nothing against the class. I how ever have been blessed with lawful stupid players in past sessions that have cause and effect of me not liking them. Mechanically I have no problem what so ever with the class. Based on multiple experiences with players playing the paladin, I unfortunately get a bad taste in my mouth. Now I stay worried about the PC going overboard on anything causing a chain reaction of **** ups.

[Zanos]

No, I'd argue that the faulty base class and/or moral absolutism that are unfortunately endemic to the archetype give DM headaches.
That is more or less my argument. A properly designed Paladin doesn't sow conflict by virtue of it's existence. The 3.5 paladin largely fails at that.

[digiman619]

That is more or less my argument. A properly designed Paladin doesn't sow conflict by virtue of it's existence. The 3.5 paladin largely fails at that.

Let's just all agree that the Paladin archetype; the brave and noble knight, who fights not for personal gain or even for honor or glory, but to help the helpless and to do what is right, is a great concept for a character. It's just that there's a tendency, by both designers and players, to enforce that archetype onto the game in ways that fail. The designers go to far and put all this baggage in "the code", but either make the code too strict (so that there's too little leeway to roleplay) or too vague (which invite DMs to make them fall for no reason). This in turn leads players to either be holier-than-thou (because since they have a level in a class with a code, then that obviously means that their character is more moral than yours, regardless on how either player plays them) or one-dimensional (in their desire to make their character noble, altruism becomes all their character is; they'll offer a beggar their horse even if they have two broken legs, because they feel that if they're not selfless at all times, they aren't being a 'proper' paladin).