PDA

View Full Version : Paladins: What's the Appeal?



Pages : [1] 2

Bicorn
2017-02-14, 03:00 PM
I mean they are nothing but a bunch a holier than thou jerks, a mix of cleric and warrior.

It's hard to roleplay with so many limitations and without acting as a Knight Templar or lawful stupid.

I have no problem with this, but I've personally never saw what was so fun about it. I always play as a fun character, who has belivable goals.

Are paladins even a real Archetype? I mean even the templars were selfish jerks most of the time.

So what makes playing as paladins so fun for you guys? :smallbiggrin::smalltongue::smallamused:

Sariel Vailo
2017-02-14, 03:16 PM
I mean they are nothing but a bunch a holier than thou jerks, a mix of cleric and warrior.

It's hard to roleplay with so many limitations and without acting as a Knight Templar or lawful stupid.

I have no problem with this, but I've personally never saw what was so fun about it. I always play as a fun character, who has belivable goals.

Are paladins even a real Archetype? I mean even the templars were selfish jerks most of the time.

So what makes playing as paladins so fun for you guys? :smallbiggrin::smalltongue::smallamused:well for 5e it depends on your oath if your a hollier than thou jag off. i usually use paladin of vengence, or oath of the ancients an elven live life to the fullest bring light laughter and love to the world.and always kindle the light of hope within ones self. im usually cg i always have medicine and i care deeply about those i heal be it by spell or my hands. but i do harm to those who atk me they pay with their lives.
in both i dont act holier than thou. in vengence i brood and protect i try to smile a good friend can help.with oath of the ancients i know perfprmance as a skill as well i was a performer and i sing while i heal and kindle hope.without caring aout gods only about life,light and love.

Ratguard
2017-02-14, 03:20 PM
You don't NEED to be a holier than thou jerk, or even especially uptight, you can be merciful, but slightly pragmatic when necessary, you just need to work with your DM.

Now one of the things I have heard thrown around for why, is something I have heard called aspiration roleplay. Simply put some people play Paladins because it allows them access to a character that is a moral exemplar, maybe the player values honesty, and good morals. And as an extension decides he wants to play a paladin because it allows him to live up to those ideals he values so much.

Other people just think paladins are cool! :smallbiggrin:

SethoMarkus
2017-02-14, 03:21 PM
I mean they are nothing but a bunch a holier than thou jerks, a mix of cleric and warrior.

Sure, one way to play a Paladin is as a "holier than thou jerk", but that is a fairly cliched and boring, one-dimensional character. If that is how you see them, I can understand your disdain.

And while "warrior + cleric" is fairly accurte, I find the whole to be greater than the sum of its parts.



It's hard to roleplay with so many limitations and without acting as a Knight Templar or lawful stupid.

The noble warrior who strives to better the world, fighting evil wherever it may be? The devout warrior priest who represents his deity's will? The shining beacon of Good, who leads by example? The commoner called to a higher purpose who must come to understand her inner strength in the fight to protect all from some great Evil?

I see Lawful Good, nor Paladin, as any more of a straight jacket than any other alignment or class. Must Bards always be anti-establishment anarchists? Do all Barbarians speak in a broken language and have no understanding of civilized culture? Do all warlocks have to be edge-lords?

This doesn't even get into how Paladin doesn't require a Lawful Good alignment.



I have no problem with this, but I've personally never saw what was so fun about it. I always play as a fun character, who has belivable goals.

It's completely fine if this isn't a character type that fits your tastes. Everyone has fun in different ways. However, I don't like your assumption that a LG Paladin cannot be fun.

The most obnoxious and fun-loving character in one campaign I ran was a Lawful Good paladin. She drank heavily, always caused collateral damage, swore like a sailor, and was a bit cracked. She also had a strict code of honor and sense of duty, always repaid any debts or damages, strove to see the good in people, and could always be relied on.



Are paladins even a real Archetype? I eman even the templars were selfish jerks mos tof the time.

The archetype is real, but it is based on a romanticized version of the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne's court, the Knights Templar, King Arthur's Knights of the Round, and characters from other tales of valour and chivalry. No, it is not a realistic representation of history most of the time. However, it is meant to be a representation of those romanticized stories.




So what makes playing as paladins so fun for you guys? :smallbiggrin::smalltongue::smallamused:

For me, it is simply one of many character archetypes I enjoy. The unwavering devotion to a cause is what draws me to it most of the time. Other times, I like the idea of the everyman pulled into something bigger than himself. I can't really explain exactly what makes it fun for me, it just is. But I also enjoy playing the Evil schemer, the apathetic wanderer, and the curious adventurer.

Sariel Vailo
2017-02-14, 03:23 PM
You don't NEED to be a holier than thou jerk, or even especially uptight, you can be merciful, but slightly pragmatic when necessary, you just need to work with your DM.

Now one of the things I have heard thrown around for why, is something I have heard called aspiration roleplay. Simply put some people play Paladins because it allows them access to a character that is a moral exemplar, maybe the player values honesty, and good morals. And as an extension decides he wants to play a paladin because it allows him to live up to those ideals he values so much.

Other people just think paladins are cool! :smallbiggrin: i think theyre cool

Kelb_Panthera
2017-02-14, 03:32 PM
The very things you dislike appeal to some paladin players (hopefully, minus the self-righteous jerk bit).

Pretending to be an utter zealot for a cause can be great fun. It's equal parts certainty of action and absurdity.

Finding a way to accomplish your goals without breaking the code poses an intellectual challenge and that has a certain appeal.

The necessity of balancing the two previous points creates interesting nuances.

Then there's the classicly romantacized knight in shining armor atop a white steed imagery.



Alternately, there's playing against type;

Playing a good humored wanderer with little drive who, nevertheless, sticks firmly to the code and smites evil wherever he finds it.

Perhaps a grizzled, old veteran who's seen enough to know that while the code must be held, that it pays to interpret it creatively sometimes and that, on rare occasion, it's okay to break it as long as it's truly necessary and you don't commit evil.



Then, of course, there are a variety of cultures to take inspiration from in what the character is beyond his paladin's calling and what the idea of honor actually entails; a chivalric knight paladin and a bushido samurai paladin are very different things beyond the core LG and CoC details.

Finally, there're the gods themselves. While a paladin need not serve a god (in some versions of D&D) choosing to do so anyway can generate some interesting characters. Take a paladin dedicated to Sune Fire-hair and compare it to one dedicated to Wee Jas, for example.





The trick to having fun with a paladin is to embrace what it is instead of railing against what it isn't and not to get stuck in the idea it can only be played one way.

JoshuaZ
2017-02-14, 03:33 PM
The archetype is the honorable warrior who fights so others don't have to. Variants of that idea as a general notion are pretty old (even if it isn't historically always justified). Playing the knight in shining armor who always tries to do good even when the world isn't supporting it can be fun. Relevant quotes: Big Ears from Goblinscomic:

"I want the power to stop innocents from dying. To protect others instead of just standing around helplessly."

Captain America:

"Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree besides the river of truth, and tell the whole world - 'No, you move.'"

(Cap isn't literally a paladin but he has a lot of the ethos.)

oudeis
2017-02-14, 03:34 PM
I like being the good guy.

Bicorn
2017-02-14, 03:34 PM
You don't NEED to be a holier than thou jerk, or even especially uptight, you can be merciful, but slightly pragmatic when necessary, you just need to work with your DM.

I know they don't NEED to but I have never seen a player roleplay in another way.

Maybe the players I hang out with just don't get how to play paladins(The class not the Hi-Rez game)



The archetype is real, but it is based on a romanticized version of the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne's court, the Knights Templar, King Arthur's Knights of the Round, and characters from other tales of valour and chivalry. No, it is not a realistic representation of history most of the time. However, it is meant to be a representation of those romanticized stories.

But they don't have holy powers or an association with religion. They are just ordinary people who are beacons of hope despite being just humans, THAT is what made them special.

JoshuaZ
2017-02-14, 03:40 PM
But they don't have holy powers or an association with religion. They are just ordinary people who are beacons of hope despite being just humans, THAT is what made them special.

That's a variant you can play also. But in a world with sufficient magic, a beacon of hope becomes more than special and might have magic from the sheer audacity and stubbornness of their hope. This works particularly well in settings where one doesn't need a deity to grant divine magic.

Worgwood
2017-02-14, 03:50 PM
I mean they are nothing but a bunch a holier than thou jerks, a mix of cleric and warrior.

It's hard to roleplay with so many limitations and without acting as a Knight Templar or lawful stupid.
They're only holier-than-thou if you choose to play them that way. Honestly, the core of their code really comes down to 'strive at all times to be morally good, and encourage others to be morally good.' Is it much harder to roleplay a samurai who would never under any circumstances break the code of bushido? Or a gentleman thief who strictly adheres to a code of ethics when it comes to his stealing?


I have no problem with this, but I've personally never saw what was so fun about it. I always play as a fun character, who has belivable goals.
The appeal of the paladin is fantasy. It's the same thing which drives people to play wizards who are striving to achieve Ultimate Cosmic Power and ascend to godhood, or warlocks who want to decipher the mad secrets of the Old Ones. Besides which, a character's motivation is really up to the player. You could roleplay a paladin who wants nothing more than to live out the rest of his days in peace, but his own personal sense of justice constantly drives him to get involved.


Are paladins even a real Archetype? I mean even the templars were selfish jerks most of the time.
Of course they're a real archetype. The fantasy of the chivalrous holy knight who embodies virtue and goodness has existed for probably hundreds of years. You see them in Arthurian tales, or in fictionalized accounts of Charlemagne's court, even if they don't necessarily always have holy powers associated with them. Also, the idea that Templars were all selfish jerks seems kind of conjectural, but I'm not really a historian.


So what makes playing as paladins so fun for you guys? :smallbiggrin::smalltongue::smallamused:
Probably the fact that people see them this way. It's fun and challenging to roleplay a character who's so heavily stigmatized before the group even meets him. The thing about the paladin, though, is you really have to work with your GM to achieve what you want. I came to an agreement with my GM where my paladin is Neutral Good and follows a custom code, which he's allowed to bend or even outright break without falling if it's for a truly good cause, and he seeks forgiveness from his god afterwards. It's made it much less stressful to play.

BWR
2017-02-14, 03:51 PM
Gonna have to throw my lot in with the "you don't know what you're talking about" crowd, which is the blunter way of saying "if you play an ******** obviously it will be an ********".

Go read some literature with proper paladiny characters in them to see what they should be like. Elizabeth Moon's "The Deed of Paksenarrion", The Dragonlance books "Vinas Solamnus" and "The Legend of Huma", the original template for the D&D paladin is Poul Anderseon's "Three hearts and three lions".

SethoMarkus
2017-02-14, 03:52 PM
But they don't have holy powers or an association with religion. They are just ordinary people who are beacons of hope despite being just humans, THAT is what made them special.

But in those romanticized stories they are often depicted as "being on the side of God" or somesuch.

The Paladin archetype didn't transform from a retainer knight into a divine magic fueled warrior overnight, it happened gradually over time. But, they were always a "holy warrior". Why they have magic at all? Probably because they are, as you put, a combination of Cleric and Fighter.

Again, it is a romanticized and exaggerated trope on the Holy Knight idea.

Kelb_Panthera
2017-02-14, 03:54 PM
But they don't have holy powers or an association with religion. They are just ordinary people who are beacons of hope despite being just humans, THAT is what made them special.

Not directly, but medieval europe had religion spread through it so ubiquitously that basically everything good was associated with God and everything else was the work of the devil.

That the knights of the round table and other such romantacized figures acted for the good of the realm "in the name of God" would've been such a given that it would barely need mentioning. Secularism is a relatively modern thing.

Rhaegar14
2017-02-14, 04:00 PM
You may be assigning a little bit too much of what was required by 3.5e's Code of Conduct to the Paladin archetype as a whole. In 3.5, Paladins literally HAD to be holier-than-thou jerks because if they weren't being the designated party stick in the mud they lost all of their class features.

That's since changed in 4e and 5e. Paladins don't have alignment requirements anymore, and for good reason.

Sariel Vailo's already covered that there are different Paladin Oaths now, but your post seems to specifically refer to the Devotion Paladin, the stereotypical white knight. That's fine, because Devotion is still my favorite flavor of Paladin.

For a little context, ever since my first Everquest character when I was nine, my avatar in any given game has been a Paladin. While I am certainly capable of playing and enjoying other characters, if my character is really just that setting's incarnation of myself, rather than someone I think of as very different from me in personality, that character is almost always a Paladin. For fifteen years, the Paladin has been my favorite archetype. I like to think after that long I know a couple things about how to do it poorly and how to do it well. I'm going to use my current character in my group's home campaign, Roderick of Southglade, a Tiefling Devotion Paladin, to show examples of the things I'm talking about.

A well-played Paladin, for one, does not police the rest of the party unless they're doing something truly vile, something any good-aligned character would speak out about. Roderick's best friend is the only non-good member of our party, Gideon. Gideon is chaotic neutral, a selfish coward. When Gideon expresses hesitation to do what is right because of the danger it puts him in, Roderick (usually) does not chastise him. Roderick does not call him out any time he runs away or does something cowardly. But Roderick believes that Gideon has it in him to be heroic, moreso than Gideon himself. Roderick offers Gideon encouragement in fearful times and tries to convince him that he can be more than he is, that honor has value, and that people are worth saving even if it does not directly benefit our party. That doesn't mean he's giving Gideon a lecture every time he makes a Deception check, even though Roderick himself is sworn not to tell lies.

When the requirements of Roderick's oath come in conflict with the rest of the party, Roderick does not threaten them, because they are his friends and allies. When we came upon a farmer bleeding out next to his ruined cart, Roderick immediately dismounted and healed the man's wounds. When he explained that bandits had taken his wife and daughter, Roderick did not say "we have to go save them." Roderick said "I'm going to go save them, and the rest of you can come with me if you want to." When Roderick's oath requires him to show mercy to a hated enemy, he asks NICELY if the others can please not make him choose between them and his oath. He doesn't draw his sword and demand that the others stand down like a holier-than-thou jerk.

Roderick leads by example. He is utterly fearless (and next level will finally be getting straight-up immunity to fear mechanically to back that element of his roleplaying up). He doesn't need any reason to do something except that it is the right thing to do; our DM has commented on how much he enjoys that because it's very easy to exploit in designing adventure hooks (see above story about the farmer). He will stand between the innocent, or any of his allies, and their enemies until he is completely unable to do so. Roderick is willing to sacrifice his life in the cause of righteousness without a second thought.

But despite all this, he's still FLAWED. Roderick could stand to be less reckless; his first instinct when he sees evil being done is to charge in and rescue the innocents, even though that has literally gotten him killed (and in our setting, resurrection magic is not really a thing; Roderick is only still alive because of his god's direct intervention). As a 9th-level character in a fairly typical D&D setting, as the chosen of his god in a war against the servants of an archfiend, he struggles to accept the fact that his life is actually worth a good deal more than a common footsoldier's. He struggles with the idea that, during a large scale battle, he needs to save his spells and Lay On Hands points because he and his party will need them to do what they must to win the day, when he could use that magic to save the lives of so many dying soldiers. He struggles to accept that sometimes he needs to let others fight their own battles when they could quite possibly lose those battles and die. Roderick also has a temper, and struggles upholding some parts of his oath when angry. He at one point temporarily lost his powers because he maimed a Justiciar (the big bad's enforcers in our campaign; a Justiciar killed Roderick's family in front of him and burned down his village, for a little necessary context) after giving his word that he would let the Justiciar go in exchange for information.

So, I guess what I would boil it down to is that well-played Paladins lead by example, not by dictating, and that Paladins are still human. They're still flawed, and upholding their oaths is not always easy for them. A Paladin is not perfectly divine and does not exist to ruin the rest of the party's fun.

oudeis
2017-02-14, 04:05 PM
Now that's a Paladin. My hat is off to you.

SethoMarkus
2017-02-14, 04:23 PM
Now that's a Paladin. My hat is off to you.

Agreed. Bravo, Rhaegar14!

Though, I disagree with your point about 3.5. Sure, it was a more strict code a Lawful Good Paladin had to follow, but your own story of a Paladin would still fit into that tighter code.

Cluedrew
2017-02-14, 04:33 PM
As I see it, a paladin is supposed to be the king of heroes, a hero not through accident, but one who reaches that point by determination and their own goodness. If you have trouble seeing that in a paladin, they aren't there yet.

Everything else I could say has been said. Good story Rhaegar14. I might see if I can scrounge up some other good paladin stories.

Rhaegar14
2017-02-14, 04:35 PM
Thanks guys, I try. Though when I started typing that post there was literally one other reply in the thread hahaha. My points were already mostly made, though examples/stories are always good.

CharonsHelper
2017-02-14, 04:40 PM
+1 to Rhaegar14 playing an awesome paladin.

As to my favorite character in fiction who I would consider to be a paladin in D&D terms - take a look at Michael Carpenter from The Dresden Files.

Kajorma
2017-02-14, 05:03 PM
I like characters that come with a sense of purpose.
The paladin generally has an absolute certainty about right and wrong, and will choose right even if it is the hard thing to do.
For one thing, this drives the story (because it's hard to actually get something like the Suicide Squad focused on completing *any* mission)
But the big part is seeing a situation and knowing without thinking what your character would want to do. I've gotten there with other characters, but it's a lot easier on the religious types.

Rhaegar14
2017-02-14, 05:09 PM
But the big part is seeing a situation and knowing without thinking what your character would want to do. I've gotten there with other characters, but it's a lot easier on the religious types.

I want to piggyback off this a little bit. The best moments in roleplaying, for me, are when the character "reaches out," metaphorically speaking, and tells YOU what they're going to do, rather than you deciding what they're going to do. That happens a bit more easily with zealots.

tensai_oni
2017-02-14, 06:32 PM
Characters bound by strict codes of honor are great, especially when the character is flawed and tries hard but fails to always live up to the code. Or when adherence to the code put the character in a real dilemma - I am not talking about crappy "make the paladin fall" traps, but real dilemmas between pragmatic expediency and "doing the right thing". It's a great opportunity for some quality roleplaying.

A paladin is annoying only if roleplayed poorly, which also includes policing the party and forcing it to act in a particular way.

Kelb_Panthera
2017-02-14, 06:56 PM
You may be assigning a little bit too much of what was required by 3.5e's Code of Conduct to the Paladin archetype as a whole. In 3.5, Paladins literally HAD to be holier-than-thou jerks because if they weren't being the designated party stick in the mud they lost all of their class features.

Ugh, I get sick of this. My entire response was made with that version of the paladin in mind and the 2e version of the code was more strict, FFS.

The quoted statement is simply not true.

Arkhios
2017-02-14, 07:19 PM
Paladins are not just a fantasy archetype. In France, I can't remember the time period, there used to be this regent who had nine elite warriors who were called paladins at the time, Roland or something being their leader and/or most famous. They were known for their chivalry, and basically served (probably) as the foundation for the common depiction of knights in shiny armor.

To me Paladins represent the chivalrous ideal, and that somewhere there are people who care about good deeds, honorable combat, and devout faith.

I absolutely hate selfish (or rather, evil-selfish) people who are only in it for themselves (like most of the humanity, to be honest). This might be why Paladins appeal to me the most: they put the benefit of others ahead of their own. Altruist, if you know the meaning, describes a paladin really well.

tomandtish
2017-02-14, 07:23 PM
Gonna have to throw my lot in with the "you don't know what you're talking about" crowd, which is the blunter way of saying "if you play an ******** obviously it will be an ********".

Go read some literature with proper paladiny characters in them to see what they should be like. Elizabeth Moon's "The Deed of Paksenarrion", The Dragonlance books "Vinas Solamnus" and "The Legend of Huma", the original template for the D&D paladin is Poul Anderseon's "Three hearts and three lions".

You can add Michael Carpenter from Jim Butcher's "The Dresden Files", Malowen from Ru Emerson's novelization of "Against the Giants" and Alhandra from the D&D novel "City of Fire", just to throw a few more out there.

There are plenty of non-jerk paladins. The problem isn't one with the class. It's almost invariably a communication problem between the player and other players and/or the GM.

8BitNinja
2017-02-14, 07:34 PM
Well hello everyone, I'm pretty sure anyone who knows me here know that I love paladins. I can explain.

Paladins are not supposed to be selfish or jerks. A good example of a paladin would be Captain America. I know this is going to sound very No True Scotsman, but I'm just getting that out of the way. Paladins are supposed to be holy knights who help rid the world of evil and help others. Also, comparing paladins to the Knights Templar is going to open a can of worms and close this thread at the same time. Maybe another place is good for discussing that.

Now that's out of the way.

For me, the paladin is what I have always wanted to be, and with RPGs I am able to express that. The paladin is a fearless knight who protects the weak and helps the helpless, while fighting his own inward corruption by adhering to a strict code of faith (which I'm not going into due to forum rules). Sure, paladins are still human (or humanoid, not discriminating against elves, dwarves, and other races) and are going to have flaws, but he not only works to combat evil outside, but also inside.

Also, paladins are not simply fighter/cleric. They have lots of things that both of them do not have. Such as
Lay on Hands
Holy Mount
Aura of Courage
Aura of Good
Divine Grace
Divine Health

Koo Rehtorb
2017-02-14, 08:07 PM
The appeal of paladins is in seeing tiny pinpricks of good struggling against the vast overwhelming evil smothering everything until they're inevitably either corrupted or killed. It's very true to life.

Cluedrew
2017-02-14, 09:15 PM
Says the one who will avoid their responsibility, and certainly never go past it.

And even if it is true, and considering that the world is complex and varied it can be, a paladin will continue anyways. Because even a momentary glimmer is better than complete darkness.

Tiktakkat
2017-02-14, 09:17 PM
Are paladins even a real Archetype?

Yes, they are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin
They are essentially the "French" version of the Knights of the Round Table, serving Charlemagne rather than Arthur.
(Which means they are technically the "Frankish" version, which means they are the "continental West Germanic" rather than the "insular West Germanic" of the Arthurian Anglo-Saxon-Britons.)

The most famous of the Paladins was Roland:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland
Who as it happens, died in pretty much the trope namer for "Lawful Stupid paladin".

Now as it goes, the Archetype is based on the paladins as developed via the chanson de geste ("song of heroic deeds"):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanson_de_geste
And so any similarity to historical figures is pretty near purely coincidental.

As for the rest of your questions, they come down to:
"Why does anyone want to play Lancelot or Roland?"
The answer to that is:
"Read the source material."
Or just watch a decent Arthurian movie.

Mr Beer
2017-02-14, 09:32 PM
I know they don't NEED to but I have never seen a player roleplay in another way.

It seems that your lack of personal experience of quality paladin RPG-ing is causing you to dislike paladins. However, as mentioned above, there are numerous examples of non-jerk, non-holier-than-thou paladins in various media.

Perhaps if you imagine someone playing a paladin like one those people, you could conceive of a non-jerkface paladin and your concerns with the character class would be alleviated.

Jerrykhor
2017-02-14, 09:39 PM
Are you kidding? Just google some of paladins' artwork, and tell me whats the appeal. You get to look fabulous in shinny armour, have flawless skin, glowing eyes, spout holy light, and smite any fool who dare question your code. Also, you get to deal some big damage.

Jay R
2017-02-14, 10:36 PM
The biggest weakness in playing Paladins is that the D&D alignment system makes people act as if morality is as simplistic as a slot on the 9-way chart, and that being good means judging all other people's every action.

Certainly, a paladin must judge the raiders attacking the village, the monster eating the princess, or the pirates plundering ships. That does not include sneering at the Rogue who's helping him fight the raiders, the monster, and the pirates.

[He must stop the Rogue from murder, of course, but he shouldn't expect the Rogue to share his ideals. The point is to have ideals that others don't share.]

A paladin should be trying to do his duty, which always involves the complicated business of trying to determine what that means. Unless he is also a preacher, with a defined congregation that look to him for sermons, he has no particular business telling other people what their duty might be. A paladin's job isn't to tell other people to be good, but to focus on being good himself. He should assume that his code of behavior is stricter than other people's, which is exactly the same as assuming their code is looser than his.

Assuming a Paladin should tell the rest of the party to share his strict code is like assuming that a Fighter should tell everybody to use weapons more, or that a wizard should expect everybody to cast spells.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-02-14, 11:35 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4fxgLLi694

JAL_1138
2017-02-15, 12:16 AM
In 5e, they're one of the more fun classes mechanically. Great spells for a half-caster (several of which are unique to the Paladin spell list), a solid additional healing ability in Lay On Hands, Turning ability akin to a Cleric's, powerful Aura class features that benefit both the Pally and the party, and the Divine Smite feature for great "nova" damage capability. The oaths' codes of conduct are short (only a few sentences), simple, and quite permissive, and it's been made much harder to fall.

NovenFromTheSun
2017-02-15, 12:42 AM
When one sees the long list of ways DMs like to screw over paladins, it's not hard to think "challenge accepted."

But seriously, it's more than just them being good guys. Fighters, wizards, and rogues can do that just fine. I think the appeal of paladins comes from being emplowered by good. There's a lot of implications in that, and can be a comforting thought.

Gideon Falcon
2017-02-15, 12:54 AM
The appeal is that so often in our lives, we watch helplessly as monsters in (if we're lucky) far off countries, doing horrible things, sometimes with the gall to claim to do them in the same causes that we hold dear. Bad, evil people, that nobody seems to stop, that seem to get away with their atrocities, or at least succeed in them. People do inhuman things and we can't understand why anyone would do such a thing, and yet they do and they keep doing it, and we just don't have the power, means, or courage to stop it ourselves, so we have to wait anxiously for someone who does. I think all of us, if only deep down, are not only horrified by this, we are outraged.
As a Paladin, you are able to become the solution to those problems. Each class can function that way already, yes, but Paladin's have it built intrinsically into both the mechanics and description of their class, their entire structure based on fulfilling that universal desire to make the world a better place. As a Paladin, you are specifically built to seek out tyrants and mass murderers and stop them in their tracks, to stand up and call out corrupt nobles and senseless mobs for their foolishness, lay down the law with both word and sword. It is a kind of fulfilment few can ever experience in real life, but that we can all find as a Paladin with the right adventure.
Basically, just as most of us like to cut loose and play a villainous character sometimes, we also like to indulge the opposite instinct, the nobler one. As others have said, it may be a bit too close to No True Scotsman and such, but really, people who automatically play or associate Paladins as holier than thou jerks don't really understand what Paladins are about.
TL:DR; we like to say "Screw you, Cynicism!"

Arkhios
2017-02-15, 01:04 AM
The appeal is that so often in our lives, we watch helplessly as monsters in (if we're lucky) far off countries, doing horrible things, sometimes with the gall to claim to do them in the same causes that we hold dear. Bad, evil people, that nobody seems to stop, that seem to get away with their atrocities, or at least succeed in them. People do inhuman things and we can't understand why anyone would do such a thing, and yet they do and they keep doing it, and we just don't have the power, means, or courage to stop it ourselves, so we have to wait anxiously for someone who does. I think all of us, if only deep down, are not only horrified by this, we are outraged.
As a Paladin, you are able to become the solution to those problems. Each class can function that way already, yes, but Paladin's have it built intrinsically into both the mechanics and description of their class, their entire structure based on fulfilling that universal desire to make the world a better place. As a Paladin, you are specifically built to seek out tyrants and mass murderers and stop them in their tracks, to stand up and call out corrupt nobles and senseless mobs for their foolishness, lay down the law with both word and sword. It is a kind of fulfilment few can ever experience in real life, but that we can all find as a Paladin with the right adventure.
Basically, just as most of us like to cut loose and play a villainous character sometimes, we also like to indulge the opposite instinct, the nobler one. As others have said, it may be a bit too close to No True Scotsman and such, but really, people who automatically play or associate Paladins as holier than thou jerks don't really understand what Paladins are about.
TL:DR; we like to say "Screw you, Cynicism!"

Well said. I salute to thee.

Hawkstar
2017-02-15, 01:15 AM
I actually like the "Fall" status of Paladins from pre-4e, because as in Gideon's explanation of the appeal of the Paladin, they have a built-in Failsafe against becoming the very monsters they're fighting. And, the obviousness of a Paladin's abilities means that the "Can't be a treacherous bastard" works in their favor as well, because they are intrinsically trustworthy characters. As a Paladin, you get to play someone people can confide their fears and worries to without them wondering if you will exploit them. And, as a Paladin, when you do commit what seems to be an extreme, morally-questionable act (Such as murdering a legal official or bartender right in front of everyone), people assume that there's a damn good reason for such an action. You are invested with the authority of Judge, Jury, and Executioner against those who do evil, with oversight against abuse of that authority provided by the highest, most omniscient and uncorruptable forces of the world. With a Paladin, there's never (supposed) to be the question of "Is he actually a two-faced monster motivated by ravenous greed and self-interest?"

Potato_Priest
2017-02-15, 01:19 AM
The oaths' codes of conduct are short (only a few sentences), simple, and quite permissive, and it's been made much harder to fall.

Let me tell you a story of pain and regret.

I once played a paladin under an Evil DM. I swore the oath of the ancients, but was promptly relegated to oathbreaker when an ally of mine stepped on a beautiful flower. The Wrathful gods interpreted this as a failure on my part to protect beauty, and I was cast down to become an unholy abomination.

Arkhios
2017-02-15, 01:33 AM
Let me tell you a story of pain and regret.

I once played a paladin under an Evil DM. I swore the oath of the ancients, but was promptly relegated to oathbreaker when an ally of mine stepped on a beautiful flower. The Wrathful gods interpreted this as a failure on my part to protect beauty, and I was cast down to become an unholy abomination.

Seriously? That DM deserves a fist-shaped injury in his face and one player less.

Arbane
2017-02-15, 01:42 AM
Seriously? That DM deserves a fist-shaped injury in his face and one player less.

You shouldn't punch GMs in the face, even terrible ones.

You might hurt your hands - That's what 5-pound rulebooks are for. :smallbiggrin:

But yeah, leave games like that and don't look back. Good GMs understand that just because paladins CAN fall, doesn't necessarily mean they MUST.

Arkhios
2017-02-15, 01:51 AM
You shouldn't punch GMs in the face, even terrible ones.

You might hurt your hands - That's what 5-pound rulebooks are for. :smallbiggrin:

But yeah, leave games like that and don't look back. Good GMs understand that just because paladins CAN fall, doesn't necessarily mean they MUST.

True, one shouldn't assume everyone can punch in a least harmful way to oneself :smalltongue:

Any blunt object of considerable weight is obviously better.

That aside, I wasn't being serious about hurting anyone. Sorry if I sounded blunt (pun intended).

Potato_Priest
2017-02-15, 01:52 AM
You shouldn't punch GMs in the face, even terrible ones.

You might hurt your hands - That's what 5-pound rulebooks are for. :smallbiggrin:


This is 5e. No rulebook of mine has that much clout. I'm still with this DM, it's the only regular game I can attend, but I make a concerted effort now to play things that are hard to pull BS on. I don't rely on weapons or equipment, I don't have class features that can be taken away at the drop of a hat, and I hide behind an evil alignment. I still have fun, and that's what counts.

Pauly
2017-02-15, 01:58 AM
For me the joy of playing a paladin is that it is a class which has some inherent story telling restrictions.

As a rogue or fighter or wizard I more or less can do whatever I like and then think of a post hoc justification if it goes against my moral code.
A paladin, and cleric and monk you're doing it properly, requires you to think about your character's morality prior to taking story dependent decisions.

I prefer playing a class that makes me think about my character and my characters in world reaction rather than simply metagaming and going for the most efficient and effective tactical option all the time.

Saying a LG paladin should harangue other players and be a jerk is a bit like saying a CE rogue should be played like a Joker style serial killer - yes it is one to play the character type, but there are many other ways, and better ones, to play the class.

Kyberwulf
2017-02-15, 02:23 AM
I think one of the big part of Paladins, is the whole thing about seeing people fall. I think people want to watch how far a Paladin will be pushed. If they fall or most importantly, the crawl back into everyone's good graces.

I know this isn't the best example. I loved the episode in Supergirl. Where in the Red Kryptonite episode, she falls. Instead of an instantaneous rise. It was an episode or two where she was trying to get the respect of the people back. It wasn't until she sacrificed herself and was about to be killed, that she was redeemed in the eyes of the people. I know it's silly, but Supergirl is a prime example why people like paladins.

Arbane
2017-02-15, 02:31 AM
This is 5e. No rulebook of mine has that much clout. I'm still with this DM, it's the only regular game I can attend, but I make a concerted effort now to play things that are hard to pull BS on. I don't rely on weapons or equipment, I don't have class features that can be taken away at the drop of a hat, and I hide behind an evil alignment. I still have fun, and that's what counts.

Yeesh, sounds like you're having fun despite the GM, not because of them.

Remember the RPGnet Mantra: "no gaming is better than bad gaming".

Afgncaap5
2017-02-15, 02:34 AM
I've only played a Paladin once because I prefer the Chaotic side of things to the Lawful ones.

But I have to tell ya, I had a blast.

My dwarfish Paladin may have been technically weaker than the party Druid, but Moradin was not weaker than anything we met. There's something awesome about being the one who feels the moral obligation to holding the first of two locking gates open so that everyone else has the time to race through while the floor in the dungeon is giving away beneath you, finally having to let the machine stop closing the door after you've given everyone else the chance to escape, and in the few seconds before the floor gives out having your stonecunning kick in, saying a quick prayer for strength, and then tearing through the nearby wall on a very lucky die roll to fall into a corridor that the rest of your party eventually finds you in.

True, a Fighter or Barbarian could've done all that, but having a sense of duty built into the character really cemented it as the course of action. Similarly, leaping into the Aboleth's breeding den to save prisoners was just *right*, even though sensible tactics said "We're in over our heads, let's go get the town guard for backup." (By rights, I really should've died in that fight...)

I didn't report the party rogue for running the underground fist-fighting den. After all, what sort of dwarf opposes the fun of blowing off some steam by rumbling against other capable warriors? And what sort of backward civilization is it that oppresses people trying to have some fun that way? It may be illegal by the books, but that's no law I follow. Tradition and my own virtues are enough to win the day on any issue, and the paladin class represents that.

In a sense, the Paladin is a core-class version of what prestige classes were originally imagined as. It's a fighter with a touch of divine magic that lets you dish it out extra hard against evil.

I pity the people who only play Paladins to be smug jerks or to be bullies who engage in revenge fantasies at the table. I don't want to take away from the way they play or have fun, but I always feel like they're missing so much *more* fun. Different strokes, though.

JAL_1138
2017-02-15, 03:29 AM
Let me tell you a story of pain and regret.

I once played a paladin under an Evil DM. I swore the oath of the ancients, but was promptly relegated to oathbreaker when an ally of mine stepped on a beautiful flower. The Wrathful gods interpreted this as a failure on my part to protect beauty, and I was cast down to become an unholy abomination.

Your DM is a jerk. That's madness.

The class text doesn't support them, either. "Even the most virtuous paladin is fallible." It goes on to talk about how a paladin might have to choose between the lesser of two evils, or that they might falter because the right path is too arduous, and sometimes they might violate their oath in the heat of the moment. Unless the violation is grievous AND the paladin shows no sign of repentance, the transgression can typically be remedied by (for example) seeking absolution from a cleric of the same faith or a paladin of the same order via confession and ritual or prayer.

Nothing in the tenets of the Oath of the Ancients really suggests someone stepping on a single flower should cause you to fall, either. That's pretty much ludicrous, even for a particularly strict reading of the section of the OotA saying to preserve life and beauty.

Your DM either had it out for you, it sounds like; this isn't really a fault of the Paladin class or the oaths. A bad DM can have the cleric's god or the warlock's patron refuse to grant them spells, too, or overuse anti-magic zones to mess with the casters and the monk, or send hordes of rust monsters against the fighter. Same deal. I'd suggest leaving that table, and maybe looking on Roll20 for your gaming fix if there are no other games going on in your area.


Remember the RPGnet Mantra: "no gaming is better than bad gaming".

I've seen this mantra with those exact words quite a few times and I've never liked the phrasing: "no gaming is better than bad gaming." It should be clear from context, yes, but in isolation (as it is sometimes posted, as a one-line reply), it could theoretically be read as saying bad gaming is somehow preferable, or at least should be stuck with in spite of or because of how bad it is, i.e., read as "[there is] no [form of] gaming [that] is better than bad gaming." Someone could potentially misinterpret it as advice to stay in a bad game, to get stories or rant-material out of it or something. I'd add one letter to remove that potential misinterpretation, and write it as "not gaming is better than bad gaming." My quibbles over the precise phrasing aside, I concur wholeheartedly with the underlying sentiment.

mig el pig
2017-02-15, 04:10 AM
Let me tell you a story of pain and regret.

I once played a paladin under an Evil DM. I swore the oath of the ancients, but was promptly relegated to oathbreaker when an ally of mine stepped on a beautiful flower. The Wrathful gods interpreted this as a failure on my part to protect beauty, and I was cast down to become an unholy abomination.

Next session smite the first person (pc or npc) who steps on the gras in your quest for redemption.

Cluedrew
2017-02-15, 07:52 AM
To JAL_1138: As someone who appreciates things that say what they mean, may I suggest "not gaming is better than bad gaming". It may not be perfect but it should remove the ambiguity without being too drastic of a change.

Of course I suppose you could have a fun game with a bad GM, but it is hard.

DigoDragon
2017-02-15, 08:09 AM
So, I guess what I would boil it down to is that well-played Paladins lead by example, not by dictating, and that Paladins are still human.

That's exactly how my wife plays a paladin, and why our parties in the past could have chaotic members working well alongside her paladins. Awesome post, I applaud.

Hawkstar
2017-02-15, 08:22 AM
I think one of the big part of Paladins, is the whole thing about seeing people fall. I think people want to watch how far a Paladin will be pushed. If they fall or most importantly, the crawl back into everyone's good graces.

Congratulations. You are currently the most wrong person on the internet right now.

Cluedrew
2017-02-15, 08:59 AM
Give it a moment... OK someone else is more wrong now.

Although I don't think it is the main point, there is also something in the redemption story. Sometimes it is just the rise to paladin status (whether it be the first or second time) that the story is about, rather than the whole "I made a mistake" think because everyone does that. And I think a paladin should more time redeeming themselves to themselves than others. They are the ones with the higher standards that drove themselves to be a paladin in the first place.



I forgot about Sir Fredrick. Sir Fredrick is a paladin character of mine that I ended up never playing, but I ended up coming with almost a story about him. Anyways he was designed to look like the straight laced paladin most of the time (from gender to appearance), but that image was to be chipped away. For instance he good really bubbly around his kids, of which he had three. Then there was the time he needs to get into the a thief's den, he goes up and knocks on the door:

Thief: "Yes...?"
Fredrick: "Would you please let me in?"
Thief: "No."
Fredrick: "I believe a child has been kidnapped and is being held in this building, please let me in to check."
Thief: "Do you have a warrant."
Fredrick: "No, that is why I am asking, not ordering."
Thief: "No, I don't have to."
Fredrick: "If you don't let me in I will go to Baker St. I will ask them what illegal things you have been doing. They will tell me because they want you out of the way. I will come back and arrest you all and search the building while I am at it. Would you please let me in?"

Maybe not the most paladiny of paladins. But the fact that one accepts that you can't stop every crime, but continues to try and stop the other (more significant crimes) don't exclude him in my mind. More of a greater good type than the pure good.

Sariel Vailo
2017-02-15, 09:06 AM
Congratulations. You are currently the most wrong person on the internet right now.

some people and dmhave sought to push the players of paladins but i see only one path than the oath of vengence vengence on your dm vengence on your cow vengence on yo dms family. yeah mushu knew what hes talkin about

WbtE
2017-02-15, 09:59 AM
The Paladin's problem is entirely alignment-based. Gygax had a fairly clear notion of what "Lawful Good" (proper noun) was about, but he did a poor job of explaining it in AD&D 1e. From his supporting statements in TD, the old man really thought about LG as something like medieval Catholicism and alignment as something like an army list. When one considers the Paladins as a unit choice for the "Lawful Good" (proper noun) army only, their original alignment restrictions are just a requirement to stay loyal to that army or lose their special abilities. It's only when Paladins get thought about as people who have to be lawful and good (whatever that means) all the time that one gets into hot water.

Potato_Priest
2017-02-15, 11:00 AM
Yeesh, sounds like you're having fun despite the GM, not because of them.

Remember the RPGnet Mantra: "no gaming is better than bad gaming".

Perhaps true, but read the quote in your sig. It relates to DMs as well.

Millstone85
2017-02-15, 11:29 AM
I mean they are nothing but a bunch a holier than thou jerks, a mix of cleric and warrior.Interestingly, it seems that many people want to play a paladin as nothing more than a mix of cleric and warrior, probably because neither clerics nor warriors have this holier-than-thou reputation in D&D. Choose a god whose alignment and ethos match what you want for your character. Your character is now a champion of that god. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

But do try to do it the other way around. The character is such a beacon of hope that a god, the gods or the Upper Planes themselves are now blessing them with power. :smallcool:

Thialfi
2017-02-15, 11:32 AM
D&D seems to have many preconceived notions of what characters need to be. Paladins don't need to be holier than thou jerks any more than chaotic evil thieves need to murder and steal for no other motive than they are evil. All that is required for a paladin is to believe that a cause is greater than themselves. A willingness to put duty, honor, service, and/or the needs of others in front of their own needs. Any type of person can do that and they can serve any cause that you would like.

BWR
2017-02-15, 11:56 AM
D&D seems to have many preconceived notions of what characters need to be. Paladins don't need to be holier than thou jerks any more than chaotic evil thieves need to murder and steal for no other motive than they are evil. All that is required for a paladin is to believe that a cause is greater than themselves. A willingness to put duty, honor, service, and/or the needs of others in front of their own needs. Any type of person can do that and they can serve any cause that you would like.

It isn't D&D that is the problem, it's certain players. I played D&D for 20 years and never came across the idea of the jerkface paladin until I started hanging out here. The 2e supplement "The Complete Paladin's Handbook" sets even stricter guidelines for paladins than 3.x has and their example paladin is a wonderful specimen of someone with high standards for all and higher for himself yet is not an ******** about it.

JAL_1138
2017-02-15, 01:08 PM
To JAL_1138: As someone who appreciates things that say what they mean, may I suggest "not gaming is better than bad gaming". It may not be perfect but it should remove the ambiguity without being too drastic of a change.


I don't disagree, since I suggested that exact phrasing in my post earlier.


[...] I'd add one letter to remove that potential misinterpretation, and write it as "not gaming is better than bad gaming." My quibbles over the precise phrasing aside, I concur wholeheartedly with the underlying sentiment.

I did sort of bury it in a wall of text, though. :smalltongue:

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-15, 03:09 PM
The Paladin's problem is entirely alignment-based. Gygax had a fairly clear notion of what "Lawful Good" (proper noun) was about, but he did a poor job of explaining it in AD&D 1e. From his supporting statements in TD, the old man really thought about LG as something like medieval Catholicism and alignment as something like an army list. When one considers the Paladins as a unit choice for the "Lawful Good" (proper noun) army only, their original alignment restrictions are just a requirement to stay loyal to that army or lose their special abilities. It's only when Paladins get thought about as people who have to be lawful and good (whatever that means) all the time that one gets into hot water.

Not sure if I should go into detail here with my reasons for disliking Alignment and the notions of "morality as a set of cosmic forces", but I agree, that Alignment is one of the core issues that's lead to the Paladin sometimes being played as a moralizing, holier-than-thou jerkarse.

Gygax really seems to have viewed player characters as game pieces, rather than representations of persons inside a fictional world, and to have regarded character-driven RP with disdain ("go join a theater troupe" or whatever he said).

Cyrion
2017-02-15, 04:09 PM
For another good literature version, think about Don Quixote. Particularly, check out the movie version, Man of La Mancha. Quixote is definitely rigid in his following of his idealistic version of chivalry, but he's never a jerk about it. There's a soliloquy in the movie that I've always loved that seems like a good statement of the ethos of a paladin:

"I've lived for over forty years, and I've seen life as it is- pain, misery, cruelty beyond belief. I've heard all the voices of God's noblest creature, singing from the taverns and moans from bundles of filth huddled in the street. I've been a soldier and a slave. I've seen my comrades fall in battle or die more slowly under the lash in Africa. I've held them in my arms at the last moment. These were men who saw life as it is, yet they died despairing. No glory. No brave last words. Only their eyes, filled with confusion, questioning, "Why?" I do not think they were asking why they were dying, but why they had ever lived.

"When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams, this may be madness. To seek treasure where there is only trash. Too much sanity may be madness! But maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as it should be!"

That's why I play a paladin.

Jay R
2017-02-15, 04:49 PM
This is 5e. No rulebook of mine has that much clout. I'm still with this DM, it's the only regular game I can attend, but I make a concerted effort now to play things that are hard to pull BS on. I don't rely on weapons or equipment, I don't have class features that can be taken away at the drop of a hat, and I hide behind an evil alignment. I still have fun, and that's what counts.

Makes sense. While I think that was an unfair and unreasonable move by the DM, a general rule for fun D&D is to play a character of a type that the DM supports and enjoys.

For perfect DMs, that would of course be any class. But as long as our DMs are merely human, they will have opinions and biases and unrealized preferences. A PC that fits in with these will always be more comfortable to play.

[One of the problems with playing a paladin is that many DMs unconsciously treat them worse than they treat other classes.]

Illven
2017-02-15, 05:27 PM
When the requirements of Roderick's oath come in conflict with the rest of the party, Roderick does not threaten them, because they are his friends and allies. When we came upon a farmer bleeding out next to his ruined cart, Roderick immediately dismounted and healed the man's wounds. When he explained that bandits had taken his wife and daughter, Roderick did not say "we have to go save them." Roderick said "I'm going to go save them, and the rest of you can come with me if you want to." When Roderick's oath requires him to show mercy to a hated enemy, he asks NICELY if the others can please not make him choose between them and his oath. He doesn't draw his sword and demand that the others stand down like a holier-than-thou jerk.

So instead of telling the other pc's what they are doing, you instead just force the group to do what you're doing so the dm doesn't punish them for splitting the group?

Yeah, that's so much better.:smallannoyed:

Beans
2017-02-15, 05:37 PM
Given we're only seeing the IC side of that scenario, we don't know whether or not the other players minded, nor whether Rhaegar discussed it with them. Nor, in fact, do we know to what degree (if at all) the DM would "punish them for splitting the group", or how a split-group situation would be handled by said DM.
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic by giving people the benefit of the doubt, but I don't terribly see a compelling reason to assume that Rhaegar forced anyone to do anything.

WbtE
2017-02-15, 08:24 PM
Not sure if I should go into detail here with my reasons for disliking Alignment and the notions of "morality as a set of cosmic forces", but I agree, that Alignment is one of the core issues that's lead to the Paladin sometimes being played as a moralizing, holier-than-thou jerkarse.

Gygax really seems to have viewed player characters as game pieces, rather than representations of persons inside a fictional world, and to have regarded character-driven RP with disdain ("go join a theater troupe" or whatever he said).

It seems to me that it's not Alignment as such that you dislike, it's the names used for the Alignments. If Paladins had to be aligned "North-East" rather than "Lawful Good", and North-East had an independent definition, then we'd be thinking of it as fealty rather than morality and probably not arguing about it. Nobody really gets hot and bothered about the Clans in the Legend of the Five Rings, even though they have certain codes of behaviour to follow and cosmic forces backing them up.

As for the remark about Gygax, that's another issue of talking past one another. Gygax didn't think highly of acting at the table, but he was a believer in players developing consistent characters. Either could be described as "character-driven RP", but the description is unfortunate because we tend to think that the two go together. They do not. Not only can you have a consistent character that only gets described in the third person, but acting doesn't mean consistency

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-15, 08:48 PM
It seems to me that it's not Alignment as such that you dislike, it's the names used for the Alignments. If Paladins had to be aligned "North-East" rather than "Lawful Good", and North-East had an independent definition, then we'd be thinking of it as fealty rather than morality and probably not arguing about it. Nobody really gets hot and bothered about the Clans in the Legend of the Five Rings, even though they have certain codes of behaviour to follow and cosmic forces backing them up.


No, it's alignment. Just not a fan of really simplified, narrowly-defined "moral" standards being treated as if they're the objective physics of the setting. I'm going to leave it there and not derail the thread, we have enough alignment debates as it is.




As for the remark about Gygax, that's another issue of talking past one another. Gygax didn't think highly of acting at the table, but he was a believer in players developing consistent characters. Either could be described as "character-driven RP", but the description is unfortunate because we tend to think that the two go together. They do not. Not only can you have a consistent character that only gets described in the third person, but acting doesn't mean consistency

True about character and at-table-acting, but that one quote is not the only reason I had that impression of G.

daniel_ream
2017-02-15, 10:59 PM
Gygax really seems to have viewed player characters as game pieces, rather than representations of persons inside a fictional world, and to have regarded character-driven RP with disdain ("go join a theater troupe" or whatever he said).

There's no "seems" about it, he was clear on this point in many essays.


For another good literature version, think about Don Quixote. Particularly, check out the movie version, Man of La Mancha.

The movie/musical, yes, but not the book. The movie/musical deliberately inverts the Aesop of the book; in the book, Quixote is presented as a pathetic figure longing after a mythical Golden Age that never really existed, which causes him to suffer, bring grief to his companions and eventually perish.

So see the movie/musical, yes, but leave off the book.

Michael7123
2017-02-16, 12:00 AM
Whenever threads about paladins pop up, I think it's best to link this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?34312-Lessons-for-paladins-rules-discussion-disguised-as-prose). It's a pretty good take on paladining.

PersonMan
2017-02-16, 03:46 AM
Personally, I enjoy playing Paladins against the type, because the word 'Paladin' carries a strong archetypical image with it. It can be interesting to play a character who is in many ways "unpaladinlike" but still follows the Code and, when the chips are down, does what needs to be done just like a "normal" Paladin would.


So instead of telling the other pc's what they are doing, you instead just force the group to do what you're doing so the dm doesn't punish them for splitting the group?

Yeah, that's so much better.:smallannoyed:

On the other hand, in what world is "you find an injured man whose family was attacked by bandits" not a plot hook that any party would jump at following?

It's less "force the group to do what you're doing" and more "point in the direction everyone is going to go in anyways because the other directions are boring".

Arkhios
2017-02-16, 04:23 AM
Personally, I enjoy playing Paladins against the type, because the word 'Paladin' carries a strong archetypical image with it. It can be interesting to play a character who is in many ways "unpaladinlike" but still follows the Code and, when the chips are down, does what needs to be done just like a "normal" Paladin would.

I'll have to agree with this. While I don't think I'm exactly playing "against" the type, I've found it really rewarding to depict my paladin as a barbarian (not the class, but the archetypal barbarian).
In our 5th edition campaign, my paladin belongs to a northern "barbarian" tribe, and walks side by side with them, not looking much different from the others, except maybe for the arguably religious symbols adorned in his equipment, and tattooed with. Overall he has very barbaric look, and a fighting style preferring to dual wield a weapon and shield (I think it's an appropriate way of depicting ferocious fighting). He might not succumb to similar rage than his comrades, but he isn't in anyway less efficient alongside them. Barbarians in general tend to follow a code of honor, which isn't very much unlike that of a paladin's code.

Illven
2017-02-16, 05:03 AM
On the other hand, in what world is "you find an injured man whose family was attacked by bandits" not a plot hook that any party would jump at following?

It's less "force the group to do what you're doing" and more "point in the direction everyone is going to go in anyways because the other directions are boring".

You know what that's fair. While they are certainly circumstances where I, or my characters wouldn't. (Time crunch for a more important mission) I can't say that was happening there.

Sorry for jumping to conclusions. :smallsmile:

hifidelity2
2017-02-16, 05:54 AM
Both the DM and the Player need to have the same understanding of what they think a Paladin is

In my group (AD&D2 – 3.5ish ) we have always had a Paladin as being a Holy Warrior and that all faiths can (although may not) have them.

This means that a “Paladin” can be any alignment

We therefore have a ½ Orc Paladin who is LG alignment who is good “Friends” with a Dark Knight (NPC)who is LE. They respect each other and have teamed up together from time to time to fight a bigger evil

NorthernPhoenix
2017-02-16, 09:14 AM
Some people enjoy being contrarian, but i love Paladins because i enjoy the Knight in Shining Armour theme, and because i want to be the unambiguous Good Guy in a morally ambiguous world.

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-16, 09:40 AM
There's no "seems" about it, he was clear on this point in many essays.


OK, so I'm not making something out nothing there.

Then again, he also said this, so it's hard to tell what he really thought and when on the matter -- "The essence of a role-playing game is that it is a group, cooperative experience. There is no winning or losing, but rather the value is in the experience of imagining yourself as a character in whatever genre you’re involved in, whether it’s a fantasy game, the Wild West, secret agents or whatever else. You get to sort of vicariously experience those things."

Anyway, sorry for the distraction from the thread topic.




On the thread topic -- I've never played a Paladin, because there inevitably seemed to be at-table arguments over what is "good", what is "lawful", and what's more important to the Paladin when they conflict. Is literal law or the "law" of the Paladin's oath/vow more important? Is breaking the law to save 1 innocent life acceptable? 10 innocent lives? 1000 innocent lives? Is it a "higher power", "good" as a "cosmic force", or the Paladin's own internal conflict, that causes the loss of their special abilities when they "fall"? Etc, etc, etc.

Keep in mind that this was multiple editions back, before the various Paladin types of 5e, which sound (as described here) as a step away from how the older setups were nearly inevitably argument-bait.

I *have* played characters who held themselves to high self-imposed standards, and enjoyed it, because it's interesting to see how a character interacts with a world, with other characters, who don't hold those standards.

And similar to the whole "Paladins must fall" thing, certain players just seem hard-wired to go on the offensive against any character who holds some high standard of ethics, morals, or honor, of any kind -- even if it's entirely internal and they never push that standard on others. If they get even the hint that another player's PC has a "code" of any kind, they'll constantly be sniffing and nosing and digging for any supposed violation of that code. Some players are just like that. "Well gee, that's not very honorable, is it?"

These are often the same players who turn alignment from something conceptually buggy and odd, into a potentially game-ruining chore. "Your character sheet says Lawful Good, your character wouldn't do that!"

NecroDancer
2017-02-16, 10:32 AM
I remember one of my friends played a 45 year old paladin of freedom that tried to convert "the teens" by doing "rad" things like sick tricks and flips he also carried around an extreme teen bible (apparently a real thing). His battle cry was "how do you do fellow kids". Apparently his backstory was that he was a horrible father and left his kids alone for a night of drinking a few towns over. When he got back he learned that a pack of orcs had kidnapped his kids n a raid and since then he has been trying to act like a more caring father figure to almost everyone and never lets one of his friend go off alone if he can help it. He is extremely worried about the safety of children becuase he know that the world is a cruel place that will show them no mercy.

To this day I'm still 50% convinced he got the character idea from this website.

daniel_ream
2017-02-16, 03:47 PM
I've found it really rewarding to depict my paladin as a barbarian (not the class, but the archetypal barbarian).


Both the DM and the Player need to have the same understanding of what they think a Paladin is

More so than most of the stock D&D classes, the Paladin class is based on a single specific literary character - Holger Carlsson from Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions . That's it. Even The Matter of France doesn't include the elements of the class that Gygax took from that one book.

D&D is a game of classes - of archetypes that are defined as much by what they are not as by what they are. If you're going to throw out the fluff that makes a Paladin a Paladin in favour of some kind of generic divinely inspired warrior with a code, you may as well just grab Eclipse (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/51255/Eclipse-The-Codex-Persona-Shareware) and go full point buy.


the value is in the experience of imagining yourself as a character in whatever genre you’re involved in, whether it’s a fantasy game, the Wild West, secret agents or whatever else. You get to sort of vicariously experience those things.

That's the important bit, and it's not as inconsistent as it sounds. Gary meant imagining yourself as a wizard, gunslinger, 00-agent or whatever, Fionavar Tapestry-style, not playing a distinct character with their own personality, history, etc.


On the thread topic -- I've never played a Paladin, because there inevitably seemed to be at-table arguments over what is "good", what is "lawful", and what's more important to the Paladin when they conflict. Is literal law or the "law" of the Paladin's oath/vow more important? Is breaking the law to save 1 innocent life acceptable? 10 innocent lives? 1000 innocent lives? Is it a "higher power", "good" as a "cosmic force", or the Paladin's own internal conflict, that causes the loss of their special abilities when they "fall"? Etc, etc, etc.

I'm convinced much of this is due to gamers trying to reconcile modern middle-class morality (with apologies to Lerner and Loewe) with the morality of 15th century France (or 1940's France) that the paladin is based on. Forcing a conversion to ${DEITY} at swordpoint and then executing a prisoner of war was a thing that happened historically and was considered Good. It's a completely different mindset and, like comic book superheroes, if you want to play it at the table you need a gentleman's agreement not to put the paladin in situations where the two moralities are irreconcilable.


And similar to the whole "Paladins must fall" thing

The potential for a Paladin to fall is a Chekhov's Gun. If it's not at least tested every now and again, it's superfluous and should be left out.


[...] certain players just seem hard-wired to go on the offensive against any character who holds some high standard of ethics, morals, or honor, of any kind -- even if it's entirely internal and they never push that standard on others. If they get even the hint that another player's PC has a "code" of any kind, they'll constantly be sniffing and nosing and digging for any supposed violation of that code. Some players are just like that. "Well gee, that's not very honorable, is it?"

I have found the best solution to such behaviour is a swift whack across the bridge of the nose with the flat of a broadsword, accompanied with a hearty "leave off your prattle, knave".

Arbane
2017-02-16, 03:58 PM
The potential for a Paladin to fall is a Chekhov's Gun. If it's not at least tested every now and again, it's superfluous and should be left out.



I am TOTALLY OKAY WITH LEAVING IT OUT.

Seems like clerics fall a LOT less often, and they're the ones who get high-level spells.

IShouldntBehere
2017-02-16, 04:26 PM
Because at some point you get tired of playing Han "Solo interviewing for the part of Poochie the Dog", your buddy has run "Family Guy's Quagmire as a member of Dethklok" into the ground and you're just generally burnt out on everyone doing some variant of "Bender as built by Rick Sanchez" and you'd just like to play a good guy.

No ulterior motives.
No self-interested pettiness.
No hedonistic excesses.
No cynical fixations.

Just go out there and help people for the sake of helping without taking shortcuts, and without excessively disturbing peace or violating the social order.

8BitNinja
2017-02-16, 05:53 PM
I am TOTALLY OKAY WITH LEAVING IT OUT.

I don't like falling when I play as a paladin, but I don't think it should be left out. I just think that either DMs shouldn't want to make paladins fall (of course I have no control over this) or the paladin should learn that, in the face of two options that suck, there is a third option. There is a greentext about that, but I can't find it right now. I'll post it when I find it.

D+1
2017-02-16, 07:18 PM
I mean they are nothing but a bunch a holier than thou jerks, a mix of cleric and warrior.
There's your problem...
Play the character as something other than a holier-than-thou jerk mix-of-cleric-and-warrior and you open a vast sea of possibilities no more/less limited than any other class.

oudeis
2017-02-16, 07:29 PM
Regarding Paladins falling, I'll simply paste something I first posted on this forum about four years ago:


It is the GM's responsibility to proactively, cooperatively, and specifically define the conditions under which a Paladin can Fall from Grace, as well as what would be required to expiate his transgression.

Perch
2017-02-16, 07:51 PM
I hate paladins.

Mostly because I like my settings to have no clear "good and evil", the idea that such thing exists is really silly to me and sometimes a new player comes to my group, hoping to play as a paladin and I don't have the courage to say no, so I'm forced to create a game I don't like.

They are a flawed class that leads to limited RP and they (In my opinion) don't add anything new mechanically speaking to the table that can't be done by a warrior or a cleric.

kyoryu
2017-02-16, 08:09 PM
Ever read the Dresden Files?

The Knights of the Cross are excellent examples of Paladins. And not one of them is holier-than-thou, or a stuck up prick.

Any of them would be an excellent template to use (or Murph, for that matter).

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-16, 08:11 PM
I hate paladins.

Mostly because I like my settings to have no clear "good and evil", the idea that such thing exists is really silly to me and sometimes a new player comes to my group, hoping to play as a paladin and I don't have the courage to say no, so I'm forced to create a game I don't like.

They are a flawed class that leads to limited RP and they (In my opinion) don't add anything new mechanically speaking to the table that can't be done by a warrior or a cleric.

Based on other people's experiences, I think the flaw there is not in the general concept of the Paladin, but rather in the particular implementations of that concept that you've come across.

Perch
2017-02-16, 08:15 PM
It's hard to play a game where there is no clear good and evil when there is a class whose main ideia behind is: Being able to detect evil.

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-16, 08:28 PM
It's hard to play a game where there is no clear good and evil when there is a class whose main ideia behind is: Being able to detect evil.


Wait... the main idea of the Paladin class is to detect evil? :smalleek:

Koo Rehtorb
2017-02-16, 08:52 PM
Detect Evil is probably their most iconic class feature I would say.

IShouldntBehere
2017-02-16, 09:17 PM
I hate paladins.

Mostly because I like my settings to have no clear "good and evil", the idea that such thing exists is really silly to me and sometimes a new player comes to my group, hoping to play as a paladin and I don't have the courage to say no, so I'm forced to create a game I don't like.

I take it your settings don't have Toothbrush moustaches either?


Detect Evil is probably their most iconic class feature I would say.

I personally would have gone for Lay on hands myself or at least some variety of Smite. I don't think I've seen "Detect Evil" on paladins outside D&D, even on those sources that draw heavily on D&D. Those sort of things seem to be core to the package of the "Paladin" across a very wide variety of games.

TheIronGolem
2017-02-16, 09:29 PM
Detect Evil might be iconic for D&D paladins as a class, but it's certainly not critical to the archetype.

Even if you wanted to argue that it was, you could easily replace it with "detect loyalty" or something similar. The paladin looks at you with his supernatural senses and can tell that your're loyal first and foremost to family, or country, or whatever.

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-16, 09:33 PM
Detect Evil might be iconic for D&D paladins as a class, but it's certainly not critical to the archetype.

Even if you wanted to argue that it was, you could easily replace it with "detect loyalty" or something similar. The paladin looks at you with his supernatural senses and can tell that your're loyal first and foremost to family, or country, or whatever.

Or you could leave room for moral gray areas while still leaving the Paladin able to detect genuine evil of intent and action.

(IMO, evil is about intent and action, not about "cosmic forces" or "supernatural contagion".)

8BitNinja
2017-02-16, 10:21 PM
Detect Evil might be iconic for D&D paladins as a class, but it's certainly not critical to the archetype.

Even if you wanted to argue that it was, you could easily replace it with "detect loyalty" or something similar. The paladin looks at you with his supernatural senses and can tell that your're loyal first and foremost to family, or country, or whatever.

Just a personal opinion. I like the "anti-evil" approach the creators took to the paladins.

Like I said, just my opinion.

sktarq
2017-02-16, 10:39 PM
The appeal....A challenge....I'm not paladin like....so that can be fun....to reach across to a character so totally different than myself. . . which does give it the added benefit that I have never believed in the lawful stupid paladin of dumbs.

Favorite place to play Paladins? Ravenloft. . . where their whole Detect Evil thing really doesn't work right. (came from the most exceptional character generation rolls I have ever had-ran with it as a paladin and it was very fun-including for the other players)

Biggest reason NOT to play a paladin. Detect Evil leads to discussions of the nature of evil in the group or with the DM at minimum. . . which gets derail-ly and tiresome. Thus I'd say their most powerful feature is Cause Table Argument (at will)

This is made worse because most players of paladins end up placing the implied contract between the PC's (and the players) to stick together below the compact with their diety. Thus it acts as de facto control of other PC actions from someone who is not the player of that character (or the DM) which is taken by most as rude to say the least. This of course just sets up more uses of Cause Table Argument and it is corollary power Reduce Table Fun. This often leads to two PC's who would not have knowingly wished to travel and adventure together for long. While this is always true to an extent the Paladin code is something that prevents that inconsistency from be easily ignored. This either means one of the PC's has to back down or the group would break up. Either at PC or table level. Cue the aforementioned at will powers.

All of the above said most paladins near my character tend to just happen to die in their sleep. And I don't play them often.

Hawkstar
2017-02-17, 01:07 AM
The potential for a Paladin to fall is a Chekhov's Gun. If it's not at least tested every now and again, it's superfluous and should be left out.
No, it isn't a "Chekhov's Gun" to be tested. It's an Emergency Stop to shut down a character going dramatically off the rails of the archetype. The Paladin archetype is designed to be someone who is inherently virtuous and trustworthy, with powers that are largely tailored to let them be virtuous and trustworthy (Especially when it comes to maneuvering around the treacherous and untrustworthy - whether it's by smacking them down with a smite, or sensing they cannot be trusted.) "Falling" is a way to say "No, that bull**** won't fly" when they start trying to be what they're supposed to be fighting against.

Arkhios
2017-02-17, 01:08 AM
More so than most of the stock D&D classes, the Paladin class is based on a single specific literary character - Holger Carlsson from Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions . That's it. Even The Matter of France doesn't include the elements of the class that Gygax took from that one book.

D&D is a game of classes - of archetypes that are defined as much by what they are not as by what they are. If you're going to throw out the fluff that makes a Paladin a Paladin in favour of some kind of generic divinely inspired warrior with a code, you may as well just grab Eclipse (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/51255/Eclipse-The-Codex-Persona-Shareware) and go full point buy.

So... Let me get this straight, are you saying that a paladin couldn't have varying origins, but instead you have to belong to an order of knights, clad in shining plate armor and swing a sword in an orderly manner in the name of god, in order to be considered a paladin? Only because of superficial things - things that define only what you look like, not what you are?

Unless I understood you all wrong, tell me, how could an honorbound, good-willed warrior - of undeniably a clan or tribe of nomadic origins - who has an unwavering faith to one's god(s) not be seen as a paladin? Apart from one's code of honor and good-will, everything else is superficial.

A faithful warrior of Tyr (a lawful good norse god in D&D terms) could just as well be a paladin in terms of his culture, as a templar knight (of Christian God, arguably Lawful Good deity - of which I'm not sure if I fully agree) could be in his culture. Their approach, cultures, and faiths might be different, but the end goal can still be the same: defeat evil, and be just and merciful.

Amphetryon
2017-02-17, 01:16 AM
The appeal? Read about Asmodeus the Paladin.

Alternatively, ask the same question of every other Class in D&D; I've no doubt there are (different) folks just as perplexed about the appeal of every single one of them.

daniel_ream
2017-02-17, 02:17 AM
No, it isn't a "Chekhov's Gun" to be tested.

Sure it is. Stop interpreting tested as "everything is a Lady and the Tiger choice where choosing wrong means 'rocks paladin falls, everyone dies' ".

"Tested" simply means that there should be reasonably frequent incidents where the Paladin has to choose between doing something the quick, easy or simple way and following the code. If the code is never tested, it's superfluous. Ditto if there's no consequence for ignoring the code. Any player not willing to accept the strictures on paladin behaviour and find sensible in-fiction ways to adhere to it is like a player wanting to play a wizard who gets infinite spell levels every day.


So... Let me get this straight, are you saying that a paladin couldn't have varying origins, but instead you have to belong to an order of knights, clad in shining plate armor and swing a sword in an orderly manner in the name of god, in order to be considered a paladin? Only because of superficial things - things that define only what you look like, not what you are?

Yes.


Unless I understood you all wrong, tell me, how could an honorbound, good-willed warrior - of undeniably a clan or tribe of nomadic origins - who has an unwavering faith to one's god(s) not be seen as a paladin?

If you want to play a dervish, or a samurai, or a U.S. Marine, then play that instead of twisting and torturing a class that doesn't apply into what you want. There's tons of classes all over, "official" and otherwise you can use, or download Eclipse and build your own.

D&D is a game of archetypical classes[1]. A Viking, noble in spirit who reveres Tyr is no more a paladin than a Comanche warrior is a knight (they're both members of a warrior class that rides horses and uses a lance in battle. Clearly the same, right?)

[1] Well, it used to be. 3finder's feat trees and consequence-less multiclassing turned it into a quagmire of a point-buy system. I understand 5E is better in this regard but I'm unfamiliar with it.

Hawkstar
2017-02-17, 02:37 AM
Sure it is. Stop interpreting tested as "everything is a Lady and the Tiger choice where choosing wrong means 'rocks paladin falls, everyone dies' ".

"Tested" simply means that there should be reasonably frequent incidents where the Paladin has to choose between doing something the quick, easy or simple way and following the code. If the code is never tested, it's superfluous. Ditto if there's no consequence for ignoring the code. Any player not willing to accept the strictures on paladin behaviour and find sensible in-fiction ways to adhere to it is like a player wanting to play a wizard who gets infinite spell levels every day.

No, it doesn't, unless you mean entirely player-driven 'choices' such as, when encountering travellers on the road, 'choosing' to hold them at swordpoint until they give you all their material possessions of value. Or, after rescuing the princess, "choosing" to demand she throw herself onto the hero (And he'll take her by force if she won't - yes, this is something I've seen try to happen in a game). Or 'choosing' to, instead of destroy or contain the Guild of Thieves and Assassins, take it over and turn it from one neighborhood's problem into an international cartel. Or 'choose' to murder a commoner who's attitude they didn't like, then frame another innocent person for it. Or 'choose' to cheat an elderly couple out of their land and savings.

Arkhios
2017-02-17, 03:28 AM
So... Let me get this straight, are you saying that a paladin couldn't have varying origins, but instead you have to belong to an order of knights, clad in shining plate armor and swing a sword in an orderly manner in the name of god, in order to be considered a paladin? Only because of superficial things - things that define only what you look like, not what you are?

Yes.


Unless I understood you all wrong, tell me, how could an honorbound, good-willed warrior - of undeniably a clan or tribe of nomadic origins - who has an unwavering faith to one's god(s) not be seen as a paladin? Apart from one's code of honor and good-will, everything else is superficial.

A faithful warrior of Tyr (a lawful good norse god in D&D terms) could just as well be a paladin in terms of his culture, as a templar knight (of Christian God, arguably Lawful Good deity - of which I'm not sure if I fully agree) could be in his culture. Their approach, cultures, and faiths might be different, but the end goal can still be the same: defeat evil, and be just and merciful.

If you want to play a dervish, or a samurai, or a U.S. Marine, then play that instead of twisting and torturing a class that doesn't apply into what you want. There's tons of classes all over, "official" and otherwise you can use, or download Eclipse and build your own.

D&D is a game of archetypical classes[1]. A Viking, noble in spirit who reveres Tyr is no more a paladin than a Comanche warrior is a knight (they're both members of a warrior class that rides horses and uses a lance in battle. Clearly the same, right?)

[1] Well, it used to be. 3finder's feat trees and consequence-less multiclassing turned it into a quagmire of a point-buy system. I understand 5E is better in this regard but I'm unfamiliar with it.

Forgive me if I'm being blunt (or don't, I don't really care)... but that's stupidly narrow-minded. There's no explanation why a Viking-esque character couldn't be equal to being a paladin, if his or her actions in life had exactly same results as as Templar's actions would have. EVEN if their approach was a little different from each other. Tyr, as a deity, is perfect example for a Paladin's deity. You can perfectly change bits of fluff without making a paladin any less a paladin. I'd suggest you to take a look at 5th edition's paladin archetypes, but I doubt you could change your views, according to what you've said before: "A paladin ceases to be a Paladin if it's not exactly, strictly, as written in one single biased book."

BWR
2017-02-17, 03:53 AM
r. Tyr, as a deity, is perfect example for a Paladin's deity. "

Uh, Tyr the Forgotten Realms god is not the same as Ty/Tiw/Tiwaz/(other variants). There is no reason anything resembling a real world viking should be a paladin because they worship/emulate Ty.

Arkhios
2017-02-17, 04:10 AM
Uh, Tyr the Forgotten Realms god is not the same as Ty/Tiw/Tiwaz/(other variants). There is no reason anything resembling a real world viking should be a paladin because they worship/emulate Ty.

i'm not referring to Forgotten Realms Tyr. The name of that god in Forgotten Realm is latinized version of Ty/Tiw/Tiwaz, and both are essentially the same; in fact, IIRC both Forgotten Realms Tyr and norse Týr are one-handed, correct? Same god. Different setting. (Týr is a god associated with law and heroic glory. Tyr is a god of justice. Law and Justice are veeeery closely related.)

daniel_ream
2017-02-17, 05:40 AM
You can perfectly change bits of fluff without making a paladin any less a paladin.

You can drive a screw with a hammer, too, if you hit it hard enough and long enough.

Or you can just use a screwdriver.

Arkhios
2017-02-17, 05:53 AM
You can drive a screw with a hammer, too, if you hit it hard enough and long enough.

Or you can just use a screwdriver.

Sigh, I give up. You apparently refuse to see the possibility of being flexible within an archetype. Using the example I gave about my character: being a Viking(-esque) is a cultural matter, not a class. You can add cultural things on top of any class's chassis without changing the class from what it is. Religion is also a cultural matter. Different cultures may have different religions, and unless you haven't noticed, many gods are very similar to each other (not only in D&D, but in real world mythologies), which begs to question what if they are/were actually exactly same entities, which only happen to have different names within different cultures?

Don't go about saying that everyone should see paladins in the way you see them.

PersonMan
2017-02-17, 06:31 AM
You can drive a screw with a hammer, too, if you hit it hard enough and long enough.

Or you can just use a screwdriver.

The disagreement comes from the question of what the tool is, here.

Imagine a modular tool with different heads you can attach to the same handle. It has a hammer head, for nails, as well as a screwdriver head for screws. This is what Arkhios sees the class/archetype as - a tool that can be used for multiple things, without misusing it when something else fits better. Is it better than hauling around a hammer and a screwdriver? It's probably better in some ways, worse in others, sure, but someone using a "multi-tool" like that will probably not take kindly to being told they're a fool for driving screws in with a hammer.

BWR
2017-02-17, 06:38 AM
i'm not referring to Forgotten Realms Tyr. The name of that god in Forgotten Realm is latinized version of Ty/Tiw/Tiwaz, and both are essentially the same; in fact, IIRC both Forgotten Realms Tyr and norse Týr are one-handed, correct? Same god. Different setting. (Týr is a god associated with law and heroic glory. Tyr is a god of justice. Law and Justice are veeeery closely related.)

You seem to be conflating the two, however. There is not a lot actually know about Ty and what is doesn't exactly scream 'paladin'. Laws and justice need not be good.

Jay R
2017-02-17, 08:13 AM
This all gets back to a crucial principle of playing D&D. All things aren't perfectly determined, and we have different ideas about them. This is fine. People are different; we're going to have different ideas.

The essential requirement for a successful PC is to play a type in which your interpretation is sufficiently close to the DM's that what you want to do will fit what she thinks ought to happen.

Playing a paladin works well - if your ideas of a paladin are consistent with the DM's ideas and the other players' ideas.

Don't play a paladin that won't fit in with the DM's ideas of the culture and history of his world, for the same reason that you don't add a paladin to an otherwise all Lawful Evil party.

Specifically, don't play a Paladin of Tyr for a DM who considers that to be twisting and torturing a class that doesn't apply into what you want. Neither you nor the DM will enjoy that game. Find a character build that fits both your ideas about D&D and your DM's ideas. [Ideally, it should also fit - or at least be compatible with - the ideas behind all the other players' PCs, too.]

There's no point trying to tell people that their ideas are wrong. They aren't wrong; they are different. Stop trying to make people play the game they don't want to play, and look for ways to play a game you will all enjoy, in a world that is in the intersection of everyone's approach.

JAL_1138
2017-02-17, 09:32 AM
Or you could leave room for moral gray areas while still leaving the Paladin able to detect genuine evil of intent and action.

(IMO, evil is about intent and action, not about "cosmic forces" or "supernatural contagion".)

The 5e version just detects celestials, fiends, and undead, and places that have been (possibly magically) consecrated or desecrated. Depending on the campaign, that might not detect anything about the morality of the being in question. Celestials might fall and fiends might rise, and undead already run the gamut (a LG revenant is perfectly plausible, for example). All it tells you is "there's one over there."

Detect Evil and Good, the spell, does the same thing but includes aberrations, elementals, and fey...again without telling you anything about the morality of the entity in question. It doesn't tell you "good fey" or "evil fey" or even "neutral fey," just "there's a fey over there."

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-17, 09:45 AM
Sigh, I give up. You apparently refuse to see the possibility of being flexible within an archetype. Using the example I gave about my character: being a Viking(-esque) is a cultural matter, not a class. You can add cultural things on top of any class's chassis without changing the class from what it is. Religion is also a cultural matter. Different cultures may have different religions, and unless you haven't noticed, many gods are very similar to each other (not only in D&D, but in real world mythologies), which begs to question what if they are/were actually exactly same entities, which only happen to have different names within different cultures?

Don't go about saying that everyone should see paladins in the way you see them.

This is getting into "why I can't stand archetypes and archetype-based systems" territory.

Not only does it constrain characters to conforming to certain pigeonholes, people can't even agree on the size, shape, and location of those pigeonholes.

(See also, earlier comments on alignment as a bad "morality system".)

Cluedrew
2017-02-17, 11:55 AM
I think Lay on Hands would be the most representative of the 3 core D&D of the 3 paladin abilities (detect evil and smite evil). One of my favourite paladin groups has a force field ability that only works on other people. I found that very paladin-esc. Despite the fact they are group of wandering monks who's uniform is a blue shirt and they have some very chaotic tendencies.

Lacuna Caster
2017-02-17, 12:06 PM
I mean they are nothing but a bunch a holier than thou jerks, a mix of cleric and warrior.

It's hard to roleplay with so many limitations and without acting as a Knight Templar or lawful stupid.
The difficulty is the point, from a certain perspective (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/82986-a-craven-can-be-as-brave-as-any-man-when):

“A craven can be as brave as any man, when there is nothing to fear. And we all do our duty, when there is no cost to it. How easy it seems then, to walk the path of honor. Yet soon or late in every man's life comes a day when it is not easy, a day when he must choose.”

I suspect the difficulty, in D&D, is that the class isn't especially powerful relative to other classes, so in order to maintain 'balance', you're not to allowed to actually make the paladin's choices especially difficult (or the player gets the impression they're being ****ed with.) So role-playing a honour-bound knight tends to manifest in the more petty, annoying ways instead. (That, and the fact that exploring the paladin's code would mean putting the character in situations where good/evil are non-trivial to determine, and then you get endless alignment arguments.)

oudeis
2017-02-17, 12:30 PM
The appeal? Read about Asmodeus the Paladin.

Tried searching for that and came up with a bunch of chaff. Link?

IShouldntBehere
2017-02-17, 12:59 PM
Sure it is. Stop interpreting tested as "everything is a Lady and the Tiger choice where choosing wrong means 'rocks paladin falls, everyone dies' ".

"Tested" simply means that there should be reasonably frequent incidents where the Paladin has to choose between doing something the quick, easy or simple way and following the code. If the code is never tested, it's superfluous. Ditto if there's no consequence for ignoring the code. Any player not willing to accept the strictures on paladin behaviour and find sensible in-fiction ways to adhere to it is like a player wanting to play a wizard who gets infinite spell levels every day.

No. There lots of space between "Never tested" and "Frequent Incidents" that force painful decisions about the code. The code need only be regularly visible enough to inform the player's actions. Running across a man intimidating and exploiting poor street Urchins, still gives an opportunity to show off the code even if the answer to the problem is direct and simple as telling the guy to buzz off. This is simply because the code compels the paladin to act where others could easily excuse not involving themselves. The fact the action required is straight forward and easy doesn't dimish that the action will be framed in the context of the code.

This isn't to say that truly hard decisions can't or shouldn't ever show up but simply that it's far from required to constantly but them between a rock and hard place to show it off. Hell, just having someone be a rude to the PC and then having him drunkley drop his coin purse without noticing gives the paladin a chance to show of their moral chops. Plenty of even LG characters would probably be content to let a jerk walk away without taking pains to correct his own self-inflicted problems. The paladin would be compelled by their code to act on returning the thing, even if doing so doesn't require some grand sacrifice on their part just swallowing some pride.

Harrowing, tough decisions should be used sparingly. If every day you have to choose between giving up your most prized possession and saving orphans from drowning in lava the world starts to feel contrived and overly hostile.

Perch
2017-02-17, 01:58 PM
Detect Evil might be iconic for D&D paladins as a class, but it's certainly not critical to the archetype.

Even if you wanted to argue that it was, you could easily replace it with "detect loyalty" or something similar. The paladin looks at you with his supernatural senses and can tell that your're loyal first and foremost to family, or country, or whatever.

I think we are talking about D&D paladins friend.



Biggest reason NOT to play a paladin. Detect Evil leads to discussions of the nature of evil in the group or with the DM at minimum. . . which gets derail-ly and tiresome. Thus I'd say their most powerful feature is Cause Table Argument (at will)

Indeed.

Spellbreaker26
2017-02-17, 02:57 PM
D&D is a game of archetypical classes[1]. A Viking, noble in spirit who reveres Tyr is no more a paladin than a Comanche warrior is a knight (they're both members of a warrior class that rides horses and uses a lance in battle. Clearly the same, right?)


OK, coming from a 5e background here, but yeah, that does sound, pretty clearly, the same. I mean, I can see a Barbarian as an armoured knight with a greatsword (see Guts from Berserk or the Mountain from Game of Thrones). So why can't a properly religious/devoted Viking be a paladin? Why would you have to make a dozen classes all with the exact same same only in different languages just to get across the same concept? A concept, which is by no means limited to the traditional Sir Galahad/Roland style knight even in the real world. Would we have to have Imams as a class to represent Middle-Eastern style clerics, and Gurus to represent Indian style clerics, because culturally their image of Holy Man is a bit different to what the original class is based off of? That's ridiculous.

IShouldntBehere
2017-02-17, 03:43 PM
I think we are talking about D&D paladins friend.

You can't have that discussion in isolation. If we're talking about the appeal of paladins or what D&D paladins do right or get wrong, the discussion takes place with the archetype carrying meaning from other sources. What one finds iconic about the D&D paladin will necessarily be informed by what other exposure one has had to the paladin concept. This is just as true for their abilities and what those do on a mechanical level as it is for their fluff and flavor.

Also, the D&D paladin not a monolith varying in their which abilities they have across editions and what the same abilities actually do. It's hard to equate the many "Oaths" approach of the 5e paladin to the "One True Code" approach of 3.5. It's hard equate the "Spells Slots & Attack Bonuses" approach of the 3.5/5e paladins and the more tailored suite of abilities they get in 4e and all those don't jive nicely with the exclusive-club-membership feel of even earlier iterations. Certainly the 5e paladin doesn't have "Detect Evil" in the 3.X sense of the ability. I think this reinforces my previous point as external frames of references are important tools to have when contrasting the varying implementations of "Paladin" within D&D.

Paladin is an archetype that has planted deep roots all across gaming: RPGs, miniature games, card games, board games, video games, you name it. Considering the common thread the class shares with such a large variety of representations is absolutely a vital part of unpacking the appeal of the class.

Cluedrew
2017-02-17, 04:06 PM
I think we are talking about D&D paladins friend.Possible Playgrounder's Fallacy, I missed something but we are not in a D&D subforum and I don't recall anything about system in the opening post. Beside a mention of alignment which can be applied else where... OK that is actually a reasonable argument. Still has there been an official statement on that? Regardless, I agree with IShouldntBehere that you can't view them in isolation.


Why would you have to make a dozen classes all with the exact same same only in different languages just to get across the same concept?That is fallout of the particular ridged and narrow form of class design used in some of the D&D classes. The simplest fix would just be re-flavoring and maybe a bit of homebrew. Also keep in mind that D&D is largely based off of the archetypes of medieval Europe, and from that perspective it was hard to have a noble Viking.

GungHo
2017-02-17, 04:17 PM
I remember one of my friends played a 45 year old paladin of freedom that tried to convert "the teens" by doing "rad" things like sick tricks and flips he also carried around an extreme teen bible (apparently a real thing). His battle cry was "how do you do fellow kids". Apparently his backstory was that he was a horrible father and left his kids alone for a night of drinking a few towns over. When he got back he learned that a pack of orcs had kidnapped his kids n a raid and since then he has been trying to act like a more caring father figure to almost everyone and never lets one of his friend go off alone if he can help it. He is extremely worried about the safety of children becuase he know that the world is a cruel place that will show them no mercy.

To this day I'm still 50% convinced he got the character idea from this website.

So, he was the grown version of Bill from Bill & Ted?

Clistenes
2017-02-17, 04:18 PM
I mean they are nothing but a bunch a holier than thou jerks, a mix of cleric and warrior.

It's hard to roleplay with so many limitations and without acting as a Knight Templar or lawful stupid.

I have no problem with this, but I've personally never saw what was so fun about it. I always play as a fun character, who has belivable goals.

Are paladins even a real Archetype? I mean even the templars were selfish jerks most of the time.

So what makes playing as paladins so fun for you guys? :smallbiggrin::smalltongue::smallamused:

You mean, the same way all Rogues are always dirty traitors who backstab their teammates and run away with their stuff?

Or all Barbarians are dumb brutes who can't even speak properly?

And all Clerics are blind fanatics who constantly preach their religion and never stop attacking other people's beliefs?

And all Wizards are arrogant jerks who will call non-mages retards to their faces, but lack even as shred of common sense and will fold and cry like babies if they ever feel threatened?

Each class has its own negative stereotypes, but you don't have to play them unless you wish to.

You can play a Paladin who follows an ethic and moral code similar to a decent, honest person from the XXI century, and who respects the same limitations as a XXI century cop and soldier from a civilized country. That is more than enough to make you a paragon of virtue in a Sh*t Age world where murder, slavery and rape are commonplace, and even "heroes" think nothing of killing people to take their stuff, breaking into homes to rob them and defiling corpses and tombs. In a world of monsters and criminals, the normal guy is a saint.

Now, if you want to play a dude who kills babies to steal their candy, having a Paladin around may be a turn off, but whatever, not everybody want to play a psycho murderhobo...

Arkhios
2017-02-17, 04:53 PM
Also keep in mind that D&D is largely based off of the archetypes of medieval Europe, and from that perspective it was hard to have a noble Viking.

Not exactly true. One of the twelve Charlemagne's paladins was Ogier the Dane, who is also the person that - by the way - turns out to be the main character of the Three Hearts and Three Lions book (just learned this myself after the debate); in other words, the "Ultimate Paladin On Which All Paladins Are Based Upon" was, in fact, a viking - or the son of a viking, King Geoffroy of Denmark.

Cluedrew
2017-02-17, 05:48 PM
To Arkhios: Don't refute me with the truth, because archetypes about long ago ages are not really based on the truth. Vikings didn't exist, Norsemen did and they were probably neither particularly depraved nor did they likely go to war with those helmets. The paladins of Charlemagne where probably no more morally upstanding than the average citizen. Unless you have made a study of this and can tell me otherwise, but it is really about what is seen, not what is there.

Cool tidbit though.

Arkhios
2017-02-17, 06:07 PM
To Arkhios: Don't refute me with the truth, because archetypes about long ago ages are not really based on the truth. Vikings didn't exist, Norsemen did and they were probably neither particularly depraved nor did they likely go to war with those helmets. The paladins of Charlemagne where probably no more morally upstanding than the average citizen. Unless you have made a study of this and can tell me otherwise, but it is really about what is seen, not what is there.

Cool tidbit though.

Excuse me? "Vikings didn't exist?" They very much did. The ridiculous horned helmets are a myth. But the people known as Vikings were very real. In Old Norse viking (n.) meant "freebooting voyage, piracy;" one would "go on a viking." Now, on the matter of depravity, they raided foreign countries, which, as scandinavian pirates, would probably cause them to be considered depraved by their victims).


Vikings, from Old Norse víkingr, were Nordic seafarers, mainly speaking the Old Norse language, who raided and traded from their Northern European homelands across wide areas of northern, central and eastern Europe, during the late 8th to late 11th centuries. The term is also commonly extended in modern English and other vernaculars to the inhabitants of Viking home communities during what has become known as the Viking Age. This period of Nordic military, mercantile and demographic expansion constitutes an important element in the early medieval history of Scandinavia, Estonia, the British Isles, France, Kievan Rus' and Sicily.

Paladins of Charlemagne are just a romanticized tale, but still, the character class Paladin is based upon them (or him, Ogier the Dane, who is said to have been a real person like the rest of the "Paladins of Charlemagne")

8BitNinja
2017-02-17, 06:52 PM
To Arkhios: Don't refute me with the truth, because archetypes about long ago ages are not really based on the truth. Vikings didn't exist, Norsemen did and they were probably neither particularly depraved nor did they likely go to war with those helmets. The paladins of Charlemagne where probably no more morally upstanding than the average citizen. Unless you have made a study of this and can tell me otherwise, but it is really about what is seen, not what is there.

Cool tidbit though.

Like the guy above me said, Vikings did exist. They were the pirates of the Nordic lands. The people were calles the Nords, Norsemen, or Norse depending on who you ask. It's like saying "pirates didn't exist, they were actually called sailors and they didn't rob or pillage." If you want to talk D&D Viking is the class, Nord is the race.

Clistenes
2017-02-17, 07:31 PM
Like the guy above me said, Vikings did exist. They were the pirates of the Nordic lands. The people were calles the Nords, Norsemen, or Norse depending on who you ask. It's like saying "pirates didn't exist, they were actually called sailors and they didn't rob or pillage." If you want to talk D&D Viking is the class, Nord is the race.

Also, there is a theory that the word "Viking" was the name given to the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Viken (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viken,_Norway).

But anyways, modern people uses the word "Viking" when they speak about the inhabitants of Denmark and Scandinavia during the High Middle Ages. Even if the word isn't etymologically accurate, if everybody uses it to call the same thing, it is valid.

For example, no one among the native peoples in America ever called themselves "Native Americans". America comes from Amerigo Vespucci, an italian merchant who wrote a couple books about the discovery of America, giving himself undeserved protagonism. A german cartographer, Martin Waldseemüller, believed Amerigo's bullsh*t and coined the name "America" for the newly discovered continent, and it stuck.

Now, there is zero reason America should be called America, it is arbitrary. There is even less reason for the native peoples of America to be called "Native Americans", since they gave themselves other names. But the name has stuck, people use it, and they understand each other when they use it, so it's valid.

Similarly, the Chinese call themselves "Zhōngguó", and their country "Zhōngguó". However, "China" and "Chinese" are still valid.

Jay R
2017-02-17, 08:02 PM
Not exactly true. One of the twelve Charlemagne's paladins was Ogier the Dane, who is also the person that - by the way - turns out to be the main character of the Three Hearts and Three Lions book (just learned this myself after the debate); in other words, the "Ultimate Paladin On Which All Paladins Are Based Upon" was, in fact, a viking - or the son of a viking, King Geoffroy of Denmark.

Yes, but he did it in Frankish fashion, in a Frankish court, following a Frankish king. Nobody would question a Viking who became a paladin this way. People have been arguing for and against a Paladin of Tyw, which Ogier was not.


Paladins of Charlemagne are just a romanticized tale,...

Right. Just like wizards, dragons, Pegasus, the hydra, etc.

D&D was founded on romanticized tales.

Arkhios
2017-02-17, 10:51 PM
Yes, but he did it in Frankish fashion, in a Frankish court, following a Frankish king. Nobody would question a Viking who became a paladin this way. People have been arguing for and against a Paladin of Tyw, which Ogier was not.



Right. Just like wizards, dragons, Pegasus, the hydra, etc.

D&D was founded on romanticized tales.

Yes. All true, I never said otherwise on those regards. However. Ogier wasn't an infant when he was imprisoned, he likely had had a danish upbringing up to that point, which doesn't entirely disqualify his viking origins - while he might not have been a true viking paladin who followed Tyw, it's likely he didn't abandon all of his danish heritage either, even though he was then held prisoner for fifteen years by Charlemagne and received frankish education. I should've said "not entirely true" instead, but the accident has happened already.

Likewise, I never claimed that Paladins of Charlemagne were anything but a romanticized tale or that they were actual factual paladins as we know them from the games. Paladin as a name for them is likely real, but it also likely didn't mean the same thing when used back then.

But, even romanticized tales often hold a sliver of truth when regarding people. The persons which have been called as Paladins of Charlemagne have all probably lived despite the fact that they're now better known from (at least partly) fictional tales. Likewise, Jesus didn't probably actually turn water to wine, but it's possible that the person Jesus and his little "cult" of followers were based on have once really walked among the people of that era. It's the stories people choose to believe, not the reality and truth behind the stories they can never know for a fact, since they didn't experience them first-hand. Anyone who claims otherwise is likely a lunatic.

Cluedrew
2017-02-17, 10:59 PM
Like the guy above me said, Vikings did exist. They were the pirates of the Nordic lands. The people were calles the Nords, Norsemen, or Norse depending on who you ask. It's like saying "pirates didn't exist, they were actually called sailors and they didn't rob or pillage." If you want to talk D&D Viking is the class, Nord is the race.Good point, I may have been splitting hairs a bit too much there. Or have been referencing a completely incorrect source, either way.

daniel_ream
2017-02-17, 11:15 PM
Would we have to have Imams as a class to represent Middle-Eastern style clerics

Al-Qadim thought so.


and Gurus to represent Indian style clerics because culturally their image of Holy Man is a bit different to what the original class is based off of? That's ridiculous.

I suppose Against the Dark Yogi is ridiculous, then.

Classes represent archetypes, which by definition are constrained in what they depict. A viking barbarian godthegn (or whatever you want to call it) is not a paladin any more than a samurai or a dervish is.

3.5 and Pathfinder have Samurai and Dervish classes, because those things are different from a Paladin. Or are 3.5 and Pathfinder ridiculous now, too?

(The Golarion setting, now, I'll grant you. Tricorn hat wearing single mom pirate Drow investigating the latest frankenstein escapee from the asylum in order to redeem herself in the eyes of her mesoamerican paladin step-brother while putting her son through barber's college. That is the Trope Namer for Ridiculous.)


Paladin is an archetype that has planted deep roots all across gaming: RPGs, miniature games, card games, board games, video games, you name it. Considering the common thread the class shares with such a large variety of representations is absolutely a vital part of unpacking the appeal of the class.

Truthfully, though, the overwhelming majority of those are taking their inspiration from D&D, not the original stories. Unless one was blessed with a complete set of Bulfinch's in the house from a young age *cough*, it's highly unlikely many game designers were even familiar with the Matter of France at all. Most people's reference for King Arthur is T. H. White, not Mallory, for instance.


Not exactly true. One of the twelve Charlemagne's paladins was Ogier the Dane [...] a viking - or the son of a viking, King Geoffroy of Denmark.

Yes, but it's not that simple. The stories about Charlemagne's paladins weren't written during the early middle ages, but during the high middle ages in the 11th to 12th centuries, and incorporate the mores and romantic traditions of the time. Godfrid isn't depicted as a contemporary Viking jarl, but rather as a king that the audience of the 12th century would comprehend.


But anyways, modern people uses the word "Viking" when they speak about the inhabitants of Denmark and Scandinavia during the High Middle Ages.

Early Middle Ages. The Viking Age is considered to end in 1066.

Stealth Marmot
2017-02-18, 12:07 AM
OK, coming from a 5e background here, but yeah, that does sound, pretty clearly, the same. I mean, I can see a Barbarian as an armoured knight with a greatsword (see Guts from Berserk or the Mountain from Game of Thrones). So why can't a properly religious/devoted Viking be a paladin? Why would you have to make a dozen classes all with the exact same same only in different languages just to get across the same concept? A concept, which is by no means limited to the traditional Sir Galahad/Roland style knight even in the real world. Would we have to have Imams as a class to represent Middle-Eastern style clerics, and Gurus to represent Indian style clerics, because culturally their image of Holy Man is a bit different to what the original class is based off of? That's ridiculous.

Ridiculous? No. Unnecessary? Probably. I mean, is a Samurai fundamentally different from a Fighter? You could easily just have Samurais be lawful fighters or even paladins. Order of the Stick made a point of that.

But they made Oriental Adventures for a Reason. Some people like to have their mechanics be affected by the cultural leanings of the supposed setting.

Arbane
2017-02-18, 02:54 AM
Yes, but he did it in Frankish fashion, in a Frankish court, following a Frankish king. Nobody would question a Viking who became a paladin this way. People have been arguing for and against a Paladin of Tyw, which Ogier was not.


So, only Catholics can be Paladins. GOT IT.

Agrippa
2017-02-18, 03:00 AM
So, only Catholics can be Paladins. GOT IT.

Maybe Anglicans and Greek, Russian and Eastern Orthodox too. But no Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist or Lutheran paladins. And certainly no Quakers either.

Arbane
2017-02-18, 03:12 AM
If you want to play a dervish, or a samurai, or a U.S. Marine, then play that instead of twisting and torturing a class that doesn't apply into what you want. There's tons of classes all over, "official" and otherwise you can use, or download Eclipse and build your own.


I seem to recall some obscure webcomic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html) (you've probably never heard of it) did a joke about this very topic.



D&D is a game of archetypical classes[1]. A Viking, noble in spirit who reveres Tyr is no more a paladin than a Comanche warrior is a knight (they're both members of a warrior class that rides horses and uses a lance in battle. Clearly the same, right?)

[1] Well, it used to be. 3finder's feat trees and consequence-less multiclassing turned it into a quagmire of a point-buy system. I understand 5E is better in this regard but I'm unfamiliar with it.

Archetypical classes! Like Soulbound, and Green Star Adept, and Spellthief, and..... :smallbiggrin:

PS: Nobody tell him about PF's Chosen One (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo-paladin-archetypes/chosen-one-paladin-archetype/) Paladin.)

And while I'm thinking about it, I vaguely remember reading some AD&D module back in The Day where the PCs could stumble across another adventuring party who'd been caught in some sort of stasis/hibernation trap. One of whom was a woman in robes armed with daggers and magic bracers of armor. Class: Paladin - she didn't like being weighted down by armor. You wouldn't let her in your game, would you?

IShouldntBehere
2017-02-18, 07:09 AM
Truthfully, though, the overwhelming majority of those are taking their inspiration from D&D, not the original stories. Unless one was blessed with a complete set of Bulfinch's in the house from a young age *cough*, it's highly unlikely many game designers were even familiar with the Matter of France at all. Most people's reference for King Arthur is T. H. White, not Mallory, for instance.


That's a bit much. It's probably fair to say that D&D was the first progenitor of what the modern gaming idea of what a "Paladin" is but I don't think many if any of those sources are directly drawing on D&D. Certainly the designers of today's cars aren't taking direct inspiration from the Model T Ford. It's got a life it's own at this point an entire independent paladin-ecosystem of sorts.

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-18, 08:27 AM
That's a bit much. It's probably fair to say that D&D was the first progenitor of what the modern gaming idea of what a "Paladin" is but I don't think many if any of those sources are directly drawing on D&D. Certainly the designers of today's cars aren't taking direct inspiration from the Model T Ford. It's got a life it's own at this point an entire independent paladin-ecosystem of sorts.

You know, the comparison to the Model T is quite apt.

"Anything that's not black and boxy with a manual transmission, obviously violates the archetype of what a 'car' is, and we shouldn't call it a 'car' at all. If you want to drive something with rounded off lines and some bright color, you really need to come up with a different word for that thing, because it's not a 'car'."

Jay R
2017-02-18, 09:04 AM
So, only Catholics can be Paladins. GOT IT.

I did not say that. Claiming false statements does not forward the discussion in any useful way.

My conclusion was that Ogier was not a valid example of a Viking-style paladin. I have made no statement for or against playing a Viking-style paladin, beyond my earlier statement, quoted below.

This all gets back to a crucial principle of playing D&D. All things aren't perfectly determined, and we have different ideas about them. This is fine. People are different; we're going to have different ideas.

The essential requirement for a successful PC is to play a type in which your interpretation is sufficiently close to the DM's that what you want to do will fit what she thinks ought to happen.

Playing a paladin works well - if your ideas of a paladin are consistent with the DM's ideas and the other players' ideas.

Don't play a paladin that won't fit in with the DM's ideas of the culture and history of his world, for the same reason that you don't add a paladin to an otherwise all Lawful Evil party.

Specifically, don't play a Paladin of Tyr for a DM who considers that to be twisting and torturing a class that doesn't apply into what you want. Neither you nor the DM will enjoy that game. Find a character build that fits both your ideas about D&D and your DM's ideas. [Ideally, it should also fit - or at least be compatible with - the ideas behind all the other players' PCs, too.]

There's no point trying to tell people that their ideas are wrong. They aren't wrong; they are different. Stop trying to make people play the game they don't want to play, and look for ways to play a game you will all enjoy, in a world that is in the intersection of everyone's approach.

This clearly and unambiguously states that there's more than one valid opinion, and that you can play it however you and the DM agree.

No fair or honest reading of my words in this thread can lead to the conclusion "So, only Catholics can be Paladins."

Please do not make up words and pretend I said them. If you want to honestly claim I said something, block copy it from my post, with quotation marks around it.

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-18, 09:26 AM
I did not say that. Claiming false statements does not forward the discussion in any useful way.

My conclusion was that Ogier was not a valid example of a Viking-style paladin. I have made no statement for or against playing a Viking-style paladin, beyond my earlier statement, quoted below.

This all gets back to a crucial principle of playing D&D. All things aren't perfectly determined, and we have different ideas about them. This is fine. People are different; we're going to have different ideas.

The essential requirement for a successful PC is to play a type in which your interpretation is sufficiently close to the DM's that what you want to do will fit what she thinks ought to happen.

Playing a paladin works well - if your ideas of a paladin are consistent with the DM's ideas and the other players' ideas.

Don't play a paladin that won't fit in with the DM's ideas of the culture and history of his world, for the same reason that you don't add a paladin to an otherwise all Lawful Evil party.

Specifically, don't play a Paladin of Tyr for a DM who considers that to be twisting and torturing a class that doesn't apply into what you want. Neither you nor the DM will enjoy that game. Find a character build that fits both your ideas about D&D and your DM's ideas. [Ideally, it should also fit - or at least be compatible with - the ideas behind all the other players' PCs, too.]

There's no point trying to tell people that their ideas are wrong. They aren't wrong; they are different. Stop trying to make people play the game they don't want to play, and look for ways to play a game you will all enjoy, in a world that is in the intersection of everyone's approach.

This clearly and unambiguously states that there's more than one valid opinion, and that you can play it however you and the DM agree.

No fair or honest reading of my words in this thread can lead to the conclusion "So, only Catholics can be Paladins."

Please do not make up words and pretend I said them. If you want to honestly claim I said something, block copy it from my post, with quotation marks around it.

You're not the only one that poster does that sort of thing to.

Jay R
2017-02-18, 09:48 AM
You're not the only one that poster does that sort of thing to.

I'm not surprised. And the only way to get him to (eventually) stop is to call him on it every time, so he never thinks he succeeded in making a point that way.

8BitNinja
2017-02-18, 12:04 PM
I think Lay on Hands would be the most representative of the 3 core D&D of the 3 paladin abilities (detect evil and smite evil). One of my favourite paladin groups has a force field ability that only works on other people. I found that very paladin-esc. Despite the fact they are group of wandering monks who's uniform is a blue shirt and they have some very chaotic tendencies.

Then how are they monks?

Spellbreaker26
2017-02-18, 02:06 PM
Al-Qadim thought so.

I suppose Against the Dark Yogi is ridiculous, then.

Classes represent archetypes, which by definition are constrained in what they depict. A viking barbarian godthegn (or whatever you want to call it) is not a paladin any more than a samurai or a dervish is.

3.5 and Pathfinder have Samurai and Dervish classes, because those things are different from a Paladin. Or are 3.5 and Pathfinder ridiculous now, too?



I did say I was coming from a 5e background, and I find the assertion that Paladins must be culturally one specific way ridiculous. If 3.5 makes that argument or goes along with it I find that part of it ridiculous. (From what I've heard 3.5e's Samurai was a laughing stock anyway).

Classes represent anything with the mechanics, they are pictured as the archetypes.

A Paladin is a warrior with a specific code, can smite evil, detect evil, and heal, etc.
That can apply to a knight with a chivalric code, it can apply to a samurai, or a ghazi or a Akali or even a properly motivated Viking. So long as they fulfill the mechanics and theme, there is nothing stopping any one of those interpretations holding sway except a vague vision of a dude in plate and the market for bad splatbooks.

(Also, Against the Dark Yogi may be ridiculous or not, I don't know, but it sure sounds ridiculous. "Oh no, the Dark Yogi is coming! Fear his callisthenics and stretches!")

Quiver
2017-02-18, 03:09 PM
... I like paladins. In fact my first -currently only- active character is a Paladin.

Part of the appeal is simplicity. Like I said, Ely is my first character; being a Paladin means I have a simple role (smash things!), have some spell options (lay on hands, Level 4 stuff) and I feel like I can contribute meaningfully.

There's the romantic aspect to it, too; paladins are chivalrous. They are the Knights, Defenders of the weak, protector of the innocent, servitors of good. And, as fun as a villain character can be, it's fun to play the good guy.

Heck, the paladin vows and oaths and making sure you don't offend your God and lose your abilities? That's fun. I like that drama! I like developing my characters personality and outlook and morality and, again; as a newbie, the paladin provides a really clear framework to do that within.

I mean, I like other classes too. I have some ideas for characters I'd like to play, but I don't see anything wrong with liking the Paladin. Paladins are awesome.

daniel_ream
2017-02-18, 03:23 PM
I seem to recall some obscure webcomic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html) (you've probably never heard of it) did a joke about this very topic.

And your point is...what, exactly? That Rich Burlew has an opinion? Well, I concede the point. Rich Burlew definitely has opinions.


Archetypical classes! Like Soulbound, and Green Star Adept, and Spellthief, and.....

I know you think you're making a point here, but I did imply that as of 3.x/PF, D&D had lost its archetypical classes in favour of a mish-mash of chargen mechanics, to the point that it now resembles a point-buy system rather than an archetypical class system.


a woman in robes armed with daggers and magic bracers of armor. Class: Paladin - she didn't like being weighted down by armor. You wouldn't let her in your game, would you?

Nope. I'd ask the player exactly what they were trying to achieve, because creating a Paladin and then tossing out all the thematic elements that make a character a Paladin is playing silly buggers with the game system, and it's a strong indication I've got a Special Snowflake on my hands. People who don't want to play archetypical classes should play a game not based on archetypical classes.


That's a bit much. It's probably fair to say that D&D was the first progenitor of what the modern gaming idea of what a "Paladin" is but I don't think many if any of those sources are directly drawing on D&D. [...] It's got a life it's own at this point an entire independent paladin-ecosystem of sorts.

I strongly disagree. I don't think it's possible to overstate how much modern fantasy gaming and to some extent modern fantasy lit has become hidebound by the conventions established by D&D. Two of the best-selling fantasy novel series right now are based on their authors' college RPG campaigns. Any JRPG that uses jobs/classes and hit points is drawing from D&D. To the extent that there's an "ecosystem", it's an inward-looking self-sustaining entity that's just recycling the same tropes over and over again without reference to anything outside itself.


Classes represent anything with the mechanics, they are pictured as the archetypes.

Sorry, but that's a definition of "[character] class" that's at odds with 40 years of RPG game design. Character classes in any game have always included significant non-mechanical fluff that is as essential to the class as the mechanics.


A Paladin is a warrior with a specific code, can smite evil, detect evil, and heal, etc.
That can apply to a knight with a chivalric code, it can apply to a samurai, or a ghazi or a Akali or even a properly motivated Viking.

Can you show any examples, without reference to D&D or anything derived from D&D, of a samurai, viking, ghazi or akali that performed all of:


smiting evil
detecting evil
healing


Historical sources would be best, although I'll accept fictional sources pre-1980.


(Also, Against the Dark Yogi may be ridiculous or not, I don't know, but it sure sounds ridiculous. "Oh no, the Dark Yogi is coming! Fear his callisthenics and stretches!")

Well, it's good to know you're still arguing in good faith.

Quiver
2017-02-18, 03:32 PM
Nope. I'd ask the player exactly what they were trying to achieve, because creating a Paladin and then tossing out all the thematic elements that make a character a Paladin is playing silly buggers with the game system, and it's a strong indication I've got a Special Snowflake on my hands. People who don't want to play archetypical classes should play a game not based on archetypical classes.


Mind if I ask what you consider the archetypes of the class?

Maybe I'm working off of faulty knowledge, since a lot of this discussion seems based around D&D, abd I'm only really familiar with Pathfinder...

But isn't the core part of the paladin the "empowered by the god" part of it? If a robe and bracers fits that theme more than heavy armor, isn't that appropriate?

Like...again, using Pathfinder as the example here...but say I play a Paladin of Desna. They travel and wander a lot, more at home on the open roads than in a knightly keep...and since they travel so much, they eschew heavy armor for boiled leather or magic bracers.

Or, if they worship a God of magic, that might lead to a more scholarly Paladin, wouldn't it? They still fit, they still are empowered by the gods, but it might make more sense for them to use robes rather than armor, because...well, their's is a scholarly God, not a warrior.

Hawkstar
2017-02-18, 03:54 PM
Mind if I ask what you consider the archetypes of the class?

Maybe I'm working off of faulty knowledge, since a lot of this discussion seems based around D&D, abd I'm only really familiar with Pathfinder...

But isn't the core part of the paladin the "empowered by the god" part of it? If a robe and bracers fits that theme more than heavy armor, isn't that appropriate?
You're thinking Cleric, not Paladin.

Paladin is "Champion of Justice". You need to be able to kick ass and take names, and LOOK like you can kick ass and take names, while not looking like you're going to raid and plunder.

Spellbreaker26
2017-02-18, 03:54 PM
Can you show any examples, without reference to D&D or anything derived from D&D, of a samurai, viking, ghazi or akali that performed all of:


smiting evil
detecting evil
healing


Historical sources would be best, although I'll accept fictional sources pre-1980.



Well, it's good to know you're still arguing in good faith.

It'd be pretty hard to find historical, reliable sources of people performing magic healing...
Actually, with the most often quoted inspiration for paladins, the Song of Roland, I'm pretty sure that they don't do *any* of those things. They fight, sure, but they don't do anything explicitly magical in their fighting. They have divine inspiration, sure, but if *that* was the only qualifier then yeah, I can pretty easily find examples of ghazis, Samurai and whatnot.

But how about this?
Samson smites with divinly-granted strength. He loses his power when he breaks all of the codes of the Nazarine, and falls.

The story of Samson bears a closer resemblance to the DnD mechanics of a paladin than the paladins themselves, even though were we to try and make him we would probably use the Barbarian class.

IShouldntBehere
2017-02-18, 04:45 PM
I strongly disagree. I don't think it's possible to overstate how much modern fantasy gaming and to some extent modern fantasy lit has become hidebound by the conventions established by D&D. Two of the best-selling fantasy novel series right now are based on their authors' college RPG campaigns. Any JRPG that uses jobs/classes and hit points is drawing from D&D. To the extent that there's an "ecosystem", it's an inward-looking self-sustaining entity that's just recycling the same tropes over and over again without reference to anything outside itself.




I think we need to establish what the standard for "Drawing directly from D&D" is. I think it can be overstated and I think you are overstating in the extreme. Your strokes are so broad as to say paint D&D as the direct inspiration for Xenoblade Chronicles X (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoblade_Chronicles_X) (see bold, above).

To my mind to be drawing directly from D&D the creators of the work must at minimum must have played D&D and further must be saying "Hey you know that thing I saw D&D when I played it? I'd like to put that in my game". If something is in a game that also happens to be D&D but they were inspired by some thing was inspired by some thing, that was in 4-5 degrees of separation inspired by D&D: that doesn't count.

Hawkstar
2017-02-18, 04:48 PM
I think we need to establish what the standard for "Drawing directly from D&D" is. I think it can be overstated and I think you are overstating in the extreme. Your strokes are so broad as to say paint D&D as the direct inspiration for Xenoblade Chronicles X (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoblade_Chronicles_X) (see bold, above).

To my mind to be drawing directly from D&D the creators of the work must at minimum must have played D&D and further must be saying "Hey you know that thing I saw D&D when I played it? I'd like to put that in my game". If something is in a game that also happens to be D&D but they were inspired by some thing was inspired by some thing, that was in 4-5 degrees of separation inspired by D&D: that doesn't count.

But the thing that the thing that inspired the thing was inspired by was inspired by the thing that was inspired by D&D.

daniel_ream
2017-02-18, 05:04 PM
It'd be pretty hard to find historical, reliable sources of people performing magic healing...

They're quite common, actually. Le Morte d'Arthur and the chansons de geste alone are full of them, never mind the Mahabharata, the epic of Gilgamesh, or even the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, for that matter. And I didn't restrict you to historical sources either, so now we've got all of Shakespeare, Spenser and Dunsany to play with.

We're clearly talking past each other at this point, as you seem to want to redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean. If everything is a Paladin, then nothing is.

Felyndiira
2017-02-18, 05:10 PM
I'm reminded of an argument I had with a friend over whether a railroaded or a sandbox game is inherently better. The argument basically went nowhere, and we ultimately concluded that even 100% railroaded games are fine as long as the players are having fun.

It's the same case here. I'm a believer that fluff is mutable, and since I play RPGs mostly for the character study aspect, I probably will walk away from a game where the GM tells me "you're playing a rogue, therefore your personality must be X and Y and Z." However, there are probably people out there that want to adhere to and play out certain fantasy tropes, whose fun would be ruined by the presence of a happy fun charity wizard or a high scholar fighter. Sure, those tables will never be for me or for the majority of people on this board, but as long as they are having fun with the game, that's totally a valid way to have fun. There's no right or wrong in the "fluff is mutable" vs. "fluff is law" argument.

It also answers the OP's question for those tables - for people and tables who only play classes to the archetype, a paladin will uniquely represent the "holy faithful noble warrior" trope.

Spellbreaker26
2017-02-18, 05:25 PM
We're clearly talking past each other at this point, as you seem to want to redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean. If everything is a Paladin, then nothing is.

I'm not saying everything is a paladin, just that a paladin can use an axe or a scimitar or even a katana and dress however he likes as long as he's a noble warrior fighting for his code and his traditions. I'm saying that that part of the fluff, the noble code and traditions and what not matters more than how he looks or dresses. But if to you, he's not a paladin if he doesn't look right then you are indeed correct, there is absolutely no point talking any more.

Amphetryon
2017-02-18, 05:53 PM
If everything is a Paladin, then nothing is.
Even straightjackets come in more than one size.

Quiver
2017-02-18, 06:17 PM
You're thinking Cleric, not Paladin.

Paladin is "Champion of Justice". You need to be able to kick ass and take names, and LOOK like you can kick ass and take names, while not looking like you're going to raid and plunder.

Gods can have different perceptions of what justice, and a champion of such, could be.

At least, that's how I view it. Rally hope it doesn't sound like I'm arguing or being dismissive! But I do think that - if the players and GM are cool with it - a paladin can be more than just the guy in heavy armor with the great sword smiting evil.

hamishspence
2017-02-18, 06:28 PM
Mimir.net referred to the next step "up" from gods, as "Powers"

http://mimir.net/essays/sourcesofpower.html

There are many Gods of Love, but Love itself is a Power.

In this context, Justice may be the Power that there are many Gods of, each with varying interpretations.

Paladins can get their special abilities from the Power known as Justice. But the culture and environment from which the paladin comes, may shape how they go about things. Paladins of aquatic races (merfolk, locathah, sea elves, etc) aren't likely to be wearing heavy steel armour, for example. Yet they're still just as much Paladins as the land ones are.

Potato_Priest
2017-02-18, 06:29 PM
Gods can have different perceptions of what justice, and a champion of such, could be.

At least, that's how I view it. Rally hope it doesn't sound like I'm arguing or being dismissive! But I do think that - if the players and GM are cool with it - applauding can be more than just the guy in heavy armor with the Greatford smiting evil.

That's some great autocorrect there. Rally hope makes a surprising amount of thematic sense on this thread. :smallsmile:

Quiver
2017-02-18, 06:31 PM
That's some great autocorrect there. Rally hope makes a surprising amount of thematic sense on this thread. :smallsmile:

:smalleek:

Fixed. Sorry about that!

Arbane
2017-02-18, 07:38 PM
I know you think you're making a point here, but I did imply that as of 3.x/PF, D&D had lost its archetypical classes in favour of a mish-mash of chargen mechanics, to the point that it now resembles a point-buy system rather than an archetypical class system.

You call 'em 'archetypical', I call 'em 'cliched'.

And unless all characters are going to be in a very small number of very small boxes, we're either gonna need 10,000 character classes, or we're gonna need GMs who are willing to unclench a little on the aesthetics of the classes.


INope. I'd ask the player exactly what they were trying to achieve, because creating a Paladin and then tossing out all the thematic elements that make a character a Paladin is playing silly buggers with the game system, and it's a strong indication I've got a Special Snowflake on my hands. People who don't want to play archetypical classes should play a game not based on archetypical classes.

It was an AD&D game, maybe someone used those wonky 'speed factor' rules in the DMG? I dunno.

I don't see anywhere in any edition of D&D where Paladins have a dress code.

(I do indeed prefer point-buy systems.)


I strongly disagree. I don't think it's possible to overstate how much modern fantasy gaming and to some extent modern fantasy lit has become hidebound by the conventions established by D&D. Two of the best-selling fantasy novel series right now are based on their authors' college RPG campaigns. Any JRPG that uses jobs/classes and hit points is drawing from D&D. To the extent that there's an "ecosystem", it's an inward-looking self-sustaining entity that's just recycling the same tropes over and over again without reference to anything outside itself.

/looks at this statement.
/looks at previous statement.
9_6




Can you show any examples, without reference to D&D or anything derived from D&D, of a samurai, viking, ghazi or akali that performed all of:


smiting evil
detecting evil
healing


Historical sources would be best, although I'll accept fictional sources pre-1980.

Can you find any KNIGHTS who did all that stuff?

Jay R
2017-02-18, 09:29 PM
But if to you, he's not a paladin if he doesn't look right then you are indeed correct, there is absolutely no point talking any more.

There was never any point that required you to reach a final agreement. I have to agree with my DM (or not play a paladin). Spellbreaker needs to agree with his DM (or not play a paladin). And daniel_ream has to agree with his DM (or not play a paladin).

But we don't need to agree with each other to share and enjoy a variety of ideas in how D&D is played.

[Of course, this line of argument assumes that it's all right for people to play in different ways, with different ideas. If you reject the idea that other ideas than your own can be valid, then my argument has no basis.]

IShouldntBehere
2017-02-18, 10:06 PM
In my view diagnosing if you are a paladin is kind of like diagnosing a disease.

The highest risk factors for being a paladin are:
-Being an expert at combat.
-Being a good guy.

If you fit that profile and have 3 or more of the following symptoms, you might be a paladin:

-You've got a suit of cool armor.
-You've got a great deal of faith in some higher power.
-You've got the ability to use light-based magic.
-You've got the ability to supernaturally heal the wounds of others.
-You follow a strict code of ethics.
-You actively shun worldly pleasures.
-Your culture views you as a paragon of virtue.
-You see demons & the undead as your sworn enemies.


So you could certainly have paladins without the classic "Plate Armored Template Knight" look, even if that is the most common/default/paladin-y type of paladin.

For example:
You could have an order of bow-wielding undead hunters with the power to command light. They wear red robes, iron masks eschew armor but do sometimes do the whole "mounted combat" thing. This order follows a strict religious code that commands they charge for their services (sometimes quite high prices) wherever someone can afford them. However they must always donate the proceeds to the downtrodden & sick, remaining impoverished themselves. You could probably call these guys "Paladins" in your setting and not have too many folks totally balk at the idea. Certainly it's quite unorthodox but I think you'd get more "That's a new take on the paladin, interesting" than you would "WTF? That isn't a paladin" reactions.

In contrast:

You could have an order of plate-clad knights, given divine powers from their god that they use in accordance with a strict code set down by the angelic beings that head their temples:
All those who do not serve our god must be scoured from our land: The non-believers are a danger, purge them. The infirm are a waste of his gifts, release them. The sick have fallen from his grace, cleanse them. Do this with his sacred fire and your glorious steel. Let their screams be the chorus for your hymns as you ever walk his glory.

You call those guys paladins and you're not going to get many affirmative reactions. Maybe few a "I guess going for a whole subversion angle?" or "Yeah... in name only" sort of reactions. Perhaps even a "Yep. You totally pegged it" from trillby-wearing McEdgelords or whatever but for the most part that's not going to be a paladin to most people, despite them having all the right trappings.


However go back to that first example, take away their bows and make them scholars instead. Get rid of the whole riding on horses thing and make them like summoners and you've probably got something that most people won't be able to buy as "Paladin" even at a unorthodox stretch.

daniel_ream
2017-02-18, 10:15 PM
You call 'em 'archetypical', I call 'em 'cliched'.

Same thing, really.


And unless all characters are going to be in a very small number of very small boxes, we're either gonna need 10,000 character classes, or we're gonna need GMs who are willing to unclench a little on the aesthetics of the classes. [...] (I do indeed prefer point-buy systems.)

That's exactly my point, though. D&D in most of its incarnations is a game of "a very small number of very small boxes". If you need 10,000 character classes, you don't actually want classes at all, you want a point buy system or something like Eclipse. Or maybe True20.


It was an AD&D game, maybe someone used those wonky 'speed factor' rules in the DMG? I dunno.

PHB. They only apply if you have two humanoids in armor fighting with weapons, and they do slow things down a fair bit. They're good for one-on-one duels or dramatic fights.


Can you find any KNIGHTS who did all that stuff?

Yes. Next question.

Arbane
2017-02-18, 11:03 PM
Yes. Next question.

What are the names and original stories of three of them?

8BitNinja
2017-02-18, 11:08 PM
Paladins of Charlemagne are just a romanticized tale, but still, the character class Paladin is based upon them (or him, Ogier the Dane, who is said to have been a real person like the rest of the "Paladins of Charlemagne")

However fake romanticism may be, there is still a shred of truth

Spellbreaker26
2017-02-19, 04:32 AM
There was never any point that required you to reach a final agreement. I have to agree with my DM (or not play a paladin). Spellbreaker needs to agree with his DM (or not play a paladin). And daniel_ream has to agree with his DM (or not play a paladin).

But we don't need to agree with each other to share and enjoy a variety of ideas in how D&D is played.

[Of course, this line of argument assumes that it's all right for people to play in different ways, with different ideas. If you reject the idea that other ideas than your own can be valid, then my argument has no basis.]

I'm not saying that we have to have reached a final agreement; I have almost never reached an agreement on an argument on the internet. I'm saying that we can't talk anymore because our lines of thought are so mutually incomprehensible as to be meaningless to each other. Further discussion would simply not be productive at all.

I'm considered a fairly "stick-to-archetypes" person in my group. I don't like the idea of Clerics without gods, for instance, or warlocks with non-dangerous patrons. I wouldn't accept code-less paladins, either. But I find it absolutely mad that someone would reject something in the spirit of the class but not the traditional appearance. Requiring someone to create a whole new class entirely the same but with a name in a different language just to play that character concept is absurd, creates redundancy in rules and furthermore makes the game incredibly tricky to translate (not that WoTC bothers to translate anymore, but I digress).

Arkhios
2017-02-19, 06:45 AM
However fake romanticism may be, there is still a shred of truth

Yes, and I believe I said exactly that in a previous post I made ...unless I forgot to submit it.

Which one do you think is more likely truth and which one fiction?

That the person truly existed

Or

The things he's said to have done?

It's likely that the person whom Ogier the Dane has been romanticized from did live once. What he may or may not have been or done is hard to say for a fact.

BWR
2017-02-19, 09:38 AM
Mimir.net referred to the next step "up" from gods, as "Powers"

http://mimir.net/essays/sourcesofpower.html

There are many Gods of Love, but Love itself is a Power.

In this context, Justice may be the Power that there are many Gods of, each with varying interpretations.

Paladins can get their special abilities from the Power known as Justice. But the culture and environment from which the paladin comes, may shape how they go about things. Paladins of aquatic races (merfolk, locathah, sea elves, etc) aren't likely to be wearing heavy steel armour, for example. Yet they're still just as much Paladins as the land ones are.

Note that that is an in character article that does not mesh with what was presented in Planescape otherwise. 'Power' is a blanket term for beings of power, including gods.

hamishspence
2017-02-19, 09:46 AM
Maybe not - but in 3rd ed, you can gain divine power from abstractions, and not just deities.

It may be an attempt to convert Planescape material to 3rd ed.

Jay R
2017-02-19, 02:22 PM
I'm not saying that we have to have reached a final agreement; I have almost never reached an agreement on an argument on the internet. I'm saying that we can't talk anymore because our lines of thought are so mutually incomprehensible as to be meaningless to each other. Further discussion would simply not be productive at all.

I'm not convinced. For one thing, I can comprehend you both. I don't completely agree with either of you, and I mostly think that the goal is to find an approach that both you and your DM can agree on. But that position assumes that many approaches can be played and enjoyed, and further assumes that neither of you (nor anybody else) has the one true way to play a paladin. If I played with either of you as DM, I'm sure I could come up with a paladin design that I could enjoy playing in each game. They'd be different paladins, but they'd each fit both my and the DM's ideas about paladins.

"Any player knows the rules. A good player knows the exceptions. A great player knows the DM."


I'm considered a fairly "stick-to-archetypes" person in my group. I don't like the idea of Clerics without gods, for instance, or warlocks with non-dangerous patrons. I wouldn't accept code-less paladins, either. But I find it absolutely mad that someone would reject something in the spirit of the class but not the traditional appearance. Requiring someone to create a whole new class entirely the same but with a name in a different language just to play that character concept is absurd, creates redundancy in rules and furthermore makes the game incredibly tricky to translate (not that WoTC bothers to translate anymore, but I digress).

The problem is that you are not reading his words clearly. daniel_reams did not suggest creating whole new classes. In fact, he said, "D&D in most of its incarnations is a game of "a very small number of very small boxes". If you need 10,000 character classes, you don't actually want classes at all, you want a point buy system or something like Eclipse. Or maybe True20."

It seems pretty straightforward that he does not support building more classes. He supports playing the current classes as they are written, or if you want characters that do not fit one of the archetypes the classes are built around, then use a point-buy system instead of a class-based system.

As long as you keep ascribing to him ideas that he never wrote, you will continue to find the position incomprehensible. But that's not because he took an incomprehensible position. It's because you built one for him and pretended it was his.

If you want to comprehend a position that disagrees with yours, step one is to actually consider that position, not to force it into a slot it doesn't fit, like it was a viking in a paladin slot.

Cluedrew
2017-02-19, 04:20 PM
To Jay R and Arbane: What does pink text mean?


Then how are they monks?Sorry, they aren't actually monks, I called them that by mistake because I was going to say something like: "they would probably be best be represented by the monk class in D&D". I cut out that statement but the word monk remained for some reason. One of my other favorite paladins might be better be statted as a rogue or ranger than a paladin.

daniel_ream
2017-02-19, 04:33 PM
It seems pretty straightforward that he does not support building more classes.

That's not actually true. I support building classes if what you want to play is an archetype not covered by the game as it stands. Every edition of D&D has done this. When you're up to 10,000 classes because every individual character has their own class, then that's when you really should be looking at a point buy system.

A samurai is different from a paladin, but it's also an archetype unto itself. It should have a class. Same with a dervish, or a viking berserker. But if there's only one Norse godthegn (or whatever we're going to call this proposed paladinesque Viking) then that's something no class-based system can handle without essentially turning into a point-buy system the way 3.x/PF did. In which case you should just play a point-buy system so people can build exactly the character they want.

As an aside, you mentioned earlier that it's important for both the DM and the player to understand exactly what the player wants his character to be. That's something narrowly defined classes help with. If you're playing AD&D, there's no confusion about exactly what a paladin is (and is not).


If you want to comprehend a position that disagrees with yours, step one is to actually consider that position,
not to force it into a slot it doesn't fit, like it was a viking in a paladin slot.

:biggrin: Okay, I owe you a beer.

Hawkstar
2017-02-19, 04:51 PM
The thing about Archetypes/classes is that they provide (nominally) better balance between characters because the balance can be achieved by having all the features be designed with their synergies in mind, and have the classes holistically balanced against each other.

Trying to force an only tangentially-compatible character concept into a class (Such as a viking warrior as a Paladin), you have problems with unused class features, as well as missing ones (That might require multiclassing to poach them - but that brings in more unused class features). An example I'm running into right now is an "Amazing Athlete" character. D&D 5e says "Rogue" for Expertise in Athletics but I don't want Sneak Attack or Thieves Tools proficiency, but I also need Barbarian for (lack of) armor, and Monk for unarmed competence (But is saddled with weird supernatural stuff and restrictions), and Fighter for peak physical combat performance - but comes with excessive weapon and armor proficiencies. What if I want to play a pantsless catgirl that focuses on fighting fast, hitting hard with a stick, and eventually casting one of a few high-level (But not mid or low-level) elementally destructive spells once per day?

Point-buy, meanwhile unbalances classes based on the synergies and prerequisites the purchased features have in mind.

Potato_Priest
2017-02-19, 04:53 PM
How do most point buy systems work? I'm imagining something like skyrim perks, but that's probably not accurate.

daniel_ream
2017-02-19, 04:56 PM
HERO, GURPS and to some extent Mutants & Masterminds are probably the canonical ones; Eclipse: The Codex Persona is a 3.x style point buy that's interesting and no less balanced than anything else in 3.x. It's also free, so you can have a look for yourself.

BWR
2017-02-19, 04:56 PM
Maybe not - but in 3rd ed, you can gain divine power from abstractions, and not just deities.

It may be an attempt to convert Planescape material to 3rd ed.

You're missing the point. You don't need gods for divine power in 2e in general nor in Planescape specifically. The point is 'Power' is only a step above 'god' in this particular article, which was written as an in character piece by a fan for a setting where weird and alternative ideas (which are not necessarily true, or unilaterally true) were rampant. It is not an official representation of power levels in D&D.

Squiddish
2017-02-19, 05:09 PM
That's not actually true. I support building classes if what you want to play is an archetype not covered by the game as it stands. Every edition of D&D has done this. When you're up to 10,000 classes because every individual character has their own class, then that's when you really should be looking at a point buy system.

A samurai is different from a paladin, but it's also an archetype unto itself. It should have a class. Same with a dervish, or a viking berserker. But if there's only one Norse godthegn (or whatever we're going to call this proposed paladinesque Viking) then that's something no class-based system can handle without essentially turning into a point-buy system the way 3.x/PF did. In which case you should just play a point-buy system so people can build exactly the character they want.

As an aside, you mentioned earlier that it's important for both the DM and the player to understand exactly what the player wants his character to be. That's something narrowly defined classes help with. If you're playing AD&D, there's no confusion about exactly what a paladin is (and is not).


If you start making classes for every archetype, then you get too many classes. Which, in many cases, is worse than just playing against the archetype a bit.

I also disagree with the idea of one archetype per class. If that's what you're supposed to do, then how do you choose which archetype?
If you're playing a fighter, are you a heavily armored mounted knight wielding a lance, a heavily armored swordsman, an agile duelist, a crossbowman, an archer, a pikeman....
If you're a wizard, are you an old man, decked out in robes and a wizard hat with a scraggly gray beard using a magic staff, a young librarian, wearing a fine suit and wielding a book and a wand, or a simple hedge wizard, wearing common clothes and holding a staff that used to be a broom handle?
If you're a cleric, are you a simple priest, or an armored holy juggernaut brandishing a hammer?
If you're a rogue, are you an assassin, clad in black and wielding a shortsword dripping in poison? Are you a thief, grabbing the loot while your party distracts the monsters? Are you an archer, skulking around and shooting anyone that approaches? Or are you a swashbuckling pirate, a dagger in your teeth and a rapier in your hand?

You get the idea.

I would say the best way to give your DM a good idea of what you are playing would be to tell him. Maybe in basic and 2e where a player chose from four classes that each did a distinct thing it would have been okay, but in anything afterwards limiting the character to fit with some preconceived notion of what the class should do is destructive, close-minded, and can suck the fun out of a game.

Arkhios
2017-02-19, 05:16 PM
@ Daniel Ream:

Then I suppose this character, made entirely by the rules as written, can't exist by your standards - regardless what the rules as written say about it:

Character Background (a RAW system in 5th edition player's handbook that's separate from classes; none of the backgrounds are discriminate about the class who can select each individual background): Uthgardt Tribe Member; if you don't know what Uthgardt tribes are, your "Forgotten Realms" -fu is lacking.

Character Race: Human.

Character Class: Paladin.

Concept: A Paladin who hails from a barbarian tribe.

Note: The above isn't the same one I was talking before, but the principle is same. A character's background doesn't necessarily dictate what one can become.

daniel_ream
2017-02-19, 05:41 PM
If you're playing a fighter [...]
If you're a wizard [...]
If you're a cleric [...]
If you're a rogue [...]

You get the idea.

Yes, I do. Some classes are more broadly defined than others. The Fighter class as originally defined was intended to cover any sort of "fighting man", from a viking warrior to a Parthian horseman to a knight in shining armour.[1] But there are classes that are based on very specific, narrowly defined literary or historical characters, like the Ranger and Paladin. That's why they were subclasses. Similarly Illusionist was a subclass of Magic-User.

In 3finder, those very limited sub-classes have been promoted to "full" classes, but that doesn't mean they don't still have their origin in a very specific, very limited source character, and the class features reflect that.

Oh, and if you're a wizard but don't want to use Vancian magic and memorize your spells from books and would rather cast them spontaneously....then you're a Sorceror. A completely new class. Huh. How about that.

[1] With the notable problem that it still can't do, say, Errol Flynn's Robin Hood. Errol Flynn's anything, really

daniel_ream
2017-02-19, 05:44 PM
Then I suppose this character, made entirely by the rules as written, can't exist by your standards - regardless what the rules as written say about it:

I wouldn't allow it in my campaign, no, absent perhaps a backstory that involved the character being orphaned and taken in by a knight in a feudal society and inspired to take holy orders.


if you don't know what Uthgardt tribes are, your "Forgotten Realms" -fu is lacking.

Sit back, pour yourself a fifth of Scotch, light up a handrolled Cuban and ruminate on just how much I care about how little I know about the Forgotten Realms.

Arkhios
2017-02-19, 05:48 PM
I wouldn't allow it in my campaign, no, absent perhaps a backstory that involved the character being orphaned and taken in by a knight in a feudal society and inspired to take holy orders.

Sit back, pour yourself a fifth of Scotch, light up a handrolled Cuban and ruminate on just how much I care about how little I know about the Forgotten Realms.

Noted. As is that I wouldn't even dream of playing in one of your stick-up-yer-arse games.

Hawkstar
2017-02-19, 06:04 PM
I wouldn't allow it in my campaign, no, absent perhaps a backstory that involved the character being orphaned and taken in by a knight in a feudal society and inspired to take holy orders.You do know that most heavy armors aren't Full plate, Paladins are proficient in Medium armor, and Paladins are proficient in Battleaxes, right?

The Paladin class does not have any fluff tying it to orders, and it's explicitly found in all sorts of cultures, with differing oaths.

Jay R
2017-02-19, 07:18 PM
To Jay R and Arbane: What does pink text mean?

I have no idea, and I've never used it. I quoted what he said the way he said it, but I really am not too interested in font color games.


Which one do you think is more likely truth and which one fiction?

That the person truly existed

Or

The things he's said to have done?

What a silly question. It's not possible for his deeds to be real if he didn't exist to do them.


It's likely that the person whom Ogier the Dane has been romanticized from did live once. What he may or may not have been or done is hard to say for a fact.

Yup. But we know nothing about the historical Ogier, and to the extent to which he has any relevance to the paladin class, it's entirely based on the romanticized fiction.

Similarly, gallant knighthood is not based on the historical Arthur, but on the romanticized fictional one. The swashbuckler image doesn't come from the history of Charles Ogier (yes, that's his middle name) de Batz, Comte d'Artagnan, but on Dumas's romances about him, starting with The Three Musketeers, and the many movies based on them. Frankly, I suspect most people who like the swashbuckler mystique couldn't even identify Charles de Batz.


Noted. As is that I wouldn't even dream of playing in one of your stick-up-yer-arse games.

Wow. That's awfully strong language about a game you know very little about.

I'd have no problem playing in his game. While the idea of playing a Viking within the paladin class is fine by me, I play the game the DM is running, and wouldn't use it for a DM who didn't like it. But I will certainly not restrict myself to playing with DMs who agree with me about everything; there aren't any.

I would not take a viking paladin into a game run by a DM who doesn't like the idea for the same reason I wouldn't take one into a musketeers game or a modern game - I don't try to ruin games for other people. D&D is a cooperative venture. I prefer to cooperate.

--------------

I suggest we stop sneering at other ideas and insulting other people's games, and just explore what effects different kinds of games would have. It's more friendly, it's more fun, and it's more educational.

jitzul
2017-02-19, 07:27 PM
I suggest we stop sneering at other ideas and insulting other people's games, and just explore what effects different kinds of games would have. It's more friendly, it's more fun, and it's more educational.

Too late on that mate. This is the roleplaying games sub forum where sneering at other ideas in the norm.

PersonMan
2017-02-19, 07:59 PM
I'd have no problem playing in his game. While the idea of playing a Viking within the paladin class is fine by me, I play the game the DM is running, and wouldn't use it for a DM who didn't like it. But I will certainly not restrict myself to playing with DMs who agree with me about everything; there aren't any.

While we're on the subject of misrepresenting points: I don't think you can boil it down to "only play with DMs who agree with you on everything". More like "only play with DMs who agree with you on important matters". What is and isn't important varies from person to person, of course. I can see why someone would chafe under restrictions like daniel_realm's enough that they decide to not play, and I think it's best if people can say 'you know what, I don't think I'd enjoy this' before going into a game, rather than finding out after half a year of things slowly going sour. Especially when one such disagreement seems to indicate a larger mindset difference.

I know that I, personally, would just skip over a game that wanted characters who stuck to their archetypes as described by daniel_realm. It's not my type of game, and I'd rather leave it to those who enjoy it than try to inflict myself on the game and the game on myself.

Was the reaction extreme? Yes. Could it - should it - have been phrased in a more polite way? Absolutely - but one must remember that the usage of direct, rude tone is a method of communication. If a DM's way of doing things is antithetical to mine to such an extent that I'd have a similar response (even if it's not spoken aloud), it's a strong sign of 'this is not the game for you', which has its merits.

EDIT: This ties into motivations for playing, as well. If I'm looking to play DnD, Pathfinder, GURPS, etc. for a social activity, then I'm going to be more or less tolerant of certain things than if I'm looking to play a certain concept of character, a certain type of game, and so on. Even with similarly narrow preferences of system, genre and the like, I could easily see a very visible difference between the things I'd judge as acceptable in a "casual" game that's more about the social interaction than the game world, and the things I'd say are good in a more "serious" game that is focused primarily on the story being told.

In short: If all I want to do is play my viking paladin, "don't run your viking paladin" is useless as advice for how to make a game enjoyable with a DM who won't allow viking paladins, because I won't be enjoying myself in the end. On the other hand, if all I want to do is play, then that advice is helpful.


I would not take a viking paladin into a game run by a DM who doesn't like the idea for the same reason I wouldn't take one into a musketeers game or a modern game - I don't try to ruin games for other people. D&D is a cooperative venture. I prefer to cooperate.

While the execution wasn't ideal, I think the end result here is good, though. Cooperation is good, but if I want to play a modern, realistic game about rooting out corruption in a failing regime, I should not be playing with the DM who wants to run a modern game inspired heavily by not-at-all-realistic media and with strong themes of 'the government is full of helpful people doing their best' and 'evil is clearly evil'. Neither of us will be satisfied by that, and worst case scenario the entire group suffers as both sides meet in the middle, abandoning their enjoyment to try and make the unworkable work.

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-19, 08:10 PM
What is the purpose/point of the classes in a system like D&D?

Is the player presented with a set of pre-defined archetypes that are available for play, and required to choose one of them?

Or is the player presented with a setting in which certain sorts of characters are fitting, and given a set of toolkits from which to choose the most useful in modeling that character?

Cluedrew
2017-02-19, 08:14 PM
On Classes: I had a thread on this some time back, and I think the value of classes (over point buy) is simplicity, balance and in some contexts you only want to represent particular archetypes. That is just the one line summery, I can say more if you are interested. Also D&D may not take advantage of any of these things.

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-19, 08:39 PM
On Classes: I had a thread on this some time back, and I think the value of classes (over point buy) is simplicity, balance and in some contexts you only want to represent particular archetypes. That is just the one line summery, I can say more if you are interested. Also D&D may not take advantage of any of these things.

Limits on what sorts of characters are appropriate is part and parcel of the setting itself, I wouldn't say that classes are needed to prevent inappropriate characters (and indeed, I've seen characters that were very setting-mismatched created using character classes). Even in the most open-ended of point-buy systems, characters can still be limited and the GM or "the table" can still question whether a character fits.

Or, to be more pithy -- when it comes to character creation, just because we can, doesn't mean we should.


Anyway, the reason I ask "what is the point/purpose of character classes?", is because it seems obvious (to me at least) that part of the reason people are talking past each other isn't really about the Paladin in particular. They don't even agree about why character classes exist. There's a lot of hinting at that disconnect, but if someone's come right out and said it, I missed it.

Cluedrew
2017-02-19, 09:25 PM
To Max_Killjoy: Well you got the mechanical representation (a cluster of abilities) or the narrative one (an archetype). I don't know of any others, although there may be. What is the defining characteristics of an archetype may actually be the big issue. For instance some completely optional elements for paladins: horse, swords, shining armor, holy power, religion and/or oath.

But I expect others might disagree with that list.

Squiddish
2017-02-19, 10:20 PM
Yes, I do. Some classes are more broadly defined than others. The Fighter class as originally defined was intended to cover any sort of "fighting man", from a viking warrior to a Parthian horseman to a knight in shining armour.[1] But there are classes that are based on very specific, narrowly defined literary or historical characters, like the Ranger and Paladin. That's why they were subclasses. Similarly Illusionist was a subclass of Magic-User.

In 3finder, those very limited sub-classes have been promoted to "full" classes, but that doesn't mean they don't still have their origin in a very specific, very limited source character, and the class features reflect that.

Oh, and if you're a wizard but don't want to use Vancian magic and memorize your spells from books and would rather cast them spontaneously....then you're a Sorceror. A completely new class. Huh. How about that.

[1] With the notable problem that it still can't do, say, Errol Flynn's Robin Hood. Errol Flynn's anything, really

I'm afraid 5e doesn't share your limited state of mind, and neither do I.

Where did I say anything about spontaneous casting?

8BitNinja
2017-02-19, 10:36 PM
Gods can have different perceptions of what justice, and a champion of such, could be.

I don't know about that. I checked in the dictionary and justice has a concrete definition

Arkhios
2017-02-20, 12:15 AM
I don't know about that. I checked in the dictionary and justice has a concrete definition

Justice to whom and how are valid questions though.

Arbane
2017-02-20, 01:54 AM
To Jay R and Arbane: What does pink text mean?


Sarcasm. (It's color='magenta', on the offchance anyone cares.)


A samurai is different from a paladin, but it's also an archetype unto itself. It should have a class. Same with a dervish, or a viking berserker. But if there's only one Norse godthegn (or whatever we're going to call this proposed paladinesque Viking) then that's something no class-based system can handle without essentially turning into a point-buy system the way 3.x/PF did. In which case you should just play a point-buy system so people can build exactly the character they want.

What different class features would a Muslim Holy Warrior Who Is Definitely Not A Paladin have than a Paladin? How about the Norse one? Would you allow Paladins of non-Real-World religions? How about non-human Paladins?

And have you ever played D&D 4th ed? I get the impression it actively encouraged reskinning the theme and SFX of characters.


The thing about Archetypes/classes is that they provide (nominally) better balance between characters because the balance can be achieved by having all the features be designed with their synergies in mind, and have the classes holistically balanced against each other.


I've played 3.5. Suffice it to say this doesn't always work as intended.



Point-buy, meanwhile unbalances classes based on the synergies and prerequisites the purchased features have in mind.

Most every point-buy system I've seen specifically says that the GM is allowed to veto game-breaking builds. For some fool reason, D&D players (at least on forums) seem to have this weird legalistic mindset where if the rules say it can happen, it MUST be allowed.

Hawkstar
2017-02-20, 02:15 AM
I've never seen Magenta for Sarcasm. I've seen Blue for Sarcasm, and Purple+Comic Sans for "Trekkin's GM". I think there's also gray for near-meaningless pedantry, and green for "Actually serious, but you'd think it's insane/sarcastic."

Arkhios
2017-02-20, 02:20 AM
I've never seen Magenta for Sarcasm. I've seen Blue for Sarcasm, and Purple+Comic Sans for "Trekkin's GM". I think there's also gray for near-meaningless pedantry, and green for "Actually serious, but you'd think it's insane/sarcastic."

There ought to be some forum rules for which colors to be used with each, since conveying your intent is rather difficult without being able to express your tone of voice and expressions in general with just written text.

daniel_ream
2017-02-20, 03:55 AM
What different class features would a Muslim Holy Warrior Who Is Definitely Not A Paladin have than a Paladin?

I don't know; I'd have to do some research. Certainly there already exist a couple of Dervish classes, one could start there.


How about the Norse one?

I don't think there's any historical or literary precedent for a Norse "holy warrior" in this mold, so I think that's a non-starter.


Would you allow Paladins of non-Real-World religions?

Probably not, inasmuch as I'd be disinclined to allow a Paladin that wasn't Christian in the first place, or at least a worshiper of something that looks a lot like Christ or one of the saints with the serial numbers filed off. Or not filed off. Would it surprise you to learn that St. Cuthbert was a real guy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuthbert)?


How about non-human Paladins?

No. Non-humans have their own cultural and literary baggage that they bring along, and none of it compatible with the paladin archetype.


Most every point-buy system I've seen specifically says that the GM is allowed to veto game-breaking builds. For some fool reason, D&D players (at least on forums) seem to have this weird legalistic mindset where if the rules say it can happen, it MUST be allowed.

I think my irony meter just redlined.

Cozzer
2017-02-20, 04:29 AM
I'm just going to ignore a lot of the current discussion and answer to the title of the OP.

I love playing Paladins, as long as the GM allows me to reskin a lot of the fluff. For me, a Paladin is someone who chose to completely devote himself to an ideal (which might be faith to a god, but could be anything else). He makes choices not basing on what he personally wants, but basing on what's the best way to make that ideal a little more real.

I like to play his abilities not as standard "divine magic", but as a "determination magic", in a way. This fits pretty well with the Pathfinder Paladin, since his magic and powers are all based on Charisma. Lay on Hands on himself as a quick action is the Paladin not allowing himself to be defeated, Smite Evil is the Paladin "not tolerating such vile deeds" just THAT much, and so on.

So, for me the appeal is the chance to play a character that just CARES so much about things that it makes him stronger. It's just an archetype that has always attracted me. :smalltongue:

I would probably never play a standard "follow your god's rules and the god grants you magic" Paladin, but I think the class is versatile enough that you can make it fit a lot of different archetypes, as long as the GM is willing to be a bit flexible about the Code.

Knaight
2017-02-20, 04:29 AM
Probably not, inasmuch as I'd be disinclined to allow a Paladin that wasn't Christian in the first place, or at least a worshiper of something that looks a lot like Christ or one of the saints with the serial numbers filed off. Or not filed off. Would it surprise you to learn that St. Cuthbert was a real guy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuthbert)?

No. Non-humans have their own cultural and literary baggage that they bring along, and none of it compatible with the paladin archetype.

At this point you're throwing out the fantasy paladin archetypes entirely, and leaving only the medieval romance archetypes. That's not necessarily an issue, but if the setting is such that the question can even be posed - which is to say that there are both paladins and nonplayable humans - then it's probably time for said archetype to bend. The only reason that there's an incompatibility in the original archetype is that it stems from a literary tradition where said non-humans weren't there (others were, but not the sort to make this relevant), and just by existing in the same setting the archetype is either broken or needs to be bent.

Spellbreaker26
2017-02-20, 06:30 AM
I don't know; I'd have to do some research. Certainly there already exist a couple of Dervish classes, one could start there.

I don't think there's any historical or literary precedent for a Norse "holy warrior" in this mold, so I think that's a non-starter.

Probably not, inasmuch as I'd be disinclined to allow a Paladin that wasn't Christian in the first place, or at least a worshiper of something that looks a lot like Christ or one of the saints with the serial numbers filed off. Or not filed off. Would it surprise you to learn that St. Cuthbert was a real guy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuthbert)?

No. Non-humans have their own cultural and literary baggage that they bring along, and none of it compatible with the paladin archetype.



There's no way Dervishes could be paladin-types; since it's a bit difficult with a vow of poverty. Maybe a monk or a cleric, but having them be frontline fighters is a bit difficult.

Also, do you realise the sort of really awful implications it would send if I had a DnD group with a guy who wanted to play a Middle-Eastern style paladin, and told him "nope, not Christian enough"?

How about the fact that the Arthurian tales specifically contain people like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palamedes_(Arthurian_legend) ? How one of the main points any time Moors or Saracens come up in those stories is that they are often portrayed as equal opposites? That's in one of the most important aspects of the source material.

You haven't come up with a good reason for the need for there to be a separate class for different cultures aside from how it looks. That's not what makes the archetype!

Either:
A] You don't let players design the look and backstory of their paladins, necessitating a different class with a different name that all need to be balanced and play the exact same anyway.
B] You don't let players design the look and backstory of their paladins, and since too many classes would bog the game down they out and out cannot play that concept at all
C] You let players design the look and backstory of their paladins, and have fun.

Why would you bother going through all this?

And what about when a paladin draws from more than one cultural tradition? I've got this guy whose culture is part Celtic, part Indian. Can I take the Hounds of Culach class, or the Immortal Akali Class? Or can I take neither because I don't fit into the broadsword swinging woad wearing guy or the chakram hurling guy?

See how needlessly complicated this process is?

hamishspence
2017-02-20, 07:04 AM
There ought to be some forum rules for which colors to be used with each, since conveying your intent is rather difficult without being able to express your tone of voice and expressions in general with just written text.

Another option besides colours - emoticons. And also the subtitles convention (!) for sarcastic comment, (?) for sarcastic question.

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-20, 07:28 AM
Probably not, inasmuch as I'd be disinclined to allow a Paladin that wasn't Christian in the first place, or at least a worshiper of something that looks a lot like Christ or one of the saints with the serial numbers filed off. Or not filed off.


So you've just eliminated 90+% of all Paladins ever played.

And dragged a specific real-world religion (or at least a heavily romanticized version of it, cough cough) into a bunch of settings where it most thoroughly doesn't belong.

Good work. :smallconfused:




At this point you're throwing out the fantasy paladin archetypes entirely, and leaving only the medieval romance archetypes. That's not necessarily an issue, but if the setting is such that the question can even be posed - which is to say that there are both paladins and nonplayable humans - then it's probably time for said archetype to bend. The only reason that there's an incompatibility in the original archetype is that it stems from a literary tradition where said non-humans weren't there (others were, but not the sort to make this relevant), and just by existing in the same setting the archetype is either broken or needs to be bent.


Indeed.

A couple points to consider here:

1) "Paladins" that aren't "human holy knights of file-off-the-serial-numbers-Christianity, based on a specific romantic literary source" are actually still less of a misuse of the historical term than D&D's "Druid", "Bard", etc. (And then there's the weapon and armor names...) If someone is going to be torqued about what a Paladin is "supposed to be", one has to wonder why they're not even more torqued about Druids, Bards, etc.

2) If I recall correctly, this same poster who is telling us that if you're going to have "Paladins" that aren't "human holy knights of file-off-the-serial-numbers-Christianity, based on a specific romantic literary source", then you should go to a point-buy system... has also told us that he thinks point-buy systems are inherently imbalanced and inferior to class-based systems... which is a rather telling combination of statements, I'd say.

Arkhios
2017-02-20, 07:35 AM
Another option besides colours - emoticons. And also the subtitles convention (!) for sarcastic comment, (?) for sarcastic question.

Sure. What I meant though, was that there should be a "forum rule" for which one to use in each case, so that there would be less confusion about it. :smallsmile:

Cluedrew
2017-02-20, 08:27 AM
I've never seen Magenta for Sarcasm. I've seen Blue for Sarcasm, and Purple+Comic Sans for "Trekkin's GM". I think there's also gray for near-meaningless pedantry, and green for "Actually serious, but you'd think it's insane/sarcastic."Oh yes, Dark Orchid. Anyways I got my meaning of green text from georgie_leech's signature:

We should try to make that a thing; I think it might help civility. Hey, GitP, let's try to make this a thing: when you're arguing optimization strategies, RAW-logic, and similar such things that you'd never actually use in a game, tag your post [THEORETICAL] and/or use green text


Sure. What I meant though, was that there should be a "forum rule" for which one to use in each case, so that there would be less confusion about it. :smallsmile:But who would decide that rule? I think the conventions and the occasional conversation is the best we can do. Unless we can talk the moderators into adding new tags:

Obviously the superior solution.

(I considered MARTY and CC but I think you shouldn't have of read the original thread to get it, it does have a meaning on its own... does the forum support macros?)For me, a lot of the features of paladins given here are really optional features, ones that show up a lot but are hardly necessary. Hence why my favourite paladins would be stated as monks and rogues. It is more about a character being a hero for hero's sake than how they do it.

Jay R
2017-02-20, 10:40 AM
"I'd be disinclined to allow X" does not mean "I think nobody should allow X." That's a false, invalid, and unfair conclusion that some people are making.


So you've just eliminated 90+% of all Paladins ever played.

No, he hasn't. He has only said that they wouldn't be allowed in the game he's running. So what? I'm running a game right now in which elf and dwarf characters aren't allowed (because there aren't any in that world). That doesn't "eliminate 100% of all dwarves and elves ever played"; it merely helps to define that game.


And dragged a specific real-world religion (or at least a heavily romanticized version of it, cough cough) into a bunch of settings where it most thoroughly doesn't belong.

Again, no, he hasn't. He has only dragged it into his own universe (if there's a paladin PC), where presumably it does belong.

If somebody plays a certain way, that does not affect your game at all. It doesn't eliminate any of your characters, and it doesn't drag anything into it.


There's nothing wrong with playing different ways.
There's nothing wrong with playing different ways.
There's nothing wrong with playing different ways.

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-20, 10:58 AM
"I'd be disinclined to allow X" does not mean "I think nobody should allow X." That's a false, invalid, and unfair conclusion that some people are making.


Not really... it's very much coming across as "Well, it's wrong, but if you want to do it, that's your business I guess."




There's nothing wrong with playing different ways.


You're aiming that the wrong way...


Going back over the thread, very little of this looks like anything other than absolute statements about the game, and "at my table" is actually introduced to the discussion by a different participant, quite recently in the thread:


~~~~


More so than most of the stock D&D classes, the Paladin class is based on a single specific literary character - Holger Carlsson from Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions . That's it. Even The Matter of France doesn't include the elements of the class that Gygax took from that one book.

D&D is a game of classes - of archetypes that are defined as much by what they are not as by what they are. If you're going to throw out the fluff that makes a Paladin a Paladin in favour of some kind of generic divinely inspired warrior with a code, you may as well just grab Eclipse (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/51255/Eclipse-The-Codex-Persona-Shareware) and go full point buy.



So... Let me get this straight, are you saying that a paladin couldn't have varying origins, but instead you have to belong to an order of knights, clad in shining plate armor and swing a sword in an orderly manner in the name of god, in order to be considered a paladin? Only because of superficial things - things that define only what you look like, not what you are?



Yes.

If you want to play a dervish, or a samurai, or a U.S. Marine, then play that instead of twisting and torturing a class that doesn't apply into what you want. There's tons of classes all over, "official" and otherwise you can use, or download Eclipse and build your own.

D&D is a game of archetypical classes[1]. A Viking, noble in spirit who reveres Tyr is no more a paladin than a Comanche warrior is a knight (they're both members of a warrior class that rides horses and uses a lance in battle. Clearly the same, right?)

[1] Well, it used to be. 3finder's feat trees and consequence-less multiclassing turned it into a quagmire of a point-buy system. I understand 5E is better in this regard but I'm unfamiliar with it.


~~~~



You can drive a screw with a hammer, too, if you hit it hard enough and long enough.

Or you can just use a screwdriver.


~~~~



Classes represent archetypes, which by definition are constrained in what they depict. A viking barbarian godthegn (or whatever you want to call it) is not a paladin any more than a samurai or a dervish is.


~~~~



And while I'm thinking about it, I vaguely remember reading some AD&D module back in The Day where the PCs could stumble across another adventuring party who'd been caught in some sort of stasis/hibernation trap. One of whom was a woman in robes armed with daggers and magic bracers of armor. Class: Paladin - she didn't like being weighted down by armor. You wouldn't let her in your game, would you?



Nope. I'd ask the player exactly what they were trying to achieve, because creating a Paladin and then tossing out all the thematic elements that make a character a Paladin is playing silly buggers with the game system, and it's a strong indication I've got a Special Snowflake on my hands. People who don't want to play archetypical classes should play a game not based on archetypical classes.


~~~~

He goes so far as to invoke "special snowflake" in response to the possibility of a player wanting to use the Paladin toolkit to model something other than a "holy knight in shining armor". :smallconfused:

Jay R
2017-02-20, 12:38 PM
Not really... it's very much coming across as "Well, it's wrong, but if you want to do it, that's your business I guess."

Yes, of course it is. I agree completely.

And if you had responded with some version of "Well, I think your version is wrong, but if you want to do it, that's your business I guess," I'd have stayed out of it.

But you didn't. You said that him playing his way eliminates over 90% of all paladins and drags things into other people's settings. And that's just false.

"Well, it's wrong, but if you want to do it, that's your business I guess" absolutely disproves your statement that he's "just eliminated 90+% of all Paladins ever played."

He hasn't eliminated any character in any game he doesn't run. Claiming that he has done so is in opposition to "... if you want to do it, that's your business I guess."

It also disproves the notion that he has "dragged a specific real-world religion (or at least a heavily romanticized version of it, cough cough) into a bunch of settings." He has not dragged anything into my setting or yours. He just hasn't.

If you have abandoned your position that he's eliminated characters and dragging stuff into settings, and switched to the very different position that his idea of a paladin is from a specific archetype, and that other people can play differently even if he thinks it's wrong, then you and I no longer have any disagreement.


You're aiming that the wrong way...

No I'm not. His position, by your own admission above, admits that other people can play the way they like even if he thinks it's wrong. OK, that doesn't quite agree with my "There's nothing wrong with playing different ways," but it has the same effect.

By contrast, your position used to be that him playing his way and stating his opinion affects other games by eliminating characters and dragging things into settings. That's completely incompatible with my "There's nothing wrong with playing different ways."

If we are now both admitting that people - including daniel_ream - can play the way they want to without affecting other games, other PCs, and other settings, then I don't need to aim it at all any more. But I aimed it where it was needed at the time.

daniel_ream
2017-02-20, 12:39 PM
Not really... it's very much coming across as "Well, it's wrong, but if you want to do it, that's your business I guess."

More accurately, "Well, it's wrong, but if you want to do it, that's your business I guess." Since this is an Internet forum, everything I post here is nothing more than my opinion. Just like everyone else. Just like you, in fact, when the topic of narrativism comes up.

Since the odds of me and anyone else on this thread ever being the same time zone, much less the same game, are practically [I]nil I do find it amusing how deeply offended some people are at the existence of play styles different from their own.

It's almost like some people have bound up their identity and self-worth in their fandom so tightly that any challenge to their preferred play choices makes them deeply insecure. Or something.

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-20, 12:46 PM
Response to false accusation within the below box, for anyone who cares to read it.




Short version -- don't accuse people of misrepresenting what someone said, when where that someone said the thing is right there in the quotable posts.




Yes, of course it is. I agree completely.

And if you had responded with some version of "Well, I think your version is wrong, but if you want to do it, that's your business I guess," I'd have stayed out of it.

But you didn't. You said that him playing his way eliminates over 90% of all paladins and drags things into other people's settings. And that's just false.

"Well, it's wrong, but if you want to do it, that's your business I guess" absolutely disproves your statement that he's "just eliminated 90+% of all Paladins ever played."

He hasn't eliminated any character in any game he doesn't run. Claiming that he has done so is in opposition to "... if you want to do it, that's your business I guess."

It also disproves the notion that he has "dragged a specific real-world religion (or at least a heavily romanticized version of it, cough cough) into a bunch of settings." He has not dragged anything into my setting or yours. He just hasn't.

If you have abandoned your position that he's eliminated characters and dragging stuff into settings, and switched to the very different position that his idea of a paladin is from a specific archetype, and that other people can play differently even if he thinks it's wrong, then you and I no longer have any disagreement.


If anything, you're defending a position that's simply not there in the actual posts.

A long list of posts was provided in the spoiler box at the bottom of my previous post, clearly showing an assertion that playing anything outside that narrow box would be objectively wrong, not just "wrong for his table".

Don't accuse other people of misrepresenting what someone else is saying, when there's clearly a pattern of that someone else saying exactly what other people are saying they're saying.

And don't accuse other people of misrepresenting what someone else posts, and then turn around and do the same thing yourself. "You're doing it wrong, but that's OK if you want to do it wrong" is NOT equivalent to "You do it your way and I'll do it my way."

Seriously, you're jumping down people's throats for having the "audacity" to take another participant's posts at face value, and falsely accusing them "misrepresenting". I really have no patience for being chided for something that I've not actually in any way done.




~~~~


More so than most of the stock D&D classes, the Paladin class is based on a single specific literary character - Holger Carlsson from Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions . That's it. Even The Matter of France doesn't include the elements of the class that Gygax took from that one book.

D&D is a game of classes - of archetypes that are defined as much by what they are not as by what they are. If you're going to throw out the fluff that makes a Paladin a Paladin in favour of some kind of generic divinely inspired warrior with a code, you may as well just grab Eclipse (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/51255/Eclipse-The-Codex-Persona-Shareware) and go full point buy.



So... Let me get this straight, are you saying that a paladin couldn't have varying origins, but instead you have to belong to an order of knights, clad in shining plate armor and swing a sword in an orderly manner in the name of god, in order to be considered a paladin? Only because of superficial things - things that define only what you look like, not what you are?



Yes.

If you want to play a dervish, or a samurai, or a U.S. Marine, then play that instead of twisting and torturing a class that doesn't apply into what you want. There's tons of classes all over, "official" and otherwise you can use, or download Eclipse and build your own.

D&D is a game of archetypical classes[1]. A Viking, noble in spirit who reveres Tyr is no more a paladin than a Comanche warrior is a knight (they're both members of a warrior class that rides horses and uses a lance in battle. Clearly the same, right?)

[1] Well, it used to be. 3finder's feat trees and consequence-less multiclassing turned it into a quagmire of a point-buy system. I understand 5E is better in this regard but I'm unfamiliar with it.


~~~~



You can drive a screw with a hammer, too, if you hit it hard enough and long enough.

Or you can just use a screwdriver.


~~~~



Classes represent archetypes, which by definition are constrained in what they depict. A viking barbarian godthegn (or whatever you want to call it) is not a paladin any more than a samurai or a dervish is.


~~~~



And while I'm thinking about it, I vaguely remember reading some AD&D module back in The Day where the PCs could stumble across another adventuring party who'd been caught in some sort of stasis/hibernation trap. One of whom was a woman in robes armed with daggers and magic bracers of armor. Class: Paladin - she didn't like being weighted down by armor. You wouldn't let her in your game, would you?



Nope. I'd ask the player exactly what they were trying to achieve, because creating a Paladin and then tossing out all the thematic elements that make a character a Paladin is playing silly buggers with the game system, and it's a strong indication I've got a Special Snowflake on my hands. People who don't want to play archetypical classes should play a game not based on archetypical classes.


~~~~

He goes so far as to invoke "special snowflake" in response to the possibility of a player wanting to use the Paladin toolkit to model something other than a "holy knight in shining armor". :smallconfused:






No I'm not. His position, by your own admission above, admits that other people can play the way they like even if he thinks it's wrong. OK, that doesn't quite agree with my "There's nothing wrong with playing different ways," but it has the same effect.

By contrast, your position used to be that him playing his way and stating his opinion affects other games by eliminating characters and dragging things into settings. That's completely incompatible with my "There's nothing wrong with playing different ways."

If we are now both admitting that people - including daniel_ream - can play the way they want to without affecting other games, other PCs, and other settings, then I don't need to aim it at all any more. But I aimed it where it was needed at the time.


Stop misusing the word "admitting", it's a stupid rhetorical bomb.




It's almost like some people have bound up their identity and self-worth in their fandom so tightly that any challenge to their preferred play choices makes them deeply insecure. Or something.


And now I have my USDA RDA of irony...

With a side of ad-hom, and a garnish of non-sequitor.

Squiddish
2017-02-20, 12:59 PM
In response to the actual question, there's something apealing about knowing that you are the moral compass of the group.

Also, in 5e they get some pretty awesome abilities.

Jay R
2017-02-20, 01:47 PM
And once again, Max_Killjoy attempts to change the subject, and take my quotes out of context to avoid taking my posts at face value.


If anything, you're defending a position that's simply not there in the actual posts.

I'm not really defending anything, except collaterally. I'm attacking the false statement that he has eliminated 90% of all paladins and dragged things into their people's games.

That's the core of our disagreement. That was the clear primary point of my last two posts. And that's the part you will not respond to.

He has not "eliminated 90+% of all Paladins ever played."
He has not "dragged a specific real-world religion (or at least a heavily romanticized version of it, cough cough) into a bunch of settings..."

These accusations are false. Please withdraw them.


Don't accuse other people of misrepresenting what someone else is saying, when there's clearly a pattern of that someone else saying exactly what other people are saying they're saying.

I'm not accusing you of misrepresenting him. I am accusing you of claiming that he had "eliminated 90+% of all Paladins ever played" and "dragged a specific real-world religion (or at least a heavily romanticized version of it, cough cough) into a bunch of settings..."

These accusations are in quote marks, block-copied from your posts. They are your words.


And don't accuse other people of misrepresenting what someone else posts, and then turn around and do the same thing yourself. "You're doing it wrong, but that's OK if you want to do it wrong" is NOT equivalent to "You do it your way and I'll do it my way."

I didn't say "equivalent". In fact, I admitted the non-equivalence. I said "OK, that doesn't quite agree with my "There's nothing wrong with playing different ways," but it has the same effect." It does. I don't affect his games, and he doesn't affect mine.

I believe that:
He has the right to play his way, and you have the right to play your way.
He has the right to think your way is wrong, and you have the right to think his way is wrong.

I do not think you have the right to make false claims that he has eliminated characters and dragged things into settings when he has clearly and obviously not done so.

That's where we disagree.


Seriously, you're jumping down people's throats for having the "audacity" to take another participant's posts at face value, and falsely accusing them "misrepresenting".

Putting the word "audacity" in quotation marks implies that I wrote it. I did not.
Putting the word "misrepresenting" in quotation marks implies that I wrote it. I did not.

[I don't claim that you intended that implication, but that structure does imply it. Let's assume it was not intentional.]

And what I'm objecting to is not taking his post at face value, but claiming that he had "eliminated 90+% of all Paladins ever played," and "dragged a specific real-world religion (or at least a heavily romanticized version of it, cough cough) into a bunch of settings..."

That's what I'm disapproving of - those two statements. If you want to take posts at face value, then that is the face value of my posts.

Unless you can document that he has eliminated characters and dragged things into settings, you were not taking posts at face value when you made those claims.




I didn't miss it. But it was not germane to my point. I agree that he thinks his way is right, and other ways are wrong. And I just don't have time right now to go back and find his quote that if you want to do that, you should use a point-buy system. Your list of quotes is somewhat valid, but a bit too one-sided.


Stop misusing the word "admitting", it's a stupid rhetorical bomb.

I misunderstood you, and apologize. I thought you had admitted (in my words) "that people - including daniel_ream - can play the way they want to without affecting other games, other PCs, and other settings."

Clearly you have not done so, and I withdraw the statement.

Getting back to our actual disagreement, daniel_ream has not "eliminated 90+% of all Paladins ever played" and "dragged a specific real-world religion (or at least a heavily romanticized version of it, cough cough) into a bunch of settings..."

That's our point of disagreement. That's the face value of my posts.

TheIronGolem
2017-02-20, 02:00 PM
More accurately, "Well, it's wrong, but if you want to do it, that's your business I guess." Since this is an Internet forum, everything I post here is nothing more than my opinion. Just like everyone else. Just like you, in fact, when the topic of narrativism comes up.

Since the odds of me and anyone else on this thread ever being the same time zone, much less the same game, are practically [I]nil I do find it amusing how deeply offended some people are at the existence of play styles different from their own.

It's almost like some people have bound up their identity and self-worth in their fandom so tightly that any challenge to their preferred play choices makes them deeply insecure. Or something.

Your posts display at least as much "offense" towards other people's paladins as theirs have toward your rules regarding them, so maybe "u mad bro" isn't the best retort you could make right now (not that it's ever effective anyway...)

daniel_ream
2017-02-20, 02:08 PM
As much as I'm enjoying the dumpster fire, this thread is edging close to flamewar territory. I'm punching out of this thread.

Jay R, thanks for trying to return some civility to the thread, even if I did keep things going rather longer than was wise. Mea culpa.

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-20, 02:09 PM
And once again, Max_Killjoy attempts to change the subject, and take my quotes out of context to avoid taking my posts at face value.


Not even remotely true.




I'm not really defending anything, except collaterally. I'm attacking the false statement that he has eliminated 90% of all paladins and dragged things into their people's games.

That's the core of our disagreement. That was the clear primary point of my last two posts. And that's the part you will not respond to.

He has not "eliminated 90+% of all Paladins ever played."
He has not "dragged a specific real-world religion (or at least a heavily romanticized version of it, cough cough) into a bunch of settings..."

These accusations are false. Please withdraw them.


I provided quoted conversations from this thread, showing more than sufficient justification for my statement -- I did so twice.

I'm not going to waste bandwidth posting it again.




I'm not accusing you of misrepresenting him. I am accusing you of claiming that he had "eliminated 90+% of all Paladins ever played" and "dragged a specific real-world religion (or at least a heavily romanticized version of it, cough cough) into a bunch of settings..."

These accusations are in quote marks, block-copied from your posts. They are your words.

I didn't say "equivalent". In fact, I admitted the non-equivalence. I said "OK, that doesn't quite agree with my "There's nothing wrong with playing different ways," but it has the same effect." It does. I don't affect his games, and he doesn't affect mine.

I believe that:
He has the right to play his way, and you have the right to play your way.
He has the right to think your way is wrong, and you have the right to think his way is wrong.

I do not think you have the right to make false claims that he has eliminated characters and dragged things into settings when he has clearly and obviously not done so.

That's where we disagree.

Putting the word "audacity" in quotation marks implies that I wrote it. I did not.
Putting the word "misrepresenting" in quotation marks implies that I wrote it. I did not.

[I don't claim that you intended that implication, but that structure does imply it. Let's assume it was not intentional.]

And what I'm objecting to is not taking his post at face value, but claiming that he had "eliminated 90+% of all Paladins ever played," and "dragged a specific real-world religion (or at least a heavily romanticized version of it, cough cough) into a bunch of settings..."

That's what I'm disapproving of - those two statements. If you want to take posts at face value, then that is the face value of my posts.

Unless you can document that he has eliminated characters and dragged things into settings, you were not taking posts at face value when you made those claims.


Are we dealing with a language gap?

To take what I said as somehow a literal claim that he has actually removed those options from other people's games... I don't even know where to start on that. It was plainly in the context of his claim about there being a right way to Paladin, and everything else is wrong -- and was clearly about what impact that WOULD have on games IF it were strictly observed and enforced.

And in context, the "" around "audacious" is clearly meant to show something other than a direct quote -- and while you didn't say "misrepresenting", you did say "That's a false, invalid, and unfair conclusion that some people are making."


(And from the posts I quoted earlier, it's clearly NOT a "false, invalid, and unfair conclusion" -- from those quoted posts, it's quite clearly a reasonable and fair conclusion for someone to reach.)

Cluedrew
2017-02-20, 03:08 PM
Because a paladin would fix the problems of this thread.

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-20, 03:10 PM
In response to the actual question, there's something apealing about knowing that you are the moral compass of the group.

Also, in 5e they get some pretty awesome abilities.


I haven't really looked at 5e, but it sounds like they tried to broaden the utility of the "Paladin toolkit" to allow for a range of characters and nerf on the "Summon Argument" unwritten power that the class used to have.

Would say that "be the moral compass of the group" is a double-edged sword, and that players need to be careful not to fall into the preachy stereotype that the class has developed over the years.

But, I think I get what you're saying, I've played that sort of "quiet conscience of the group" character before.

Cozzer
2017-02-20, 03:37 PM
Of course, having a Paladin in the group, even a reasonable one, might destroy the campaign if the GM is playing the "force a party of Good characters to work for overpowered Evil jerks while enjoying their misery and keeping the players from leaving the game by vaguely implying they'll have a chance to get even a lot of time later" style of campaign.

It's up to you whether that's a bug or a feature. :smalltongue:

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-20, 05:21 PM
Of course, having a Paladin in the group, even a reasonable one, might destroy the campaign if the GM is playing the "force a party of Good characters to work for overpowered Evil jerks while enjoying their misery and keeping the players from leaving the game by vaguely implying they'll have a chance to get even a lot of time later" style of campaign.

It's up to you whether that's a bug or a feature. :smalltongue:


Feature. Definitely a feature. :smallwink:

Seriously, though, in that case, I'd suggest that the players be honest and tell the GM they don't enjoy where the game is going.



That said, I'm bowing out of this one... I'm reminded that I'm often not capable of setting aside unjustified slights against my character, and I've offered up all I have to offer about the actual original topic of the thread.

Grim Portent
2017-02-20, 07:40 PM
Of course, having a Paladin in the group, even a reasonable one, might destroy the campaign if the GM is playing the "force a party of Good characters to work for overpowered Evil jerks while enjoying their misery and keeping the players from leaving the game by vaguely implying they'll have a chance to get even a lot of time later" style of campaign.

It's up to you whether that's a bug or a feature. :smalltongue:

Even a reasonable one would inevitably wind up causing conflict with most of the groups I've played with. Everyone I've played with has favored amoral or outright immoral characters, myself usually playing the most immoral. Pirates, pragmatic and vicious mercenaries, servants of evil gods, demons, necromancers and so on.

3/4 of the people I've gamed with would threaten or kill a paladin, or similar moral compass character, that tried to moralize at them, I would go a step further and probably eat their corpse.

IShouldntBehere
2017-02-20, 08:18 PM
Even a reasonable one would inevitably wind up causing conflict with most of the groups I've played with. Everyone I've played with has favored amoral or outright immoral characters, myself usually playing the most immoral. Pirates, pragmatic and vicious mercenaries, servants of evil gods, demons, necromancers and so on.

3/4 of the people I've gamed with would threaten or kill a paladin, or similar moral compass character, that tried to moralize at them, I would go a step further and probably eat their corpse.

Delightful.

Grim Portent
2017-02-20, 08:38 PM
Delightful.

If you're objecting to the pvp, when one player stomps their foot and insists no one else can do things and can't be talked down from it, the only in game way to settle differences is usually to draw swords/guns and get the character conflict over with. Usually this ends in favour of the amoral characters, who tend to be more powerful and more numerous. Settling out of game is generally redundant when pvp being acceptable or not was discussed beforehand, which I tend to do at character generation.

Eating the corpse afterwards is just practical when I play things like lizardfolk or werewolves. Other times they may become an undead minion or be kept alive long enough to make into a servitor (if playing a 40k RPG.)

Arkhios
2017-02-20, 11:21 PM
I don't get it why anyone would want to deliberately ruin the game for the one who plays a paladin just because playing a paladin. If anything, that's a jerk move.

Why is it so bad if someone wants to do the right thing and tells it to the group?

Grim Portent
2017-02-21, 12:21 AM
I don't get it why anyone would want to deliberately ruin the game for the one who plays a paladin just because playing a paladin. If anything, that's a jerk move.

Why is it so bad if someone wants to do the right thing and tells it to the group?

In my groups it's more a matter of the paladin (or other moral center character) trying to ruin the game for the necromancers, diabolists, sellswords, on and off bandits, thieves, assassins and so on, who usually outnumber the paladin types 2 or 3 to 1, on one occasion 6 to 1, was an unusually large game that one, and all my groups have considered pvp an acceptable method of resolving in character disputes.

For some context, in the last game I was in, which ended because of schedule problems when the GM got a job and one of the other players went back to uni, we had 2 openly evil party (myself, playing a young dragon, and a succubus) members, 2 morally apathetic ones who leaned evil anyway and 1 who was at least nominally good, who was in fact a paladin. The paladin was the only person there who wasn't completely on board with outright theft, desecrating corpses and generally being somewhat villainous. Letting them dictate the party actions based on their limits would have been unfair on the other four of us.

jitzul
2017-02-21, 12:47 AM
In my groups it's more a matter of the paladin (or other moral center character) trying to ruin the game for the necromancers, diabolists, sellswords, on and off bandits, thieves, assassins and so on, who usually outnumber the paladin types 2 or 3 to 1, on one occasion 6 to 1, was an unusually large game that one, and all my groups have considered pvp an acceptable method of resolving in character disputes.

For some context, in the last game I was in, which ended because of schedule problems when the GM got a job and one of the other players went back to uni, we had 2 openly evil party (myself, playing a young dragon, and a succubus) members, 2 morally apathetic ones who leaned evil anyway and 1 who was at least nominally good, who was in fact a paladin. The paladin was the only person there who wasn't completely on board with outright theft, desecrating corpses and generally being somewhat villainous. Letting them dictate the party actions based on their limits would have been unfair on the other four of us.

How did the paladin not quit as soon as he knew he was in a party of evil murder hobos?

Hawkstar
2017-02-21, 01:00 AM
That's a case of "Don't bring someone who conflicts with the party into it" - A Fighter looking to be a hero, or Cleric of Pelor(Or similar Good deity), or "We help the helpless' ranger would be just as much of a problem for that party.




And on the other subject of "Paladins must be European Human Knights sworn to an order and God!" - No. that's wrong. The greatest paladin in fiction of all time was trained in the class by an African Liontaur (Who had to pass on his blue flaming sword after getting a crippling leg wound saving the world from demons.)

Cozzer
2017-02-21, 03:58 AM
Even a reasonable one would inevitably wind up causing conflict with most of the groups I've played with. Everyone I've played with has favored amoral or outright immoral characters, myself usually playing the most immoral. Pirates, pragmatic and vicious mercenaries, servants of evil gods, demons, necromancers and so on.

3/4 of the people I've gamed with would threaten or kill a paladin, or similar moral compass character, that tried to moralize at them, I would go a step further and probably eat their corpse.

A person who decides to play a Paladin in such a group and expects the rest of the group to change their way of playing around his choice is not reasonable, so my point still stands. :smalltongue:

(And it's not like the exact same problem doesn't present itself with the lone Chaotic Neutrevil murderhobo that ruins the campaign for the others, who would want to play more standard heroes)

2D8HP
2017-02-21, 08:30 AM
More so than most of the stock D&D classes, the Paladin class is based on a single specific literary character - Holger Carlsson from Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions . That's it. Even The Matter of France doesn't include the elements of the class that Gygax took from that one book....


That's exactly right, and Paladins weren't the only things from that novel that inspired D&D. (I guess I shouldn't be anymore, but I'm still amazed at how many D&D players have never read any of the Appendix N "Inspirational Reading", which makes me sad. For those interested, the 5e Appendix E lists them along with a bunch of new stuff... hey that's going to be a new thread topic!)

In the OD&D and 1e AD&D I used to play, Paladins were only humans, and that they were modeled on Carolingian romances as filtered by Poul Anderson was obvious (just as Rangers being modelled on Aragorn was obvious) 2e even had a

Charlemagne's Paladins (https://www.amazon.com/Charlemagnes-Paladins-Campaign-Sourcebook-Roleplaying/dp/1560763930) book.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41dpizKq+8L._CR0,49,351,351_UX256.jpg

Having only read and never really playing 3e, I really don't remember what the 3e Paladin was like, but the 5e version is quite something else (IMNSHO "Oath of Ancients" rock, and "Oath of Vengeance" are jerks!)

I could definitely see not wanting to hage a "Vengeance" Paladin in a PC party (too much Edgelord drama!), but I could only imagine a party filled with Edgelords objecting to the "Oath of Ancients". As for the more traditional "Oath of Devotion" Paladins, yeah I can see where their pledge to be truthful, could interfere with other PC's plan to trick the bad guy.



....The greatest paladin in fiction of all time was trained in the class by an African Liontaur (Who had to pass on his blue flaming sword after getting a crippling leg wound saving the world from demons.)

What book is that?
It must be mine!

Theoboldi
2017-02-21, 08:46 AM
As for the more traditional "Oath of Devotion" Paladins, yeah I can see where their pledge to be truthful, could interfere with other PC's plan to trick the bad guy.

Sorry for bursting into the thread like this and not adding anything to the actual discussion, but this a huge pet-peeve of mine. Just because some kinds of paladins are not allowed to lie does not mean they need to tell everyone everything all the time, especially bad guys. They always have the option to (and in fact should) tell them to sod off and that they won't answer their questions.

It could still get in the way, but this widespread idea that 'never telling lies' = 'giving away information' is ridiculous.

Sorry. Back to your regularely scheduled discussion about paladins. :smallredface:

IShouldntBehere
2017-02-21, 09:00 AM
Sorry for bursting into the thread like this and not adding anything to the actual discussion, but this a huge pet-peeve of mine. Just because some kinds of paladins are not allowed to lie does not mean they need to tell everyone everything all the time, especially bad guys. They always have the option to (and in fact should) tell them to sod off and that they won't answer their questions.

It could still get in the way, but this widespread idea that 'never telling lies' = 'giving away information' is ridiculous.

Sorry. Back to your regularely scheduled discussion about paladins. :smallredface:

They're also people not robots. While he might rather let the party front man handle the more deceptive parts of a ruse, no paladin worth their salt is going object to a plan that saves Orphans from being blood sacrifices at the expense of lying about where the orphanage is.

Further an Oaths will not be adhered to perfectly because human. They're something they pledge to do and something the paladin cares deeply about but we all fail sometimes. If faced immediately between telling a lie, killing a man who isn't like 100% innocent but is kind of only doing his duty and letting something bad happen the lie is probably the smallest violation of the paladins convictions. He might feel bad about having to tell a lie and have eat at him way more than it would any standard LG character, he might feel the need to meditate or pray on the matter. He certainly won't fall for it under any reasonable GM.

However he's not going to "MUST NOT TELL LIE. EVER. ANYTHING BUT DECEPTION. MUST CLUB FRIENDLY ROGUE TO STOP HIM FROM MISDIRECTING KILL-KRAZY DEMONS. MUST LET DEMONS THROUGH BECAUSE HONESTY"

Cozzer
2017-02-21, 10:05 AM
My favorite Paladin moment was when the party was negotiating with horrible criminals for information. They asked us to pay them 1000 GP for the info, the party agreed. Half the money before, half after, the usual procedure. After a while, hearing about the party mentioning some previous victories, they realized we were way stronger than them and started to get anxious and asked my Paladin, knowing he was the trustworthy type, "you guys are sure you're going to give us our money, are you?" I replied "You have no need to worry. We're going to give you exactly what you're due."

The exchange finished, they didn't have any info to give us anymore. Their leader said "So, are you going to give us 'what we're due', as you said?"

"Of course we are. Smite Evil."

My favorite combat start in forever. :smalltongue:

PhoenixPhyre
2017-02-21, 10:43 AM
What book is that?
It must be mine!

I may be wrong, but that sounds like the Sierra Entertainment video game Quest for Glory (III, IIRC). Good old point-and-click RPG. Whole series (at least the first few) had a great sense of humor as well.

Flickerdart
2017-02-21, 10:58 AM
My favorite Paladin moment was when the party was negotiating with horrible criminals for information. They asked us to pay them 1000 GP for the info, the party agreed. Half the money before, half after, the usual procedure. After a while, hearing about the party mentioning some previous victories, they realized we were way stronger than them and started to get anxious and asked my Paladin, knowing he was the trustworthy type, "you guys are sure you're going to give us our money, are you?" I replied "You have no need to worry. We're going to give you exactly what you're due."

The exchange finished, they didn't have any info to give us anymore. Their leader said "So, are you going to give us 'what we're due', as you said?"

"Of course we are. Smite Evil."

My favorite combat start in forever. :smalltongue:

Negotiating in bad faith, you fall. :smallamused:

Cozzer
2017-02-21, 11:30 AM
And that's where all these "...as long as the GM isn't actively working towards preventing you from having fun" clauses become necessary. :smalltongue:

That said, one of my Paladin's catchphrases is "I really can't understand how so many people can think my 'be honest' rule applies to bad guys too". He's pretty far from the archetype without abandoning it, which is the thing I like the most about the character.

kyoryu
2017-02-21, 11:37 AM
The exchange finished, they didn't have any info to give us anymore. Their leader said "So, are you going to give us 'what we're due', as you said?"

"Of course we are. Smite Evil."

Not my favorite, as it relies on deliberate misleading even while maintaining the truth from a strict sense. That kind of rules-lawyering is something I associate with Lawful Evil, not Lawful Good.

One of my favorite paladin tricks is to presume that the other side will break the deal, and plan for that eventuality.

"Oh, yes, you seem to have ambushed us during our trade for the thing you want. What a pickle we're in. What *ever* shall we do? You have so many forces here, there's no way I could defeat them myself. Too bad having your forces here meant that your headquarters was totally undefended, which is where my companions are right now... Dear, dear, is this little trinket really worth more than everything you own, and the lives of those you left behind? Perhaps we should renegotiate."

Cozzer
2017-02-21, 11:47 AM
Meh, they were remorseless criminals and would have used our money to buy equipment and use it to rob and kill people. They had no intention to betray us, but letting our money fall into their hand would have been way, way more "Evil" (or less Good) than tricking them. Just refusing the deal would have been bad too, since we needed that information in order to save other people's lives. It was the option with the least amount of violence, all things considered.

Another of my favorite parts of playing a Paladin is saying "if anybody wants to retreat, you can still do it" while charging at enemies bigger and stronger than me.

Satinavian
2017-02-21, 11:56 AM
Not my favorite, as it relies on deliberate misleading even while maintaining the truth from a strict sense. That kind of rules-lawyering is something I associate with Lawful Evil, not Lawful Good.

One of my favorite paladin tricks is to presume that the other side will break the deal, and plan for that eventuality.

"Oh, yes, you seem to have ambushed us during our trade for the thing you want. What a pickle we're in. What *ever* shall we do? You have so many forces here, there's no way I could defeat them myself. Too bad having your forces here meant that your headquarters was totally undefended, which is where my companions are right now... Dear, dear, is this little trinket really worth more than everything you own, and the lives of those you left behind? Perhaps we should renegotiate."It is not even just misleading. It is also breaking the agreement the group did.

Totally not paladinlike. I wouldn't make it an instant-fall but at least start discuss with the player what he was actually thinking.


That said, one of my Paladin's catchphrases is "I really can't understand how so many people can think my 'be honest' rule applies to bad guys too".Because it is a rule. If you are allowed to lie to people you actually want to decieve, you can't claim to be honest.

sktarq
2017-02-21, 12:00 PM
Hmmmm someone brought up Paladins Cause Argument saw much use Reduce Fun did too.

I feel like my preconceived notions turned out just fine.

All that said - the whole classes-as-archetypes thing came up. I have seen little so sily.
Let's look at say BECMI Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Magic-User, Elf, and Dwarf as archetypes? They have pretty minimal fluff that would say they are archetypal (except the blunt weapon cleric rule-still weird). The race-classes are by far the most limited as archetypes but they are also the least drawn on for later games as TSR/WotC largely dropped RCC's.

Or to draw on the most archetype-y Era in DnD - look at the Paladin kits in 2e for a significant variety of takes on the Paladin class.

So yeah I'd say that is pretty BS-the archetypes thing I of "DnD is a game of archetypes" was probably the worst part of this thread. Your table is a game archetypes is a syle DnD is....that is an insult to anyone who plays the game differently. That is "you are doing it wrong" in a funny hat.

Flickerdart
2017-02-21, 12:00 PM
Another of my favorite parts of playing a Paladin is saying "if anybody wants to retreat, you can still do it" while charging at enemies bigger and stronger than me.

Ah, the ol' Leeroy Jenkins. I hope your party didn't leave you at the inn during the next adventure.

kyoryu
2017-02-21, 12:02 PM
Because it is a rule. If you are allowed to lie to people you actually want to decieve, you can't claim to be honest.

As my ex-wife put it: "I only lie when I need to."

hamishspence
2017-02-21, 12:03 PM
In the D&D novel Tymora's Luck, a paladin points out that one can bluff without lying:


Paladin (Holly): They say a lot of creatures in Gehenna bluff their way into power. You just have to bluff better than they do.
Fighter (Jas): Bluffing. Isn't that like lying? Are paladins allowed to do that?
Holly: Really, Jas, your notions of paladins are so old-fashioned. We're honest, not stupid. If some evil creature is prepared to believe I'm more powerful than he is, why should I disabuse him of the notion?

Millstone85
2017-02-21, 12:26 PM
Pun or bluff, a lie is a lie.

But sometimes you can either be lawful or good, not both.
This is what most of these paladin-fall scenarios play on.

I agree that deceiving a gang of murderous thieves shouldn't be cause for it.

Cozzer
2017-02-21, 12:31 PM
Ah, the ol' Leeroy Jenkins. I hope your party didn't leave you at the inn during the next adventure.

I only charge when the party leader gives me the OK to do it. My character is not very bright, but he's aware of it and willing to trust the others. :smalltongue He just insists on giving everybody a chance to surrender, even if he knows nobody will ever take it.


Because it is a rule. If you are allowed to lie to people you actually want to decieve, you can't claim to be honest.

Well, I interpret the Paladin's code, or at least the parts about being truthful, honorable and everything, as "always try to be these things unless it would cause or allow bigger evils". The point is not "lie to people I actually want to deceive", it's "lie when my lie can prevent death and/or suffering". I mean, I realize how you could interpret it in a stricter way, but I think a Paladin that literally can't tell a lie ever would be basically unplayable.

The catchphrase is a joke about how being more honest than average actually gives you the edge the few times when you actually have to deceive someone, since they won't expect it.

hamishspence
2017-02-21, 12:44 PM
Another possibility - hand over the money, then tell the criminals "Now, we're morally obliged to attack you" (while doing so).

Grim Portent
2017-02-21, 01:02 PM
A person who decides to play a Paladin in such a group and expects the rest of the group to change their way of playing around his choice is not reasonable, so my point still stands. :smalltongue:

(And it's not like the exact same problem doesn't present itself with the lone Chaotic Neutrevil murderhobo that ruins the campaign for the others, who would want to play more standard heroes)

The paladin was actually entirely compatible with the group as everyone had originally intended. In the original line up of 7 (two dropped out because uni classes got in the way of attending, a new 6th joined later) players we had only 2 were non-good, the Succubus (Incubus technically) and my Dragon, but both were shapeshifters and had amulets of undetectable alignment. Regardless of class everyone was a mercenary who had been hired to help a salt mine out with some bandit troubles by the magocracy ruling the area and was primarily interested in gaining a bit of fame and profit.

By session 2 everyone had already shown no objection to evil actions undertaken by NPCs, such as torture of a captive bandit by one of the NPCs we had been hired to work with, giving the mine the bodies of dead gnoll bandits to bolster their rations, which being LE Kobolds the miners were perfectly happy about, and a general willingness to kill captives had been shown by all present. Everyone, including the NPCs, was united in their desire to kill the mine's legally appointed overseer because he was a drunken ******* who got in the way, his Evil alignment bothering none of us.

The game started on the premise being multiple good people, it just didn't last long and if it weren't for the GM hand waving the problem away the Paladin would have been left holding the bag because their class was incompatible with the shift in party dynamic that happened a session and a half into the game. In a normal situation the Paladin would have constrained the rest of the party settling into their natural spot of neutral bordering evil, in a manner that could not be easily solved out of character, and it wouldn't even be from different expectations going into the game, just differences in how things go once dice hit the table.


I'm with the others on the idea that a Paladin cannot make, or allow to be made on their behalf, a deal they know will not be kept in good faith on their own part. If you strike a bargain with evil people for information it's 1) evil to have struck, or allowed to be struck, such a deal in the first place, and 2) evil to break the deal afterwards. It's negotiation with evil, negotiating in bad faith, breaking the trust of others, attacking people who posed no immediate harm to anyone and a few other wrongdoings I can't properly articulate at the moment.

hamishspence
2017-02-21, 01:05 PM
BoED makes a point of saying that even temporary alliance with evil beings can be nonevil.

In this context, paying for services rendered (info) , doesn't seem so bad - it's a bit like having an Informant when you are the police.

Cozzer
2017-02-21, 01:15 PM
@Grim Portent: Hmm. In that case it's less people being unreasonable and more about "things happen", but I still think the problem is not the Paladin class. I mean, the Paladin player chose to play a Paladin because he wanted to play a hero. I imagine the alignment shift of the party would have forced him to change character or abandon ship even if he had chosen a different class.

I mean, if I create a Chaotic Good rogue because I want to play a charming and light-hearted Robin Hood I will still not be OK with the rest of my party murdering and torturing left and right. :smalltongue:

Spellbreaker26
2017-02-21, 01:16 PM
I'm with the others on the idea that a Paladin cannot make, or allow to be made on their behalf, a deal they know will not be kept in good faith on their own part. If you strike a bargain with evil people for information it's 1) evil to have struck, or allowed to be struck, such a deal in the first place, and 2) evil to break the deal afterwards. It's negotiation with evil, negotiating in bad faith, breaking the trust of others, attacking people who posed no immediate harm to anyone and a few other wrongdoings I can't properly articulate at the moment.

This sort of situation is why I'm glad they made the oath a bit more flexible in 5e.

oudeis
2017-02-21, 01:36 PM
Another possibility - hand over the money, then tell the criminals "Now, we're morally obliged to attack you" (while doing so).No offense intended, Cozzer, but this is a much better solution than you came up with. For any other class than Paladin it would have been wholly awesome, but clever casuistry is not a way around a code of conduct.

hamishspence
2017-02-21, 01:40 PM
"You have no need to worry. We're going to give you exactly what you're due."


Reminds me a bit of Prince John in Disney's Robin Hood:


"Archer, I commend you, and because of your superior skill, you will get what's coming to you."

GungHo
2017-02-21, 01:44 PM
And on the other subject of "Paladins must be European Human Knights sworn to an order and God!" - No. that's wrong. The greatest paladin in fiction of all time was trained in the class by an African Liontaur (Who had to pass on his blue flaming sword after getting a crippling leg wound saving the world from demons.)
And this is why I have always liked the idea of Paladinhood as a PrC rather than a base class. If you want to be a Big Damn Hero and take levels in the Big Damn Hero class, earn it.


What book is that?
It must be mine!
Not a book, a game. Quest for Glory II (though you could get it in 3 from the Liontaur also... 4 or 5 also gave you a sword, but in a different way). If you were honorable (and there was a stat tied to it) throughout the game, the Paladin gave you his sword and deemed you to be a paladin. Your honor powered the sword's flame. You didn't really have aura powers... it was all your will through the sword. I've stolen the idea a few times, and it's been replicated in some rules options where magic items level/grow with your character rather than having some sort of magic item superfund site (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund) sitting outside of Waterdeep.

Cozzer
2017-02-21, 01:50 PM
No offense intended, Cozzer, but this is a much better solution than you came up with. For any other class than Paladin it would have been wholly awesome, but clever casuistry is not a way around a code of conduct.

No offense taken. Personally I didn't take it because, while the enemies couldn't defeat us, they had a pretty good chance of escaping with our money if they wanted to. As I said, my character never had any intention of actually being honest with them. He just was exploiting the fact the they believed he would have been sincere with them as he's sincere with almost everybody to keep them docile while they gave us information.

During the whole exchange, he was thinking "these murderers really believe I'm going to give them money and let them go just because I said that I would do it and I usually do what I say? And people tell me I am naive".

(Now, as I said, I realize this sort of thing goes against the "honorable warrior" part of the code. But as has been said, sooner or later you'll have to choose between the Lawful thing or the Good thing. And even a 1 in 3 chance of letting the murderers escape wasn't worth such a minor thing as "don't lie" in my opinion).

Cluedrew
2017-02-21, 03:12 PM
Personally, I feel Cozzer's paladin did lie, no word of lie was spoken but it was a very deliberate attempt to deceive people. Still, I do believe that "greater good" works as well as the "pure good" so I wouldn't say the character is not a paladin for doing it. Still if they consistently made that sort of choice (although if you are constantly in that type of situation, something is probably up) then maybe you would want reconsider. You can have the greater good type of paladin but on the whole I find paladins lean towards the idealist mindset.

I mean we have to have some design space for the Chaotic Good Rogues as well.

2D8HP
2017-02-21, 03:31 PM
I mean we have to have some design space for the Chaotic Good Rogues as well.

Chaotic Good?!

What's next Ranger Elves?

In my day Paladins had to be humans, Rangers had to be human or half elves, and only half orcs could be multi-class Cleric/Assasins (if they were evil), and while Thieves could be Chaotic Neutral or Neutral Good they could not be Chaotic Good, because Gygax said so!

What are you going to do, allow players to play any Alignment, Class, or Race they want?

That's just crazy talk!

Cluedrew
2017-02-21, 03:42 PM
To 2D8HP: I wish I was old enough to be able to actually say "Elf Ranger? Back in my day, Elf was the class!"

2D8HP
2017-02-21, 03:58 PM
To 2D8HP: I wish I was old enough to be able to actually say "Elf Ranger? Back in my day, Elf was the class!"


Heh.

To further the confusion, Elf was a class in '74, then you could play a regular Elf or a Thief Elf in '75, then you could be even more classes (but not all) with the '78 AD&D PHB, then with '81 B/X Elf was a class again.

In truth the '74 rules were only just barely comprehensible English to this kid and the teenagers I played with so the rules were pretty much just what we made up that seemed to fit.

Honestly it was only with later editions that had worthwhile editing that in many cases I said, "Oh that's what they meant".

If someone wants to try old D&D, while looking at the pages doesn't give me the joy that my old books from the '70's do, I really recommend reading the 1991 "Basic" or 1994 "Classic" rules first as they're close enough to the '70's rules and just so much more clearly written.

Cozzer
2017-02-21, 04:41 PM
Personally, I feel Cozzer's paladin did lie, no word of lie was spoken but it was a very deliberate attempt to deceive people. Still, I do believe that "greater good" works as well as the "pure good" so I wouldn't say the character is not a paladin for doing it. Still if they consistently made that sort of choice (although if you are constantly in that type of situation, something is probably up) then maybe you would want reconsider. You can have the greater good type of paladin but on the whole I find paladins lean towards the idealist mindset.

Well, in my case that Paladin was deliberately pretty far from the "standard" idealist Paladin, and I had discussed that with the GM beforehand. That character does find himself pretty often in that type of situation since the setting is quite gloomy and has a light-grey-versus-dark-grey morality, with the lighter gray sometimes being still pretty dark. I knew that, and the GM knew that I would be emphasizing the "as long as it's for the greater good" aspect of the character.

The result was very good, both from my point of view and the one of the GM. Trying to decide which is the "right thing to do" in ambiguous situations is interesting for me, and having a character that always tries to do the right thing in the party is useful for the GM and helps him keeping the story dark and not grimdark.

I'm not saying that this way of playing Paladins is better than the others. I just wanted to give a few examples of how the class can, with very little tweaks, support different kinds of characters.