I gotta say, to me at least, the paladin is less about the religion and more about the Lawful Goodness - a knight in shining armor, but also an old-fashioned/classic superhero a la Superman or Captain America, fighting for what's right, never "adapting" his ideals and ethics during difficult situations but staying true to them no matter what, and so on.

So I'm kinda positive to paladins being allowed to be Neutral Good as well as Lawful Good, if Neutral Good is seen as "much the same as Lawful Good but caring only about the Good part", but only kinda as it's somewhat easier to get away with anti-heroic behaviour as a NG character than as a LG character. Under no circumstances would I allow a Chaotic Good paladin though. Sure, I tend to play dudes of that alignment more often than not, but it's not a paladin-friendly alignment since Chaotic Good is basically the "tough independent antihero dude who does cool antihero stuff and moves on" Clint Eastwood/Conan*/Wolverine/etc etc etc alignment, and that's not how a paladin behaves - a paladin behaves like Superman/Captain America/the Phantom/Shane**. If one wants to add a "Champion" class that's like a Paladin but of any alignment and closely tied to a god, well that's 100% fine with me but that's not a Paladin and not really what a Paladin's about either IMHO (also it's what Fighter/Clerics are for. Allthough only demihumans get these, obviously.).

I wouldn't mind the paladin being divorced, somewhat, from religion. Galahad, the perfect knight, was hardly a Knight Templar after all (allthough he'd probably rise pretty far in that organization - I think he might've preferred the Hospitallers though). "Knight who sticks to the Chivalric Code*** no matter what" is what it is to a great extent about, after all. Allthough sure the Cavalier's like that too (and I don't mind the Cavalier, well as a 2e kit, and as a kit it's pretty damn hard to get (physical stats all 15s, mental stats all 10s and if you wanna be a Paladin Cavalier then add Cha 17 etc...). I also like that the author of Fighter's Handbook went on to say that while the Cavalier is very much the "knight in shining armor" Paladin, that's not the only way for a Paladin to be, wich is also true and shouldn't be forgotten about.

*=the Marvel Comics and various pastiches' version of Conan, anyways, allthough the original version mainly acted as a Chaotic Good kinda dude once he got into his late 30s/early 40s, became king, etc. He's certainly no longer an amoral adventurer (N or CN alignment) at that point.

**=just to add an appropriate Western character. Several oldschool Western heroes would make for good Paladin material I'd say, though.

***=well the romantic version, of course, actual knights mainly being dicks.

Quote from: Silverlion;681227Have any of you read "The Deed of Paksenarrion?"

The first part, but I've been waiting to afford the rest. Which doesn't help me any because it doesn't get into the part where she's a Paladin yet.

Edit: Fuck, quoted the wrong post.

Quote from: The Ent;681530I gotta say, to me at least, the paladin is less about the religion and more about the Lawful Goodness - a knight in shining armor, but also an old-fashioned/classic superhero a la Superman or Captain America, fighting for what's right, never "adapting" his ideals and ethics during difficult situations but staying true to them no matter what, and so on.

So I'm kinda positive to paladins being allowed to be Neutral Good as well as Lawful Good, if Neutral Good is seen as "much the same as Lawful Good but caring only about the Good part", but only kinda as it's somewhat easier to get away with anti-heroic behaviour as a NG character than as a LG character. Under no circumstances would I allow a Chaotic Good paladin though. Sure, I tend to play dudes of that alignment more often than not, but it's not a paladin-friendly alignment since Chaotic Good is basically the "tough independent antihero dude who does cool antihero stuff and moves on" Clint Eastwood/Conan*/Wolverine/etc etc etc alignment, and that's not how a paladin behaves - a paladin behaves like Superman/Captain America/the Phantom/Shane**. If one wants to add a "Champion" class that's like a Paladin but of any alignment and closely tied to a god, well that's 100% fine with me but that's not a Paladin and not really what a Paladin's about either IMHO (also it's what Fighter/Clerics are for. Allthough only demihumans get these, obviously.).

I wouldn't mind the paladin being divorced, somewhat, from religion. Galahad, the perfect knight, was hardly a Knight Templar after all (allthough he'd probably rise pretty far in that organization - I think he might've preferred the Hospitallers though). "Knight who sticks to the Chivalric Code*** no matter what" is what it is to a great extent about, after all. Allthough sure the Cavalier's like that too (and I don't mind the Cavalier, well as a 2e kit, and as a kit it's pretty damn hard to get (physical stats all 15s, mental stats all 10s and if you wanna be a Paladin Cavalier then add Cha 17 etc...). I also like that the author of Fighter's Handbook went on to say that while the Cavalier is very much the "knight in shining armor" Paladin, that's not the only way for a Paladin to be, wich is also true and shouldn't be forgotten about.

*=the Marvel Comics and various pastiches' version of Conan, anyways, allthough the original version mainly acted as a Chaotic Good kinda dude once he got into his late 30s/early 40s, became king, etc. He's certainly no longer an amoral adventurer (N or CN alignment) at that point.

**=just to add an appropriate Western character. Several oldschool Western heroes would make for good Paladin material I'd say, though.

***=well the romantic version, of course, actual knights mainly being dicks.

That's pretty much how I like my Paladins.

It's about doing what's right even when that is not easy.


There is a great line from Captian America that says it better than I can:

"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."

I've always thought that, as written, these two classes were utterly redundant.

If a cleric is a priest, he shouldn't be going around armed an in armour. If he's a religious holy warrior, then there's no need for a paladin.

In my Dark Albion game, the "priests" of the world are characters with no spellcasting powers and who don't go around (usually) with weapons and armor (no one has ever played one so far, but they could, as a specialist).
Clerics, on the other hand, are a religious knightly order capable of doing miracles (clerical magic) charged with fighting against Chaos.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;682184Clerics, on the other hand, are a religious knightly order capable of doing miracles (clerical magic) charged with fighting against Chaos.

RPGPundit

Which is pretty much exactly how they are described in the AD&D PHB

If Clerics follow a God, that suggests being lawful, even if they follow a god of chaos.

I prefer Paladins to serve 'doing good' first, and following a god if that does not conflict with doing good.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;682187Which is pretty much exactly how they are described in the AD&D PHB

Thus largely eliminating the need for Paladins.

Quote from: RPGPundit;682623Thus largely eliminating the need for Paladins.

Yep!  That's why I am pretty convinced that the paladin was only created to replicate the knight in shining armor, and if the cavalier class came first, the paladin would not be considered a core class today.

Quote from: RPGPundit;682623Thus largely eliminating the need for Paladins.

Or Clerics. After all, shouldn't the Priests be at the temple tending to the flock, and the knightly orders ordered on the battlefield? While it's the lone champion who's poking around in the dark underground looking for the lich's heart.

Paladin-like PCs make a lot more sense to me than Cleric like ones. Frankly the only reason I see Clerics being retained is to have a healer class. I'd rather roll that into MUs.

On the other hand, I'd have no problem with all MUs actually being Clerics either.

Quote from: apparition13;682718On the other hand, I'd have no problem with all MUs actually being Clerics either.

I agree. Divine magic could be just another category of magic use without any interesting ramifications. A fighter that spends a feat to be able to use divine magic is a paladin. A magic user that specializes in divine magic and spends a feat for weapons and armour is a cleric.

Quote from: RPGPundit;682184I've always thought that, as written, these two classes were utterly redundant.

If a cleric is a priest, he shouldn't be going around armed an in armour. If he's a religious holy warrior, then there's no need for a paladin.

In my Dark Albion game, the "priests" of the world are characters with no spellcasting powers and who don't go around (usually) with weapons and armor (no one has ever played one so far, but they could, as a specialist).
Clerics, on the other hand, are a religious knightly order capable of doing miracles (clerical magic) charged with fighting against Chaos.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;682187Which is pretty much exactly how they are described in the AD&D PHB

Quote from: RPGPundit;682623Thus largely eliminating the need for Paladins.

Unless Paladins aren't defined as holy warriors.

The problem isn't that the classes as originally written are redundant. It's that the classes were re-written by people who couldn't grasp the distinction.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;682672Yep!  That's why I am pretty convinced that the paladin was only created to replicate the knight in shining armor, and if the cavalier class came first, the paladin would not be considered a core class today.

Not sure about that. Paladins were introduced with the lawful Good being essential.

Clerics and Knights can be any alignment, and can wear armor just fine.


"So the Lawful Goodness" seems to be the core concept.

a cleric is a commonplace warrior priest, one amongst many. a paladin is a champion chosen personally by his god to represent the whole of a religion, one of a select few.

Quote from: Bill;682822Not sure about that. Paladins were introduced with the lawful Good being essential.

Clerics and Knights can be any alignment, and can wear armor just fine.


"So the Lawful Goodness" seems to be the core concept.

It wasn't so much lawful-good, as it was "let's emulate king Arthur, Lancelot, and his knights."  And of course they were everything that was good and pure as a knight.  

Lawful good just so happened to help that vision as part of an alignment mechanic.  If they had the cavalier class, it very easily could have been "here are some lawful good examples"

Additionally, if the didn't have the cleric weapon restriction and let them use all weapons, the paladin also wouldn't be necessary.  Thematically, what can a paladin do that a cavalier/cleric multiclass not do?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;682824It wasn't so much lawful-good, as it was "let's emulate king Arthur, Lancelot, and his knights."  And of course they were everything that was good and pure as a knight.  

"And then- the oral sex!"
"Well, I suppose I could stay a little longer..."

QuoteLawful good just so happened to help that vision as part of an alignment mechanic.  If they had the cavalier class, it very easily could have been "here are some lawful good examples"

Additionally, if the didn't have the cleric weapon restriction and let them use all weapons, the paladin also wouldn't be necessary.  Thematically, what can a paladin do that a cavalier/cleric multiclass not do?

Special mount.
In AD&D, that's the main thing I remember, but they get Smite Evil and various lay on hands variants in 3rd and Pathfinder.

JG