Conceptualize the Paladin

[Dagredhel]

When I think "paladin", two very different concepts spring to mind.

The first is a warrior whose unselfconscious purity of heart and steadfast faith make him a paragon of strength, goodness, and chivalry. Galahad would be the Arthurian example. Huma from the Dragonlance novel would be another. These are warriors first and foremost. Their strong wills help them to conquer adversities that would crush lesser heroes. They may benefit from divine intervention, but they're not tossing off spells themselves.

The other type is from recent popular fiction, and is based on the D&D paladin, rather than the other way around. These paladins have a personal relationship with their god, who communicates to them directly--- because they are the deity's appointed champion. They receive magical powers and abilities that closely follow the D&D archetype. Still, they are basically warriors for their gods.

The chivalry, shining armor, and penanted lances are ubiquitous.

And as others have pointed out, the Cleric is a hopeless hodgepodge.

 

[Gentlegamer]

In that, they are a step beyond the knightly ideal- the Code of Chivalry is their starting point, not their goal- and their faith is what sets them apart from mere knights.

The thing is, Chivalry itself already encompasses that faith in its tenants, historically speaking. The "true knight" was a warrior and defender of the (Catholic) Church.

 

[Mallus]

Monte Cook has a nice take on the paladin in his Arcana Unearthed/Evolved. The Champion class is a flexible framework for building different kinds of supernatural warriors. The class has a mix of common abilities and ones that depend on the specific cause/ideal/faith you're championing. Included are write-ups for several different kinds of Champion (Life, Freedom, Darkness, etc.), plus guidelines for creating your own.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I don't have a problem with individualized religious champions devoted to a particular deity, or ideal, or even alignment. I personally am HIGHLY unlikely to use them but I can see where others might find them interesting and useful. But they are NOT paladins as I have EVER understood the concept. The paladin came into being as a unique character class, not as a template for holy warriors of ANY alignment. Paladins are the extreme, polarized representation of a set of idealized, real-world associated behavioral principles.

The Paladin is clearly not meant to be associated with one particular deity either since the AD&D PH included no information on specific deities to be represented by a Paladin (not even Greyhawk deities). But their absence did not mean that the Paladin was intended to be seen as a sample champion of his alignment either.

The class came about because the alignment of LG represented the end of the LINE - not just one point on a circle. It's an extreme that other alignments simply do not suggest much less lend themselves to. Lawful Good alignment simply has far greater impact, resonance, and importance to the general scheme of things than, say, Lawful Neutral ever could even dream. The one possible exception might be the Anti-Paladin simply as the yin to a paladins representation of yang. But that makes the two opposites yin and yang - not yin, yang, wan, wong, chun, chong, lin, ling, and yoi (which in any case sounds like a large law firm in Hong Kong.) And then I've seen arguments positing anti-paladins as either/both Chaotic Evil and Lawful Evil. I never saw that it made all that much difference in the end - the importance of the anti-paladin was as the even rarer opposite to the already rare paladin.

Attempting to make the Paladin into just one of 9 alignment champions dilutes the impact that the class had. I also personally think it shows a misunderstanding of the purpose of alignment in general, but that's a slightly different debate that's been beaten to death. So, make a holy warrior devoted to the principles of Lawful Neutrality if you like (if it's even possible) but don't call it a version of a Paladin. Even if you give it a different name don't suggest that it's related to the paladin in some way. The paladin was, (IMO still is, and should remain unique.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The thing is, Chivalry itself already encompasses that faith in its tenants, historically speaking. The "true knight" was a warrior and defender of the (Catholic) Church.

Up to a point.

One could be a knight- even "chivalrous" by some standards- and still be quite a...distasteful...human being. They found "wiggle room" in the chivalraic code.

Paladins don't have the luxury of wiggle room. There is a qualitative difference between Charlemagne's Paladins, Joan D'Arc, Lancelot Du Lac and other Paladins and their less religiously minded compatriots, and its evidenced in their unwavering consistency at actually living by the tenets of their code and faith...with any conflict between the two ethical forces being settled in favor of faith.

 

[Mallus]

It's an extreme that other alignments simply do not suggest much less lend themselves to. Lawful Good alignment simply has far greater impact, resonance, and importance to the general scheme of things than, say, Lawful Neutral ever could even dream.

Superman, Batman and Robin Hood resonate differently to different people. It's, you know, subjective.

Attempting to make the Paladin into just one of 9 alignment champions dilutes the impact that the class had.

See, I think it enhances it. Other people's beliefs don't dilute your own, and it's perfectly fine for other people's belief systems to have their armor-clad champions. Also, a proliferation of differently-believing armor clad champions makes the campaign setting a more exciting place.

I also personally think it shows a misunderstanding of the purpose of alignment in general...

Disagreement != misunderstanding... but as you say, that's beaten to death.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Attempting to make the Paladin into just one of 9 alignment champions dilutes the impact that the class had.

Personally, I just see "Paladin" as the name of the LG Holy Knight, just like "Anti-Paladin" (which should have a better name, like "Destroyer" or some such, but that's for a different thread) is the CE Holy Champions, and so forth.

In a polytheistic RPG, there is nothing intrinsically different or special about LG that says its the only alignment with Holy Champions.

However, there is also nothing that says that the Holy Champions of the various alignments need be all analogs of the Paladin. IOW, they need not all be warriors, for one. There is nothing to prevent the Holy Champion of CN from being some kind of Bard-like being (again, a topic for another thread).

 

[steenan]

I see a paladin as a chivalric ideal, a perfect knight - strong, courageous and honorable. Both the LG alignment that 3e required and the code of conduct reflect exactly this - they have nothing to do with being "extra good" or "extra lawful". Cleric is a holy warrior, an agent od deity; paladin is who every knight should strive to be.
That is why i saw requiring every paladin to follow a deity in 3e FR, and even more allowing paladins to be of any alignment in 4e, as a very bad idea. Either the designers' idea of what a paladin is was drastically different than mine, or they really didn't have any...

It doesn't mean I don't like the idea of having exemplars of other alignments - it just meand that they should have both crunch and fluff drasitcally different than a paladin.
I remember using a LE exemplar in my game. Not the blackguard from DMG, who tries to be three different things at the same time and as a result is neighter. My black knight was, in some respects, quite similar to paladin - he never lied, never used poison, never slaughtered a helpless enemy. But while a paladin always hepls those in need, he travelled the world only to fing worthy opponents and defeat them. For him, the only measure of worth was the ability to stand for one's own in a direct combat and everyone who wasn't willing to fight was to serve. All the class abilities were focused on duelling (with humanoids and monsters) and making anybody who run from him or surrendered not able to oppose him again.
Similarily, I had a CE exemplar, focused on weakening and destroying. It didn't matter who he opposed - he just enjoyed watching men slaughtered, women raped and towns burned to the ground. One of the entry requirements was killing a group of no less than ten innocent people just because one could.
Both were, in some sense, anti-paladins. Paladins of different alignments, as 4e would call it. But what they could do had nothing with paladin abilities and none of them was defined by comparing to a paladin.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I have been pondering doing a more "militaristic" in a way view of Clerics and Paladins.

I am thinking of it being that Paladins are "enlisted" while Clerics are "volunteers". To put it differently Clerics are those that seek out the Gods and find power, virtue, knowledge, etc. through this. A Paladin on the other hand is chosen by a God to be his champion, this Paladin may not wish it but it is a position thrust upon him. Some may follow this new path, others may fight against it... To what ends, depends on him/her and the God.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I see a paladin as a chivalric ideal, a perfect knight - strong, courageous and honorable. Both the LG alignment that 3e required and the code of conduct reflect exactly this - they have nothing to do with being "extra good" or "extra lawful". Cleric is a holy warrior, an agent od deity; paladin is who every knight should strive to be.
That is why i saw requiring every paladin to follow a deity in 3e FR, and even more allowing paladins to be of any alignment in 4e, as a very bad idea. Either the designers' idea of what a paladin is was drastically different than mine, or they really didn't have any...

It doesn't mean I don't like the idea of having exemplars of other alignments - it just meand that they should have both crunch and fluff drasitcally different than a paladin.
I remember using a LE exemplar in my game. Not the blackguard from DMG, who tries to be three different things at the same time and as a result is neighter. My black knight was, in some respects, quite similar to paladin - he never lied, never used poison, never slaughtered a helpless enemy. But while a paladin always hepls those in need, he travelled the world only to fing worthy opponents and defeat them. For him, the only measure of worth was the ability to stand for one's own in a direct combat and everyone who wasn't willing to fight was to serve. All the class abilities were focused on duelling (with humanoids and monsters) and making anybody who run from him or surrendered not able to oppose him again.
Similarily, I had a CE exemplar, focused on weakening and destroying. It didn't matter who he opposed - he just enjoyed watching men slaughtered, women raped and towns burned to the ground. One of the entry requirements was killing a group of no less than ten innocent people just because one could.
Both were, in some sense, anti-paladins. Paladins of different alignments, as 4e would call it. But what they could do had nothing with paladin abilities and none of them was defined by comparing to a paladin.

I share your general view on how to conceptualize "non LG paladins."