Reclaim the name of Paladin!

In the opinion of this DM, if he isn't Lawful Good, he isn't a Paladin. I'd also like to bring back the tithing 10%, giving away most wealth, and number limit of magic items as well. I might be open to him not being a human.

Quoted for truth. (And because I cannot give you any more experience at the moment.)

I love the Fourth Edition and the freedom of refluffing.

But the whole point of a D&D Paladin is a champion of right and good. Players who want to be a champion of wickedness and licentiousness must pick another class.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'd personally be okay if the paladin class was renamed "templar" and the LG paladin archetype was a specific kind of templar (as was the LE blackguard). But I feel like that's a compromise that only a few people would like.
 




Paladins are not holy warriors. They were the peers of Charlemagne, essentially equivalent to King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table.

They are taken directly from Poul Anderson's 3 of Hearts, 3 of Lions, which is based on those stories and deals with one of the Paladins. (Which is also where the alignment system comes from)

Clerics are the ones that are actually the "holy warriors", the 1st ed A&D PHB compares them to the orders of fighting monks like the Templars or Hospitalers. There should probably be a Priest class that is less combative.
 
Last edited:

The name of "paladin" should henceforth only be borne by the righteous, holy, honorable, dedicated, heroic and good. Let the forces of evil once again tremble at the very mention of the name of "paladin" and fear their righteous wrath and holy smites.
I can't XP yet, but... hell yes.
 

First off, Paladins are my favorite class.

In my opinion, I've always seen Clerics as the divine casters and Paladins as the divine warriors. The fact that clerics have decent hp, decent attack bonus progression, and can wear decent armor and wield decent weapons is there primarily to facilitate play IMO, not to shoehorn all clerics into the "battle-cleric" role.

With the next D&D rolling around, I've heard about this differentiation between priests and clerics as they are traditionally conceived. I'm almost wholly in support of "priests" as more squishy or less martial clerics, but if we are then to assume clerics are divine warriors, what does that make Paladins? Paladins are obviously deriving their powers from some sort of divine power, and they best fit the "warrior" description with their heavy armor, shields, good BAB, good HD, etc. I'm fine with the addition of the "priest" but I'm worried about Paladins having their "holy warrior" status being trampled on by the clerics who by all accounts are already much more powerful due to their casting abilities.

The real problem I have with this exclusive mentality that Paladins are always LG is that it's horrible to parse as a DM running a custom setting with a custom Pantheon. The problem is that you end up with "Paladins" of other deities serving as their holy warriors and crusaders alongside the priests but they have horribly mismatched abilities. I want my paladins of the god of magic to have nifty magic powers or something befitting a crusader for the cause of the god of magic, not to be using a "holy aura" with the ability to "smite evil". To the god of magic, good or evil might be a non-issue.

So what about me and other DM's like me? I love the Paladin as it traditionally exists, but if we create prestige classes for every other crusader of every other pantheon then they're totally unusable for folks like me who use a custom pantheon. Why not allow the Paladin to exist apart from alignment or at least change the Paladin's name to Champion or something and then call LG Champions "Paladins"?

That's why in my system I'm calling Paladins "Crusaders" and are tied to a specific religion (or merely to some good "ideal" - in which case they default to the "LG" deity powers but do not derive their powers from the deity but rather from some platonic notion of goodness). The powers they receive are dictated by their choice in deity - so Crusaders for the god of goodness (or the "ideal" of goodness) look a lot like traditional paladins and Crusaders for evil look a lot like Blackguards but in the end you can have Crusaders for the gods of fate, magic, travel, weather, etc. It's a lot easier to build Paladin "packages" for each deity than it is to build a separate Prestige Class for each deity in a custom pantheon.
 
Last edited:

Everyone you knew?

I have seen mostly the opposite. I also encountered a few players who just don't care one way or the other.

My wife played Paladins for many years. It's practically the only class she played. Tried the 4E one. Meh.

Every single one who had an opinion.

I know of two other players that played Paladins for years (both of whom were Eagle Scouts in their younger days in real life) who were not impressed with the 4E one.

So, you're suggesting that this is related to them being part of a religious military camping club...? I can see why they would have more static views on paladins, I guess.

For players who love the original concept, 4E raked it over the coals. For players who want to play CN classes, they want the cool Paladin abilities, but were not willing to roleplay the concept. 4E came along, then some players were able to get some of the cool abilities and could go maim, kill, and slaughter indiscriminately. The best of both worlds, right?

LG paladins were already murderous monsters in old editions. 4E just stopped making excuses for them.
 
Last edited:


Remove ads

Top