This thread has been prompted by a current alignment thread. It's about paladins.
I think we can all agree that Gygax's AD&D books aren't paragons of editing. One example of that is the paladin class entry in the PHB: there is a ist of bullet points following the sentende "The following strictures apply to poladins", but some of the most important strictures have already been set out earlier in the class description.
If we ignore the editing and try and group the strictures more thematically, we get the following:
The wealth strictures don't seem terribly severe. No consequences are spelled out for violations, but probably those are not necessary - if the player of the paladin decides to renounce the vow of (moderate) poverty, then presumably s/he is renouncing paladinhood.
It's the requirement to be profoundly LG that is more interesting. In itself, it doesn't seem terribly demanding in a game context. By that I mean that we can imagine it being hard for the character to uphold his/her vows, but taken at face value it doesn't seem that hard for the player - all you have to do is play your valiant knight! There's even a helpful reminder that a valiant knight will seek service with a noble and honourable lord!
To me there seem to be three main sources of problems:
Just like thieves can work better in all-thieves games than as elements of a party, so paladins are going to work better in a game oriented towards ideas of knighthood and nobility rather than in a generic combined-arms-party sort of game.
But with those limitations understood and implemented, I think the underlying conception is really quite sound. It's not a bad implementation of the valiant knight in AD&D terms.
I think we can all agree that Gygax's AD&D books aren't paragons of editing. One example of that is the paladin class entry in the PHB: there is a ist of bullet points following the sentende "The following strictures apply to poladins", but some of the most important strictures have already been set out earlier in the class description.
If we ignore the editing and try and group the strictures more thematically, we get the following:
A paladin must be profoundly lawful good ("Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins")
* The character must begin as LG, and always remain LG - otherwise s/he loses all special powers (ie ceases to be a paladin);
* The character must never knowingly and willingly perform on evil act - if s/he does, s/he loses all special powers (ie ceases to be a paladin);
* The character must never knowingly perform a chaotic act (ie an individualistic act that can't be reconciled with authority or tradition) - it's not fully spelled out what the consequence is, but it seems to be that all special powers are lost (ie the character cease to be a paladin for the time being) until the character confesses their sin, and does penance as prescribed by a LG cleric of level 7+;
* The character may only have henchmen of lawful good alignment (the consequences of breach are not spelled out);
* The character will associate only with characters and creatures of good alignment, except that paladins can join a company of adventurers which contains non-evil neutrals (presumably other than NG) on a single-expedition basis, and only if some end which will further the cause of lawful good is purposed (the consequences of breach are not spelled out);
* If possible, the character will take service or form an alliance with lawful good characters, whether PCs or not, who are clerics or fighters (of noble status).
A paladin must eschew excessive wealth
* An immediate tithe (10%) of all income - be it treasure, wages, or whatever - must be given to whatever charitable religious institution (not a clerical player character) of lawful good alignment the character selects;
* The characgter willl never retain wealth, keeping only sufficient treasures to support themselves in a modest manner, pay henchmen, men-at-arms, and servitors, and to construct or maintain a small castle - excess is given away as is the tithe;
* The character may never retain more than ten magic items: 1 suit of armour; 1 shield; 4 weapons; 4 others.
* The character must begin as LG, and always remain LG - otherwise s/he loses all special powers (ie ceases to be a paladin);
* The character must never knowingly and willingly perform on evil act - if s/he does, s/he loses all special powers (ie ceases to be a paladin);
* The character must never knowingly perform a chaotic act (ie an individualistic act that can't be reconciled with authority or tradition) - it's not fully spelled out what the consequence is, but it seems to be that all special powers are lost (ie the character cease to be a paladin for the time being) until the character confesses their sin, and does penance as prescribed by a LG cleric of level 7+;
* The character may only have henchmen of lawful good alignment (the consequences of breach are not spelled out);
* The character will associate only with characters and creatures of good alignment, except that paladins can join a company of adventurers which contains non-evil neutrals (presumably other than NG) on a single-expedition basis, and only if some end which will further the cause of lawful good is purposed (the consequences of breach are not spelled out);
* If possible, the character will take service or form an alliance with lawful good characters, whether PCs or not, who are clerics or fighters (of noble status).
A paladin must eschew excessive wealth
* An immediate tithe (10%) of all income - be it treasure, wages, or whatever - must be given to whatever charitable religious institution (not a clerical player character) of lawful good alignment the character selects;
* The characgter willl never retain wealth, keeping only sufficient treasures to support themselves in a modest manner, pay henchmen, men-at-arms, and servitors, and to construct or maintain a small castle - excess is given away as is the tithe;
* The character may never retain more than ten magic items: 1 suit of armour; 1 shield; 4 weapons; 4 others.
The wealth strictures don't seem terribly severe. No consequences are spelled out for violations, but probably those are not necessary - if the player of the paladin decides to renounce the vow of (moderate) poverty, then presumably s/he is renouncing paladinhood.
It's the requirement to be profoundly LG that is more interesting. In itself, it doesn't seem terribly demanding in a game context. By that I mean that we can imagine it being hard for the character to uphold his/her vows, but taken at face value it doesn't seem that hard for the player - all you have to do is play your valiant knight! There's even a helpful reminder that a valiant knight will seek service with a noble and honourable lord!
To me there seem to be three main sources of problems:
* The association restrictions are tricky in a party-based game. Although the consequences for violation aren't spelled out, it does put something of a dampener on the prospects of both interesting friendship/rivalry/redemptoin arcs; and just seems apt to cause some friction at the table. Perhaps it's really best treated as an aspiration.
* Because the requirement to be a valiant knight - hardly a surprise for a class called paladin - is expressed by way of the alignment mechanics, it invites the GM to tell the player how to play his/her PC (on pain of ceasing to be a paladin). In a very narratively thin dungeon-crawl type game this might add to the challenge of play, but for any sort of game of rich characterisation or story it seems like it could be pretty undesirable. When I choose to play a valiant knight I want to play my conceptoin of Galahad or Lancelot, not the GM's. Luckily there's an easy solution - the GM stands back and lets the player do exactly that.
* Playing a valiant knight isn't a perfect fit for some common D&D tropes. It can fit with some dungeon crawls (eg KotB) but not others (eg not really a good fit for ToH or even White Plume Mountain). It doesn't fit all that well with "quest giver of the week" because that's at odds with the idea of taking service and fits better with ranger or ronin-type PCs. I think the first version of D&D to really try and tackle this aspect of the game was Oriental Adventures, although it's far from perfect.
* Because the requirement to be a valiant knight - hardly a surprise for a class called paladin - is expressed by way of the alignment mechanics, it invites the GM to tell the player how to play his/her PC (on pain of ceasing to be a paladin). In a very narratively thin dungeon-crawl type game this might add to the challenge of play, but for any sort of game of rich characterisation or story it seems like it could be pretty undesirable. When I choose to play a valiant knight I want to play my conceptoin of Galahad or Lancelot, not the GM's. Luckily there's an easy solution - the GM stands back and lets the player do exactly that.
* Playing a valiant knight isn't a perfect fit for some common D&D tropes. It can fit with some dungeon crawls (eg KotB) but not others (eg not really a good fit for ToH or even White Plume Mountain). It doesn't fit all that well with "quest giver of the week" because that's at odds with the idea of taking service and fits better with ranger or ronin-type PCs. I think the first version of D&D to really try and tackle this aspect of the game was Oriental Adventures, although it's far from perfect.
Just like thieves can work better in all-thieves games than as elements of a party, so paladins are going to work better in a game oriented towards ideas of knighthood and nobility rather than in a generic combined-arms-party sort of game.
But with those limitations understood and implemented, I think the underlying conception is really quite sound. It's not a bad implementation of the valiant knight in AD&D terms.
