Any word yet on 3.5 Paladins?

[Pants]

You've hit the nail on the head. Of all the classes, players have always had the most severe cookie-cutter mentality about paladins. Indeed, many treat all paladins as if they shared a hive mind, as if in any given situation all paladins will always make an identical choice (usually, the "lawful stupid" choice). It's unfortunate too: a character that's not allowed to think for itself clearly makes for a pretty lame core class.

Which is probably why a more general class should replace the Paladin.
In fact, I think I'll write up a Paladin alternative now.

Neither have paladins

Yeah, I know.
However, they have had the LG stigma attached to them ever since they were introduced.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Funny thing with the Paladin is that for such a restrictive alignment it is quite a popular class. I have found that it is a very flavoured class, really getting into the concepts of chivalry, honour and altruism.

For me, that french term "paladin" means knight in shining armour, the idealized version. My current knight does not travel armoured and looks more like a scruff (modelled somewhat after Lancelot when in his madness) but he holds true to the chivalrous code.

There is not much room for another 8 core class warrior types, you would have to make each of them able to stand alone with good crunchy powers. Better make sure some players want to play them first.

Imo, diluting the alignment would rob the paladin of part of its appeal.

 

[shilsen]

Well, sure, when you start pulling out European historical references all you're going to find are Lawful Good paladins.

Hardly. To focus on the originals, whom Dr. Harry mentioned above, arguably none of Charlemagne's paladins would qualify as Lawful Good by D&D standards. Especially not Roland, who (despite being regarded as the greatest of the twelve peers) has few redeeming qualities other than being incredibly good as a warrior and being extremely brave (albeit to the point of folhardiness). Check Ariosto's Orlando Furioso for a number of examples. The same is true of all the more famous ones in the twelve, e.g. Ogier the Dane. Only Oliver and Archbishop Turpin have some resemblance to the D&D paladin. Trying to find perfect literary exemplars for character classes is often a waste of time, IMO.

 

[Dr. Harry]

Hardly. To focus on the originals, whom Dr. Harry mentioned above, arguably none of Charlemagne's paladins would qualify as Lawful Good by D&D standards. Especially not Roland, who (despite being regarded as the greatest of the twelve peers) has few redeeming qualities other than being incredibly good as a warrior and being extremely brave (albeit to the point of folhardiness). Check Ariosto's Orlando Furioso for a number of examples. The same is true of all the more famous ones in the twelve, e.g. Ogier the Dane. Only Oliver and Archbishop Turpin have some resemblance to the D&D paladin. Trying to find perfect literary exemplars for character classes is often a waste of time, IMO.

True enough, but the paladin as it developed through the romances - including the work you mention - were portrayed as the then current version of "LG".

Of course (thankfully) this differs from most people's modern interpretation of what it means to be both lawful and good. To find a perfect literary exemlpar for a paladin, given how the perception of what we could call LG mores has evolved, would require modern characters. I would say these exist, ranging from the main character in Poul Anderson's _Three Hearts and Three Lions_ to Marvel's Captain America.

Even here, Poul Anderson's book draws more closely on the original paladins than one might expect (to say more would be to provide spoilers).

Let me try and make my point in a way that is more clear. The paladin is as iconic to the conception of a western medieval-type setting as the martial artist in an Asian-type setting. While the original characters (with few exceptions) might not make great inspirations for Paladin PC's, the literary trend that started with them has always been present, sometimes so much so as to dominate the genre.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

True enough, but the paladin as it developed through the romances - including the work you mention - were portrayed as the then current version of "LG".

Of course (thankfully) this differs from most people's modern interpretation of what it means to be both lawful and good. To find a perfect literary exemlpar for a paladin, given how the perception of what we could call LG mores has evolved, would require modern characters. I would say these exist, ranging from the main character in Poul Anderson's _Three Hearts and Three Lions_ to Marvel's Captain America.

That reminds me of a comment from a discussion on character morality long ago. One GM said he ran a fairly gritty medieval RPG with a points based (GURPS style) character generation. As a house rule, he created a big Disadvantage called Modern Morals. The point he was slyly making to his players was that our modern sensibilities would not fit in his campaign world -- they could easily get you in deep trouble.

 

[cerberus2112]

Yes, the word is b'wubble (it had to be said by someone)

If you are going to introduce superheroes as icons of the modern LG ideal, let me just pipe in that both Superman and Batman are perfect models of this. In fact, most comic book heroes (of the Marvel & DC variety) will fall into the LG category.

 

[KDLadage]

Re: Yes, the word is b'wubble (it had to be said by someone)

If you are going to introduce superheroes as icons of the modern LG ideal, let me just pipe in that both Superman and Batman are perfect models of this. In fact, most comic book heroes (of the Marvel & DC variety) will fall into the LG category.

Which version of Batman are you refering to? There are quite a few renditions of the dark knight that push the envelope into LN or CG teritory...

 

[Dr. Harry]

Re: Yes, the word is b'wubble (it had to be said by someone)

If you are going to introduce superheroes as icons of the modern LG ideal, let me just pipe in that both Superman and Batman are perfect models of this. In fact, most comic book heroes (of the Marvel & DC variety) will fall into the LG category.

The reason I avoided Batman is because I have watched long threads come and go on other boards debating what alignment Batman is. For myself, I would not say that Batman is a consistent LG, and while Superman is LG, that does not automatically mean paladin.

When I stopped reading most of the comic superheroes a while back, quite a few counted as "outlaw heroes" and would best fit as CG.

 

[Remathilis]

My Friend Got into a discussion where Batman was LG (planning, careful, follows a disciplined code of honor) and Superman was CG (more prone to emotional response and relying on power, not planning, to defeat bad guys.)

IMHO, I'd reverse the two, but then again, is Lawful "obey the law" or is lawful "follows some code of behavior/honor"?

 

[Dave G]

My paladin's code is modelled loosely after the Jedi Code.

Seems to work. *shrug*