Any word yet on 3.5 Paladins?

[KDLadage]

Besides, how could the Lord of Chaos possibly have a Paladin? You've missed one of the most vital aspects of the Paladin, the Paladin's Code. You can't have a PC which is Chaotic who has to abide by a Code. Even a Neutral character wouldn't fit in with a character class which has to abide by a Code. Only a Lawful character would be suitable for such a class.

As for alignments, Lawful Neutral isn't appropriate, either. Why's he dedicated to the Code? Just for the sake of being dedicated to the Code? And Lawful Evil, what's his Code? To wreak death and destruction? Yeah, some Code. That's REAL limiting! A Paladin can only really be Lawful Good and still be a Paladin.

Wow.

Upon reading this, and in an effort to express myself without starting an argument, let me say this: your interpretation of the alignments and my interpretation of the alignments are very, very different.

Wow.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Must fill this space

It would seem there are other definitions of paladin out there.

pal·a·din
(pal-a-din)
n.
A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion.
A strong supporter or defender of a cause: "the paladin of plain speaking" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).
Any of the 12 peers of Charlemagne's court.

chiv·al·ry
n. pl. chiv·al·ries
The medieval system, principles, and customs of knighthood.
The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women.
A manifestation of any of these qualities.
A group of knights or gallant gentlemen.

Anything other than Lawful Good is not a Paladin, call it something else.

 

[Dr. Harry]

Re: Must fill this space

It would seem there are other definitions of paladin out there.

pal·a·din
(pal-a-din)
n.
A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion.
A strong supporter or defender of a cause: "the paladin of plain speaking" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).
Any of the 12 peers of Charlemagne's court.

chiv·al·ry
n. pl. chiv·al·ries
The medieval system, principles, and customs of knighthood.
The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women.
A manifestation of any of these qualities.
A group of knights or gallant gentlemen.

Anything other than Lawful Good is not a Paladin, call it something else.

I quite agree.

In addition, I call your attention to the original definition of "paladin": any of the 12 peers of Charlemagne's court. A helpful resource for this would be the collected _Bullfinch's Mythology_, (legends of Charlemagne section, naturally; I got mine from the bargain section of B&N) or _The Song of Roland_, availible online at:

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Roland/

Although I would also keep looking for a good annotated copy as well. The first part at least is included in a Norton's anthology I had in high school, though that was almost 20 yrs ago. The "Lawful Good" tag applies quite well to the originals - for their time. Thankfully what is generally considered to count as good has exolved over time. I leave you with the definitive argument for not making wisdom a requirement for the class, as two paladins, Roland and Oliver, discuss what to do as a massive army of Saracens ambush them as they lead the rearguard of Charlemagne's army ("Olifant" is Roland's great horn):

Pride hath Rollanz, wisdom Olivier hath;
And both of them shew marvellous courage;
Once they are horsed, once they have donned their arms,
Rather they'd die than from the battle pass.
Good are the counts, and lofty their language.
Felon pagans come cantering in their wrath.
Says Oliver: "Behold and see, Rollanz,
These are right near, but Charles is very far.
On the olifant deign now to sound a blast;
Were the King here, we should not fear damage.
Only look up towards the Pass of Aspre,
In sorrow there you'll see the whole rereward.
Who does this deed, does no more afterward."
Answers Rollanz: "Utter not such outrage!
Evil his heart that is in thought coward!
We shall remain firm in our place installed;
From us the blows shall come, from us the assault."

 

[Dr. Harry]

Notes on the Song of Roland

Helpful notes can be found at:

http://www.gradesaver.com/ClassicNotes/Titles/roland/

 

[Dr. Harry]

Re: Re: Must fill this space

In addition, I call your attention to the original definition of "paladin": any of the 12 peers of Charlemagne's court. A helpful resource for this would be the collected _Bullfinch's Mythology_, (legends of Charlemagne section, availible online at:

http://www.online-literature.com/bulfinch/mythology_charlemange/

 

[Simplicity]

Well, sure, when you start pulling out European historical references all you're going to find are Lawful Good paladins...
There's only one god they're following, you know. Europe is
not the place to check for paladins of other alignments.

The "code" of a paladin of chaotic alignment is the same as
the "code" that lawful paladins must follow: Do your god proud.
Now, if they're following a evil fire god, maybe this means going around and lighting a building on fire once a week.

If there's a "code" telling you to do something chaotic... and you follow it... are you lawful or chaotic? What's the problem here?

 

[Dr. Harry]

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

Because that's where the name and concept of the paladin originated. I don't have Chaotic Neutral paladins in my games for the same reasons I don't have Halfling Ninjas or Gnome Samurai. To do so would be to so stretch the class concept such that it wouldn't be the same class.

The probable reason why the paladin was the divine champion class chosen was due the promenience of the type as an ideal in, yes, European literature. If you want a "Chaotic Neutral paladin", I suggest you look at some of the classes from Green Ronin's _Book of the Righteous_.

No one will come to your house and beat you up if you allow CN paladins, but I don't think you're going to get 'em in the Player's Handbook.

 

[Pants]

How come? Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral crusaders can't make a dedication to pursue justice, defend the innocent, and smit evil?

A Paladin is a defender of Law and Goodness. A defender of chivalry, an upholder of Justice. Neutral Good could fit in with that, but that's more doing good for goodness sakes. LN, just doesn't fit in with how I see a Paladin and how Paladins have been portrayed in D&D over the years.

You know, if you remove THAC0, it's not D&D anymore...

Not true. THAC0 hasn't always been a part of D&D.

I am, however in favor of creating a more generalized class, perhaps a Holy Warrior or Code Upholder or Divine Monkey or some crazy, wacky class. The Paladin seems a bit too... specific for 3ed.

 

[Felon]

At the risk of sounding dogmatic, a Paladin really should remain LG. Its how the Archetype has been played since year dot.

Something's the same until it changes. Ranger's used to have to be good-aligned, druids had to be true neutral. Then the boys at WotC wised-up and realized that tight alignment restrictions make for dull, cookie-cutter classes...except with the paladin.

However, since you have gone to the dictionary: trusted, champion and cause imply both lawfulness and goodness (with perhaps more an emphasis on law than good).

Oh, there are some pretty darn evil causes out there that have always had zealous champions (q.v. "Spanish Inquisition", "Reign of Terror", "Final Solution"). All you really need to be a champion is an ideal a designated enemy (enemies) of that ideal.

A blackquard can be aptly labeled a champion of darkness, death, taking candy away from small children, etc. And a chaotic good paladin can be a champion of liberation from oppression.

As for historical references to paladins, WotC designers have maintained on many an occasion (and TSR before them), D&D classes like paladins, bards, druids, and rangers are just archetypes loosely based on their inspirations.

 

[Felon]

LN, just doesn't fit in with how I see a Paladin and how Paladins have been portrayed in D&D over the years.

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.

Not true. THAC0 hasn't always been a part of D&D.

Neither have paladins

I am, however in favor of creating a more generalized class, perhaps a Holy Warrior or Code Upholder or Divine Monkey or some crazy, wacky class. The Paladin seems a bit too... specific for 3ed. [/B]

Yeah, I could buy it as a PrC, but not a core class. Core classes should offer some flexibility.