Attention Paladin, Monk, Cleric, Druid and Other Players!

[Hussar]

I'm not talking about edition, I'm talking about the mythological/legendary inspiration for the class.


Yeah, but without looking at the class' inspiration- at least in the case of this particular class- you don't get the understanding of why the class does what it does.


Nah- I got your vibe!


It did, but I was thinking specifically of having a prereq of Commoner 1, since so many of the exemplars I keep putting up are actual farmboys and farmgirls before becoming Swords of Gods.

I'm not sure that your examples are quite broad enough. After all, the Knights of the Round Table are certainly exemplars of a paladin, easily as much as Jeanne D'arc. None of them are commoners that have been touched by god. All of them are nobility and knights. Their "touched by God" comes from the fact that they are part of the noble class.

Yes, you can have the "touched by a god" schtick for a paladin, but, that's certainly not the only one. Nor, I would argue, is it even the most prevalent one either. The whole chivalric shining knight thing is pretty heavily embedded in the paladin class.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, as your poll found, a lot of us did pull out the kitbash tools, and ended up just cutting alignment out entirely.

In 4e, yes; but it seems cutting out alignment there doesn't really make all that much difference as most if not all of the alignment-based game mechanics are gone or almost gone.

But removing alignment makes a lot of difference in all previous editions, where it has clear and obvious mechanics attached.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, you can have the "touched by a god" schtick for a paladin, but, that's certainly not the only one. Nor, I would argue, is it even the most prevalent one either. The whole chivalric shining knight thing is pretty heavily embedded in the paladin class.

This is where Cavaliers come in handy; they can take care of the generic chivalric knight archetype and allow Paladins to be more finely tuned as holy warriors.

Lanefan

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm not sure that your examples are quite broad enough. After all, the Knights of the Round Table are certainly exemplars of a paladin, easily as much as Jeanne D'arc.

I can't agree with this. They were all knights, to be sure, but precious few of them would I consider to be Paladins. Lancelot, yes. Percival, Gawain & Galahad, most probably. Arthur, maybe- but it's also possible that his vows were of a slightly different nature. Beyond them? Nobody I can think of.

Depending on the sources you examine, the total number of Knights of the Round Table seems to have started with 50 expanded to Malory's 150 to an unlikely 1600 in some.

So, by my count, that's 1 in 10 at best, 1 in 320 at worst.

(All that said, the whole thing about Commoner1 Paladin PrCl prereq was just a joke- I know the stories about the ones who came from higher station, but I keep citing the former farmers as examples in this thread!)

 

[Quickleaf]

Yes. Next question?

So the act of planning a military campaign with acceptable civilian losses is not an evil act, but planning an assassination with no civilian losses is evil?

Really, any answer you give is right. Because it's your answer. That's my point.

Yes. They must...and should before play starts...and share that with the players before dice hit the table to make characters. Thus, noone takes on an "alignment specific" class without knowing what they're getting into.

Ideally that makes sense, but in reality doesn't often happen. What about public play like conventions, living campaigns, D&D Encounters and so forth?

Um...well...Yes.


--SD

Problem solved! Time to close the thread.

 

[steeldragons]

. Ah, but by assassinating the few key figures in order to get policy changed, the assassin has, in effect, saved hundreds of lives. Both the paladin and the assassin had the same goal, but the assassin put aside his pride, and achieved it with minimal loss of life. The paladin, on the other hand, gets hundreds or thousands of young men killed in a holy war. He leaves hundred of families to grieve over sons that will never return home. He exposes thousands of innocent people to the horror of war. And for what? His own honor and pride? How selfish.

So the act of planning a military campaign with acceptable civilian losses is not an evil act, but planning an assassination with no civilian losses is evil?

Pentius this is Quickleaf. Quickleaf, Pentius.

The answer is still Yes. The assassination is an evil act. The paladin's war is not.

Are your arguments (killing one vs. killing and bringing horror and trauma to thousands) valid? Absolutely. In the real world. In the real world I would back you both 100%.

We're not talking about a real world. We're talking about characters in a fantasy world.

Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are real and palpable forces of the cosmos within the structure of the [or at least my] fantasy universe.

The paladin's war is not evil because the paladin is LG. He would (or should) only be going to war in defense or for some righteous/valorous/"morally superior" cause...most likely divinely condoned if not actually divinely incited. The war, itself, is an instrument of Law and Order to increase the "forces the Good" and/or bring down some great Evil.

Now, yes, as you both rightly point out, what happens in and after a war is often ugly, definitely chaotic and evil. But, ya know, this is a fantasy fiction we're talking about. In a "just war" led by a LG Paladin in the cause of the forces of Good...yes, what happens in the war is regrettable, but the ultimate cause of the Paladin's war is Lawful and Good.

The assassin? Taking a life for a few coins to line her pockets. <pulls out the big stamp and red ink pad>*STAMP!* Evil. The fact that the assassination stops a war from taking place does not somehow negate the act nor transmute it into one of Good.

...and pretty much across the board, the callous taking of life is viewed as a Chaotic act, as well. Not necessarily the case for our assassin here, their motivation could just as easily be "profit" rather than "promoting evil or chaos" or perhaps the assassin even feels morally justified because her killing prevents a war.

So she's riding the "clear conscience" train. That's great for the assassin. The act is still Evil...and, at the very least, non-Lawful if not outright Chaotic.

That is not to say there is no "grit". Yes, games can easily fall into moral ambiguity and situations may or may not arise that question a characters beliefs or ethical certitude.

How much a particular group enjoys those kinds of scenarios/plot elements is up to the individual group/people.

But generally speaking, Good and Evil are readily recognizable (and even "detectable" if they're not and "Right" and "Wrong" are pretty universal...in a fantasy world.

Ideally that makes sense, but in reality doesn't often happen. What about public play like conventions, living campaigns, D&D Encounters and so forth?

Well, I admit I have no experience with "public play" situations. Off the top of my head, I would suggest having a write-up of "Good/Evil, Law/Chaos" and what their meaning is in the game world, with the Alignment definitions and their general attitudes. Should all fit on a page, I would think.

Then, have a couple of extra sheets written up describing specific class orders/codes of conduct. No more than half a page, should be fine if I had to make a guess. I'd say, do one for druids and maybe two order of paladins for different gods (so whether someone wants a "god of battle" type deity or a "goddess of light and justice" type deity, you're covered), maybe one for monks if you use them.

So then, if someone comes in who wants to play a Paladin, hand him the page with the tenets/code/commandments of the Holy Knights of <insert deity name of choice>Shinyhappypeopleholdinghands</insert> and away you go. Everyone's on the same "moral" page.

Problem solved! Time to close the thread.

Indeed. Shall we? Let's do.
-SD

 

[Quickleaf]

Pentius this is Quickleaf. Quickleaf,

Hi Pentius *wave*

The paladin's war is not evil because the paladin is LG. He would (or should) only be going to war in defense or for some righteous/valorous/"morally superior" cause...most likely divinely condoned if not actually divinely incited. The war, itself, is an instrument of Law and Order to increase the "forces the Good" and/or bring down some great Evil.

The assassin's hit is not evil because the assassin is LG. He should only be killing a target for some righteous life-sparing cause. The assassination itself is an instrument of Law and Order to protect the "forces of Good" by taking out some great Evil.

The assassin? Taking a life for a few coins to line her pockets. <pulls out the big stamp and red ink pad>*STAMP!* Evil. The fact that the assassination stops a war from taking place does not somehow negate the act nor transmute it into one of Good.

You assume a motivation to the assassin that seems like just one of many possible motivations. Plenty of fantasy fiction has good aligned assassins or assassin-like characters. Vlad Taltos and Arya "the Cat" spring to mind.

Well, I admit I have no experience with "public play" situations. Off the top of my head, I would suggest having a write-up of "Good/Evil, Law/Chaos" and what their meaning is in the game world, with the Alignment definitions and their general attitudes. Should all fit on a page, I would think.

That made me chuckle.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Yeah, but without looking at the class' inspiration- at least in the case of this particular class- you don't get the understanding of why the class does what it does.

Sure I do. Looking at the paladin's class abilities, I see:

• He's good at melee combat.
• He has special abilities/powers with names that relate to Good, Evil, and/or divinity.

Therefore, I conclude that the paladin's purpose is to kick butt and take names in the name of morality and/or some god. I might want paladins to be more narrowly defined within my campaign world, but the class' abilities tell me all I need to know about paladins in general.

It did, but I was thinking specifically of having a prereq of Commoner 1, since so many of the exemplars I keep putting up are actual farmboys and farmgirls before becoming Swords of Gods.

That would be a cute PrC, but you know everyone would complain about the underpowered prereq.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

He's good at melee combat.
He has special abilities/powers with names that relate to Good, Evil, and/or divinity.

But you miss that the powers originate within and are entirely dependent upon an Oath. An Oath in the old-school mythological sense. In Irish legend, they'd call this a geas/geis.

This isn't just swearing to do something- this is an agreement that has inherent mystical power and that if broken, results in serious penalties- even for gods. This is something so different from a mere agreement that cultures all over the world have reserved a special opobrium for "Oath-breakers" in their legends.

Besides Paladins, you find stories in which an Oathbreaker is shunned- sometimes to the point of death- by members of his society. Or struck dead by a bolt from the blue sky. A king who breaks his Oath of Kingship might not only lose his legitimacy as a ruler, but crops may fail, rivers run dry and the people become enslaved, possibly for generations. Others may find themselves subject to eternal torture by the gods. In Greek myth, an oath sworn by the River Styx was so serious the fods themselves dared not break it- mortals who got such an oath from a god (such as Semele*) often wind up dead since the god could not act to intervene on their behalf contrary to the language of the vow.






* Semele asked Zeus to grant her a boon. Zeus, eager to please his beloved, promised on the River Styx to grant her anything she wanted. She then demanded that Zeus reveal himself in all his glory as proof of his godhood. Though Zeus begged her not to ask this, she persisted and he was forced by his oath to comply. Zeus tried to spare her by showing her the smallest of his bolts and the sparsest thunderstorm clouds he could find. Mortals, however, cannot look upon Zeus without incinerating, and she perished, consumed in lightning-ignited flame.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I have two, not exactly opposed opinions on Paladins, at least.

The Forbidden Kingdoms setting has the Chosen prestige class. One feature is the concept of sinning, which is an agreed upon code between the player and the GM. Unless you're using a real world religion, in which case, sinning is pretty much cut and dry.

HARP, on the other hand, says Paladins are merely clerics who chose the Combat skill category as one of their favored skill categories, thus removing the need for any concept of sinning/loss of powers.

I prefer both of those to the as written 3e and earlier paladin. No comment on the 4e version, because I have no frame of reference for that.

Now . . . monks. Well, it does take dedication to become a very good martial artist, as I'm learning in real life.

Forbidden Kingdoms has the Martial Mystic, a martial artist whose super powers are applications of psionics. They have a limited number of classes they can multiclass to freely. Any class not on that list means they can never advance as a martial mystic again, but retain class abilities from before then. I guess this okay for a psionic martial artist, because you're training your brain's powers as well as your body's.

HARP is unrestrictive in its monk area.