Conceptualize the Paladin

[Voadam]

For you, is the paladin a unique concept in and of itself, or is it a broader concept like the cleric?

TS

A player in my game played an Anti-Paladin from 1e Dragon magazine long before any PC played a straight paladin. I really like having variant paladins and the general concept of various divine powered warriors.

When I see variants that are different from the chivalric LG knight I don't say they are not paladins. I consider Green Ronin's Unholy Warrior class a paladin type class, for example.

I also would be fine with an evil blood war paladin designed to fight enemy fiends with no class power changes besides the paladin alignment requirement and code. Anyone can have reasons to fight evil, including other evils.

As a player there is a lot about the specific paladin concept or mechanics I don't like so I usually seek out alternative variants.

For me, bring on the variety.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Where the Paladin/Cleric thing went off the rails in D&D, IMHO, was when the Cleric got to be a holy warrior as well.

The cleric in D&D started off as a holy warrior with weak spellcasting compared to the wizard. In BECMI, the spellcasting and turning were just enough to make up for a relatively minor (at the levels where the game was actually played) difference between the cleric and the fighter in combat ability.

In 2E, the cleric class was explicitly described as based on the military-religious orders of the Middle Ages (such as the Templars and Hospitalers).

It wasn't until 3E that the cleric's role became that of a primary spellcaster. Holy warrior was the role it had first.

 

[Kzach]

The paladin was originally intended as a fairly unique concept. With every step taken to broaden the concept I have found the "paladin" to be less interesting. When it was theorized (and apparantly popularly approved) that paladins should be allowed to be of any alignment I found the concept of a "paladin" of no further use or interest at all.

+1 for this as well.

To me, the image of a paladin will always be Sir Lancelot in the movie Excalibur the first time he meets Arthur. It's that iconic vision of the knight in shining armour that is an exemplar to all and a symbol of hope and all that is good and right in the world.

 

[op1983]

The paladin as a chivalris knight is fine as long as he is representing a good god.

I think of the paladin and cleric as the fist and hand of any given god. They can both represent the god and carry out what they believe the gods wishes are but they do it in different ways. Where the cleric might curse you the paladin will axe your face. Where the cleric might call upon the gods to smite you the paladin would axe your face.

I like idea of a paladin less like Sir Lancelot and more like all those crazies in the crusades who were "carrying out the will of their god."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Holy warrior was the role it had first.

I know, and I've always thought that was wrong.

 

[Drowbane]

IMC...

cleric: Holy Warrior, what the Paladin tried to be in 3e, the Cleric (with the right build) was... minus the Poke'mount. The D&D I grew up with was 2e with smatters of 1e stuff house ruled back in. Clerics were Knight Templar.

paladin: The rarest of holy heroes. In theory, could rise from any class.

priest: Any class can be "Joe-Priest". IMC, 80% of the priesthood are Experts.

edit: as of yet, I haven't figured out how to make a PrC Paladin. I don't want to emulate the PHB Paladin... at all (I gave Lay on Hands to Clerics). In my campaign, "Paladin" is a title, a rare honor.

 

[Aus_Snow]

A Paladin template, or maybe template class, could work for that kind of Paladin, Drowbane. In 3e, of course. With ultra-strict entry requirements and code of conduct, natch.

I dunno, really. Personally, I agree that a PrC can suit. I have done it that way, at times.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

This.

I prefer my Paladins to be the highest example of Chivalry, Decency, Justness, etc. - the typical knight-in-shining-armor of Western literature.

I second that. The cleric is the holy warrior of the game.

I also don't like the idea of directly associating paladins to gods and religious orders; the standard code of conduct should remain religion-neutral and tie the actions of the paladin tightly.

His powers don't come from servitude to a god, but from moral perfection (that's why I also stand by the 2E assumption that only human characters should be paladins, as characters from other races have their own set of non-human values moving their actions).

The 2E Complete Paladin's Handbook is one of my favorite readings from the whole D&D library; I believe its take on the subject is the best I've found, and the explanations on each restriction by the paladin's code are great for any paladin player.

Cheers,

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

His powers don't come from servitude to a god, but from moral perfection

Which, if you follow the RW inspirations for the class, is only possible by devoting yourself to God/gods.

Someone else may have a source that points otherwise, but every Paladin from history/legend/literature that I know has been inexorably linked to the divine. In that, they are a step beyond the knightly ideal- the Code of Chivalry is their starting point, not their goal- and their faith is what sets them apart from mere knights.

 

[Oni]

I've always viewed paladins as fanatics, the ultimate followers of a cause, whatever that cause may be, bound by their faith. The whitewashed paladin of editions past just one flavor of their potential spectrum.