Easy Paladin Poll

[Mercule]

Paladin: (2) any knightly or heroic champion; (3) any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause.

Noble: (4) of an exalted moral or mental character or excellence

So, a heroic champion of exalted moral excellence. Sounds about right, to me.

To expand:
I think a Paladin theme would be the way to go -- if themes weren't just feat groups. As I said in the other paladin thread, I played a 3e rogue/acrobat who was generally referred to as "the paladin" by the other players because he was LG (yeah, we broke a rule), devout, honorable, and had an epic broomstick up his kiester.

Some of the powers and attributes of the paladin could correspond to champions of other alignments, but they just don't quite work across the board. I'm not sure an evil champion cares about detecting good or evil so much as they might appreciate being undetectable or, alternately, exuding fear at will. And, just why would a devotee of Gruumsh be able to heal? Inflicting doesn't quite cut it, either, because this isn't supposed to be a simple fighter/cleric with power from their god. They have so fully pledged themselves to their worldview or religion that they leave ripples in the world around them.

That devotion is quite conscious and willing, too. If we take the champion of Gruumsh, this is not just some brute who believes he is taking just vengeance on the elves for an ancient slight. He is quite aware that he has embraced evil -- maybe even more so than Gruumsh himself, blinded by hate. When Gruumsh crushed every elf and Corellon, himself, under orcish boots, an orcish cleric or chief's hate might cool and his attention turn to the brutish benefit of his people. An anti-paladin would look for a new way in which they could grind down that which is just, right, and good in the world.

A LE champion might seek to establish a new order, but it wouldn't be because that order was more "fair" or because "his side" would be in power. It would explicitly be because it would increase suffering. A CE champion would seek to all but throw creation into the Abyss and let Entropy have its way because there would be no order or good. Either way, there is no way I'd let these be standard PC options. If played correctly, they would result in some disturbingly depraved games that would only be entertaining for sociopaths. If played poorly, they would be just pathetic (again, probably only entertaining for sociopaths).

I say keep the paladin as LG only. Best option is to make it a lightweight kit/theme/package/subclass of fighter (or general purpose) and be done with it in a single page.

 

[Incenjucar]

So, a heroic champion of exalted moral excellence. Sounds about right, to me.

To expand:
I think a Paladin theme would be the way to go -- if themes weren't just feat groups. As I said in the other paladin thread, I played a 3e rogue/acrobat who was generally referred to as "the paladin" by the other players because he was LG (yeah, we broke a rule), devout, honorable, and had an epic broomstick up his kiester.

Some of the powers and attributes of the paladin could correspond to champions of other alignments, but they just don't quite work across the board. I'm not sure an evil champion cares about detecting good or evil so much as they might appreciate being undetectable or, alternately, exuding fear at will. And, just why would a devotee of Gruumsh be able to heal? Inflicting doesn't quite cut it, either, because this isn't supposed to be a simple fighter/cleric with power from their god. They have so fully pledged themselves to their worldview or religion that they leave ripples in the world around them.

That devotion is quite conscious and willing, too. If we take the champion of Gruumsh, this is not just some brute who believes he is taking just vengeance on the elves for an ancient slight. He is quite aware that he has embraced evil -- maybe even more so than Gruumsh himself, blinded by hate. When Gruumsh crushed every elf and Corellon, himself, under orcish boots, an orcish cleric or chief's hate might cool and his attention turn to the brutish benefit of his people. An anti-paladin would look for a new way in which they could grind down that which is just, right, and good in the world.

A LE champion might seek to establish a new order, but it wouldn't be because that order was more "fair" or because "his side" would be in power. It would explicitly be because it would increase suffering. A CE champion would seek to all but throw creation into the Abyss and let Entropy have its way because there would be no order or good. Either way, there is no way I'd let these be standard PC options. If played correctly, they would result in some disturbingly depraved games that would only be entertaining for sociopaths. If played poorly, they would be just pathetic (again, probably only entertaining for sociopaths).

I say keep the paladin as LG only. Best option is to make it a lightweight kit/theme/package/subclass of fighter (or general purpose) and be done with it in a single page.

This is all just a straw man. There's no reason that a LE paladin of tyranny has to actively seek to cause suffering as a primary goal. It's not the alignment of OCD Torture where you have to break each toe in a specific order or something. Even CE can be something like a universal anarchist that wants to bring the whole universe down not out of a desire to be a jerk but because they consider that to be the ideal state - someone who would get along well with a slaad. Not to mention all the non-Evil, non-LG alignment options.

As for sociopaths. Grats. You just called every GM and world designer a sociopath.