Easy Paladin Poll

[Libramarian]

The LG Sir Galahad-style paladin is a great concept, but it doesn't really work as a PC in a traditional D&D game, in a party that has neutral or evil aligned members, and that's supposed to be motivated by acquiring treasure and magic items. I'm not sure if non-LG paladins are any better though. They're all fanatics for a cause, and fanatics don't play well with others.

Sure doesn't! It throws all kinds of wrenches into this campaign paradigm. But that's why I'm so intrigued by it...

I wish someone chose a paladin in my 1e game, but I think I kind of scared them off by reminding them that I would be strictly enforcing their alignment & conduct restrictions.

That's what I really like about the Paladin concept, and is even less likely to make a return than the LG-only Paladin -- I like the idea of the class being deliberately overpowered mechanically, but this is balanced by significant roleplaying restrictions like "You may never tell a lie" and "You must always defend the weak and innocent". The class would be fairly simple to operate during the combat portion of the game, but complex during the interaction portion.

Also I would restrict multiclassing (you can multiclass in, but not out), and have a fallen paladin become an anti-paladin or blackguard prestige class type thing, that you can only access in this way.

 

[CroBob]

I disagree wholeheartedly with making the paladin relatively overpowered in exchange for stringent social rules, especially if failure to meet the stringent social rules means the paladin becomes just a guy with a sword.

Any other person might take the same oaths, except they pay no mechanical fee for going against it. Why punish someone for how they role-play? At the very least, there should be fallen paladin rules that could give them compensatory powers if they forsake their old vows and oaths and whatever. Otherwise, they should be equal in power to all other classes.

 

[P1NBACK]

Is it just a mark of our cynical, secularized world that we don't believe in true goodness anymore?

Bullcrap.

This has nothing to do with a "secular" world view. No one is complaining about there being "gods that are actually real and perform miracles and blessings!" It's a frickin' fantasy game. Of course that makes sense.

People just think that you can have an Unholy Warrior or Paragon of Neutrality just as much as the altruistic Paladin.

Me, I personally prefer the traditional Paladin being LG. And, I'm an atheist. So, what does that tell you?

 

[Steely_Dan]

As I said on another thread (again, I will probably get flack for this), I would like a return to the more martially bent Lawful Good Cleric vibe.

I like that in Planescape there's a passage that describes that others may view them as "sinister agents".

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Reclaim the name of paladin!

Frankly, what deity you worship and what alignment you claim to be is secondary to me. In my eyes, you're not a paladin unless you've dedicated yourself to living your life according to one or more virtues. And I mean real virtues; stuff like compassion, courage, justice, sacrifice, honor. Get your virtues right, and stuff like how you behave and what god your serve (if you choose to serve one) will follow naturally.

Except that "to do neither extreme good or extreme evil" is not a virtue and thus alignment DOES matter as regards your concept of a paladin. Now I agree that virtues like compassion, courage, justice, sacrifice and honor are indeed the entire point of the concept of a Paladin, but those concepts point to ONE end of the alignment spectrum, not the entire breadth of it. Now, one doesn't need an alignment system to have paladins but one DOES need those virtues and an often difficult to follow code of behavior for a Paladin. I have no issue with the idea of a "holy warrior" character but while a paladin may be able to classified as just one type of "holy warrior" not every "holy warrior" is able to even approach the challenging ideals of a Paladin.

To take the idea of a paladin and assume that what makes him what he is is simply that alignment you don't understand the concept at all. Once you begin to deviate from the behaviors that the alignment EXEMPLIFIES you lose the concept rapidly and so it's always been inexplicable to me how people can champion the idea of "A paladin for every kind of deity", or "A paladin for every alignment."

However, since alignment is so easily misunderstood and abused the very concept of paladins is also too easily misunderstood and abused. Retaining that corner case of alignment only demonstrates having committed to those aforementioned virtues because actions determine alignment, not vice-versa. You don't lose the alignment until you lose the virtues it exemplifies but accordingly there can be only one alignment that is meaningful for the concept of a paladin.

 

[fuindordm]

Just some semi-random thoughts provoked by Aberzanzorax:

The LG paladin holds to a creed that denies many opportunities for personal reward. In the world, holy powers are granted to ensure the success of the paladin's mission. In the game, holy powers can be seen as a compensation for the temporal sacrifices the paladin makes to follow and exemplify the LG creed.

(Aside: We may argue that NG is "purer" good than LG, but an alignment with a N component is by definition one that allows for some flexibility in the face of difficult choices. Flexibility is not a bad thing, but "serve the greatest good in whatever manner is expedient" is easier than "serve the greatest good while upholding lawful and just government". In situations where a lawful government is making an unjust choice, the NG champion can simply rebel, whereas the LG paladin would find a way to root out the evil within the government, if possible, to turn it back to the good.)

So if we were to have paladins by creed, I would hope that alternative creeds could lead to in-game situations requiring the paladin to take a very difficult road to uphold the creed, at the cost of their personal wealth or honor.

Are the other corner alignments capable of supplying such a creed?

CG: The greatest good is personal freedom. These are the charitable libertarians. They want to do good, but respect your right to abstain. And since their own personal freedom is an example of the greatest good, what is there to prevent them from acting as they wish, as long as they do good? I don't see a difficult creed here. Anti-slavery and anarchism might be components of a creed with a cost, but only in a game world where LE governments and slavery are common.

CE: This is the alignment for sociopaths and solipsists. Only their own desires matter. Even if they are pledged to a demon lord, they will do whatever they can to enrich themselves within the scope of their bonds, and may struggle against their bonds and betray their masters. Again, not a creed requiring personal sacrifice.

LE: Respect the hierarchy, whatever the cost to yourself. If you don't like being on the bottom, then claw your way to the top. A LE character craves power and will do anything to get it. What does it mean for a PC to follow the creed of LE? It means obeying the orders of your superior, or your supernatural patron, without question. And since you're evil, you have no remorse--you'll do what you're told, whether it's planting a garden or razing an orphanage.

Your interpretation of the corner alignments may not be the same as mine. But I don't see any of them as supplying a creed comparable in difficulty to the paladin's, which puts the well-being of others always above their own, and so often forces them to take the more difficult road to their goal. Yes, it's a pain in the butt for the paladin's companions; which is why it's a class that should be taken only if the rest of the group is on board with playing heroes.

I'm also thinking about what it might mean to have a paladin of pure law or pure chaos, in the Moorcock sense. Binding yourself to a supernatural patron to gain powers in exchange for pursuing their agenda sounds like a cleric to me, not a paladin. (Marching orders from Arioch!) What is the creed that would call a human warrior to serve Law?

Frankly, I have no idea. I'm very interested in yours!

 

[TerraDave]

The alignment is a non-issue to me, since I ignore it anyway, but as far as Race and Class, who decides who gets to play the character they want to play, and who doesn't? I sure as hell don't want to be the DM saying that Player A can play his Paladin, but that means Player B must give up on playing an Assassin, or vice versa.

There are some design conceits that have to be in place due to the nature of the game. And all classes being designed to permit coexistence in a party should be one of them.

The DM should leave it to the players to work out...and thats the thing, there are circumstances were a classic paladin and a (almost) classic assasin could be in the same party, and circumstances they couldn't be, and thats ok.

 

[Daven]

I voted for Legal Good paladins, but really I would vote just for Good paladins. I don't care about law/chaos axis, indeed in my campaign there is only good-evil dichotomy.
But as paladins concern, I think they are champions of goodness, as blackguards of evil, and somewhat like "bohemian" characters being champions of free-acting neutrality.

There is not a real strictness about rules in my thougth: I think that alignment would be just a fluff thing in-game; however a description of a class could say about moral behaviour. An "evil paladin" is just an other thing.
Is a druid that burns forests out from the concept of that class? The same for a paladin that kills people for pleasure. It would be out of concept. Paladin of what? Of cruelty? Concepts are there, if we like to change them too much, it is better to create other classes.

 

[Doug McCrae]

LE: Respect the hierarchy, whatever the cost to yourself. If you don't like being on the bottom, then claw your way to the top.

Surely social mobility is chaotic? A LE peasant in medieval society would stay a peasant, he'd just be a very selfish, immoral, albeit law-abiding, peasant.

 

[dkyle]

The LG paladin holds to a creed that denies many opportunities for personal reward. In the world, holy powers are granted to ensure the success of the paladin's mission. In the game, holy powers can be seen as a compensation for the temporal sacrifices the paladin makes to follow and exemplify the LG creed.

I think it's a huge mistake to try to balance game mechanics through pure roleplaying limitations. Balance mechanics with mechanics. So whether or not other alignments can have limiting creeds or not should be irrelevant.