Paladin Behavior?

[FireLance]

To use Hong's terminology, to me, the paladin's schtick is that he gets funky powers because he acts like a hero. Any class can be heroic, but only the paladin translates his devotion to heroic ideals into actual class abilities. Does this cause problems when a paladin player and his DM don't agree on what is heroic? You betcha. That's why we have so many "Should I take away the paladin's powers?" threads here on ENWorld.

[Shameless Plug]For assistance in relieving paladin player-DM headaches, see my Oathsworn Paladin and Moral Dilemma Resolution Mechanic, both linked in sig.[/Shameless Plug]

 

[Voadam]

For me, this is not the case. Sir Galahad was not a fighter. He was pure enough, and good enough that he was able to recover the Holy Grail where others failed. His is an example of the extremely high-standards paladins are held to, IMO. He is also a warrior of god, which is one of the key concepts for my interpretation of the class. A fighter who worships god is not quite the same.

Here I think your argument breaks down.

You are saying he is an example of the high standards paladins are held to so he can not be represented by a fighter.

Now a good fighter can certainly be someone who only "worships god" but does not meet the paladin standards. Alternatively a fighter can dedicate himself and his life to God and be as pure as any paladin. There is nothing to prohibit a fighter from being played in all ways like a paladin ideal, including religious devotion. The only difference would be in class powers, bonus feats versus lay on hands and disease protection, etc. Same thing with a good cleric.

Meeting the heroic paladin ideal is a roleplay aspect that any character can do. I've played a noble rogue fencer who was LG, religiously devoted to a good church and championed good causes and fought evil without reservation at all times. He could have been a paladin, but I simply chose to work through the rogue class.

 

[Voadam]

I should also point out that I think there is a sufficient niche for the paladin class, although I would discard the code and ex-paladin stuff.

Clerics are divine spellcasters.

Paladins are fighters with powers, I like their smites and protections and cures and turning, but not their very minor spells.

That is a niche that is distinct from fighters as pure non-supernatural warriors and distinct from clerics as top tier divine spellcasters.

Now Paladin in this niche is not necessarily the heroic ideal or even good and clerics as written are arguably better at filling this niche if you don't mind considering spells as powers, since clerics have the heavy armor, OK combat class aspects and martial oriented powerful spells that can pump them up to massive combat heights.

 

[billd91]

Here I think your argument breaks down.

You are saying he is an example of the high standards paladins are held to so he can not be represented by a fighter.

Now a good fighter can certainly be someone who only "worships god" but does not meet the paladin standards. Alternatively a fighter can dedicate himself and his life to God and be as pure as any paladin. There is nothing to prohibit a fighter from being played in all ways like a paladin ideal, including religious devotion. The only difference would be in class powers, bonus feats versus lay on hands and disease protection, etc. Same thing with a good cleric.

Meeting the heroic paladin ideal is a roleplay aspect that any character can do. I've played a noble rogue fencer who was LG, religiously devoted to a good church and championed good causes and fought evil without reservation at all times. He could have been a paladin, but I simply chose to work through the rogue class.

Not only did your character choose to work through the rogue class, but was trained in the rogue class skills. That's one thing people are forgetting when they talk about the difference between a fighter and paladin and whether just acting heroic would be enough for the fighter to horn in on the paladin's schtick. Every character has a background and that background includes specific training and choices made by that character. The fighter may act, in play, like a paladin, but the character did not enter the paladin class and thus did not get the same training, take the same oaths, whatever is involved in that pre-generation aspect of the character. And that makes a difference. That's why the fighter who otherwise acts like a paladin is not a paladin and why he doesn't qualify for the same powers even though he hold himself to the same behavioral standards.
The player makes the choice to not play a paladin class character but elects to behave much the same way. And so he has different options open to him than the paladin player does as far as developing the character. In game terms, the fighter who behaves like a paladin chooses to toe the same line but have other options in front of him, generally oriented toward improving his fighting skills faster than the actual professional paladins, who end up devoting some time to mastering their other powers.
In the real world, I could devote myself to raising good kids and living my life frugally and with integrity, helping other people when I am able to do so, sometimes at significant cost to myself. Other people might choose to do the same. And yet I might be a medical software tester and someone else might run clinical trials on new medications. We are both fighting for better and safer patient care, living similarly moral lives, and yet doing different things, with different skills.
We aren't stepping on each other's schticks at all (which is something I don't believe is bad in D&D even if it happens).

 

[Voadam]

Bill, my point was that those who are classically portrayed as paladin archetypes can be portrayed in game terms other than the paladin class. Obviously they will have different class powers, because they are different classes. Sir Galahad the pure as a LG fighter in a D&D game works though. Questing for good and worthiness of the grail is based on goodness and purity, not class.

As for your point about the pregeneration stuff, well the background flavor text for training can be tailored easily. A paladin could be a peasant with no training who feels called and becomes a champion paladin (Joan of Arc) or a fighter's background could be as a church champion with oaths sworn, etc. he just doesn't have divine powers but still has a code and devotion to goodness etc. A person who is called and granted powers by goodness could be a paladin or mechanically a sorcerer and work as a concept in D&D.

Any differences based on background training for classes that effects more than mechanical class powers is campaign specific.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Voadam]

Inevitably, someone who enjoys playing the more general archetype will want the class abilities of the narrowly focused archetype without having to pay the cost. Voadam, for instance, "would discard the code and the ex-paladin stuff." The answer is simply that the limitations are a part of the archetype. "A paladin must be heroic" is part of the paladin shtick. "A paladin might be heroic" is not.

Dazzle us all with lists of mythological/literary characters who might partake of (to a degree) the D&D paladin archetype. We applaud your research, and your ability to use Google. Demonstrate again how any character of any class (except, of course, druids and bards, who have their own limitations) can play the heroic ideal. Good. If you're going to play that ideal anyway, then the code isn't really a hinderance. However, if you don't intend on playing that ideal, you don't intend on playing the paladin archetype, and the paladin class shouldn't be weakened by opening it up to all alignments/behavioral outlooks.

It's easy to say, "I try to play all my characters as close to the heroic ideal as possible." It is harder to say "I am going to play this character as close to the heroic ideal as possible, and I am going to sacrifice a portion of his free will to do so." Because that is what the code is. That is a big part of the paladin's shtick. The paladin sacrifices a portion of his free will. If the DM is good, this can be really fun. If the DM is not so good....well, not so fun, right?

Does this mean that the game should be reduced to an even lower common denominator? Personally, I don't think so. Will the paladin's code mean that sometimes DMs will have to carefully consider the behavior (and rammifications thereof) of certain characters? Sure. But, IMHO, this isn't a bad thing.

. . . . [SNIP] . . .

At this point, my friends, we are not talking about shtick. We are talking about class powers, who can get them, and how. After all, the mere mention of the word "paladin" tends to bring out extremist views of alignment in everyone....and while most of the characters I play fit the heroic ideal to a greater or lesser extent, wouldn't it be great if the class were more flexible, in terms of what you could use it for? By which I mean, more morally ambiguous characters?

In other words, "Why should I have to be Lawful Good and follow this code to get these powers?"


RC

First off, yes, as a DM I would prefer to discard the alignment and code restrictions on the class. It sets up the potential conflict between DM and Player interpretations of both. It places the DM in the role of judging the paladin's actions instead of setting up the world for the party to adventure in.

If there is a disagreement between the Player and DM over what is acceptable behaviour this leads to ill will and players getting either in-game class powers docked or playing their characters in ways they don't want to, or feeling more restricted than necessary. Reasonable people can disagree over what constitutes violations of the code or evil actions. It is when you think you are playing a paladin right and the DM doesn't that serious ill will can be generated.

If the powers of the paladin class in D&D Diablo were actually workable I would consider it a superior paladin (Heroic paladin class appropriate menu of class powers with heroic knight order background but no mechanical roleplay restrictions) to the PH one (code and rule mechanic roleplay restrictions).

I would argue the paladin archetype and Schtick can be easily portrayed as a divine knightly champion. Viewing it as roleplay restrictions is also valid, but I think a poorer one for a game concept because of the possible moral interpretations conflicts.