Paladin Behavior?

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[hong]

Fighters can be heroes. Paladins must be heroes.


RC

And if a fighter happens to be a hero, what is the difference between that and a paladin?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[hong]

Apart from the flavour text, the restrictions, and the special abilities, you mean?

From the post I was replying to:

The paladin is something rare and special--a hero in mind and spirit--and more than just a fighter who's a nice guy, and carries around a Miss Manners book in his backpack to keep from losing his powers.

The distinction is couched in terms of roleplaying and archetypes, not super powers.

So, I ask again: why can't a fighter be a hero?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[hong]

Yeah, well if you are talking about roleplaying and archetypes, a paladin is someone who has specifically allowed himself to have restrictions enforced not by himself, but by the gods, cosmos, or what-have-you, as to his behavior. It is the fact that the restrictions are not enforced by himself that is core to the concept, IMHO. It doesn't mean that someone else cannot be a hero. What it does mean is that the paladin must be a hero.

And if a fighter happens to be a hero, what is the difference between that and a paladin?

From a role-playing perspective, simply imagine that you lived in a world where the D&D rules were in force. You need help. There are these two adventurers: Joe has a great reputation as a fighter and a hero, whereas Jolene is known to be a paladin, who you know not only will take on your struggle in the name of justice, because it is what she is sworn to do, but is probably part of a larger organization who will probably take on that struggle should Jolene fall in the attempt.

Assumes facts not in evidence. There is nothing in the rules, and I'd even say nothing in most campaigns, that requires a paladin to be part of a larger organisation. Similarly, there's nothing preventing a fighter from being part of a larger organisation either. Furthermore, if you define things in terms of being on a Mission From Gawd, that's the (adventuring) cleric's schtick.

Joe is probably a wonderful guy. No doubt, in most cases Joe and Jolene will work together to end the dreaded Scourge of the Slavelords (or whatever). But, if it came down to making a choice.....The fact that Something Else stands behind a paladin means that the paladin is worth more as a protector than level alone indicates.

From the post I was replying to:

Originally Posted by Lord Pendragon
The paladin is something rare and special--a hero in mind and spirit--and more than just a fighter who's a nice guy, and carries around a Miss Manners book in his backpack to keep from losing his powers.

Nothing I can see there that says there is Something Else standing behind a paladin.

Of course you can play the fighter the same way. But if you are talking in terms of archetypes (as opposed to class abilities), you would still be using the paladin archetype.

So why have a paladin class?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[hong]

That is the point. AFAICT, LP is defining the paladin's identity solely by reference to the underlying archetype, without any mention of the super powers gained.

Now this is a valid thing to do, _if_ that archetype is narrowly defined and relatively exclusive -- so that not everyone could take it on. Eg the druid's schtick in 3E is as a shapeshifting, spellcasting nature-priest-hybrid. You can't have any random joe decide to take on that schtick just because they're of the right mindset. You have to take druid levels (or really work at your multiclassing, if you want to be nitpicky) to do it.

However, this isn't the case for the paladin. While the hero schtick is perfectly reasonable for a player to pick, it's also a very broad schtick: depending on the campaign, everyone or noone might be a hero. You don't have to be a paladin to be one. You don't even have to be a fighter type; you could be a wiz or whatever. It's an archetype that doesn't really work for building an entire class on, unless you mean to imply that everyone who isn't a paladin also isn't a hero.

This is the same problem that causes me to reject "adventurer" classes as unsuitable for a classed ruleset. Everyone is an adventurer; you don't need a special class to play one.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[hong]

One could just as easily say that the druid schtick is eco-friendly action,

One _could_ say that, but AFAICT noone actually does. The druid's identity is self-evidently more specific than just "ecowarrior".

and that anyone can do that,

Yes, everyone can do that. However, they won't get shapeshifting, spells, funky abilities like trackless step or poison immunity, etc. There is still something that distinguishes a druid from a random wilderness guy, in terms of tangible abilities and their place in the game world.

whereas the paladin schtick is "holy warrior who turns undead and heals".

And what is the difference between that and a cleric?

Heck, a bard can do a credible wizard archetype.

You'll note that bards are another class that people often have problems with.