Paladin Behavior?

[diaglo]

Yes, OD&D paladins were fighting men, and yes they had specific ability score requirements. 3.X paladins are likewise fighting men, and have to retain a Lawful Good alignment, although the 17+ charisma requirement has disappeared.

sound like a PrC class to you? it does to me.

In AD&D 1st Edition, clerics and paladins gained their powers from their gods, and could lose them if their gods were upset with their behavior. The original Deities & Demigods tome addressed this, if memory serves. At that time, the god you chose could also limit the maximum level of clerical spells you could cast.

I may be wrong on this, but I believe that the idea of a special quest to restore paladinhood following a breach of the "Lawful" part of "Lawful Good" appeared first in the 1st Edition DMG. In those days, gaining a special mount and/or a holy sword also required a special quest (which, IMO, should have been retained). It was an Evil (not Unlawful) act that doomed a paladin to forevermore being a fighter with eight-sided hit dice.

1edADnD is not OD&D. it took the paladin and alignment and many other things and started to pigeonhole them. your examples are just the tip of that iceberg.

That said, not every adventurer in OD&D was heroic. Most thieves I ran into in those days simply could not be trusted -- changing the class name was a very, very good idea. Also, in those heady early days of "bash the door down and steal their treasure" a lot of characters could fall far short of the heroic ideal. But, in principle, you are correct in saying that the characters were the "heroes" in that they were the protagonists, and very many of them may have been heroic in the more conventional sense as well.

But, then, I am not suggesting that other characters cannot be heroic. If that is Hong's point, then he's preaching to the converted. However, the closest Hong has come to stating a point is in this post:

from what i read of hong's post. suggest you are using the word heroic as the be all end all for paladins only. and that is not the case in actual gameplay.

heroes of chaos or evil are still heroes.

Anyway, in recap:

(1). If your point is that any class can reach for the heroic ideal, then I agree.

(2). If your point is that the paladin is no different from any other class in this regard, I disagree. The paladin is the only class that specifically has consequences for failure in this regard. Even the cleric gets to switch gods and get on with it.

(3). If your point is something else, it needs to be stated a bit more clearly.

yes.. point 1. which makes your paladin archetype unnecessary.

point 2. all PrCs have consequences for failure.

3. no other points need to be explored although i can if you wish.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[hong]

Methinks you are compensating for something.

Or attempting to, anyway.

You can think anything you want, as long as I don't have to keep using small words.

You know, if you had stated this as your point a long time ago, it would have been easier.

I mistakenly thought I didn't need to use small words. I shall not make that mistake again.

Does your entire point revolve around the mistaken belief that Lord Pendragon thinks the "hero schtick good enough for paladin" without class abilities, etc.? Did you somehow understand what Lord Pendragon said to mean not that the paladin class requires the hero schtick, but that somehow the hero schtik is all that it is?

Clearly, and I really do think that this was clear from the beginning, Lord Pendragon's statement could easily be rephrased: "Paladins are more than just well-behaved good-aligned fighters. As a class, they are designed to embody the heroic ideal more than other classes."

Which is not only debatable (the biggest distinguishing factor apparently is that the DM gets to screw them over more freely -- how heroic), but a stupid way of doing things. It's like designing a class to be either a better or worse adventurer than other adventurers, depending on whether or not your campaign is meant to revolve around this ideal. The heroic ideal is not something that translates well into specific abilities, unless you do a lot more work to pin down exactly what you mean by it.

which seems to imply that your complaint is that the paladin's "super powers" are not unique enough. This is not exactly a coherent position. Moreover, it is a position that really leaves the druid, cleric, wizard, etc., in "schtick not good enough" mode because all of them "still smash orc skulls in the end."

Schtick is in _how_ you smash orc skulls. Druid smash orc skulls with funky druid powers. Cleric smash orc skulls with funky cleric powers. Wizard smash orc skulls with funky wizard powers, yadda. Being "hero" just say that you you smash orc skulls. Being "hero" not a schtick.

 

[hong]

First off, most of what you said in this post was not worth responding to. It had no informational value whatsoever. So, let's leap on down to the worthwhile bits, shall we?

Thank you for conceding you really have no idea what you're talking about.

As opposed to, say, serving the gods, fighting, sneaking, or protecting nature? The archetypical ideal behind any class can be role-played by any other class. How many spells does Gandalf really cast? A fighter with a few magic items could easily role-play the archetypical wizard. Merlin never casts a spell in Mallory.

If you think the D&D wizard as it exists in 3E is purely based on people like Gandalf and Merlin, you haven't been playing D&D. I can assure you that even with the host of magic items that the stereotypical 20th level character has, nothing can quite duplicate the array of powers a spellcaster has at their command. Trust me on this, I'm a statistician.

It is clearly in evidence that every character class relies on an archetype that every other character class can mimic. If that makes that archetype a bad starting point for a class, then all the classes have this problem equally.

Please. I can make a fighter that can use an item that casts a limited number of cure spells a day, yes. If you think that duplicates everything a cleric can do, then perhaps not enough people have spoken to you in small words.

In terms of class abilities, all classes -- including the paladin -- have access to abilities that can be mimicked (but not exactly duplicated) by other classes or multi-classed options. A fighter can have a ring of three wishes.

You used that word "easily" before. I do not think it means what you think it means.

A sorcerer can cast any spell a wizard can.

Let me tell you sometime what I did to wizards in my campaign.

Again, if this is your criteria, it applies to all clases equally.

Only for very twisted definitions of "equally".

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[diaglo]

you realize this is the first sign.

i never agree with hong.

in fact if you didn't quote him. i wouldn't see a word of what he is typing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

removed

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[DragonLancer]

When they discover the paladin and want the sword, he detects that the people he is dealing with are not evil, although they want it for their leader, who the paladin knows to be the BBEG, and very evil indeed. The rogue sells them the sword (and, admittedly, by this time, their hemming has allowed the FantiNazis to call in reinforcements) for 200 gp and a promise of "A thousand times as much" if they go to the court of the BBEG to pick it up.

Now, I am leaning toward "letting your friend sell the evil sword to the BBEG is a phenomenally stupid act, that is roughly neutral in and of itself" but I'm not 100% sure on this one.

Any thoughts?


RC

Getting back to the original topic... I would say that from what you have written here, that selling the very thing the BBEG wants to him, is a very stupid idea unless the players have some clever ploy up their sleeves. As Paladin can he really go along with that? I would say not. Giving this sword to the BBEG is most likely going to lead to the deaths of countless innocents.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed