Paladin Behavior?

[Lord Pendragon]

So a fighter can't be a hero?

Certainly a fighter can be a hero. Most good adventurers are heroes, since they so often put their life on the line for others. But a paladin is a very particular kind of hero. This kind. Not just a fighter with a Miss Manners book, as I stated before. The difference between a paladin and a fighter is, in part, that the fighter may choose to be a hero. The paladin is chosen.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Hey there Lord Pendragon. Hope you don't mind me stepping in and discussing what you may, or may not, have meant earlier.

Not at all. Though it was a bit surprising to have taken part in the conversation last night, only to come back to the thread today and find myself the topic of the conversation.

On the plus side, nearly everyone except Hong had a perfect understanding of what I was trying to get across.

 

[hong]

Insult isn’t argument. It is the specific evidence of a lack of coherent argument.

You can believe that if you like.

Therefore, you can use whatever words you like. The thing you should chiefly attempt is to use the correct words for the point that you wish to make.

I always use exactly the words I intend to use. In this case, small ones.

I had asked:

Does your entire point revolve around the mistaken belief that Lord Pendragon thinks the "hero shtick 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 shtick, but that somehow the hero shtick is all that it is?​

This is still not a question that you have answered. To say that paladins require the hero shtick is not the same thing as saying that the hero shtick is all there is to the class. It is not even the same thing as saying that the hero shtick is the basis of the class. You proceed from a false assumption.

Which part of "what is the difference between a fighter who is also a hero, and a paladin?" did you fail to understand?

Hint 1: The paladin as a hero who is chosen by an external force, as compared to a fighter, is not something that stands up to any scrutiny. I can just as easily play a fighter whose backstory involves being chosen by some external force. I can play _any bloody character class_ as a hero who is chosen by an external force. In fact, there are plenty of classes that would have a better claim on face value, just from their supernatural powers, for being favoured by some particular external force or other. The druid gets to shapeshift, the cleric gets miracle, the bard gets brain-bending powers, etcetera. If you go to splats, there is even a class whose backstory _explicitly_ involves being chosen by an external force: the favoured soul, in the MiniHB.

Equally true, you assume (or at least you argue on the basis of the assumption) that there is one singular hero shtick, wherein in reality there are several hero shticks. Robin Hood’s hero shtick is not a paladin’s hero shtick. Gandalf’s hero shtick is not a paladin’s hero shtick. Nor is Frodo’s.

Hint 2: I did not confuse the issue by introducing multiple meanings of "hero" (that was diaglo). Point me to any instance where I used "hero" in a way that could be construed as anything other than a synonym for "the heroic ideal", or "knight in shining armour". Do try to keep up.

Perhaps not. But, then, the entire use of the term “hero shtick” is only in context of your previous posts. I didn’t say being a hero was a shtick. Lord Pendragon didn’t say being a hero was a shtick. You said: “While the hero schtick is perfectly reasonable for a player to pick, it's also a very broad schtick”.

Do you even know what "schtick" means?

In fact, you flip-flop so frequently that one could easily do this:

(snip babble)

Hello in there. Being a stupid troll is MY schtick. Please NOT TO STEAL MY SCHTICK.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Hong,

I previously posted a link to a site summarizing Sir Galahad, the Knight of the Round Table who completed the Grail Quest. Another good example of the paladin archetype is Saint George.

Now, after reading your post (abrasive as it was) to Ravencrowking, I'm beginning to wonder whether or not I understand your use of the word "schtick." I'd taken it to mean archetype, but now I'm wondering if you don't mean "niche" instead. A unique role that the class can fill in the party. Is that the case? Perhaps if you defined more clearly how you're using the term, it'll be easier to discuss this. Oh, and please feel free to use big words. You're not gaining any more belittlement points by continuing with the small words, now it's just spoiling the flow of your posts.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Raven Crowking]

Fish

Removed

 

[hong]

Hong,

I previously posted a link to a site summarizing Sir Galahad, the Knight of the Round Table who completed the Grail Quest. Another good example of the paladin archetype is Saint George.

I'm perfectly aware of who Galahad, Lancelot, Gareth, St George, Roland, Oliver and Ogier are, not to mention Mandorallen, Imrahil of Dol Amroth and Paksne Paxenar Paksenna that chyk from Elizabeth Moon's books, if you feel the need to bring up more examples. My contention is that (with the possible exception of Georgie boy, depending on how literally you take the "saint" bit) none of these are characters you couldn't represent with the fighter class. In fact, if you wanted to be a s*mulationist, and think in terms of reproducing the actual abilities these people have in the source material, the fighter class is probably a better fit: none of them casts spells, can turn undead, or has a mount that appears and disappears with great convenience. What they do have in common is that they all swing a sword.

Now, after reading your post (abrasive as it was) to Ravencrowking, I'm beginning to wonder whether or not I understand your use of the word "schtick." I'd taken it to mean archetype, but now I'm wondering if you don't mean "niche" instead. A unique role that the class can fill in the party. Is that the case? Perhaps if you defined more clearly how you're using the term, it'll be easier to discuss this.

"Schtick" means "schtick" obviously, or I would have used another word.

The archetype of the heroic ideal is something that certainly has a place in a lot of D&D games. Heck, most of the characters I play fit that ideal to a greater or lesser extent; or at least that's what I intend them to be.

My point is that you need more than just an archetype if you want to build 20 levels of class progression. "Peasant hero" is also an archetype (and one that overlaps to some degree with the heroic ideal), but in terms of what you're actually going to build into a class, it offers precious little guidance. Being a peasant hero defines in narrative terms what role a character will play in a campaign. It doesn't define in _operational_ terms what that character will do from session to session. At most you could say that most peasant heroes swing a sword, but then most protagonists in fantasy stories tend to swing swords. You can have a barbarian peasant hero, a ranger peasant hero, a rogue peasant hero, and so on.

It's a similar story with the heroic ideal. The concept is one that you can certainly use to define a character's ethical or moral attitude, as well as what foes he or she will likely face. If you wanted to restrict the ideal only to knightly types like you mention, that might even allow you to say something about _how_ they might fight those foes (with a sword). Even so, like with the peasant hero, it's not really a specific enough concept that you can create an entire class with, not when you already have a class (several, in fact) dedicated to swinging a sword. Furthermore, if you were to take a broader viewpoint, there's nothing about the heroic ideal that explicitly says it must be limited to knightly types. As such, there's similarly nothing stopping someone of most any class from taking on that ideal. They would just use spells or whatever to do their job, as opposed to a sword.

Not to mention that the mere mention of the word "paladin" tends to bring out extremist views of alignment in everyone....

I would say that if you wanted to build a class that could be used as a representation of the "knight in shining armour" archetype, then the _knight_ business is probably a better starting point. You have a more concrete base to work with, in terms of class abilities; it's also more flexible, in terms of what you could use it for. While a knight _could_ be used to represent a paladin type, it could also be used for more morally ambiguous characters. There are plenty of noble/knightly warriors in fantasy fiction who, while not being as squeaky-clean as the stereotypical paladin, are still excellent source material for a character. You still have the problem of overlapping with the fighter's niche as the premier sword-swinger, but it's not an insurmountable thing.

 

[hong]

If you go back through Hong's posts, you will note that he uses shtick to mean either the class archetype or the class abilities, dependent upon the post (sometimes, though, he flips within the same post).

It should be mentioned that when one is in the barrel, it is not the waterfall that is tumbling around one.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

hong, thanks for taking the time to write a serious post.

I'm perfectly aware of who Galahad, Lancelot, Gareth, St George, Roland, Oliver and Ogier are, not to mention Mandorallen, Imrahil of Dol Amroth and Paksne Paxenar Paksenna that chyk from Elizabeth Moon's books, if you feel the need to bring up more examples.

I did not mean to suggest that you didn't know who Saint George was, or Sir Galahad. I've read posts by you elsewhere that lead me to believe you're a very learned individual. However, not everyone who reads this thread has your background, and since I was dropping names as examples of a "shtick" without going into greater depth regarding that shtick, I thought it sensible to link the name to a summary of the legend.

My contention is that (with the possible exception of Georgie boy, depending on how literally you take the "saint" bit) none of these are characters you couldn't represent with the fighter class.

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.

In fact, if you wanted to be a s*mulationist, and think in terms of reproducing the actual abilities these people have in the source material, the fighter class is probably a better fit: none of them casts spells, can turn undead, or has a mount that appears and disappears with great convenience.

But this can be said of any class. The ancient celtic druids could not (AFAIK) shapeshift or cast spells either. But those powers mesh well with the concept of the druid. Even as Lay-On-Hands and Divine Grace mesh well with the St. George concept of the paladin.

The archetype of the heroic ideal is something that certainly has a place in a lot of D&D games. Heck, most of the characters I play fit that ideal to a greater or lesser extent; or at least that's what I intend them to be.

Perhaps, then, I misspoke myself earlier. I must agree that a fighter, or any class, really, can be made to fit the heroic ideal. However, I think that the flavor of heroic ideal embodied by the various examples I, and you, have given is still worthy of a shtick. Mechanically, the paladin is the hybrid of fighter and cleric, even as the new Hexblade is the hybrid of fighter and sorcerer. Thematically, the paladin serves to embody those many myths of the holy knight that you listed in your previous post.

I would say that if you wanted to build a class that could be used as a representation of the "knight in shining armour" archetype, then the _knight_ business is probably a better starting point. You have a more concrete base to work with, in terms of class abilities; it's also more flexible, in terms of what you could use it for. While a knight _could_ be used to represent a paladin type, it could also be used for more morally ambiguous characters. There are plenty of noble/knightly warriors in fantasy fiction who, while not being as squeaky-clean as the stereotypical paladin, are still excellent source material for a character. You still have the problem of overlapping with the fighter's niche as the premier sword-swinger, but it's not an insurmountable thing.

The paladin archtype isn't morally ambiguous. That's what draws me to it. I'll admit that, in the sense of designing class abilities, _knight_ is more general than _holy warrior in the vein of Saint George and Sir Galahad_. But I think the second archtype is narrowly defined enough to suggest some abilities (holy powers granted by god), and a good game designer can do the rest. The current paladin is functional. Another edition or two and it'll be just about right.