Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FreeTheSlaves" data-source="post: 3198973" data-attributes="member: 9952">I can certainly see the paladin being a poor soldier. As far as the combat fundamentals go they're better than great, the problem being that they're more complex than that.A pseudo-medieval/fantasy army is probably still going to resemble a late medieval army in structure and leadership. The leadership is going to also be political (no separation of military & civilian rule) and the structure made up of Lords and their own vassals. The political leadership could declare war on many politically justifiable grounds but the paladin takes a greater interest in the moral grounds: e.g. defending a sparsely populated outlying march from desperate barbarian refugees. The kings says this but moral values say that.Then we've got the structure problem. If said paladin doesn't care for the cause they may not answer the call. Furthermore they probably have greater influence than their non-paladin peers. If their lord commands them they are paralyzed by conflicting signals, hardly good soldier material. If they are a lord they simply play a bit of politics and as mentioned don't come to the party.I'd even think that the paladins in a kingdom could actually wield some influence on the ability to wage war. It could be that the king must consider their influence on the fighting spirit of the army before declaring war.All this aside, the in the classical fantasy threats of monstrous invasion the paladin would really shine very brightly. In such a scenario the cause is just and morality clear cut.As for the tactics side of things I don't see subterfuge or cunning being unacceptable. Combat is by definition unfair - the strongest win regardless of their cause. That however is not good enough for the paladin. They not only must win but they must also win in style.</blockquote>

Verification