Paladins in 3.5, why?

[Kevmann10583]

niteshade6, the reason that the "because it has always been like that" argument is a bad one is because one should look at ideas with a fresh mind. It is kind of like the ranger two weapon fighting thing. There is no reason for a ranger to have two weapon fighting, nothing in a wilderness fighter/rogue type or roleplaying has anything to do with two weapon fighting, yet there it is. Sure D&D is based on previous editions, but everything should make logical sense, that is just how it goes. The paladin core class may have been good for a fledgling AD&D, but now that people are playing more and more realistic campains (IE campains with just as much if not more evil then good, even in every day life) this heroic stereotypical class should go prc, along with the blackguard.

Henry, the holy warrior needs not be a paladin, it could be a cleric or a holy warrior replacement to the paladin, a warrior class that can be taken for any alignment and for any god.

Also, there is a difference between heros and epic heros. People like Joan of Arc are epic heros, the players in a D&D game are normaly just adventurers, that may stumble into somthing grand. Epic heros may have extraordinary powers or luck, but epic heros are very different from your standard party. So why should paladin be a standard core class?

And one more thing, I am SHOCKED to see how many people actually agree with me that paladins should be prcs, whenever I post things like this on the wizards board, I am normaly shot down from all angles!

 

[Sejs]

I'm with Hyp. I've seen the fullplate-and-big weapons paladins, but those arn't the only type.

I've seen Batman style avengers of injustice in the night -type paladins.

I've seen no-armor, rapier-and -buckler swashbuckler paladins

I've seen deposed rightful heir to the throne paladins, posing as a normal mercenary. Heh, we didn't even know he was a paladin until nearly the end of the campaign.

I've seen the sneaky Assassin/Bounty Hunter For Good type paladin (Paladin/Bloodhound.. supprisingly badass)

I've seen letcherous paladins, drunken paladins, and pacifist paladins.

I've seen the Hin Secret Police - FR strongheart halflings with levels in rogue, monk (hin fist), and paladin (of yondalla).


Paladins don't have to be only one type of rubber-stamp personality and M.O.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Of course you can play a "different" type of paladin- meaning you can use different armor and weapons... but that's about it.

I still disagree.

There are plenty of ways the Code can be interpreted and prioritised - and those priorities can mae for a completely different character.

The Paladin's deity also has a huge impact - a Paladin of a Lawful Neutral deity will have a different outlook to a Paladin of a Neutral Good deity.

-Hyp.

 

[Kevmann10583]

Sejs, you may have a very liberal DM, but there are some things you need to think about your so-called paladins.

Your Batman-style avenger of unjust in the night paladin actually may not have been a paladin at all. According to the code of conduct and alignment, the paladin should have worked WITH the law of the town. If the said system was corrupt, they would have started by cleaning up the law system first, then moving on. The type of paladin you describe, that use their detect evil ability to see if someone is evil the kill or arrest them, actually is not abiding by the law, and therefore is not lawful, and therefore gets no powers.

Ok, there are several combat styles a paladin can choose from, I am talking role-playing.

"Posing as a normal mercenary” I am sorry, but at some time he would have had to lie to keep this a secret, especially amongst a party which he traveled and stayed with for months at a time. If anyone said, "so Hal, what’s your story?" If he said anything else other than "I was brought up as a holy warrior of blah, blah, blah." He was lying, and if he lies he breaks the code of conduct, and therefore is forfeits his powers. Oh yea, and not saying anything and saying a half truth is just as bad as lying. It’s like watching someone murder another person, if you don't say anything to the police, you are just as bad as the other guy.

Assassin type paladin? Give me a break, it says in the code of conduct that a person must act with honor (and states that poison use is dishonorable). I don't know what your DM says, but assassination is not only unhonorable, but allot of times evil (go back to my using detect evil scenario). A true paladin does not assassinate, but challenges the person to a duel. If the person does not give himself up for arrest, and does not show up to a duel THEN and only then is the paladin allowed to kill the offending person AND only if the person has been proven guilty of a crime worthy of death. Remember, a paladin is just as much lawful as good, and believes that the law must be followed and upheld! I think that your "assassin" paladin, according to the book, is forfeit all his powers.

Lecherous paladin? You know that having affairs and the like is unhonorable, breaks the code, and is forfeit all his powers.

Drunken, I don't know how much you get drunk, by alcohol tends to make a person do things they would not normally do, especially if they reach the stage were they could be called "drunk". One slip up and upps, there went all your powers!

Pacifist paladin, must be VERY difficult to remain pacifist when it states in the book that paladins must "punish those that harm or threaten innocents" and trust me, there are a whole bunch of those around.

If your DM some how changes the rules to be more lenient, that is cool. But in any case, I believe this has significantly proven my case that paladin class is a VERY restrictive class, so restrictive it is not even CLOSE to being core material.

 

[Corinth]

"Lawful" does not equal "law-abiding".

 

[Kevmann10583]

Cornith, in most cases, you are correct. Lawful can mean some sort of personal code.

But, unfortunantly for paladins, according to thier code of conduct, they must "respect legitamate authority" which means the law of the land.

 

[DreamChaser]

but who's definition of "legitimate" are we talking when we say legitimate authority.

Thomas Jefferson claimed that any authority that does not act for the good of the people is not a legitimate authority.

DC

 

[Hypersmurf]

Drunken, I don't know how much you get drunk, by alcohol tends to make a person do things they would not normally do, especially if they reach the stage were they could be called "drunk". One slip up and upps, there went all your powers!

I'd note that there's an alcoholic paladin in 3E adventure published by WotC and written by one of the 3E Design Team...

-Hyp.

 

[niteshade6]

"niteshade6, the reason that the "because it has always been like that" argument is a bad one is because one should look at ideas with a fresh mind. It is kind of like the ranger two weapon fighting thing. There is no reason for a ranger to have two weapon fighting, nothing in a wilderness fighter/rogue type or roleplaying has anything to do with two weapon fighting, yet there it is. Sure D&D is based on previous editions, but everything should make logical sense, that is just how it goes"

Well the tricky thing here is that you can't look at all ideas with a fresh mind. If you did, then there's no reason to keep any of the traditional trappings of fantasy. Why bother having dwarves with beards and elves with pointy ears? Who cares if that's the way it's always done. Why not not give them all submachine guns and modern weaponry? Why bother with fire breathing dragons, and traditional spells like fireball? Why bother with anything at all? The answer is fantasy tradition. There is no logic behind it, it's not more logical for dwarves to have beards, it's just something that people like and are used to. To you the paladin may not be a traditional part of D&D fantasy, but to many people it is. This isn't a question about logic, In fact logic is quite out of place when discussing a matter of high magic and supernatural abilities.


"Henry, the holy warrior needs not be a paladin, it could be a cleric or a holy warrior replacement to the paladin, a warrior class that can be taken for any alignment and for any god."


This is true. However Henry the divine warhorse riding, ultimate servent of good (and not necesarily any god at all), who fights, lays on hands, and wields a holy sword does need to be a paladin. And for some people that archetype is as important to D&D as the wizard, cleric or any other. I can certainly understand how that's not the case for you, but I think you need to be more understanding of how other people feel as well.

 

[DreamChaser]

and aside from the "what is a paladin?" stuff that has happened in a billion and one threads so far...

the reason paladin is still a core class in 3.5 is the same reason it was in 3.0.

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Attack of the sacred cow!

It always has been so it always will be. We'd hate to steal away a class.

DC