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.
NO, I am speaking of, with game rules and precedence (prcs are specific, core classes are generalists). And yes, you CAN look at everything with a fresh mind, in fact it is silly not to. You should look at everything with a fresh mind, then wiegh it with precidence. If you find that there is no logical sense why the paladin should be a prc, then you should change it. But a spell that does a max of 10d6 fire damage in a twenty foot raidus is of the same power as every other third level spell of its kind DOES make logical sense to keep. You see what I am getting at.
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.
Hey, thats fine, but if I said that I thought that dragons are just as important as elves and dwarves and that it should be made a core race does not mean that it should. Why, because it is an uber class that does not have an ECL of +0 and only one hit die, it does not make LOGICAL sense for it to be a core race. Just like it does not make LOGICAL sense for such a restrictive and specialist class to be a core class instead of a prc.
I find this argument as nebulous as "it has always been this way." Why should everything make logical sense in a fantasy game? Are campaigns with ambiguous morals really the dominant form? It's as difficult a statement to prove as disprove. The default assumption of D&D is solid good vs. evil paradigms, and I have a strong feeling that the majority play with the default paradigm in mind.
Your right, in a fantasy novel nothing makes sense by standard phsyics rules. But D&D is a table top game, and like all games, it has rules, and these rules should make sense and logically form together.
Respecting legitimate authority does not preclude working outside the system of a corrupt or ineffective authority.
You are correct, I retract my previous statment. But remember, the paladin must have proof that a system is corrupt or else he has no choice but belive it is legitamite.
Acting with Honor does not preclude witholding information to avoid compromising your mission.
This however, is incorrect. A paladin should NEVER lie, and should never be in a mission that would require him to lie. If a Paladin has taken on a mission that would require him to lie, then he is not a true paladin. Also, no mission every REQUIRES you to lie, there is always a way around, and that is one of the fun points of playing a paladin.
Punishing those who threaten or harm innocents does not mean you have to kill (or even attack) them. Bringing them to justice could involve simply aprehending them or even just unearthing evidence of their evil acts and presenting it to the authorities.
Sure, I can see how every person who does an evil act will just willingly allow you to escort them to jail without a fight. Oh yea, and presenting evidence to local authorits is not punishment, and that is even if you can find evidence other then your own word.
There's nothing in the Paladin's code which is any more restrictive than his LG alignment, save that it is codified and therefore harder for a player to get around. If your DM was being strict about alignment choices, it wouldn't be that much simpler to be an LG Fighter than a Paladin.
No, a LG person does not always do lawful things, and does not always to good things. Sometimes, even though it may be few and far between, they do things that arn't lawful and arnt good. This does not constitute an alignment change because no-one is perfect, and it normaly requires several major actions (most of the time people go by the three strike rule) to change the alignment. Paladins however are especcialy difficult because you are a chapion of law and good, and sliping up just once can cost you the loss of all your powers. It is MUCH more difficult for a paladin.
"Respect" doesn't mean "law-abiding" either. To respect legitimate authority is to acknowledge it, not to abide by it; one can respect authority and still defy it.
No, this does not portain to paladins. If a authority is legitimate, then you must abide by it. WIth your thinking, a paladin could go "Hey I know murder is agaisnt the law here, but this orc walking down the street reaks of evil. I will just kill him right now, at least I ACKNOWLEDGED that it is illegal!" Realy man, this makes no sense. As I said before, if the authority is corrupt (and the paladin has proof of this corruptness) then hey may go against it, otherwise respect means abide.
