Paladins in 3.5, why?

[Sanackranib]

paladin

I agree that the paladin should be a PrC, but there should be a squire or knight-errant class as a core class. If you look at midevil fantasy in both book and film there are many examples of knights and alot of them started off as squires or knight-errants. then some became paladins.

 

[Kevmann10583]

Due to more people posting while I was writing...

Why not offer both? Have the core class in the PHB, but then show an example of the Paladin as a prestige class in the DMG as an option. Of course, we'd have to wait until the next revision of the rules to do this.

This would be great, although I would like it the other way around.

don't understand the benefit of removing Paladin as a class just to replace it with another class. Wouldn't it be easier just to change the alignment restrictions?

No, even I think that changing the alignment restrictions of the paladin means that it is not a "paladin" anymore. I don't want to change who the paladin is, just make it a prc.

And just for clarification, I am just trying to say will all my points that the paladin class is SUPER RESTRICTIVE, in fact it is more restrictive then 90% of prestege classes. Core classes should be very general classes that can support hundreds of UNIQUE characters, at least tens of them. But unfortunantly, the paladin class, even if you manage to squeeze every loophool you find, you can only realy make less then ten origional characters. THAT is why it should be a prc.

 

[Goobermunch]

You shouldn't make burgers out of some sacred cows, no matter how appetizing they look.

The paladin is one of the archetypical fantasy characters. The knight in shining armor, surrounded by the power of his god, his cause, or his purity. The idea that a noble warrior would lose his power if he transgressed is integral to many fantasy stories and myths.

The paladin is a warrior unlike the fighter. The fighter is a professional soldier, capable of glorious feats, but all to often, a common mercenary.

The paladin fills an important role in the D&D system because he (or she) provides an opportunity to play the holy knight-- the warrior with a cause. There are mechanics for the role and, in addition, there is a built in code of conduct that describes how the warrior should act. The paladin is a necessary class.

Likewise, the blackguard is an ideal prestige class. No villain could be more foul than a knight who has turned his back on all that in which he once believed. To achieve maximum archetypical (and dramatic) effect, the blackguard must be a corrupt paladin. Logically, then that class is better suited to the shorter advancement of the prestige class.

That's why the paladin should not be a prestige class.

--G

 

[Nephet]

If any class qualified for a move to PrC it's the Paladin. However, I think it is also true that most Paladin's get their call early in life and that would indicate a core class or at least the need for a core class.

I don't like the multi-class restriction of the Paladin. There's no reason a Paladin can't gain other skills to aid in his cause. Perhaps the requirement should be that the Paladin levels always have to be the highest levels or the PC suffers a multi-class xp penalty.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I like paladins but I don't like prestige classes and won't take one. Guess that means that I want paladins to be available level 1 onwards. Much prefer customizing core classes over prestige classes.

Having 8 other warrior-type classes from the other alignment angles sort of takes the p!ss out of the paladin. I say that and I don't mean to offend, but lawful good is really important to the paladin concept and 8 other alignment classes would be like turning it into a different flavour of vanilla.

Paladins are not the temple guards of LG dieties, religious warriors (the npc class) are. Paladins are like all the core classes, rare and something special.

Multi-class combos are all right but the paladin concept requires, imo, a strong combatant, i.e. full bab and d10 hd. That and I don't like the wonky multiclass saves turn me off the whole multiclass deal.

Good idea Nephet, I'm thinking of reinstituting the favoured classes rule and once again, some restriction on paladin. I'll probably use that.

 

[Kevmann10583]

Ok, ok, let me offer you another situation to try and change your mind.

So the paladin is the holy champion of good. But then the evil and neutral guys are like "man, I wish I could have a champion of evil/neutrality to further our causes, but damn, I have to wait for six levels before I can have a champion. I wish I knew why."

You see, why should good be able to have a core champion and neutrality and evil left out, having to wait at least six levels. If a paladin is called to do good, then why can't a person be called to do evil, or to keep the balance of good and evil in the game? This is yet another reason why this doesn't make sense. We can have a prc champion for every alignment and people wouldn't care, that is the point of prcs, to have alot of specifications everywere. But it is unbalanced and unfair that good gets a core champion and evil/neutral does not. So, their is only two options, ether create two new core classes that are champions of evil/neutrality or just make the champion of good a prc, which one is easyer?

 

[Corinth]

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.

The paladin serves a higher law than any mortal power may claim, and as such is empowered to execute that law when and where such action is necessary. A paladin may, can and should defy a mortal authority--legitimate or otherwise--if that authority interferes with the execution of the paladin's holy mandate. In other words, if the paladin uses detect evil upon the orc and the orc registers as positive then the paladin would be derelict in his holy duty to not slay that orc so he ought to defy that mortal authority and instead abide by the immortal, holy authority that invested him with his powers. This is what it means to be a paladin.

 

[Kevmann10583]

The paladin serves a higher law than any mortal power may claim, and as such is empowered to execute that law when and where such action is necessary. A paladin may, can and should defy a mortal authority--legitimate or otherwise--if that authority interferes with the execution of the paladin's holy mandate. In other words, if the paladin uses detect evil upon the orc and the orc registers as positive then the paladin would be derelict in his holy duty to not slay that orc so he ought to defy that mortal authority and instead abide by the immortal, holy authority that invested him with his powers. This is what it means to be a paladin.

MY GOD, killing anyone in cold blood without proof of a crime is EVIL. Your telling me that seeing a palden in the street slaughtering people as they walk by should be a normal sight? What kind of pills are you takeing. And there is at least one spell I know of that makes you apear as though you had another alignment. I am sorry, you realy need to think about what you just said.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Kevmann10583, do you see these 2 concepts as warrior-types as well?

I take it you'd want them to have a spiritual dimension?

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I think what could work would be a generic "devoted" class that starts at level 1. You select a "devotion" initially and that gives you your role and powers.

Monte Cook is giving us the champion(?) class in his upcoming AU. The champion can be used to build a paladin and many other concepts fair and foul.