Paladins in 3.5, why?

[Ranger REG]

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.

Because that would confuse and anger both sides of this debate. In fact, the mere mention could incite a riot.

You see, when it comes to Dungeons & Dragons, there is no such thing as a compromise.

 

[ShadowX]

I personally think that instead of making it a PrC they should just make you the alignment of your chosen deity and adapt a code from your deity's goals and views. Of course you would have to change a few class abilities, such as "smite opposite alignment" and making lay on hands a harmful touch attack for evil, but it is rather easy to do. Anyways if you feel that strongly about then make it a PrC in your campaign, thats what a house rule is for.

 

[Corinth]

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.

You're not thinking things through. A paladin is a mortal being that receives a call from a holy divine being to take up arms and make war upon all that is evil, and he receives an investment of divine power so that he may execute this holy mandate. One of those powers is the power to detect evil, and this power works as per the spell of the same name in the PHB. The spell removes all doubt that a being is or is not evil, so there is no moral issue; the paladin may slay that being without worry. The only issue for a paladin is what evils to slay, and when to slay them.

(Note: There is no spell in the core rulebooks that may make anyone's alignment falsely detect as evil, so the horrific circumstance that you imply cannot happen; the worst that can happen is that an evil being escapes detection because he masked his alignment with the aid of an undetectable alignment spell.)

 

[Scupper]

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.

Um, not really.

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.

Here's some logic: If the paladin is so specialized that it is unlike any other core class, then it follows that no other core class can adequately model the paladin class. Thus, people who want to play a paladin cannot, if it is made a prestige class.

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.

I think you are unclear on the definition of "logical." It does not mean "in accordance with my opinion."

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.

Show me the part of the paladin's code that says he cannot have suspicions, hunches, or simple misgivings about the legitimacy of a particular government. By your logic, no paladin could ever believe a system was corrupt, because to even look for corruption, he'd have to have a suspicion that the system was not legitimate.

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.

Where did I say he should lie? I said "withold information." Are you saying that a Paladin, asked about his past, cannot say "I prefer not to speak about my past?" Personally, I don't subscribe to such a cartoony view of paladins. They would be utter laughingstocks in anything other than open warfare. What about a paladin asked "where is the secret chamber holding your order's most valuable artifact?" Is it inadmissable for him to withold information in that case?

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.

Do you know what a "policeman" is? What do you think the ratio of suspects shot and killed is to those brought in peacefully? Some people will actually surrender to authority that has the threat of force behind it rather than fight to the death.

No, a LG person does not always do lawful things, and does not always to good things.

Note that I said "if your DM is being strict about alignment choices." If he is, then by definition a Lawful Good character does lawful and good things, otherwise his alignment shifts to one more appropriate for his actions.

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.

I think I didn't express this point very clearly. There isn't much difference, practically speaking, between playing any Lawful Good character and playing a Paladin, with respect to the moral choices your character must make. Even if you go by "three strikes" for the non-paladins, that's only two more strikes than a paladin gets. Not exactly a world of difference.

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.

I'd like to see lists of the hundreds of different druid, bard, and monk archetypes out there, but here's some Paladins off the top of my head:

1) Diplomat (rogue/paladin)
2) Honorable Guardsman
3) Questing Knight
4) Travelling Justicar
5) Spreader of the Faith (cleric/paladin)
6) The Good King's Sword Arm
7) The Fiend Hunter (ranger/paladin)
8) Undead Slayer
9) Fighting Chaplain (a paladin among fighters)
10) Healer (Paladin/Cleric)
11) Crusader against an enemy nation
12) Champion of a Sacred Site
13) Templar (Paladin/Cleric)
14) The Redeemer (bring em back good, rather than dead)
15) Orphan in search of his past
16) Father in search of his lost family
17) The Rebel against the Dictator
18) The Cleanser of Corruption in his church
19) The Warden of the Forest (ranger/pal)
20) Retriever of Lost Relics

"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."

Easy, because you can't have a Paladin. The idea behind the class of Paladin is that a person of unwavering faith and devotion to law and good taps into a force simply unavailable to those whose lives are anything less. Just because there is a force for good, there doesn't automatically have to be a corresponding one for evil, or vice versa. There's no "good" equivalent of a night hag.

 

[Olive]

I love threads that set themselves up as "agree with me or you're not following the idea of the thread"...

I like the Paladin as a core class, and I don't care if it's changed or not. I use the holy warrior class from BoTR to create other holy warrior types IMC, and that works fine. I really don't understand why people get so upset about it all. It's not goign to change, so use other sources. That's the whole point of the OGL and d20: if people don't like the core rules, they can use other sources for the rules. Good, isn't it.

 

[drothgery]

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?

It's also not balanced that there are far more evil monsters than good ones, and one could argue that there is a core champion of Neutrality in the Druid, but that's not really the point. Almost no one delibrately sets out to do Evil; evil characters typically are simply doing what's best for themselves, and unconcerned with costs to anyone else. Evil in itself isn't an ideology that people aspire to; it's one embraced in order to gain power; no kid wants to grow up to be a champion of Evil.

On a minor but related tangent -- I really dislike the core Blackguard because he's too much of a dark-mirror Paladin, IMO; the champion of an Evil deity should have powers that are radically different than the champions of Lawful Good, not the paladins powers with the words good and evil switched.

 

[Hejdun]

Well, while we're on this whole discussion, let's make Monks, Sorcerors, Rangers, Bards, Barbarians, and Druids PrCs too. After all, those are specific archetypes also.

Bard - A rogue that can sing and cast spells. Rogue/Wizard fills that niche fine.

Monks - Fighters with unarmed combat feats up the wazoo.

Sorcerors - Wizards.

Rangers - Fighter/Rogue specialized in TWF.

Barbarians - Fighters with big axes.

Druids - Nature clerics.


Seriously, the paladin isn't worse than any of those. The paladin is just as much a Fighter/Cleric as a bard is a Rogue/Wizard. Does that mean the bard should also be a PrC? The fact that paladins are specialized doesn't mean that they should be PrCs, otherwise Rangers should also get kicked down to PrC status.

The paladin is still a far cry from previous editions' paladins. The Code of Conduct basically says:

1) Don't be evil.
2) Respect good laws.
3) Don't cheat.
4) Don't lie.
5) Don't use poison.
6) Help the needy.
7) Punish evil.

That's it. That's the code. If you follow those 7 things and remain Lawful Good, you can be a paladin just fine. This leaves a lot of leeway, in fact, the only real things that are different from any other Lawful Good characters is the no cheating, no lying, no poison shtick.

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."

Well, here's one answer from the 2e Complete Paladin's Handbook:

Good and evil are not merely mirror images of each other. Just as the forces of evil have their unique champions, the paladin is intended as a unique champion of good. The paladin originates from a tradition of dynamic balance, in which the forces of good are few and elite and in which the forces of evil are numerous and of lesser quality."

But, if you demand that there be an evil counterpart to paladins, then I demand that there be good counterparts to:

Allips
Barghests
Bodaks
Chimeras
Devourers
Driders
Trolls
Umber Hulks
Vampire Spawn
Will-o-Wisp
Winter Wolf
Worg
Liches
Vampires
etc.

The argument "if good has it, why doesn't evil?" doesn't hold water, because otherwise there would be counterparts to everything. Why aren't there good trolls? Or vampires? Or Liches? Ad nauseam.

 

[Sejs]

*nana-nana-nana-nana* ... Long Post!

Because I'm a big sucker for debates on these sorts of things, my reponse:

^_^

1)

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.

They fight injustice, he fights injustice - I see no conflict of interest. Nothing about a paladin says they have to work hand-in-hand with anyone. Particularly if he could easily get into places they couldn't.

If the said system was corrupt, they would have started by cleaning up the law system first, then moving on.

First - not necessarily. Also? Yes.

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.

If they were just running around and using Paladin-Radar, then attacking anyone who pinged positive for evil, they I would agree. Detect Evil isn't faultless - it's a nice foot in the door, but it's not the be-all, end-all of spotting bad guys. Also not that individual local laws have no bearing on a paladin's powers. If local law states that you can't wear a red hat on tuesdays, under punishment of imprisonment (say the local duke is red/green colorblind and is terribly insulted by red hats)- a paladin that wears a red hat on tuesday does not lose their abilities.


2)

"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.

"What's your name?" Reis. Reis Hioun. "What're you doing out here?" I'm traveling. "What do you do, Reis?" I'm a sword for hire. "That's interesting, we could use another sword in this Such-And-Such quest if you'd be interested." Sure.

Problem?

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.

Nope. Not every time that someone asks "Hey, 'sup?" are you required to belt out your life's story.

Oh yea, and not saying anything and saying a half truth is just as bad as lying.

No, they're quite different things. Saying nothing is just that.. you say nothing. Telling a half-truth isn't lying as long as you don't say something that is expressly un-true. "Did you kill this guard?" No. (the serving girl killed him, I just watched) <~ was a party to the killing of the guard, but did not kill him; is therefor not lying to that question.

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.

"Did you steal these loaves of bread?"
(Whole Truth): No, Partholo did to feed the children he takes care of.
(Half-Truth): No.
(Lie): Yes, I did.


3)

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).

A) who said anything about poison? B) I said Assassin/Bounty Hunter-For-Good type. I did not say just assassin.

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).

So if I steal into the Evil Overlord's stronghold, bypass his hired guards, disable his traps, and CdG him while he sleeps, after confirming it's the right guy visually and with Detect Evil, then I'm evil? I don't bloody well think so.

A true paladin does not assassinate, but challenges the person to a duel.

Bullfeathers. A paladin can ambush, flank, coup de gras, snipe at, sneak past, or blackjack someone just as freely as the next guy. A paladin does not have to march up openly to every opponent, declare themselves and then challenge said opponent to a right and honorable duel. They have the option to, should they so choose, but it's not required

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.

A paladin is not a parole officer. If I'm a paladin and just stopped some guardsman from brutally raping some peasant girl who was screaming for help, I can beat the sob into a pulp, and turn him in, or I can just pull him off the girl and run him through then and there. If I stop a person from burning down an occupied hospital, I don't have to issue him a subpoena. I just need to stop them.

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.

I fail to see where the words "blindly follow" or "without thinking about the situation" apply to a paladin anywhere in the books. Lawful does not equal local laws. Lawful good does not equal lawful stupid.


4)

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

I'm single, she's single - where's the affair? Who says a paladin can't be a horny skirt-chaser? It's not related to his alignment in any way.


5)

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!

One slip up (and it'd have to be a pretty dang -bad- slip up), and there goes your powers. One exp cost-free atonement later, and hey look! They're back again. Also, not all people totally lose all their inhibitions when drunk. And being a bottle-tipper doesn't mean you get totally and utterly 'faced whenever you drink. A paladin who hits the sauce and does his Do-Gooding through a nice comfortable buzz is still a paladin.


6)

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.

There are degrees to pacifism, for starters. While I personally wouldn't play a pacifist paladin, the one I've seen done was interesting. Really good diplomacy and sense motive skills, was an absolute beast when it came to grappling, and could sunder weapons like nobody's buisness.

~)

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.

I disagree.

 

[Rashak Mani]

hhmmm... I think Prestige Classes are higher level concepts. The Paladin doesnt have to be only a higher level concept... so I dont think its a PrC must be. Low level Paladins are balanced and a nice addition to the roleplaying aspect.

I myself am playing a low level Paladin right now and I enjoy the limited LG outview very much... the fact that my paladin doesnt know he is a paladin just makes it even more fun.

So make a Holy Warrior Prestige class and add all the stuff you think the Paladin should have...

 

[Lord Pendragon]

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.

Fair enough. But some of us are looking at it with an open mind, but still find logical reason to believe it should remain a core class. The paladin is a traditional holy knight based on Arthurian legend, St. George, and other classic literary sources. Many of us enjoy playing such an archtype from 1st-level, thus logically a paladin class should be offered as a core class.

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 certainly hope you aren't suggesting that the paladin class is powerful enough to warrant an ECL adjustment? And really, it makes perfect logical sense. You're simply using different reasoning, but your reasons for why a paladin should be a PrC do not make our reasons for why it shouldn't any less logical.

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.

You keep using the word "logic" as if somehow this disproves all the reasons for keeping the paladin as a core class. The paladin class is logical exactly as it is.

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.

In your game world, maybe so. But I see no reason why a paladin needs any more proof of corruption other than his own conviction. If he walks into a town and within a day is convinced that the local authorities are corrupt and/or evil, they lose any authority they had over him. And as another poster pointed out, even if a local government is pure lily-white lawful-good, that doesn't make the paladin a police officer. He can respect what the local government does and try to accomodate them, while still placing his divine mandate first and foremost.

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.

Such as infiltrating a city of necromancers to destroy the artifact they intend to use to Destroy the World?

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.

There will be times where the truth means death for the paladin, the failure of his mission, and the deaths of countless innocents. Only a fool would lie in such a circumstance, and a paladin need not be a fool. Likewise, only a Lawful-Neutral god would punish such a paladin for the lie.

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.

Paladins don't need evidence. If evidence is present, fine, but a paladin is not a church lawyer. He's the physical embodiment of the Wrath of God. He was made a paladin by his god because his judgment is sound, his heart pure, and his hand firm. He doesn't argue legal niceties. He smites.

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.

This is a matter of DM fiat. I don't see paladins in such a light at all. Only a Lawful-Neutral god, who places the letter of the Code above its intent, would strip a paladin of his divine blessing for a single moment of weakness.

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.

Absolutely not. Respect means just that, respect. It means abide if plausible, but not abide regardless of circumstances.