Kevmann10583
First Post
So you at least agree that the paladin as a prc should be a varient rule stated in the DMG?
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Paladins in 3.5, why?
- Thread starter Kevmann10583
- Start date
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
I could go for a variant rule saying something like "In your campaign, you might choose to make the Paladin a Prestige Class rather than a Core Class".
But I wouldn't be interested in seeing a fully-statted Paladin Prestige Class in the Core Rules. If a DM wants PrC Paladins, he can design them himself...
-Hyp.
Kevmann10583
First Post
No, I don't think it should be left to the DM, especiialy since there are alot of inexperianced DMs that would have no way of making it. If they can put the witch class in their then they can damn well put the paladin prc.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Inexperienced DMs can use the Core Paladin 
The Witch class is there as an example of how someone can create a new Core Class.
The Prestige Classes that will be in the 3.5 DMG, as well as being useable as classes, are also there to show examples of the various roles a PrC can have. If someone wants to create a new PrC - say, a Paladin PrC - they have those classes as examples of how PrCs should be designed.
Including a fully-statted PrC variant-version of a Core class is completely unnecessary.
-Hyp.
The Witch class is there as an example of how someone can create a new Core Class.
The Prestige Classes that will be in the 3.5 DMG, as well as being useable as classes, are also there to show examples of the various roles a PrC can have. If someone wants to create a new PrC - say, a Paladin PrC - they have those classes as examples of how PrCs should be designed.
Including a fully-statted PrC variant-version of a Core class is completely unnecessary.
-Hyp.
tetsujin28
First Post
And of course, that's just a modification of St. Thomas' statement that an unjust law is no law.DreamChaser said:
LoneWolf23
First Post
All right, I have to recommend two books here: One is AEG's GOOD, which not only has The Paladine, a Paladin built as a Prestige Class. It also has two alternate Core Paladins, the Chaotic Good Avenger and the Neutral Good Defender. The Avengers are more focused on "hunting down and slaying Evil" then the Paladins, and the Defenders are more seriously devoted to protecting the innocent.
The Book also has an excellent first chapter which explores the three flavors of Good, CG, LG and NG. I highly recommend it.
The other book I highly recommend is Mongoose Publishing's The Quintessential Paladin, which explores all the possibilities of the Paladin Core Class, and really helps one get a good idea of just what it means to be a Paladin. The chapter on Codes of Honor alone makes the book worth it, as it gives players and DMs the option of building a customized code based on sample tenets of honor. So if you're a DM seeking to build a standard code, you can do that, and if you're a Player seeking to build a custom code, you can do that too.
As for how I see the Paladin, it's simple: The Fighter Fights and Kills. The Cleric serves her deity. Those are their raison d'être. The Paladin, on the other hand, is defined by his alignment, which is always Good. He's a Hero, first and Foremost. He protects the innocent against Evil, brings Law to areas that know no peace, and upholds Justice as the highest ideal.
Beyond that basic idea, a Paladin could be a big number of things: a peace-loving idealist who only draws his sword when words fail to end a conflict, a crusading lawman who travels with a sword in one hand and a lawbook in the other, a dark avenger who seeks to find the one responsible for the loss of his loved ones to deliver some retribution, etc.
Paladins aren't Holy Fighters or Combat-Specialised Clerics. They're not even a middle ground between the two. They're Crusading Heroes, making a stand for all that's Lawful and Good with fighting skills, strength of character and faith in their cause.
And that's why I love'em.
The Book also has an excellent first chapter which explores the three flavors of Good, CG, LG and NG. I highly recommend it.
The other book I highly recommend is Mongoose Publishing's The Quintessential Paladin, which explores all the possibilities of the Paladin Core Class, and really helps one get a good idea of just what it means to be a Paladin. The chapter on Codes of Honor alone makes the book worth it, as it gives players and DMs the option of building a customized code based on sample tenets of honor. So if you're a DM seeking to build a standard code, you can do that, and if you're a Player seeking to build a custom code, you can do that too.
As for how I see the Paladin, it's simple: The Fighter Fights and Kills. The Cleric serves her deity. Those are their raison d'être. The Paladin, on the other hand, is defined by his alignment, which is always Good. He's a Hero, first and Foremost. He protects the innocent against Evil, brings Law to areas that know no peace, and upholds Justice as the highest ideal.
Beyond that basic idea, a Paladin could be a big number of things: a peace-loving idealist who only draws his sword when words fail to end a conflict, a crusading lawman who travels with a sword in one hand and a lawbook in the other, a dark avenger who seeks to find the one responsible for the loss of his loved ones to deliver some retribution, etc.
Paladins aren't Holy Fighters or Combat-Specialised Clerics. They're not even a middle ground between the two. They're Crusading Heroes, making a stand for all that's Lawful and Good with fighting skills, strength of character and faith in their cause.
And that's why I love'em.
Can you imagine the minmaxing that would occur if they put a Paladin PrC and a Paladin base class into the core rules?
Player: "I'm a fifth level Paladin now, so for my sixth level, I'm taking a prestige class."
Inexperienced GM: "What class?"
Player: "The Paladin Prestige Class. That way, I get all my abilities again!"
Inexperienced GM: "Er, I'm not sure..."
Player: "C'mon, why else would it be in the core rules?"
Inexperienced GM: "... OK"
(Six months later, on the psychiatrist's couch)
GM: "And that's when everything started going horribly, horribly wrong..."
(Close curtain)
I think you're trying to make the whole thing needlessly complicated. Just because a player has managed to get a character to 5th level (The standard requirement for most PrC's) does not guarantee that they would do any better at playing a paladin's restrictions than they did when they started.
You see, the restrictions on playing a paladin have nothing to do with the character's stats. They're all about the player's ability to roleplay those restrictions.
Just look at the running argument about the code here, and it is very clear that not everyone agrees on how that should be done. That's a clear indication that putting a code of behaviour into the prerequisites for qualifying for a prestige class is an open invitation for long, bitter arguments. Do you really want to have an argument like this every time someone with their heart set on playing a paladin reaches a new level with their current character?
Is the paladin harder to roleplay properly than most other base classes? Probably. A wizard is also harder to use effectively than a vanilla fighter for a starting player - you have to learn the spell system as well as the combat system. You don't hear anyone suggesting that wizards should be a PrC, just because they're a little harder for inexperienced players to play. Likewise, the restrictions on the behaviour of a Paladin do not, in and of themselves, relegate it to a PrC.
If you truly feel the need to do such a thing, adapt one of the paladin-like PrC's out of 'Defenders of the Faith'. They come close enough, and can do the job exactly with just a little tweaking, such as changing the spell list to the default paladin spell list.
And here's my take on the argument: In the final analysis, deciding whether a paladin has broken their code is an issue dependant on world setting and GM more than anything else.
Player: "I'm a fifth level Paladin now, so for my sixth level, I'm taking a prestige class."
Inexperienced GM: "What class?"
Player: "The Paladin Prestige Class. That way, I get all my abilities again!"
Inexperienced GM: "Er, I'm not sure..."
Player: "C'mon, why else would it be in the core rules?"
Inexperienced GM: "... OK"
(Six months later, on the psychiatrist's couch)
GM: "And that's when everything started going horribly, horribly wrong..."
(Close curtain)
I think you're trying to make the whole thing needlessly complicated. Just because a player has managed to get a character to 5th level (The standard requirement for most PrC's) does not guarantee that they would do any better at playing a paladin's restrictions than they did when they started.
You see, the restrictions on playing a paladin have nothing to do with the character's stats. They're all about the player's ability to roleplay those restrictions.
Just look at the running argument about the code here, and it is very clear that not everyone agrees on how that should be done. That's a clear indication that putting a code of behaviour into the prerequisites for qualifying for a prestige class is an open invitation for long, bitter arguments. Do you really want to have an argument like this every time someone with their heart set on playing a paladin reaches a new level with their current character?
Is the paladin harder to roleplay properly than most other base classes? Probably. A wizard is also harder to use effectively than a vanilla fighter for a starting player - you have to learn the spell system as well as the combat system. You don't hear anyone suggesting that wizards should be a PrC, just because they're a little harder for inexperienced players to play. Likewise, the restrictions on the behaviour of a Paladin do not, in and of themselves, relegate it to a PrC.
If you truly feel the need to do such a thing, adapt one of the paladin-like PrC's out of 'Defenders of the Faith'. They come close enough, and can do the job exactly with just a little tweaking, such as changing the spell list to the default paladin spell list.
And here's my take on the argument: In the final analysis, deciding whether a paladin has broken their code is an issue dependant on world setting and GM more than anything else.
I don't have a lot of time right now so I will make this quick.
First, modern (at the time) western enlightened thought carried the death penalty for crimes less than murder well beyond the medieval times. And, I am not just talking about the United States here either. To think that a fantasy realm loosly based upon medieval European fantasy would not have the death penalty as the punishment for a vast number of crimes then you are clearly applying modern thought and institutions to a game. That is fine, but don't expect anyone else to apply such false logic.
Second, my vote is Paladin as a class you take at first level. Your only real arguement, IMHO, is that no other core class has only a single qualifing alignment. I am not sure but to any core PrCs have single alignment restrictions? If any, not many.
Third, evil hids behind just and fair laws often.
Fourth, if a large power axe murdering oaf clearly more powerful than the paladin were looking for the hider, then the only good and lawful ting to do is lie at that point.
Fifth, the person that put up the list of 7 things that are in the oath really described it well. That is all that is in the paladin requirements are.
Sixth, by the rules, there is nothing dishonorable about using guile and trickery. A rogue convert to paladinhood could still use the sneak attack damage. Not using it is an insult to the enemy and not worthy of them.
Seventh, we all read the commandments. Seij is right quit asking us if we did. I think you wrote the commandments truely believing that you covered all the bases and were clear on everything. Well, the core of being a paladin is that no code or comandments can cover everything and there are always situations where best judgement has to be used. I believe that the only real conflict that a paladin actually has is when the Good and Lawful result in different actions.
g!
First, modern (at the time) western enlightened thought carried the death penalty for crimes less than murder well beyond the medieval times. And, I am not just talking about the United States here either. To think that a fantasy realm loosly based upon medieval European fantasy would not have the death penalty as the punishment for a vast number of crimes then you are clearly applying modern thought and institutions to a game. That is fine, but don't expect anyone else to apply such false logic.
Second, my vote is Paladin as a class you take at first level. Your only real arguement, IMHO, is that no other core class has only a single qualifing alignment. I am not sure but to any core PrCs have single alignment restrictions? If any, not many.
Third, evil hids behind just and fair laws often.
Fourth, if a large power axe murdering oaf clearly more powerful than the paladin were looking for the hider, then the only good and lawful ting to do is lie at that point.
Fifth, the person that put up the list of 7 things that are in the oath really described it well. That is all that is in the paladin requirements are.
Sixth, by the rules, there is nothing dishonorable about using guile and trickery. A rogue convert to paladinhood could still use the sneak attack damage. Not using it is an insult to the enemy and not worthy of them.
Seventh, we all read the commandments. Seij is right quit asking us if we did. I think you wrote the commandments truely believing that you covered all the bases and were clear on everything. Well, the core of being a paladin is that no code or comandments can cover everything and there are always situations where best judgement has to be used. I believe that the only real conflict that a paladin actually has is when the Good and Lawful result in different actions.
g!
Similar Threads
