Paladins in 3.5, why?

[Mercule]

This is why it s*cks to play a paladin. If you ask 8 different people you get 8 different answers about how/what/where they should/shouldn't do. Clarity thats all paladins ask for.

Try being a Ranger fan sometime. I don't think there are two people in all of creation that agree on Rangers.

 

[Corinth]

SHARK's the man when it comes to paladins and alignment. He's spot on about this stuff.

 

[Mark Chance]

SHARK's the man when it comes to paladins and alignment. He's spot on about this stuff.

He did have a good write-up. But there is a catch that applies equally to all paladins (including yours): It depends on the DM.

In SHARK's game, his take on paladins is true. In your game, Corinth, your take is true. But in my game, both are false. Not even Hypersmurf's semantic quibble (paraphrase: "If you have to change it to get it to work, it's not a core paladin anymore") can trump this catch (at least outside of his game).

IOW, the key is context. In a context (such as yours, Corinth) where a paladin's modus vivendi is passing on retributive justice to the wicked then that is what a paladin must do to be a paladin. Fine and dandy.

But is that the only possible context? IOW, is your context "universally applicable"?

Obviously not.

Rather than pseudo-Calvinist, my take on paladins is pseudo-Thomistic. A paladin is indeed a soldier in the army of the Good. He is charged to wage war against evil. But, in a pseudo-Thomistic context, war does not fall under the moral jurisdiction of the virtue of justice. Instead, it falls under the moral jurisdiction of the virtue of charity. IOW, a just war is an act of love.

This considerably changes the context by adding a entirely different framework by which a paladin has to make decisions about how and when to act in the war against evil.

Rather than expound at length (which would end up violating board rules since my "philosophy of paladins" is based heavily on real-world religion), I provide a link to one of the better articles I've read about Thomas Aquinas's treatment of the question about the justifiability of violence. We're all intelligent enough to see the applicability of the ideas discussed to a paladin's context.

Good Wars

This article, in between the pro-war chest-thumping, competently discusses the Thomistic requirements for a war to be just:

Moral Clarity in a Time of War

 

[FireLance]

He did have a good write-up. But there is a catch that applies equally to all paladins (including yours): It depends on the DM.

I second that. In fact, it might be a good exercise for a potential paladin playing PC to check with his DM what paladins are like in his world.

Playing a paladin can get pretty painful if:

(1) The player and DM disagree on what "lawful" means.
(2) The player and DM disagree on what "good" means.
(3) The player and DM disagree on what a paladin's "code of conduct" should be.

You might be better off playing a Fighter instead.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In SHARK's game, his take on paladins is true. In your game, Corinth, your take is true. But in my game, both are false. Not even Hypersmurf's semantic quibble (paraphrase: "If you have to change it to get it to work, it's not a core paladin anymore") cannot trump this catch (at least outside of his game).

Indeed.

But in 1E Unearthed Arcana, they gave a reasonably detailed Code for the Cavalier class.

Some cool stuff in there.

And it opened with the sentence "The DM may adjust this Code to fit his or her campaign."

That sentence is all it takes to say "The Code is Deity- or Order-specific, and different groups of Paladins may have slightly different Codes".

Yes, any DM can implement a House Rule to change the PHB Code to one that suits them. But if they'd only said "Here is a sample Code" rather than "Here is the Code", a House Rule would be unnecessary.

-Hyp.

 

[Mark Chance]

Yes, any DM can implement a House Rule to change the PHB Code to one that suits them. But if they'd only said "Here is a sample Code" rather than "Here is the Code", a House Rule would be unnecessary.

That's just not so. Even if the book said "Here is a sample Code" and then described that code, house rules would still become necessary, even if any given DM decided to use the sample Code. You'd have one of two scenarios play out:

1. Either the sample Code wouldn't cover a certain specific in-game happening (and eventually this would happen because no Code can cover every eventuality, at least not in a space smaller than the OED).

or

2. The DM wouldn't like the sample Code and would come up with one of her own.

Either way: House rules. They are inevitable.

 

[sword-dancer]

I think that paladins should be made into prcs because they have one of the most strict alignment and code system for any class in the game. Core classes are designed to handle a wide spectrum of different characters. Except for a few minor details, one paladin is just like every other paladin in this world. The paladin only allows for one type of character, not a variety. This is not what a core class is, but instead is the kind of specialist thing which prcs are made of.

No.
I like the Idea of a called champion.
And if you had followed the threads of Paladin discussions or the Pladin of the Boards unite you could have easily seen the differences in personality and POV of Paladins.
Look at the pally of Shark, Reapersaurus or Ranger Wickett.

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?
!

Joan DÁrc, La Puccelle was a 15 Year old girl, who did really two things
1 They Put Faith and Morale Back in the man at arms of Franbce whose moral was after the number of defeats on the bottom of the seas
2 she died as a martyr.

.

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

Depending of the circumstances, I would consider it a higher priority to defend the life of innocents, then to close a few leaks in the police.

"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."

Not necessarilie, he could have chosen to hide the truth, because he didn`t trust them, because he wasn`t raised as a holy warrior, or out of humblety(right word?), or would consider himself a mercenary who fights for divine rewards.
btw the mercenary disguise might get you better along with soldiers, and freedom fighters than the holier than thou stick in .. behaviour.

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

He breaks his code if he is lying, and what is he doing if he says the truth and gives the nemy the information he needs to find his victims?
If the Pally breaks under torture, or fears to breake, isn`t it better to lie then to sacrifice others ?

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).

How had you get the idea that you must use poison for an assassination?
How is it with an resistence Paladin?
Would you call the assassination of Reynhard Heydrich an evil or an good act?
This is clearly a grey Zone.

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

Is Evil in your campaign equal to stupid evil?
You call Xaltotun Arch Demonologist, High Priest of Darkness to an Duell, Or Severas the Vampire Lord, Dealzeramon the Grat old Demon Wyrm?
You are Dead!
Or you Challenge an Illtihitd to asn duel?
Not twice IMC

Remember, a paladin is just as much lawful as good, and believes that the law must be followed and upheld!

Wrong, a PAldain stands for good first, lawful is he because ist is the best way to serve good, and the law he follows is his code not some mortal law.

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

How had you the impression that a paladin must live chaste and celibate? This is a cultural thing, depending on society and culture, maybe rules of the faith but nothing more. If sexual activiities out of marriage is in his culture accepatable, have no stigma on it, what is the problem with it?

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!

And you get every time you get drunk a murderous rage? A little tavern brawl i wouldn`t consider a break of code serious enough to fall from grace.

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 consider a paldin a human/eleven ... being not a saint, failures, small failures are possible, and acceptable, thats was the atonment spell and and retribution(right word?) is for.

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.

Nice Picture
I see the paladin refuse the quest to safe the innocents from the sacrifing chamber of the Darkness because he couldn`t hope in the last ot fulfill his mission to safe them without going undercover behind enemy lines.

btw I agree with your POV with the orc.

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."

No this is a/the reason it should give Pally variants for all alignments.

 

[sword-dancer]

OH MY GOD


You know what, if you think I am wrong, that is your opinion and you can have the paladin core class any way you like it in your games. But do not come on this board and state it as if it is fact for all games that they should be able to slaughter people and be above the law, and do your house rules as how they are for all games. Say that "you belive" that paladins should be able to do this. But I am sorry, champions of truth, law, and good would never lie, sow chaos, or slaughter pople without trials, that sounds much more like a blackguard to me.

If a person steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, I am sorry, the paladin must report it, because that person is doing an evil act by steeling a piece of bread that someone else worked hard for and deserves

No he didn`t do an evil act, because he had no evil intetentions, the evila act cobforms the person who forced him to steals to save his family from starvation.

Did you know that a paladin loses all of his powers if he does an evil act while under a DOMINATE PERSON SPELL? THat is right, even if the paladins BODY is forced to do an evil act, he LOSES HIS POWER!!!! That is how stricked it realy is... don't belive me? Read the atonement spell.

And you could quote this in the Core Rules or even in the DotF?

And a paladin can't just have a "hunch" that a law system is corrupt, he musthave solid proof, because if he is wrong and goes against a legitamte law system, he loses his powers. The paladin works WITH the law to get good means, he belives everyone should recive a fair trial, or at least a duel so the gods can determine who is right or wrong!

And what is with the innocents, the paldin endangers if he works with an "Authority under suspicion"? BTW you mingle duel with trial by combat/divine judgemnt.

Seems pretty evil to me. Why did the Paladin have to kill the "evil" infiltrator? Was there no other way to "punish" or "redeem" them? Coukd he not simply capture and tie them up? What about knock them out? Killing a sentient being should always be the last resort of a Paladin.

There is only one punishment for treason on the battlefield, and this is not only an act of justice but also of self defense.
If she spares the traitor, she could kill the other resistence fighters with her own blade, because she had damned them to death.


1) There is a law, with just intentions, that gurantees the citicen the right to be undisturbed in their houses.
And then their is a person who the pally has reason to believe sacrifices humans to demons, and will sacrifice this night other victims.
The law forbids the paldain to break in, so he is forced to let the victims be sacrificed?
Or would hois dutie not force him supersede the letter of the law to uphold the spirit of the law.

2) And what it isn`t hundreds of innocents but only 99?
Damned if damned if not
If he did the good thiong he has fallen from grace, if not he has sacrificed innocents.

3) how should this work with 8)



4) I could think on many crimes more evil than murder, like sacrificing the souls to deamons, mass murder,
5) If i was the leader of the AF of good, i would seek a way i could send this Pallys to the forces of Lord Evil as an reinforcement.
I see the evil Demonologist who tortures the innocent victim to death, and your Pallys stood idle by because they couldn`t attack asn unaware enemy.

7) must he have found the system before he breaks the old down, or is he allowed to break the old down and find then an way to replace it?
What ist when the people doesn`t want an rigid command structure or hierarchy?

10) What ist when the oath bind the pally on something evil?

This is an code meant to be force the pally to fall down when he does his duty.

 

[WizarDru]

Criminey. I go away to the Outer Banks for a week, and the ol' Paladin Code of Doom(TM) starts up again. Yay!


I vote for the general idea of the Paladin as a core class. The idea that the book needs to offer a variant core class and then spell it out for an inexperienced DM isn't a terrible one, but to me it sounds like a waste of paper. A DM experienced enough to desire such a class will want to do it his way, regardless. Further, enough alternate d20 material exists to vary this concept that core variants are unneccesary, IMHO.

Now, before I say anything else, Kev, I think you need to be pointed right over here. Frankly, I'm suprised no one else has pointed you in that direction, yet.

I won't say your interpetation of a Paladin is invalid. I will say that it is far too rigid for my campaign, and probably would be for a large number of them. I should also point out that I think if you used a little less invective, folks might notice that you leave yourself a good deal of wiggle room in your codes. That said, I think your vision of a Paladin would only work if the campaign truly supported it. As often as not, your code smacks of DM entrapment, which can work once or twice, but can often backfire or generate resentment. If you were to make the Paladin a prestige class in your game, I think it would work better for you.

In my game, the paladin imbibes and carouses, engages in sexual relations with members of the opposite gender, willingly lies to the servants of evil gods such as Tharizdun, and has no trouble with certain forms of deception, when necessary.

At the same time, he has reformed Meepo the kobold (now his squire), nearly come to blows with a CN member of the party who wanted to kill a CE assasain in cold blood, acted as the spiritual and moral anchor to the party, stood toe to toe with demons, devils and the undead and never backed down and earned the title of Paragon from the followers of his goddess.

For myself, I tend to find enforced paladin alignment dilemmas to be a worthwhile endeavour once in a while, but they have to be handled delicately, or it may appear like you're singling out the PC purely due to his character choice, PrC or Core class alike. If you did make a paladin a PrC, you would need to re-balance the whole class, as merely adding restrictions to the class would make a sub-optimal multi-classing choice that would always be stuck behind the other characters.

Finally (and while I'm at it, it should be clear that 3.5 wouldn't be offering any such change, and no changes are on their way, either), maybe it IS a sacred cow, but I LIKE some of my sacred cows, thankyouverymuch. There's a reason they're so valued....because most D&D players like them, and those who don't have always made their own rules, regardless of what's in the book. If you don't prefer that option, that's fine, too.

Now then...anyone want some salt water taffy?

 

[reapersaurus]

Re: Re: Paladins in 3.5, why?

And if you had followed the threads of Paladin discussions or the Pladin of the Boards unite you could have easily seen the differences in personality and POV of Paladins.
Look at the pally of Shark, Reapersaurus or Ranger Wickett.

awww... someone has a long memory!