D&D 5E Paladins in 5e (different from Battle Clerics and Chivalrous Fighters)

[Grydan]

WARNING: Spoilers ahead for Three Hearts and Three Lions, an entertaining fantasy story by Poul Anderson that Gary Gygax listed as one of the inspirations for D&D


Holger Carlsen was a champion of Law, yes. Good is never mentioned in the story, it's a purely Law/Chaos divide. He only sides with Law after Chaos tries to trick him into removing himself from the conflict altogether (in a completely non-lethal and probably thoroughly enjoyable way). His abilities are clearly not contingent on his commitment to Law, or Good, or Lawful Good.

In fact, his only abilities above and beyond other mortal men are specifically called out as gifts from benevolent faeries while he was still in the cradle. Not a result of some divine intervention, or acquired through faith in any gods or God. As such, they are not contingent on any allegiance or faith to any creed, code, alignment, god or God.

He was an agnostic, who hadn't been to church in years. So he certainly wasn't a zealot of his faith.

He was asked to lay on hands once in the story, but he doesn't believe it had an actual impact (the recipient of the act does, but lives in a world without the germ theory of disease). When an ally is grievously injured, neither he nor any of his allies make any suggestion that laying on hands would do anything at all, so it's not attempted.

He engages in various behaviours that would conflict with many people's views of the pious and honour-bound warrior of the faith.

He smokes, drinks, and tells dirty jokes and sings dirty songs. He beds the first faerie woman who expresses interest, and is later disappointed that his opportunity to escape a captor arises before he can partake of her charms. He fondles a sleeping maiden, putting his hand in her tunic (she probably wouldn't have minded, but he certainly didn't act in chivalrous or honourable manner by just going ahead and doing it).

He is not fearless. He is certainly courageous, but is not immune to fear.

He doesn't concern himself with honour. Like, at all. He disguises himself and lies to the face of someone who is searching for him, simply because he might be an enemy. He has no issue with using trickery to escape a captor, or to scare off foes instead of fighting them, or allowing an ally to manipulate someone into providing them services for free.

He has no issue with stealing, "His restless life had made him less painstakingly law-abiding than most of his countrymen". He takes the equipment he finds at the beginning of the story while under the belief it belongs to someone else, and has no particular hesitation about doing so. He steals the Faerie lord's dagger (admittedly, when someone tries to kill you, I don't think it's terribly wrong to stop respecting their property rights to some extent).

So he's on the side of Law, but not terrifically lawful, and not terribly pious. Doesn't follow a code. Is not imbued with divine powers. Is not concerned with honour. Isn't constrained by alignment, code, or creed. Has no proven healing abilities, spells, or spell-like abilities.

He's an unparalleled combatant, in and out of armour. He never wears plate.

So yeah, by some people's rules for what a paladin must be, he just doesn't qualify.

 

[Zaukrie]

Assuming by paladin you don't mean holy warrior, or ideal of their god, but what paladin has mean 95% of the time in D&D, then Paksanaarion(sp?) is the ultimate representative of that. Yes, the Holger Carlson was Gary's inspiration, but Paks is the most paladiny character I've read.

That said, I want "paladin" to mean ideal representative of the god they worship, not heavily armored dude that smites evil. If one of those is Carlson or Paks, so be it....

 

[dangerous jack]

Thinking about the difference between a fighter, a cleric, and a paladin and what it means to me as a thought exercise.

A fighter:
* picks an enemy (or group of enemies) and attacks immediately (charge or ranged)
* the fighter's allies don't worry about him in combat for a little while, but check on him to make sure he's still okay after a while (peering around the bodies)
* the fighter's allies want to work with him and he helps them
* the fighter's enemies will discover that he's the greatest threat after a round or two

A cleric:
* keeps tabs on the entire battlefield
* inspires / directs his companions to their greatest effect
* heals when needed

A paladin:
* focuses on a dangerous enemy (or group of enemies) and draws the enemy's attention immediately
* other enemies know not to interfere with this divine challenge
* the paladin's allies know that they no longer have to fear the paladin's target (except for area attacks)
* a paladin's allies work towards other goals rather than trying to assist him (he's got all the help he needs)

So there are a lot of similarities between my view of the fighter and paladin, and fewer similarities between the fighter and cleric. So focusing on making the paladin more distinct from the fighter... here are a few differences I'd make if I was in charge:
* paladin's challenge is a big deal, maybe even a daily power or one that burns some resource (such as a 4e healing surge). it affects every enemy in the battle to some degree, but on the downside he also can't flank with allies when it's active, can't make opportunity attacks against non-challenged foes, etc..
* the paladin can draw on his own reserves better than any other character. in 4e terms, maybe he can second wind multiple times per encounter as long as his super challenge is in play.
* the fighter might hit more frequently because he's more skilled with his weapon, but he can be worn down (although he has more raw hit points)
* the fighter is still awesome because he sees every opportunity (i.e. OA's), flanks even better (grants +3 instead of +2), and has a few more tricks up his sleeve (push, disarm, trip, sunder, flurry, etc.)

 

[Savage Wombat]

Assuming by paladin you don't mean holy warrior, or ideal of their god, but what paladin has mean 95% of the time in D&D, then Paksanaarion(sp?) is the ultimate representative of that. Yes, the Holger Carlson was Gary's inspiration, but Paks is the most paladiny character I've read.

That said, I want "paladin" to mean ideal representative of the god they worship, not heavily armored dude that smites evil. If one of those is Carlson or Paks, so be it....

Paksenarrion was so clearly a 1st edition D&D Paladin it was without equal at the time. You could even count her weapon proficiencies, and tell that she'd made 3rd level because she picked up Long Sword.

Anyway, it was obvious to me that the game inspired the book, not the other way 'round.

 

[Khaalis]

Paladins to me are Holy Warriors that fight for a cause or belief.

Honestly, the best example I can come up with from modern literature isn't D&D focused at all but the Dresden Files - The Knights of the Cross. The Knights are endowed with the power of Faith. Their swords act as foci for their faith, and seem able to harm any supernatural being. The Knights are also frequent beneficiaries of seemingly coincidental events that either aid their cause or lead them to places where their assistance is required.

This example also shows that Faith doesn't have to be belief in a specific deity or "alignment" either, as one of the Knights in the series is an atheist. However, the main Knight character is a descendent of Charlemagne.

However, I do also believe that either Paladin needs to be more generic and open to support all deities/faiths, or there needs to be some other Holy Warrior equivalent. If the Paladin remains the "Champion of Light & Goodness" then there has to be a counterpoint, the champion of darkness, the Anti-Paladin.

 

[Hassassin]

Michael from Dresden Files is the perfect example of how I'd like D&D paladins to look like:

• Absolute conviction that a god guides his hand - and correct about it.
  
• Supernatural abilities due to pure faith, but skilled due to hard work.
  
• Uncomfortable with anything in conflict with his code but willing to let others make their own choices.
  
• Obligated (and willing) to give even Evil people their chance at redemption.
  
• Aggression only in self defense or (more often) in defense of others.

Edit: I honestly didn't see Khaalis' post above. I just read DF so this was fresh in my mind.