The Misunderstood Paladin

[Calico_Jack73]

Okay... I've seen some rants about the Paladin class and once and for all I wanted to present my own opinion of them. I'll address some of the complaints each in turn and hopefully I'll get some intelligent, well thought out responses.

1) Paladins follow a Knight's Code: WRONG!!! Paladins are simply warriors chosen by a god to be a champion. Some boy that lived out in the middle of the woods and was never raised by a priesthood could easily be picked as a Paladin and work to forward his gods aims without ever becoming a "Knight". This is a common misconception due mainly to the illustrations of Paladins in Full Plate charging on their divine mounts. Fighters can just as easily pick up a lance and charge and enemy on a Heavy Warhorse. Heck, they'll probably be better at it anyway.

2) Paladins can't lie: This is an offshoot of the Knight's code. Does lying make a person evil? If a Paladin is tortured into giving the location of someone he is trying to protect could he not lie about their location to keep them safe? If a Paladin is trying to work with a city ruled by an evil tyrant could he not lie about his identity to protect his cover? In that situation it would obviously be a waste to try direct confrontation. Could the Paladin not better serve his god and the ideals of good by lying to maintain his cover so he can continue his work?

3) Lawful means Law-Abiding: WRONG!!! Lawful simply means the PC prefers an ordered way of doing things. A Paladin will always go into a situation with a plan. Throw out those ideas of a Paladin working within the legal system even in a corrupt government. Lawful has nothing to do with Law. Paladins answer to their god's law alone. Think they care in the least about mortal laws? Mortal laws are created by mortals and are therefore flawed.

4) Paladins are knights of a religion: Once again, WRONG!!! You can't tell a Paladin simply by looking at him. A priesthood can't tell the difference between a Paladin and a Fighter unless the god informs them of the Paladin's status. If the god is using the Paladin to root out corruption in one of his temples no doubt the god will keep the Paladin's status secret. I believe that as a god's secret agent a god will typically not make a Paladin's status known. Much more good can be accomplished by using Paladin's that way.

Hopefully these points will encourage people to re-think their interpretation of the Paladin class. I encouage any INTELLIGENT responses.

 

[billd91]

Okay... I've seen some rants about the Paladin class and once and for all I wanted to present my own opinion of them. I'll address some of the complaints each in turn and hopefully I'll get some intelligent, well thought out responses.

1) Paladins follow a Knight's Code: WRONG!!! Paladins are simply warriors chosen by a god to be a champion. Some boy that lived out in the middle of the woods and was never raised by a priesthood could easily be picked as a Paladin and work to forward his gods aims without ever becoming a "Knight". This is a common misconception due mainly to the illustrations of Paladins in Full Plate charging on their divine mounts. Fighters can just as easily pick up a lance and charge and enemy on a Heavy Warhorse. Heck, they'll probably be better at it anyway.

<snip>
3) Lawful means Law-Abiding: WRONG!!! Lawful simply means the PC prefers an ordered way of doing things. A Paladin will always go into a situation with a plan. Throw out those ideas of a Paladin working within the legal system even in a corrupt government. Lawful has nothing to do with Law. Paladins answer to their god's law alone. Think they care in the least about mortal laws? Mortal laws are created by mortals and are therefore flawed.

Of course this depends entirely on your views of paladins. I agree that too many people limit themselves to the knightly version. I don't agree that a lawful character isn't predisposed to obeying the law. Mortal laws may be flawed but a lawful character has a tendency to believe in the importance of the collective above the individual will and won't disobey laws willy-nilly. A paladin may work to overcome a corrupt system but I do believe they'll do it from within if that system has had any legitimacy whatsoever and they are predisposed to see that government as legitimate. It's the chaotics who have the freedom to try to bring down the corrupt government from without because they favor the individual will and interpretation on morality.

 

[Volaran]

As a side note, I agree with that bit of interpretation of the lawful alignment. I generally avoid alignment discussions, but I have long thought that the game designers could have saved us all a lot of headaches by referring to it as the Chaos/Order axis.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

It's the chaotics who have the freedom to try to bring down the corrupt government from without because they favor the individual will and interpretation on morality.

I view Chaotics as the types who will rebel without any particular plan as long as they are rebelling. A Lawful character will go into the sitution with a plan for overthrowing the government. Each action will be planned out to have a specific reaction. Chaotics wouldn't care what the reaction is as long as they are demonstrating that they aren't complying with the tyrant.

 

[Darklone]

My humble opinion: The number of paladin threads is a clear sign of how many people have a set opinion on the paladin and think they are right

I like about the class that you can easily use it as a zealous warrior for another cause.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

As a side note, I agree with that bit of interpretation of the lawful alignment. I generally avoid alignment discussions, but I have long thought that the game designers could have saved us all a lot of headaches by referring to it as the Chaos/Order axis.

Definitely have to agree with you there. Order Good would have worked much better. In most cases I tend to go with the Paladium alignment system instead of the D&D. Since there are Good, Neutral, and Evil alignments it still works with the D&D system of Detect Evil, Protection from Evil, etc. However, each subalignment has a much more detailed explanation of that alignment's moral code of conduct.

 

[diaglo]

and yet another opinion....


do you consider lying a sin in the eyes of the paladin's church/religion/beliefs?

that would be the only reason for him/her to avoid it. or seek atonement afterwards for a single indiscretion.

 

[Li Shenron]

1) Paladins follow a Knight's Code: WRONG!!! Paladins are simply warriors chosen by a god to be a champion...

2) Paladins can't lie: This is an offshoot of the Knight's code...

3) Lawful means Law-Abiding: WRONG!!! Lawful simply means the PC prefers an ordered way of doing things...

4) Paladins are knights of a religion: Once again, WRONG!!! ...

I think that all of the Paladin's traits you are questioning are part of the D&D old stereotype of Paladinhood itself. I don't myself like the stereotype much, and I think that it works stainlessly only if the players have a very trivial approach to alignment in RPG.

All this 4 points can be of course true for a specific kind of Paladin, but I agree with you that lacking one or more of them doesn't necessarily strip the Paladin of his Paladinhood. They are just an example. However, there should be something to distinguish a Paladin from a simple LG Fighter. Clearly the only thing we can base it about in core rules is the different class progression and abilities; we could decide to use a Paladin PrCl instead of the core class, or to change the core class to fit another stereotype, but we would not be talking about the same character anymore...

IMHO as they stand in the PHB, the Fighter is the character who "fights by technique" while the Paladin is the character who "fights by willpower". By the same line, the Barbarian is the one who "fights by instinct", the Ranger the one who "fights by experience" and the Monk "fights by self-control". If it sounds too simple, it's because it is... just a quick simplification not to be taken too seriously, ok?

Effectively, if I have to comment on each of your 4 points...

1+4) Every PC might follow a code, this doesn't make him a paladin, but it is more typical for Lawful characters: if you decide that all paladins are lawful, they are more likely to have a code of conduct than not because they would actually like to have one (or think it's right to do so). I wouldn't say that necessarily a Pal is chosen by a God, it could be the opposite, that he chose to serve a God: in either case, this choice may be followed by a code of conduct.
A Paladin is probably attracted by joining a religion however, since he may find himself among people with the same ideals.

2+3) Lies & Law... somehow the majority of RPGers stick to the old idea that if you lie once you are not Lawful, if you steal once you are not lawful and probably not good as well... at the same time nobody thinks that if you KILL someone then you can still be LG! I mean if you attack some other human - because you know their are quite evil - and kill him you are not against the law and you are not evil, you are simply a Paladin. I know that in 1800's Western US the typical law was to hang thieves and give a pat on the back of murderers, but this doesn't mean it represents good.
But back to our Pally, it is not completely wrong to accept that someone so focused on serving a deity or a moral/ethical ideal, he probably has some need to be lawful to carry the burden without question, and usually (but as you say, not necessarily always) will turn to act lawful in many circumstances, perhaps including lying and stealing. But a single individual may be a Paladin even lying, if it's ok for him and his deity. For example, I guess there could be Paladins of Garl Glittergold (if St.Cuthbert can, why can't he?), and I don't think they should have problems in lying for good or stealing the BBEG's weapons or using tricks against an orc squad...

On the overall, I think it depends on specific individuals. What defines the PHB Paladin is the fact that instead of being focused on weapons and combat manoeuvres (Ftr's feats) - that is instead of being focused in HOW to fight - he is focused in WHY to fight, and has a lot of supernatural backup granted by some divine being or otherwise granted by his own inner strength and faith. The dedication required means that probably a Lawful person would have an easier time being a Pal, or simply be the most likely to be attracted by Paladinhood. Clearly, the fact that many DMs use Paladins-equivalent classes or PrCl for every alignment shows that being LG is mostly a "sacred cow".

 

[Arnwyn]

Paladins are simply warriors chosen by a god to be a champion.

I think you might be wrong here - IIRC, PHB paladins don't even need a god.

However, I *absolutely* agree with everything else you said. That's how I see paladins as well.

 

[Numion]

2) Paladins can't lie:

3) Lawful means Law-Abiding:

I agree with you. If these two were true, every Evil Overlord should have his guards at the city gates ask each visitor coming through the gates "are you a paladin", and make it a law that all paladins are required to register at the city hall (for the cases where his Evil Henchmen neglect their duties).

I for one hate the standard lawful-stupid Paladin type that also doubles as a roaming defense lawyer for the monsters.