The Misunderstood Paladin

[Endur]

1) Paladins follow a Knight's Code: WRONG!!!
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 disagree with all of the above statements.

I like the idea of the Paladin being the epitome of the ideals of Chivalry. Sir Galahad, Sir Lancelot, Sir Percival, etc.

Following the ideals of chivalry sounds reasonable to me. Its relatively easy to roleplay a character who doesn't lie. Likewise, being a law-abiding character is also relatively easy to RP.

What's wrong with being a knight? After all, several of the paladin abilities are based on Knighthood. The Ride skill, the Special Mount, Knowledge Nobility, Diplomacy skill, Sense Motive skill, etc.

I see no reason to take a paladin and make him a rogue or a spy.

 

[Nightfall]

What if an evil ruler passed a law that required all paladins to be locked up and subsequently executed? Or better yet, a law that required all paladins to fall on their own swords? Would he still abide the laws?

Firstly SL paladins don't follow kings. Most everyone did away with kings since they are inherently unreliable. Secondly any evil king in charge is usually a Calastian anyway and they hate paladins a lot. Fourthly if such a law existed he'd just move out of the country. No need for him to stay there.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I disagree with all of the above statements.

I like the idea of the Paladin being the epitome of the ideals of Chivalry. Sir Galahad, Sir Lancelot, Sir Percival, etc.

Following the ideals of chivalry sounds reasonable to me. Its relatively easy to roleplay a character who doesn't lie. Likewise, being a law-abiding character is also relatively easy to RP.

What's wrong with being a knight? After all, several of the paladin abilities are based on Knighthood. The Ride skill, the Special Mount, Knowledge Nobility, Diplomacy skill, Sense Motive skill, etc.

I see no reason to take a paladin and make him a rogue or a spy.

So you are saying that all Paladins must be Knights? Then all Rangers must be great archers and all Wizards must have beards and wear pointy hats. My point is just that Paladins have been assigned the Knightly stereotype when there is so much more that you can do with the class. If you choose to make a Knightly Paladin then that is your choice. My problem is that most DM's can't get that stereotype out of their heads and start to judge the actions of all Paladins within their game against that stereotype even if the Paladin in question isn't the Knightly type. Each Paladin character should be an individual and his/her adherance to a code should be judged independently of other Paladins that have come before. If I choose to play an Inquisitor Paladin and I have to lie in my service to my god then so be it. I am obeying my calling and my DM should understand that and not strip the character of his abilities.

 

[WizarDru]

So you are saying that all Paladins must be Knights? Then all Rangers must be great archers and all Wizards must have beards and wear pointy hats. My point is just that Paladins have been assigned the Knightly stereotype when there is so much more that you can do with the class.

Yes, but why retool the wheel when you already have other classes that can meet your needs? A multiclassed fighter/sorceror or fighter/cleric would be able to accomplish similar goals.

Basically, it sounds as if you want to play a Paladin, without any of the inconvienence of actually being a paladin. Look paladin up in the dictionary, what do you find? Let's ask Websters, shall we?

\Pal"a*din\, n. [F., fr.It. paladino, fr. L. palatinusan officer of the palace. See {Palatine}.]A knight-errant; a distinguished champion; as, the paladinsof Charlemagne. --Sir W. Scott.

In other words, the word paladin literally means knight.Paladins, as a class, are based on knights. Now, there's nothing wrong with wanting to play a non-standard paladin...but realize that what you're discussing is just that.The archtype you want to play doesn't fit the paladin class well, at all, due to all the excess baggage he's carrying in terms of abilities, feats and so forth. Heck, a fighter with a ring of Detect Evil (Always On) could do the same thing.

Those DMs you're referring to aren't judging the class against some unknown or mythical standard...they're taking the material straight out of the PHB. Can the class be used differently? Sure it can...but it's a house rule variant to do so. You've already seen the quotes from the SRD and PHB. You don't like the base version, and that's fine...but understand that you are the one wants something different, and not that those DMs are misreading the class description.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Let's ask Websters, shall we?

To hell with Websters definition. Websters doesn't apply in a fantasy setting. Do you think that the definition of a Paladin in the Forgotten Realms would be the same as IRL? I see Paladins as champions of the divine or an ideal. You need not be a Knight to be a champion. Historically speaking to become a knight you had to have MONEY. As I've said before, who is to say that a god might not select some kid living out in the sticks as his champion. Would he make a good champion? Possibly. Is he a Knight? Nope. Biblically speaking were any of the heroes of the bible warriors of high birth? Nope. Typically (as in the case of David & Goliath) the champions of God were chosen from the poor.

 

[WizarDru]

To hell with Websters definition. Websters doesn't apply in a fantasy setting. Do you think that the definition of a Paladin in the Forgotten Realms would be the same as IRL? I see Paladins as champions of the divine or an ideal. You need not be a Knight to be a champion. Historically speaking to become a knight you had to have MONEY. As I've said before, who is to say that a god might not select some kid living out in the sticks as his champion. Would he make a good champion? Possibly. Is he a Knight? Nope. Biblically speaking were any of the heroes of the bible warriors of high birth? Nope. Typically (as in the case of David & Goliath) the champions of God were chosen from the poor.

I quoted Websters to key you in on the motivation that D&D's designers drew from. The class isn't named 'devout warrior', it's paladin. And that name was chosen for a reason by Gygax and maintained by others for similar reasons.

I know you're not actually trying to resolve real world concerns with D&D, because that's just plain silly. David is a perfect example of what I was discussing above. You make the assumption that David has to be a paladin, and I don't really see any reason why he has to be. In fact, given the fact that he was famous for playing a harp, using a missle weapon and then using his social abilities to become a king, one could easily argue that he was a bard (albeit one driven and touched by God). I certainly didn't see him with a mount, the ability to detect evil at will, or possessed of healing abilities of any sort.

Again, there's nothing wrong with wanting to play a paladin differently than is laid out in the PHB. But I'm not sure why you have to be a paladin to play that character concept, and I haven't really seen you explain it, other than you want to wear a nametag that says 'I'm a Paladin, Ask me About it!' and do your own thing.

 

[billd91]

What if an evil ruler passed a law that required all paladins to be locked up and subsequently executed? Or better yet, a law that required all paladins to fall on their own swords? Would he still abide the laws?

I'd be tempted to say that any DM who strictly penalized lying in paladins who then had an evil ruler do this sort of thing and then still expected the player with the paladin PC to stay in the game is dreaming. Having all 3 of those things (strict lying penalty, draconian law against paladins, adventure set in that location) suggests to me that the DM is 'out to get' the paladin.

 

[Nightfall]

Among other things Bill.

 

[Dogbrain]

I quoted Websters to key you in on the motivation that D&D's designers drew from.

Then you are wrong, wrong beyond wrongness, wrong beyond Margaret Thatcher in a see-through negligee and no nickers doing a lap-dance for you to music played on an accordian by George Bush.

The inspiration, indeed, the archetype and prototype of the D&D Paladin is the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions by Poul Anderson.

 

[Silveras]

The inspiration, indeed, the archetype and prototype of the D&D Paladin is the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions by Poul Anderson.

Indeed it is. The knight Ogier du Dansk, of Charlemagne's Paladins, and his 20th century alter-ego, Holger Carlsson (sp? It has been a while). Oh, wait, that makes the dictionary reference correct, also.