The (quintessential) paladin prestige class

[reapersaurus]

Oh I don't know. Because I *never* said that? What I *did* say was that it's not easy to be a paladin. Having an Intelligence of 13+ is one of the many hurdles that a hopeful paladin must face.

sonofa:
that's quite cheap, purposely mis-taking what i asked you.

I believe it was quite obvious that I was asking you why you are so afraid of paladins being played "unsmartly" that you make high INT a requirement for the class.
Further, I said that IMO, INT is over-rated by many people (YOU inferred) and that the paladins Wisdom should properly guarantee that he is not played stupidly (like unfortunately many of your players you've seen have unfairly tainted your impression of the paladin class).

You blissfully ignored the point of my direct question, and chose to respond, but purposely dodging it.

Now would you mind answering the question?
(Without the ridiculous "It's hard to be a paladin" smokescreen?)

 

[reapersaurus]

As you can plainly see, my paladin prestige class is no slouch in the combat department. Glad I could help clear that up.

You made a BIG mistake by bringing up this example.
See, I'm the first person I know of in 3E to stat-out the example of a paladin that uses a spiked shield and Divine Might effectively.
I'm the author of the Shield Smackdown.

So for you to believe this paladin of yours is a capable combatant in comparison to other PC's that use this same exact tactic, I consider it my duty to inform you that you are woefully deluded.

---- example below ----

First off, your assertion that

This paladin could also convert any one of their 8 turn undead attempts per day into a +3 damage bonus across 9 potential attacks (3 per round for 3 rounds) with the Divine Might feat

is proof how non-combat-minded you are.

Divine Might takes a standard action to "turn on".
In addition, the round count starts the round you turn it on.

So your paladin will only have the benefit of +3 damage to his attacks for two rounds, and he will have sacrificed an entire round's worth of actions to get it.

That's not effective combat math.

Further stuff:
Shouldn't your paladin only have 6 turn attempts per day?
And Weapon Specialization in shield would grant him +2 to EVERY attack, without sacrificing a round.
Divine Might has been discussed on this board in great detail, and it only becomes effective if you have a CHA of 18 or more (which, ironically, your PrC paladin's pre-reqs makes impossible to achieve with normal point-buy amounts).

So with your example as a direct comparison, here's MY idea of an effective soon-to-be-paladin:

28 point buy to match yours.
STR 14, DEX 8, CON 14 (he's a melee-combat guy, Hello!), INT 10 (NOT dumb!), WIS 12, CHA 16
Ranger1/Cleric1/Ftr4
Ranger for Ambidexterity, 2WF, and the ability to Track the evil when it slinks away.
Cleric for healing, combat-spells (Divine Favor, Magic Weapon, Bless, Obscuring Mist, Shield of Faith) and domains! (War domain if a shield-favoring diety, or Luck domain, or FR's Charm domain)
Fighter for feats.

Feats: (virtual feats)
(Ambi, 2WF, Track), Power Attack, (Weapon Focus: Spiked Shield), Weapon Spec: Spiked Shield, Improved Shield Bash, Divine Might, Shield Expert, Power Lunge if human, Divine Shield if diety has shield as favored weapon.

That's just at 6th level! It would get even more effective at the levels you had to go up to (9th?) to have your paladin's combat-strategy fully actualized.

Waiting till 9th to get a combat strategy going is silly.
You MUST have a combat-effective PC at an earlier level than that.
ANY ol' fighter would stomp your paladin without building up a sweat until your paladin begins getting his weakened abilities (around level 9).

BTW: your paladin couldn't take Ambidexterity and 2WF.
He doesn't have Dex of 15+ (gee, isn't the requirement of multiple-high-attributes in your PrC a bitch?)

Also: my paladin can plop his 2 attribute points into CHA, having a 18 CHA (before magic, of course) by level 8.

In conclusion:
sonofa: If you really need me to calculate out how much better a multi-classed PC is than your outrageous-prereq'd Paladin PrC, than you shouldn't be making rules up for 3E.

 

[Lily Inverse]

So for you to believe this paladin of yours is a capable combatant in comparison to other PC's that use this same exact tactic, I consider it my duty to inform you that you are woefully deluded.

Thank you. Most of the rest of this post makes my own point for me better than I ever could have.

My only real exception is your DEX of 8. I would, personally, sacrifice two points in CON to raise this to a 10. That -1 to AC can be annoying, even if it's not particularly dramatic. Of course, this is a personal/flavor issue, and what you put down is perfectly effective on its own too.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Lily Inverse.

Something tells me that a 13th level character, with a supposed disposal hoard of 35,000 gold for gear, will have no problems financially providing for 28 people. Keep in mind as well Lily that these people do not gradually "cling" to the paladin like moss as he travels. They are the number of people who the paladin can roust up to support his cause "when needed". And anybody who supports the paladin is more than likely willing to endure a little hardship in their fight against evil.

As for a score of 13 representing "above average" Intelligence, once again, I have no difficulty admitting this because (once again) its true. The fact that the paladin prestige class must have this above average score is "by design". More importantly, requiring the paladin to have a 13 Intelligence by level 7 (the earliest) in no way effects their "type". Potential paladins can still devote their 3 highest attribute rolls to their 3 primary statistics (Charisma, Strength, and Wisdom) as I have demonstrated.

Is it easy to balance your attributes? Yes and no (I just did it). Should it be easy to become a paladin? Definitely not. Which brings me full circle... and right back to my original reason for making the paladin a prestige class in the first place. I have yet to see one properly role-played at 1st level.

Originally posted by Lily Inverse
I would argue this is counter to the image of the Paladin as the lone hero, striving against all odds with only a few trusted companions at his side.

Yes it is counter to that image. You are zeroing in on my true purpose Lily! Keep in mind that paladins don't need to "drag-an-army" all over the countryside (they can rally them up only when needed). But while we're on the subject of a paladin and few trusted companions, why would any conscientious paladin simply defend a group of innocent people and then move on, gleefully oblivious to the dangers of retribution that might face those people in his absence?

Nay. A true paladin would empower those people to defend themselves against evil, and use himself as the self-sacrificing tool to do so. This would probably involve staying behind for a time to help those people cobble together a self-sustaining militia or makeshift battlement perhaps, but that is the kind of commitment I expect from somebody who is playing a paladin.

In short, I expect a character with a heightened sense of responsibilty for the consequence of their actions.

This is the kind of role-playing I reward with experience points in a "big" way. Does it make for a typical adventurer who goes spelunking for treasure? Absolutely not. But the paladin has always chafed in that greedy role, barely cobbling together the rationale of... "It's for the church". Yet another reason for me to remake paladins into a prestige class.

Originally posted by Lily Inverse
The Church almost certainly isn't going to support this expensive little endeavor.

Sorry, I just had to address this point. While I actually *do* expect a 13th level paladin to fund his own military endeavors, have you ever heard of "The Crusades" before? Church funding big time.

Originally posted by Lily Inverse
Is Leadership a bad feat, or underpowered? No, unless the DM wishes it to be. However, it is one that requires careful consideration before it's allowed into the campaign.

Just like every single prestige class in existence. My paladin is no exception.

Originally posted by Lily Inverse
I can think of at least one Paladin type that completely goes against his entire vision from the Forgotten Realms setting: The Paladins of Firehair.

I would never allow such a self-serving people to exist as paladins, but rather create a twisted version of paladinhood for them as an entirely separate prestige class. Having said as much, I probably wouldn't even do that, because I consider Forgotten Realms a vastly overpowered campaign setting (and largely boring because of that fact).

-----

Al.

See my replies to Lily (previously posted and above). As my example of a 28 point character demonstrates, you can devote your 3 highest attributes to Charisma, Strength, and Wisdom, and still qualify for the paladin prestige class at the earliest possible level (7th). Not so hollow a defense.

Originally posted by Al
However, in making Intelligence a *requirement* and Str/Wis/Cha a *recommendation*, it is implicit in the prerequisites that Intelligence is more necessary to the paladin than Str/Wis/Cha.

It is implicit only if you look at the paladin in one light. Examine the paladin abilities. While you can *technically* devote low attribute scores to Charisma, Strength, and Wisdom, it behooves your character to do otherwise. Ultimately the choice is yours, so do as you please. But you will still need a 13 Intelligence to legitimately *call* yourself a paladin. As I stated before, it's not an easy platinum ring to attain, but at this point in my game mastering career... I won't accept anything less.

Originally posted by Al
What of the concept of the 'humble' paladin, with a quiet form of charisma? Is this archetype to be swept away as well?

Not at all. One can still lead armies humbly. Moreover, just because you serve a king in no way excuses you from having to behave *charismatically* in front of your armies. The more so the better, especially from a morale point of view.

Originally posted by Al
Finally, even with an abysmal charisma (1), by the end of this prestige class will have at least two dozen followers. This is a fair force.

I hardly think so at all. By that point, their "actions" would have become legendary, even if their personal presence lacked every possible ounce of finesse. There are far greater numbers of people in this world (than a paltry dozen) who have been known to follow the most incompetent of leaders. They often ascribe qualities to those leaders which are not necessarily possessed. It's called projection. Twelve followers I have no problem buying, especially at higher levels. That's why a low Leadership score even exists.

-----

reapersaurus.

Originally posted by reapersaurus
I believe it was quite obvious that I was asking you why you are so afraid of paladins being played "unsmartly" that you make high INT a requirement for the class.

I have repeatedly addressed this point now. See my response to Al (above). Heck, see my very first post on this thread.

In the future, if you want me to answer your questions directly, do not attempt to shore up your arguments by so obviously misrepresenting and twisting my quotes (I.E. your "Lawful Stupid" interpretation of my posts). Thanks.

Originally posted by reapersaurus
First off, your assertion that...

...This paladin could also convert any one of their 8 turn undead attempts per day into a +3 damage bonus across 9 potential attacks (3 per round for 3 rounds) with the Divine Might feat...

...is proof how non-combat-minded you are.

Here you go again. Actually, this is proof that I can think my way around many different levels of game balance. That's all. Your self-lauded *proof* is insubstantial. My 4 pages of replies on this thread is not.

Originally posted by reapersaurus
So your paladin will only have the benefit of +3 damage to his attacks for two rounds, and he will have sacrificed an entire round's worth of actions to get it.

That's not effective combat math.

Well, the paladin can still defend himself normally during that round, so I have no problem letting one use their Expertise feat to full effect, boosting armor class by +5 (treating the Divine Might preparation round as an attack action).

Originally posted by reapersaurus
Shouldn't your paladin only have 6 turn attempts per day?

Correct. That should have read 6, not 8. An inconsequential difference considering how long most combat lasts. As for Divine Might being useless with 16 Charisma, I hardly think so, regardless of whatever brain trust dubbed 18+ Charisma as the only worthwhile score to benefit from that feat. Unless power-gaming is an absolute *must* in your game, a Charisma score of 16 does just fine.

As for Ambidexterity requiring 15+ Dexterity, that is completely my bad, but not without an easy solution. Simply replace Ambidexterity, Two Weapon Fighting, and Shield Expert with Mounted Combat and Weapon Specialization at 1st level, Cleave at 3rd level, and Great Cleave or Improved Critical or Improved Trip or any other maximized power-gaming feat at 12th level (you choose). Perhaps not as powerful a paladin to play, perhaps more so, but still no combat slouch with 6 potential Divine Might attacks at 9th level (2 per round for 3 rounds).

Lastly, if you really think that misreading the Ambidexterity prerequisite (my only meaningful mistake) equates to an ailing prestige class design, then the only person woefully deluding themselves here is you. Hollow victories are called as much for a reason reapersaurus. They lack substance. True victories require more than idle posturing. Feel free to try again though.



P.S. I couldn't help but notice that unless your character example is a dwarf (assuming that only the standard character races are being used) your Ranger1/Cleric1/Fighter4 is suffering from at least a -40% experience point penalty for uneven multiclassing. I don't know about you, but I personally find such a racial limitation galling.

 

[Zarrock God of Evil]

I think your perception of what a paladin SHOULD be is much too narrow. Basically they're no more and no less than the righteous champions of law and good and to quote the PHB: "No one, no matter how diligent, can become a paladin through practice. The nature is either within one or not, and it is not possible to gain the paladin's nature by any act of will." I see no official support of the fact that paladins need to be natural leaders or have an above average intelligence. Sure - they inspire - but they inspire through their virtues. A paladin with a 10 Charisma would still be a good paladin - an inspiration to the good cause even though is personality and magnetism itself may not be particularly inspiring. I think one of the advantages of the new alignment system and the description of the paladin is that everything is not so set in stone - so dependent on the historical archetypes. To my mind there's plenty of different ways to portray a paladin-like character correctly. To give some food for thought, I've consulted the old Complete Paladin's Handbook.

The old Complete Paladin's Handbook set these as the core values of the paladin (and I expect the 3E version to be even more flexible with this):

Virtues:

Fealty

Courtesy

Honesty

Valor

Honor

and adds that the following could be considered paladin's virtues by some:

Humility

Generosity

Chastity

Celibacy

Industry

 

[Lily Inverse]

Something tells me that a 13th level character, with a supposed disposal hoard of 35,000 gold for gear, will have no problems financially providing for 28 people. Keep in mind as well Lily that these people do not gradually "cling" to the paladin like moss as he travels. They are the number of people who the paladin can roust up to support his cause "when needed". And anybody who supports the paladin is more than likely willing to endure a little hardship in their fight against evil.

. . . re-read Leadership. Nothing about dismissing your followers there. Since it's intended to replace the Fighter trait from 1st and 2nd Editions, where they would simply "show up" once you achieved a certain level, I would be highly tempted to say the intention is for the character to be required to keep his followers and cohorts around continuously, or to make arrangements for them to be doing something if this isn't possible. Moreover, if you allow him to dismiss and recruit followers at will, Leadership simply becomes a Munchkin's way of solving problems.

"What, we can't go into the castle through the front? Okay, I'm going back to town and getting some followers for slaughtering!"

Yes it is counter to that image. You are zeroing in on my true purpose Lily! Keep in mind that paladins don't need to "drag-an-army" all over the countryside (they can rally them up only when needed).

All right, you completely (and I can only assume purposely) misinterpreted my meaning here. I've already addressed that Leadership is clearly intended as a personal PC army, so you ARE keeping this people with you or keeping them continually employed in some capacity.

But while we're on the subject of a paladin and few trusted companions, why would any conscientious paladin simply defend a group of innocent people and then move on, gleefully oblivious to the dangers of retribution that might face those people in his absence?

Why would the Paladin would move on? He shouldn't if there's still a chance of retribution! But once he's done his job there, he must move on, because if he isn't then he's incredibly negligent. in his duties. To "stay in place" in one of my games strips a Paladin of his Paladinhood, almost without fail. The "But something else might happen here" argument doesn't cut it, because you've heard about some place something else that HAS happened and needs redress, and you're sitting on your laurels doing nothing about it.

Is it easy to balance your attributes? Yes and no (I just did it). Should it be easy to become a paladin? Definitely not. Which brings me full circle... and right back to my original reason for making the paladin a prestige class in the first place. I have yet to see one properly role-played at 1st level.

Actually, one, I have seen Paladins played properly at first level. Two, I told you to do the math of a 25 point character. Doesn't work, does it? Mediocre Paladins are above average for you. Extraordinary Paladins, the kind that make it into legends and history, can't exist, because there's no (demi) human extraordinary enough to set them on the path to greatness that way. Maybe this shouldn't be a goal for every Paladin. . . but without SOME legendary Paladins, how would anybody have heard of them? If nobody's heard of them, nobody will care when one shows up. I'll continue on this point later.

Sorry, I just had to address this point. While I actually *do* expect a 13th level paladin to fund his own military endeavors, have you ever heard of "The Crusades" before? Church funding big time.

Yes, but what you propose is essentially having his own private retainer. See my points about Leadership, above.

I would never allow such a self-serving people to exist as paladins, but rather create a twisted version of paladinhood for them as an entirely separate prestige class. Having said as much, I probably wouldn't even do that, because I consider Forgotten Realms a vastly overpowered campaign setting (and largely boring because of that fact).

They are hardly self-serving. They are superficially similiar to Gallants from the old Bard's handbook, but with several key differences. For Paladins, they behave in a flighty manner. However, they hold firmly to the approaches of justice and order, thus you wont' find any Paladins of Firehair diving out the window as the husband approaches.

What they are NOT is leaders of men. They are charged with a very specific task, and keeping an army around is simply counter to that. Indeed, even allowing one to move through an area that he has been charged to defend would be a huge no-no.

Also, you consider the Realms to be vastly overpowered? Take a look at the FRCS again, and notice the NPC statistics. With a few exceptions, there is almost a direct correlation between extraordinary stats . . . and extraordinarily high levels. This is also true of most other published campaign settings, actually, the Realms just makes it more obvious. Unless you're considering 13-16 to be nigh-superhuman, there simply are unlikely to be any 20th level Paladins in your campaign world, for this very reason. I have NEVER seen a published 20th level character with a stat less than a 12 in any handbook. The higher stats help you to survive the dangerous lower levels, then you replace that with SKILL later.

P.S. I couldn't help but notice that unless your character example is a dwarf (assuming that only the standard character races are being used) your Ranger1/Cleric1/Fighter4 is suffering from a -40% experience point penalty for uneven multiclassing. I don't know about you, but I personally find such a racial limitation galling.

Actually, this probably already occured to you, but the "quintessential" Paladin is still human, despite being open to all races now. Look who ELSE can take this class combination.

 

[Jerrid Al-Kundo]

To "stay in place" in one of my games strips a Paladin of his Paladinhood, almost without fail.

Well, since most folks consider the factors of SoaPM's game and style to be irrellevant, the same can be said about yours in this instance. However, I'll instead point out how, once again, your own perception of limitations is effecting your outlook of this matter:

Forgotten Realms, King Azuon (sp?) is a Paladin. By your standard, he's lost this status.

Dragonlance, that Knightly order (name forgotten, sorry, not a big DL fan) has plenty of Paladins that serve permanent station assignments, ranging from clerical to political. Again, by your standard, these people have all lost their status as well.

You indicate that SoaPM has limited the playing-range of the Paladin, but than boast about your own accomplishment for limiting a Player's options?

Very... Contradictory.

 

[Lily Inverse]

Well, since most folks consider the factors of SoaPM's game and style to be irrellevant, the same can be said about yours in this instance. However, I'll instead point out how, once again, your own perception of limitations is effecting your outlook of this matter:

Forgotten Realms, King Azuon (sp?) is a Paladin. By your standard, he's lost this status.

You're really twisting my words around here. Azoun had an enormous amount of power, and responsibility, derived from his position. Moreover, if you READ the books you'd know that he didn't just sit on his throne and pass decrees, he was occasionally out in the kingdom doing good works by himself. He had a tough balancing act between the needs of his office, and his "job" as a Paladin. But your average Joe Paladin isn't Azoun.

And also note that I refer to Azoun in the past tense because he has passed on. He died fighting an enormous red dragon that threatened his country of Cormyr.

Dragonlance, that Knightly order (name forgotten, sorry, not a big DL fan) has plenty of Paladins that serve permanent station assignments, ranging from clerical to political. Again, by your standard, these people have all lost their status as well)

The Knights of Solamnia are an entirely different animal from the standard Paladin, as judged by the fact that they had their own class, and even a 2nd Edition version of Prestiege Classes. The class SoaPM has proposed here would work well for a Knight of the Sword or a Knight of the Rose, but it's hardly a generic Paladin class.

You indicate that SoaPM has limited the playing-range of the Paladin, but than boast about your own accomplishment for limiting a Player's options?

Very... Contradictory.

I'm pointing out that he is taking a powerful archtype and trying to narrow it to a very specific definition. If this had been a "Crusader" or a Solamnic Knight PrC, my opinions would be very different. At this point, I'm actually rather fine with the class itself. Mechanically it looks slightly weak, but I wouldn't have a problem with it, if used instead of a standard Paladin. But to replace them it's quite ill-suited, precisely because it limits several possible character-types from ever becoming Paladins

The limitations I propose apply to everybody in my current campaign. They ARE a playstyle limitation, but if a player proposed a good reason why he wanted to break that limitation I would probably allow it, and would work it into the campaign. So far nobody has expressed an interest in playing in wartime adventures, so I don't run them. SoaPM is instead trying to shoehorn players who want a Paladin into a very specific role, one they may not wish to take as a Paladin. Core classes are archtypes. If you want to make a PrC out of them, that's fine, but they should respect the original archtype.

Oh, and SoaPM, Leadership does not, in fact, allow you to raise armies "whenever you want." The rule on this is on Page 46. It takes 1d4 months to attract a new follower to replace one dismissed, and longer if he was killed in the line of duty. So your Paladin must either

A) Maintain a group of followers as a cohesive unit or
B) Force a four-month delay to build up his followers any time he needs them or
C) Waste part of the feat by not attracting followers.

If this is what you intended, fine, I'm done arguing this one. Not that I need to at this point, others seem to be doing just fine.

 

[Jerrid Al-Kundo]

You're really twisting my words around here. Azoun had an enormous amount of power, and responsibility, derived from his position. Moreover, if you READ the books you'd know that he didn't just sit on his throne and pass decrees, he was occasionally out in the kingdom doing good works by himself. He had a tough balancing act between the needs of his office, and his "job" as a Paladin. But your average Joe Paladin isn't Azoun.

But the nature of his position called him to do court duties. By your own statement, this would remove his paladinhood. You didn't say "occasional" or "temporary" stationary activity, but "stay in place". His duties required this.

Also, which books? The gazetteer information, or the fiction?

And also note that I refer to Azoun in the past tense because he has passed on. He died fighting an enormous red dragon that threatened his country of Cormyr.

So I heard.

The Knights of Solamnia are an entirely different animal from the standard Paladin, as judged by the fact that they had their own class, and even a 2nd Edition version of Prestiege Classes. The class SoaPM has proposed here would work well for a Knight of the Sword or a Knight of the Rose, but it's hardly a generic Paladin class.

I guess that depends on Edition. But visiting the 3E Dragonlance Board, you'll find that they're now PClasses built on Paladins. By your "stay in place" restriction, however, they'd never qualify.

I'm pointing out that he is taking a powerful archtype and trying to narrow it to a very specific definition. If this had been a "Crusader" or a Solamnic Knight PrC, my opinions would be very different. At this point, I'm actually rather fine with the class itself. Mechanically it looks slightly weak, but I wouldn't have a problem with it, if used instead of a standard Paladin. But to replace them it's quite ill-suited, precisely because it limits several possible character-types from ever becoming Paladins.

Again, you "limit" lenses are on; This is one PClass. Who's to say others aren't possible. Several others have been presented in this thread alone.

The limitations I propose apply to everybody in my current campaign. They ARE a playstyle limitation, but if a player proposed a good reason why he wanted to break that limitation I would probably allow it, and would work it into the campaign.

Which is my point; You've reduced yourself to Style vs Style comparisons.

So far nobody has expressed an interest in playing in wartime adventures, so I don't run them. SoaPM is instead trying to shoehorn players who want a Paladin into a very specific role, one they may not wish to take as a Paladin. Core classes are archtypes. If you want to make a PrC out of them, that's fine, but they should respect the original archtype.

"Shoehorn"?

Y'know, you tie such interesting terms to this discussion.

But, we'll take this as is: Isn't a PClass by nature a specific role in the setting it's used in? Yet your denouncing this class for having a specific role..?



Okay, let's see...

If SoaPM states, "Paladins don't exist in my game, but I have this PClass, The Crusader, it would be all good?

 

[Al]

See my replies to Lily (previously posted and above). As my example of a 28 point character demonstrates, you can devote your 3 highest attributes to Charisma, Strength, and Wisdom, and still qualify for the paladin prestige class at the earliest possible level (7th). Not so hollow a defense.

Only just. And only in that precise configuration. And having a Constitution of a mere 10 is certainly adverse to the paladin's life expectancy. This would give him a Constitution lower than *any* of the iconic characters: surely there is a reason for the craving of the Con bonus? Granted, you could make a 'marginal' paladin using a 28-point buy, but bear in mind that this is an above average set, and you are only just scraping through. Surely paladinhood should be more open to those with zeal and dedication?

It is implicit only if you look at the paladin in one light. Examine the paladin abilities. While you can *technically* devote low attribute scores to Charisma, Strength, and Wisdom, it behooves your character to do otherwise. Ultimately the choice is yours, so do as you please. But you will still need a 13 Intelligence to legitimately *call* yourself a paladin. As I stated before, it's not an easy platinum ring to attain, but at this point in my game mastering career... I won't accept anything less.

It is obvious to both of us that only a fool would deploy low ability scores in Str/Wis/Cha if he aims for paladinhood. Yet the fact remains that Intelligence is required to 'legitimately *call* yourself a paladin'. This has not been explained. Your defence, that a high Intelligence is demanded to garner respect only carries so much weight; a high Charisma would be much more useful in this respect, but is not demanded.

Not at all. One can still lead armies humbly. Moreover, just because you serve a king in no way excuses you from having to behave *charismatically* in front of your armies. The more so the better, especially from a morale point of view.

Quite correct. Good answer. To be fair, my Leadership objection was peripheral- the thrust of my objection would be Improved Disarm.

I hardly think so at all. By that point, their "actions" would have become legendary, even if their personal presence lacked every possible ounce of finesse. There are far greater numbers of people in this world (than a paltry dozen) who have been known to follow the most incompetent of leaders. They often ascribe qualities to those leaders which are not necessarily possessed. It's called projection. Twelve followers I have no problem buying, especially at higher levels. That's why a low Leadership score even exists.

I beg to differ. There is a separate set of modifiers for reputation. It is entirely conceivable (albeit unlikely) that the paladin has reached 20th level without building reputation. For one, it is possible that he has adventured with a party and they have shared the glory (with his 1 charisma, most simply perceive him as a drooling sidekick). Further, it is two dozen followers, not twelve. Just because one is high level it does not automatically make one inspirational: particularly with a 1 in charisma.

You also fail to deal with why Leadership the feat is required, as opposed to leadership the quality. Surely paladinhood would demand the latter over the former?

As an aside, why not consider Sunder to Improved Disarm? It is more logical as it focusses on one of the paladin's key attributes (Str). And it have a similar role in combat (to deprive your foe of his weapon). Make this change, and I'd probably be happy with the prestige class: my reservation about its weakness sufficiently routed by your acceptance of this (and further explanation that this is irrelevant). Remember, my attack now comes from a logical stance rather than mechanical one.

And to prove I'm not just anti-SoaPM, I believe that Lily is quite wrong about Leadership. For one, it is exceptionally powerful: the cohort alone makes it worthwhile. Her point about the economics is specious due to the overwhelming wealth of the high-level character. She misses the point that followers can be made to do other works and not just tromp around the countryside (particularly if one has a keep or similar).

To "stay in place" in one of my games strips a Paladin of his Paladinhood, almost without fail

I'd disagree with this. Can the paladin not do good deeds in the vicinity, such as helping the community and such like? There is more to paladinhood than just bashing baddies.
Finally, her point about the Paladins of Firehair (or whatever) is irrelevant. DMs should not stay fettered to published campaign settings. Just because the FR guide has a different concept of paladinhood (and it is quite deviant from the 'core' paladin) it does not mean that it should impose. Dogmatic observation of every published setting is bound to bring up confusion at best and contradiction at worst.