What does a paladin do (or should be doing)?

[IanB]

And a cleric can do that in 3.x and 4e too. And considering the Next Moradin cleric can keep up with the Fighter very nicely, I'm still thoroughly unconvinced.

Again, you can't decide for yourself what is and isn't a cleric and then say "See, that's different from a paladin!", especially when a cleric can, in fact, do what you say it can't.

This goes double for saying what is and isn't the focus of the fighter especially when said focus ("chivalric") has absolutely no game mechanics whatsoever and is completely a backstory-based on. Want a chivalric fighter? I'll use the knight background and play him up as Sir Gawin with a strict moral code. Want divine? Put in a theme similar to the Magic User theme to give low-level access to divine spells.

I've yet to see a single convincing argument for why the Moradin cleric is not a paladin. Only thing I can find is the lack of the "magic horsie" and frankly, that's the power of paladins I almost always ignored because it doesn't work in a dungeon-based game and the mounted combat rules are almost always a cast iron pain in the ass.

Erm, I was responding to your point about early editions of the game; yes, the cleric can do those things in later editions of the game, but then the paladin has other different abilities. I think you moved the goalposts on me a little.

 

[Abstruse]

For me the paladin is something like a divine PR stunt. Or to put it less blunt, a rallying point for the forces of good and law under divine patronage.

This view was formed by some of the abilities seen on Paladins:

{Cut out to avoid a massively overlong post, please see original}

The paladin should share many qualities with clerics, they are both divine, but manifest them in a completely different way.

A lot of those virtues don't apply to several of the gods of the various D&D worlds. Remember, this is a polytheistic game and that divine powers come from actual gods who intervene in life frequently. Charisma wouldn't be a big factor for a god of dwarves or orcs. The paladins of a neutral or evil god wouldn't smite evil. Same goes for what you say about "righteousness", as a god of freedom surely wouldn't want such a person as his/her warrior. Same for a god of secrets and lies wanting anything to be "revealed" as you said.

Not a spellcaster? Sorry, in 1st-3.x I see a little chart that says "spells per day" in the paladin's class description. Want to call them prayers for roleplaying purposes? Go ahead. You're doing the exact same thing that all divine characters did in 4e, from clerics to paladins to avengers to invokers.

Until you can show me a paladin class that A) would work just as well for a follower of Melora, Avandra, and Pelor as they would for Bahamut, Lolth, or Kord and B) has enough distinction and variation to warrant being something other than a specialized melee build of cleric, you're not going to convince me that it needs to be a separate class.

 

[Abstruse]

Erm, I was responding to your point about early editions of the game; yes, the cleric can do those things in later editions of the game, but then the paladin has other different abilities. I think you moved the goalposts on me a little.

My goalposts only moved about an hour ago when I remembered something else that's always bothered me about the paladin class. My original goalpost still hasn't been met.

1) Explain to me how a paladin has enough distinction and variation to warrant being something other than a specialized melee build of cleric, you're not going to convince me that it needs to be a separate class.

2) Show me a paladin class that would work equally well with any god or goddess from the D&D pantheon. (this is the new one)

Paladins are "holy knights in shining armor". Change away from that and it's no longer a paladin. That makes the archetype very rigid and therefore better suited to a specialized build or class + theme combination than a stand-alone glass.

Every D&D world save Dark Sun, Dragonlance during a few of the parts of its history, and maybe few others are polytheistic worlds with multiple deities. Some like Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms have hundreds. Paladins as the archetype represented in D&D over the years has almost constantly been that of the Christian Knight. With the exception of 4th edition pre-Essentials but that's a different beast altogether because of the interaction of power source, role, and secondary role. The real-world folklore/myth/historical archetype of the paladin makes little sense in the D&D world except as followers of a very few of the various gods, and even those would have clerics that are very Paladin-like (Bahamut being the foremost example). I don't want to have to do the mental gymnastics to make those two ideas mesh anymore.

 

[RangerWickett]

I'd like to see it this way:

Primary Classes: These appear in almost every setting, and form the basis of the game.
Cleric
Fighter
Rogue
Wizard

Special Classes: These are iconic to D&D, but might not appear in every setting. Though you could attempt to mimic their powers by combining other classes and various themes and feats, each of these classes contains some special trait that defines them. For rangers it's their unmatched talents at exploration in the wilderness. For monks it's supernatural abilities that make their bodies deadly weapons. For paladins, it's the faith, oath, and code that guides and protects them.

These classes are part of D&D history, and they have important roles in many D&D settings, but for your own settings you might change some of their details. A shining pure knight guided by a god might have no place in the godless sands of Athas, and the ascetic philosophies of monks would be out of place in the dark horrors of Ravenloft.

For each of these classes, we present a few options for how they can fit into other settings. Maybe in your world paladins must simply embody any ideal -- like liberty or tyranny -- instead of just honor and justice. Or perhaps instead of protectors of the wilderness, rangers in your world might use their talents to ransack civilization.

 

[KesselZero]

There's often an argument that the paladin was created out of whole cloth for D&D, that it has no literary or mythical precedent. I'm not sure I agree with this, and other examples have been given, but the ones I think of are always Lancelot and Galahad. I'll admit up-front that my Round Table knowledge comes almost totally from The Once and Future King, but I understand that cleaves pretty closely to Malory and anyway, I'm sure EGG et al read their T.H. White and it counts as a literary source as much as anything.

Lancelot and Galahad are definitely not fighter/clerics. Aside from the fact that a cleric was something quite different in both actual history and the Arthur myths, their power comes not from a special communion with a god or God in which they beseech him/her/it for spells. Rather they're the absolute ideals of knighthood and chivalry. Lancelot is tricked into losing his virginity and is crushed because he loses his power to perform miracles along with it. Galahad is destined to win the Holy Grail and is described as the best knight in the world. Not because he's necessarily the best fighter but because he's the most pure. I think this is the archetype that the original paladin rules attempted to emulate-- talented knight, ability to work miracles (i.e. laying on of hands), extremely strict code of conduct (which if broken meant a loss of your powers, a la Lancelot). The code of conduct is the source of power, because it represents a holy purity and innate connection to the divine rather than the cleric's prayer-and-ritual based one. Clerics are theoreticians of the gods; paladins live their virtues.

In a pantheistic setting this concept must be expanded outward from the Christian virtues expounded in the Grail legends. Perhaps a paladin of Moradin may never back down from a fight and always party hard. Or maybe paladins should be restricted to LG gods only to emulate the original archetype. I'm not sure, and I'd be okay either way (though I tend towards giving more options, not fewer). But to me, a paladin is an embodiment of virtue whose power comes from his innate spiritual purity. He loses his powers if his code is broken. This is the archetypal and unique space that I believe paladins, and not clerics, can and should fill.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Why do we have such a class in the first place?

Because "knight in shining armor" is a classic fantasy archetype, and a lot of people want to play one.

Sure, paladins have fluff written into the class, but that fluff also fits a fighter/cleric just as well.

No, it really doesn't.

 

[Abstruse]

There's often an argument that the paladin was created out of whole cloth for D&D, that it has no literary or mythical precedent. I'm not sure I agree with this, and other examples have been given, but the ones I think of are always Lancelot and Galahad. I'll admit up-front that my Round Table knowledge comes almost totally from The Once and Future King, but I understand that cleaves pretty closely to Malory and anyway, I'm sure EGG et al read their T.H. White and it counts as a literary source as much as anything.

Lancelot and Galahad are definitely not fighter/clerics. Aside from the fact that a cleric was something quite different in both actual history and the Arthur myths, their power comes not from a special communion with a god or God in which they beseech him/her/it for spells. Rather they're the absolute ideals of knighthood and chivalry. Lancelot is tricked into losing his virginity and is crushed because he loses his power to perform miracles along with it. Galahad is destined to win the Holy Grail and is described as the best knight in the world. Not because he's necessarily the best fighter but because he's the most pure. I think this is the archetype that the original paladin rules attempted to emulate-- talented knight, ability to work miracles (i.e. laying on of hands), extremely strict code of conduct (which if broken meant a loss of your powers, a la Lancelot). The code of conduct is the source of power, because it represents a holy purity and innate connection to the divine rather than the cleric's prayer-and-ritual based one. Clerics are theoreticians of the gods; paladins live their virtues.

In a pantheistic setting this concept must be expanded outward from the Christian virtues expounded in the Grail legends. Perhaps a paladin of Moradin may never back down from a fight and always party hard. Or maybe paladins should be restricted to LG gods only to emulate the original archetype. I'm not sure, and I'd be okay either way (though I tend towards giving more options, not fewer). But to me, a paladin is an embodiment of virtue whose power comes from his innate spiritual purity. He loses his powers if his code is broken. This is the archetypal and unique space that I believe paladins, and not clerics, can and should fill.

Lancelot and Galahad were definitely not paladins either. I'd give you some literary examples, but honestly the only real example that pops into my head at the moment is Michael Carpenter from the Dresden Files novels...and Jim Butcher's a big gamer.

Restricting paladins to LG is something hands down I will fight tooth and nail. I may not like the class and may not want it to be considered a "core" class, but in a polytheistic setting where the gods are frequently antagonistic to one another and fight via proxies on the physical world, every deity would have holy warriors of some type. First step to making a paladin class I won't hate is making it flexible enough that any deity can have a paladin without too much mental gymnastics to make it fit. Second and last step is to make the paladin unique enough from the cleric and/or fighter with a divine theme to make it useful as a class.

 

[Abstruse]

Because "knight in shining armor" is a classic fantasy archetype, and a lot of people want to play one..

"Knight in shining armor" isn't followed with "...and brings the wrath of God with him" in the fairy tales.

And yes, for the record, a fighter or cleric or fighter/cleric can have all the fluff of a paladin. It's called "backstory" and "roleplaying". I'd be thrilled if I ever saw someone playing a paladin to character. It's either "Lawful Stupid" or nothing but random justifications for actions.

 

[Leatherhead]

Why bother separating a rogue and a fighter? They are both people who use skills, don't use magic, and stab things. They use the exact same mechanics with differing amounts of proficiency for everything.

Because it's about emulating an archetype without having to master the system. That's the entire point of classes: They are pre-packaged things that anyone can pick up and hit the ground running with. It doesn't matter if we have a "fighter/wizard" or a "fighter/cleric" and a fighter, wizard, and cleric. So long as they are all playable, fun, and facilitate the imagination.

Sometimes I wonder if the people here are considering the newbies.

 

[BobTheNob]

As far as this debate goes (and this aint the only thread...) I was in the "paladin re-producable, therefore doesnt need its own class". My perception was that niche classes should be achievable, but not necessarily represented as classes.

I have read the arguments. Putting aside the strength of the points put forward, the impression I get is that alot of people really do want the paladin as a class unto itself (and the ranger for that matter). So whilst the arguments havent TOTALLY won me over on their merit alone, the sheer overwhelming number of people who support paladins, rangers and other fringes classes as classes unto themselves convinces me to change my position.

I think I will support fringe classes as classes. After all, who am I to tell other people how to enjoy their game?

 

[Zaphling]

As far as this debate goes (and this aint the only thread...) I was in the "paladin re-producable, therefore doesnt need its own class". My perception was that niche classes should be achievable, but not necessarily represented as classes.

I have read the arguments. Putting aside the strength of the points put forward, the impression I get is that alot of people really do want the paladin as a class unto itself (and the ranger for that matter). So whilst the arguments havent TOTALLY won me over on their merit alone, the sheer overwhelming number of people who support paladins, rangers and other fringes classes as classes unto themselves convinces me to change my position.

I think I will support fringe classes as classes. After all, who am I to tell other people how to enjoy their game?

Correct. Who are we, especially the PALADIN haters, to say that IT SHOULD NOT BE a class. If you don't like it to the guts or something, then don't use the paladin at all.

It doesn't mean since the haters will strike the paladin down, the paladin loyalists cannot use it. Accept it, no use arguing.


On a side note, compare this:

Level 10 Fighter / Level 10 Cleric
vs
Level 20 Paladin

The multiclass will only get the lower level class abilities of the two, while the full class don't have to suffer that.

Plus, if someone wants to play a paladin, like myself, we don't want to start out as a fighter or cleric before we can achieve the class that we really wanted. It's a waste of time.

 

[Arctic Wolf]

At first I thought there wasn't a difference but after thinking about it, I would say that there is a difference between the paladin and fighter/cleric multiclass.

Clerics are blessed with divine magic and they can use it how they want. This explains why they are better healers and are a bit more diverse in what they can focus to specialize in with this magic.

Paladins are blessed with divine fortitude and strength, and sent to do what their deity or divine code states since they are an embodiment of their diety. They are the god's elite soldiers and sent to deal with their enemies while the cleric is used in amassing followers through prayer.

I hope this may help and I am sorry if this doesn't help xD.

 

[Li Shenron]

This leave the question, what a paladin actually is and how the class is different from a fighter/cleric multiclass character. I don't have any answer to that.

I think the nature of the Paladin is very different from that of a Cleric, but in general it is setting-dependent.

The way I typically like seeing it, is that the Paladin is a champion of good who answered an unearthly "call" that goes beyond structured religions. This way, it is very different from any Cleric the main purpose of whom is always to foster his religion, which of course may also imply to be good, but there is never a "God of Goodness" so a Cleric's #1 drive is always different, and Good comes more as a complement or consequence.

But clearly this is only one option, and definitely not the most popular. Another way I would like to see the Paladin is that of a special elite force that fights evil with brutality and any means necessary, and therefore must adhere to a harsh self code of conduct to avoid even the slightest temptation which may lead them away from their duties. A concept perhaps similar to the Assassin in Diablo II.

OTOH, the most common type of campaign setting in D&D is the "kitchen sink" where every single religion is the same and has their own Paladins. But if you start having "Paladins of Lathander", "Paladins of Tyr", "Paladins of Torm" etc, then obviously the differences between a Cleric, a Paladin and a devoted Fighter start to fade out.

 

[Yora]

Yes, paladins have a unique fluff.
Yes, people want paladins, so the game should have paladins.

But that still leave the question what abilities a paladin could have that would be different from the abilities a fighter/cleric would have.

Many people made good and helpful posts, but there has been exactly one who actually had any ideas what distinctive abilities a paladin class could have. ^^

 

[Leatherhead]

Many people made good and helpful posts, but there has been exactly one who actually had any ideas what distinctive abilities a paladin class could have. ^^

They don't actually need distinctive abilities. Just different portions.

 

[KesselZero]

Restricting paladins to LG is something hands down I will fight tooth and nail. I may not like the class and may not want it to be considered a "core" class, but in a polytheistic setting where the gods are frequently antagonistic to one another and fight via proxies on the physical world, every deity would have holy warriors of some type. First step to making a paladin class I won't hate is making it flexible enough that any deity can have a paladin without too much mental gymnastics to make it fit.

As I said, this I'm more than fine with for much the reasons you give.

Lancelot and Galahad were definitely not paladins either.

Why not? I'm curious as to your thoughts here. I haven't read the Dresden Files, unfortunately, so I can't compare.

 

[Neonchameleon]

4e Essentials IMO has it right. What Paladins are when push comes to shove is fanatics. They aren't divine or even dedicated necessarily to a God (although many are) so much as a living exemplar of a virtue. So you get Paladins of Sacrifice (the classic LG Paladin) and Paladins of Valour (non-evil). And the Blackguards are, naturally, an exemplar of a vice.

At that point you really do get Sir Galahad whose "strength is as the strength of ten because my heart is pure" - and he really isn't a cleric.

 

[Daggerswan]

You can call it fluff if you want, but the whole LG and Chivalry thing was a real mechanic in the game. It was the price you paid for being a bad-ass. I agree that a lot of people played them as Lawful Stupid. But the DM should have stopped that real quick before it got out of hand. When I first started playing 1e (a long time ago) our DM told us that if we wanted to play a Paladin we had to play according to the principles of whatever personality we were basing the character on. Did Roland massacre the children of the enemy? No (so no killing baby Orcs).

And as for the whole "Cleric can be a Paladin". At the early levels? Maybe. But by level 10 the Cleric is no longer the melee guy. I've been playing this game a long time so please don't BS me.

I have to say though, I would be totally fine with the Paladin as a specialized class not found in the stripped down core. And I have already stated that a Fighter-Cleric would be too watered down to be a Paladin.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Let's also not forget that some of us just don't like multiclassing all that much.

So we have no 'Fighter/clerics' that would be taking the place of paladins to begin with.

 

[Abstruse]

Why not? I'm curious as to your thoughts here. I haven't read the Dresden Files, unfortunately, so I can't compare.

First off, go read Dresden Files. Just trust me. Book 1's good, Book 2's better, and Book 3 will blow your friggin' mind. And Michael (who appears first in Book 3) is what I wish every paladin was played like. He's definitely Lawful Good, but he's also definitely not Lawful Stupid. He has a strict moral code and he knows exactly what that code entails, but he doesn't expect others to live up to it either. He accepts people as they are including their faults. He may chastise them for it, but it's closer to a parent going "I'm disappointed in you" than trying to convert someone. He's much more "lead by example", proving that a holy and virtuous life leads to a good life and bringing more good to the world. The downside in D&D terms is, again, Christian. Which doesn't fit with pretty much any of the D&D pantheons.

And I think the debate on Arthurian mythology comes from the fact that there's just so many different sources and so many different stories. In some of the later versions which include the Holy Grail, there's a lot more of that ideal of Christian chivalry in the stories and it shows through in the knights. But in earlier versions (and versions that draw off those earlier myths), they were probably formed before Christianity was widespread in England. So the stories, even when they show some Christian influence, aren't focused on those ideals. Lancelot, for example, is still an expert fighter even after he breaks his oath to his king and friend by laying with his queen. I don't even recall ever hearing the story mentioned before about Lancelot losing his "miracles" after losing his virginity or ever having "miracles".

Galahad, though...that's my fault. I was confusing him with Gawin (who has a far more interesting story IMO). Galahad's a footnote in the pre-Grail stories, mentioned as being the most pious and virtuous knight but not much else is talked about. It wasn't until the quest for the Grail was added to the stories (pretty much with Troyes).

Honestly, it's incredibly difficult to talk about Arthurian myth because, like the vampire myths of Eastern Europe, they changed with the rising influence of the Church. They originally had nothing to do with the Grail or Christian virtues directly, but it was added in over the years, especially when the ideal of the "virtuous knight in shining armor" and idea of chivalry started to spread (which the idea of chivalry far post-dates the origins of most Arthurian myths). There's so many versions of the same stories that it's almost impossible to determine which one is the "canon" version as it just depends on the author at the time.

I can go into a lot more detail on vampire myths evolving, though, because it's something I've done more research into. Arthurian myths have only really interested me as the tropes they formed applied to the fantasy genre. But vampire myths really have nothing to do with this discussion except as an example of this sort of morphing over time.