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

[Abstruse]

"I could drop a Flamestrike on your head but I am going to buff myself instead, just for the RPing heck of it" does not say Paladin. I think that is obvious. Therefore a cleric who happens to be handy in melee with a good martial weapon is not a great choice.

"I could attack the evil thing with my longsword, but I think I'll just heal myself and leave my allies to rot." Enforcing roleplaying choices in class mechanics never works.

A lesser argument is that standing around casting spells to get up righteously buffed up does not say Paladin either. I would not say such would necessarily be wrong, but it would be a lousy primary mechanic. Paladin-ness manifests directly in action.

Then what does "say paladin"? They're getting physical buffs from a divine source. If they're X times per day, what does it matter if they're innate abilities or spells (which, again, have been called "prayers" in multiple editions)?

The other obvious option is Fighter with a theme and background. Is "I have miraculous seeming abilities given to me by my deity" does not sound like a theme or background. It sounds like a class ability.

Why? What is the difference between "I have miraculous seeming abilities given to me by my deity" any difference than "I have miraculous seeming abilities given to me by additional studies in arcane lore" as the Magic User theme? Put that theme on a fighter or a rogue and it still works.

So we're back to the basic question again - What exactly IS a paladin? If it's a holy knight in shining armor with a magic horsie and any variation isn't a paladin anymore, that's a specific build. If every paladin looks exactly alike, there's no reason to have even a theme to support it. If a melee fighter who has divine abilties, there's no reason to not do it as a theme. Plug a martial theme on a cleric or a divine theme on a fighter. If it's a warrior with a strong code of ethics, that's not even a theme, that's a background at best and should just be the backstory for the character. And you should never attempt to enforce roleplay through mechanics because it never, ever works. If it's none of those, then what exactly is a paladin?

 

[MarkB]

Woah, nipping this in the bud right now. My question was meant to be rhetorical and I don't want to start a flamewar or derail the thread with the almost 40 year old debate over alignment. I was using that sort massive decade-long argument as a point that paladins shouldn't be tied to the LG alignment.

I don't mind if paladins aren't lawful in regards to society or even to those around them, but I do think that one part of the paladin's flavour is that they have a personal code or oath of some form, and going against that can have game-mechanical consequences.

Certainly, however chaotic anyone thinks Obi-Wan is, it would be hard to argue that he doesn't follow a strongly-held moral code, or that Jedi who go against their teachings don't suffer real personal consequences.

And honestly, the paladins of Order of the Stick are better examples of how to play Lawful Good without being Lawful Stupid...except Miko, of course. She's the trope, pretty much every single other member of the Sapphire Order is the subversion.

Especially O'Chul, who is the embodiment of Lawful Awesome.

 

[KesselZero]

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.

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check 'em out. I think we can all certainly agree that the paladin in any form shouldn't just default to the Lawful Stupid archetype. I play a paladin in a 4e campaign at the moment, and I try to play him similar to how you describe this character, but more specifically as a good-humored older fellow who's been around the block a few times and seen a few things. He's powered by his faith but he knows better than to ram it down everyone's throats. It can be tough not to just play the paladin as a blonde-haired, big-chinned Dudley Do-Right, though.

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.

Thanks for the quick lesson in legends! As mentioned before I certainly don't claim to know much or anything about the Arthurian legends beyond The Once and Future King (and Monty Python, I guess ). So your knowledge plainly outstrips mine. I would still argue, though, that as an influential and generally excellent fantasy novel, The Once and Future King would count as a literary precedent for D&D. You're of course absolutely right that there is no one correct reading or version of Lancelot or Galahad, but the same could be said for the Greco-Roman myths, which went through as many or more versions and stages as they were absorbed by new cultures, recycled, and retold over the last 2,000-3,000 years. Nevertheless many of their strong archetypes (such as the medusa) have made it into D&D. The argument is that there's precedent, not that there's a perfect or singular precedent. As for Lancelot's miracles in TOaFK, this discussion has set me to rereading it, and I'll get to that part in a few weeks, so if I remember to I'll hop back on here with a few quotes.

 

[Abstruse]

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check 'em out. I think we can all certainly agree that the paladin in any form shouldn't just default to the Lawful Stupid archetype. I play a paladin in a 4e campaign at the moment, and I try to play him similar to how you describe this character, but more specifically as a good-humored older fellow who's been around the block a few times and seen a few things. He's powered by his faith but he knows better than to ram it down everyone's throats. It can be tough not to just play the paladin as a blonde-haired, big-chinned Dudley Do-Right, though.

All I'm going to say is you're going to love Michael Carpenter.

Thanks for the quick lesson in legends! As mentioned before I certainly don't claim to know much or anything about the Arthurian legends beyond The Once and Future King (and Monty Python, I guess ). So your knowledge plainly outstrips mine. I would still argue, though, that as an influential and generally excellent fantasy novel, The Once and Future King would count as a literary precedent for D&D. You're of course absolutely right that there is no one correct reading or version of Lancelot or Galahad, but the same could be said for the Greco-Roman myths, which went through as many or more versions and stages as they were absorbed by new cultures, recycled, and retold over the last 2,000-3,000 years. Nevertheless many of their strong archetypes (such as the medusa) have made it into D&D. The argument is that there's precedent, not that there's a perfect or singular precedent. As for Lancelot's miracles in TOaFK, this discussion has set me to rereading it, and I'll get to that part in a few weeks, so if I remember to I'll hop back on here with a few quotes.

And that's why debates like this run into so many problems. You read one story about a character and he/she is presented one way, then in another it's completely different, and then there's a third that's somewhere in the middle, and in the fourth one that character is a three foot tall imp for no reason whatsoever.

And D&D is a big kitchen sink soup (that soup where you throw everything but the kitchen sink in) for fantasy and history. Like I said in the heavy armor thread, I'm talking to a friend of mine who is an author of historical fiction focused in the 1300-1500 era who has never played D&D. I started to explain the concept of armor and she's a bit stuck on the idea of leather, chain, scale, and plate armor all co-existing.

 

[pkt77242]

Why is paladin different from a cleric of a war-like god though? Wouldn't most clerics of a god like Bahamut look and function like paladins? We already have a defender/melee fighter "holy warrior" build of a cleric in the Moradin cleric. What is the difference between a paladin and that build?

To approach it from the other side, what makes a paladin flexible enough to be a character class in and of itself? How could a paladin serve a god like Melora or Avandra yet still retain that "feel" of being a paladin? Can the idea of a paladin be stripped of its "historical" connotations of the chivalric Christian knight (which history itself shows never really existed outside folklore, myth, and fiction) and still be a paladin? If not, how do you justify a paladin class in a world with a polytheistic pantheon of gods with varying personalities and agendas?

I normally don't post here but I think your arguement requires a quick reply. Earlier you complained that someone took your point to an extreme but that is what you have done with the cleric class. Instead of looking at how the average cleric differs from the average paladin, you have taken the extreme clerics (on the combat scale) and compared them to the paladin. An appropriate analogy would be that you compared the darkest of gray to black and said why do we need black when the darkest gray is very similar. That is a flawed arguement. You must look at the average or normal not the extreme. The paladin is needed because it is truly different from the average cleric not the extreme cleric. How about your restate your question but instead use the average cleric (in reference to combat) instead of the extreme.

 

[Abstruse]

I normally don't post here but I think your arguement requires a quick reply. Earlier you complained that someone took your point to an extreme but that is what you have done with the cleric class. Instead of looking at how the average cleric differs from the average paladin, you have taken the extreme clerics (on the combat scale) and compared them to the paladin. An appropriate analogy would be that you compared the darkest of gray to black and said why do we need black when the darkest gray is very similar. That is a flawed arguement. You must look at the average or normal not the extreme. The paladin is needed because it is truly different from the average cleric not the extreme cleric. How about your restate your question but instead use the average cleric (in reference to combat) instead of the extreme.

It's also a flawed argument to call a melee cleric "darkest grey" and call a paladin "black" if they do the exact same thing. Not even getting into the physics of what "color" is and visible light and all that...

The paladin class has to stand on its own. That means it has to do something no other class can do. Based on the Moradin build cleric from the pregens (note only one build out of a range of possibilities for the warpriest style). It also means having enough room within the definition of the class to not have every single character of that class look and feel the same. Can you have a stealthy, sneaky paladin and still call it a "paladin"? Or a violent aggressive slayer paladin?

And that leads to the question of what exactly is a paladin?

 

[F700]

Paladins are a class that really rely on fluff, and exist largely for rping.

I'll never accept paladins of any alignment. The behavioral restrictions that come with being Lawful Good are too important in balancing their advantages.

Play a paladin when you want to roleplay chivalry. If your only interest in playing a paladin is in it's abilities or mechanical advantages, you'll never have as much fun with it as you could.

The always find lodging, being looked to as a paragon of justice, the fearlessness...these things are of zero combat value, but are big parts of the heart and soul of a paladin.

 

[Abstruse]

Paladins are a class that really rely on fluff, and exist largely for rping.

I'll never accept paladins of any alignment. The behavioral restrictions that come with being Lawful Good are too important in balancing their advantages.

Play a paladin when you want to roleplay chivalry. If your only interest in playing a paladin is in it's abilities or mechanical advantages, you'll never have as much fun with it as you could.

The always find lodging, being looked to as a paragon of justice, the fearlessness...these things are of zero combat value, but are big parts of the heart and soul of a paladin.

And now we're back around to the start again and ask the question: If all a paladin is is roleplaying and backstory, why does it need to be a class?

 

[F700]

And now we're back around to the start again and ask the question: If all a paladin is is roleplaying and backstory, why does it need to be a class?

You say that like roleplaying is a minimal concern. A paladin DOES get some bells and whistles, but they're not the defining element of the class.

Why does paladin need to be a class?

Because a fighter, cleric, any combination of both, regardless of how it's flavoured, themed, backgrounded, built, simply will not be a paladin.

 

[Abstruse]

You say that like roleplaying is a minimal concern. A paladin DOES get some bells and whistles, but they're not the defining element of the class.

Why does paladin need to be a class?

Because a fighter, cleric, any combination of both, regardless of how it's flavoured, themed, backgrounded, built, simply will not be a paladin.

And I could say the same about the Avenger. Or the samurai or the runepriest or one of any other somewhere around 100-200 classes through all the editions and third party supplements.

Roleplaying alone is not enough reason to have a class. You can't force a player to roleplay through rules. If you do that, you end up with whiny players complaining how their character sucks because they can't do {insert random thing}. Or you get the 1st Ed Cavalier, which is basically a pre-video game bot.