What is a Paladin?

[Torm]

IMNSHO this is because you're CG, mate.

True enough - ya got me.

I used to be LG, but I've slipped a bit.

 

[Lord Ipplepop]

I haven't read the entire thread with all of the replies, so if I rehash already much trodden ground, then I apologize.

To start off with, Paladins have always been my favorite class to play, ever since my second character ever (1ed) was a Pally. I enjoyed the special features, and the limitations that made it a difficult class to properly portray.

In my recent home brew, I don't have "paladins". I have Holy Warriors that are called by each of the respective deities to represent them and spread their beliefs far and wide. I also allow these "Holy Warriors" to be of any alignment, as any deity can call warriors unto themselves. The special abilities they have are both fairly standard and deity specific.

Examples:
1) All good aligned "Holy Warriors" have an aura of good that assist them when battling the evil denizens of my world. Evil warriors have the aura of evil that does the same on the opposite end of the scale.
2) Holy Warriors must have a charisma high enough to be able to have an effect both those to whom he is attempting to inspire/convert, and those s/he is attempting to destroy. A high strength is also needed to be able to more effectively carry the fight to their deity's enemies. A high Constitution is desired to be able to withstand the hazards of travelinig outside of the world of safety.
3) A Warrior of a healing deity gets bonuses and abilities along this realm, while being denied the benefits of, say, Holy Smite, which is reserved for those of a warring deity. A warrior of a death deity would similarly lose any healing benefits.
4) While mounted ability is prefered, as to give the Warrior a better advantage in combat, and to be able to more quickly join the fight, it is not needed... especially if the deity is more of an "up close and personal" fighter.

Basically, you can see where I take the "paladins" in my recent homebrew.

Some of the negatives are:
1) NO magic items, other than weapons and armor (unless they are called by a deity of magic). Rings, amulets, etc with protection properties are at the discretion of the deity. Healing pottions are permitted; however, nothing that would take them away from the fight.
2) NO spell casting that is not in line with the deity's goals. A warrior of a healing deity would be allowed healing spells, and laying on of hands.. a warrior of Death would be given spells along that realm.
3) They are not permitted to attain any wealth. ALL excess wealth must be given to their deity. Nor are they permitted any accumulation of good that they cannot carry on their persons, or their mount. Nor are they permitted ownership of real estate. No castles, strongholds, or any other structures. If they choose to build such, it , must be a temple to their deity.

Anyhow, you get the idea.

 

[Wolfwood2]

In my recent home brew, I don't have "paladins". I have Holy Warriors that are called by each of the respective deities to represent them and spread their beliefs far and wide. I also allow these "Holy Warriors" to be of any alignment, as any deity can call warriors unto themselves. The special abilities they have are both fairly standard and deity specific.

Examples:
1) All good aligned "Holy Warriors" have an aura of good that assist them when battling the evil denizens of my world. Evil warriors have the aura of evil that does the same on the opposite end of the scale.
2) Holy Warriors must have a charisma high enough to be able to have an effect both those to whom he is attempting to inspire/convert, and those s/he is attempting to destroy. A high strength is also needed to be able to more effectively carry the fight to their deity's enemies. A high Constitution is desired to be able to withstand the hazards of travelinig outside of the world of safety.
3) A Warrior of a healing deity gets bonuses and abilities along this realm, while being denied the benefits of, say, Holy Smite, which is reserved for those of a warring deity. A warrior of a death deity would similarly lose any healing benefits.
4) While mounted ability is prefered, as to give the Warrior a better advantage in combat, and to be able to more quickly join the fight, it is not needed... especially if the deity is more of an "up close and personal" fighter.

Basically, you can see where I take the "paladins" in my recent homebrew.

Some of the negatives are:
1) NO magic items, other than weapons and armor (unless they are called by a deity of magic). Rings, amulets, etc with protection properties are at the discretion of the deity. Healing pottions are permitted; however, nothing that would take them away from the fight.
2) NO spell casting that is not in line with the deity's goals. A warrior of a healing deity would be allowed healing spells, and laying on of hands.. a warrior of Death would be given spells along that realm.
3) They are not permitted to attain any wealth. ALL excess wealth must be given to their deity. Nor are they permitted any accumulation of good that they cannot carry on their persons, or their mount. Nor are they permitted ownership of real estate. No castles, strongholds, or any other structures. If they choose to build such, it , must be a temple to their deity.

Anyhow, you get the idea.

So have you managed to get any players to agree to play a Holy Warrior under your rules?

Because, a long list of finger-waving "Thou Shalt Nots" doesn't sound very appealing. I mean, standard paladins have a code, sure, but that's more like a simple list of taboos. Your rules seem to amount to, "A paladin must make every aspect of themselves subservient to their deity," when would seem to dictacte a lot more of the character's development than I'd be comfortable with.

 

[NewJeffCT]

A while back, when that gentleman named Gygax would post here and answer questions, I had asked him about paladins because the issue had come up in another thread that I had started. The thread I started was why do DMs always seem to play paladins as the chaste/celibate type (whichever one means does not have sex at all) of holy warrior, along the lines of Galahad the pure when there was nothing in the official rules that said a paladin could not be fruitful & multiply - even going all the way back to 1E days. Mr. Gygax responded that he had based his paladins more on the peers of Charlemagne than any type of perfect medieval holy knight, and Gygax said that the peers were certainly not asexual.

 

[Celebrim]

A while back, when that gentleman named Gygax would post here and answer questions, I had asked him about paladins because the issue had come up in another thread that I had started. The thread I started was why do DMs always seem to play paladins as the chaste/celibate type (whichever one means does not have sex at all) of holy warrior, along the lines of Galahad the pure when there was nothing in the official rules that said a paladin could not be fruitful & multiply - even going all the way back to 1E days. Mr. Gygax responded that he had based his paladins more on the peers of Charlemagne than any type of perfect medieval holy knight, and Gygax said that the peers were certainly not asexual.

Well, Galahad's peers at Camelot were far from being asexual too, so we can conclude that there is nothing that particularly forces one to be chaste to be a knight. And in fact, knighthood gets caught up with the idea of 'courtly romance', which invitably leads to marriage, beds, children and other assorted sexual stuff.

But I wouldn't conclude from that a lawful code of conduct allowed for casual sexual relationships. Galahad's chastity was considered to be superhuman, not inhuman, and a thing to his credit and not something to his disgrace. On the other hand, Lancelot's frequent trysts were the one merely human aspect of the superhuman knight, and ultimately led to his disgrace and downfall.

I think any 'lawful' is going to take societies (or at least his societies) mores and laws regarding sexuality - and lets not forget that sexuality is by definition a mode of reproduction - fairly seriously. So, if your society features marriage, then a lawful will tend to see sexuality as something framed by the notion of marriage. Even if we look at a document like the Kama Sutra, we see - despite all its twisty comic loopholes (to a Western trained eye at least) - a document that is centered on lawful notions of when sex is allowable and then describes in detail all the forms in which it may lawfully take - including those twisty loop forms for which it is more famous. If we take it seriously, we aren't looking at a training manual; we are looking at a religious legal code. It is laying out limits on how you may behave. You may do A,B,C, D and E under some conditions, F with this person and not with that one, and if you don't see it in the list its not in accordance with heaven's laws.

Now obviously, a 'paladin' representing a society that produces something like the Kama Sutra as its limits of sexual expression is going to look very different than the one that praised Galahad as best of knights, but they will have in common the belief that their are laws governing thier behavior in this matter which are more important than thier personal freedom.

 

[papastebu]

One thing they're not, is general good guys. They're not pacifists, they're warriors. They fight for a good cause. They are Lawful. They're tough. They often battle supernatural evil. They're defenders of the race, religion or species. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a classic paladin.

(though I don't think real world examples are appropriate anyway). They fundamentally seek to preserve, not destroy or create an entirely new paradigm. Restore the true king, yes. Institute enlightened socialist collectives, no.

I am curious as to why you think that real world examples aren't appropriate. I feel that these three people exemplify the preservation of the race, religion, and specie that they respectively served, even though they were not fighters, but warriors of a higher cause. I can see Buffy as a paladin. I agree that, in terms of the D&D game, a fighter with conviction of morals and law fits the bill.
But we are not necessarily talking about that paradigm.

As far as other real-world examples are concerned, we can't know the motivations of Joan of Arc, the Knights Templar, Sir Gawain or any of the Knights of the Round Table, or even of the three that I brought up, though they are much more recent, because we weren't there. I--and, I think, the others using such examples, anyone really--have to filter any observations I take in through the lens of my thoughts, my perceptions, my personal outlook. Nobody knows what they thought, except through whatever medium they have used to take in information and form their opinions.

 

[Celebrim]

I am curious as to why you think that real world examples aren't appropriate.

I believe he's suggesting that a Paladin must have martial virtue and outlook in order to be a Paladin. Merely being a good, courageous, or event saintly figure is not enough.

 

[papastebu]

Guys, let's try to move on with the thread: No one disputes that a paladin has some kind of code of conduct, and everyone has a different opinion on what that should be, more evidence in my opinion that morality is a learned concept. In anycase you can duke it out all you want; I've already begun researching early christian morals, and that's what I'll use for my paladins. What I'd really like is for the discussion to move towards what role a paladin fulfills and what abilities a paladin needs to do that.

Paladins should be strong, hardy, intelligent, and compassionate.
As to what powers and special abilities they should have, that would depend on whom they serve or what ideals. If you look at them as the ultimate warriors for cause, then having the ability to heal others also in service to that cause--or injured as bystanders--would be good. Also, some sort of protection from the enemies of said cause, some way of sussing out those enemies, and a way of striking them down would be very useful, and therefore, a highly-likely choice for powers granted.

Slightly more esoteric would be immunity of some sort to things that the paladin would come into contact with as he fought for his cause. Some would be immune to disease, or at least have strong resistance, as they would be fighting undead. Others might be able to inflict diseases, curses, etc, and have consequent immunity. I think that having the powers, if only in some small part, of the source they serve would only make sense. There are any number of directions that can be taken with the choice of what a paladin can do, especially if you're trying a ground-up build, rather than a conversion.

It seems to me that your best bet would be to decide what the powers/deities/ideals the paladins would serve are all about, then decide what their chosen ones can do based on that. The strong hand is still a part of the body.

--Steve

 

[S'mon]

I am curious as to why you think that real world examples aren't appropriate. I feel that these three people exemplify the preservation of the race, religion, and specie that they respectively served, even though they were not fighters, but warriors of a higher cause.

Well I thought your examples were particularly inappropriate because they were two Clerics and a Monk.

Edit: And, well, Alignment wise in AD&D/3e terms I'd peg Martin Luther King NG/CG, Mother Theresa LN, and Gandhi I'm not sure, but I guess either LG or NG. From everything I know of the three, at an extreme stretch I can just about see King & Gandhi as Paladins, but unless you have LN paladins in your campaign, definitely not Mother Theresa. Which is either politics or religion & thus may get me in trouble, so cheers mate.

 

[S'mon]

I believe he's suggesting that a Paladin must have martial virtue and outlook in order to be a Paladin. Merely being a good, courageous, or event saintly figure is not enough.

Yeah, that was one reason those 3 were particularly inappropriate. Though if martialness is a requirement, Malcolm X is closer than Martin Luther King. But neither were Lawful IMO - one NG/CG, one CN/CE going towards CG later.