NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fuindordm" data-source="post: 3752859" data-attributes="member: 5435">Apparently 4e is going to have non-LG paladins (of Asmodeus?). This might imply that all gods can have paladins, or just that the blackguard has become a core class variant of the paladin.  This is not an evolution that I like much, and this post explains my views on the variants of paladin that we've seen so far.DEVOTION TO AN ALIGNMENTIn my mind, the paladin's power comes from their devotion to a spiritual ideal, not to a god. In that sense, they are not unlike the monk. LG is arguably the most difficult ideal to reconcile with society, self-interest, and martial training. The paladin's code of behavior and training is a living sacrifice to the LG ideal, and the source of their spiritual strength. A person with similar devotion to CE, on the other hand, makes no sacrifices and need practice no self-discipline. Where is the power in that choice?  CG and LE codes of behavior require a little more effort, but not that much: the former permits a great deal of flexibility and rationalization, while the latter is still self-serving.  Only LG behavior imposes a true and constant sacrifice on the paladin.Another reason I like LG-only paladins is that it hints at another source of divine power beyond the gods. If the gods could make paladins, surely they would all do it--but *something else* bestows a measure of grace on exceptional individuals who follow the most difficult moral code. No one in the campaign world knows what, but the paladin starts feeling like a kind of miracle in this situation, rather than a variant of priest. For all the other gods, there are always clerics and fighter/clerics--paladins aren't really needed.DEVOTION TO A CAUSEArcana Unearthed's Champion class is an excellent alternative. There you have a class which says "I will devote myself utterly to promoting and protecting one aspect of the world." All these classes make a sacrifice in that they put their lives in the service of a reasonably concrete and difficult goal--freeing everyone from bondage, protecting and spreading magical knowlege, the destruction of all life, etc... Note that most of the ideals Monte Cook suggested are likely to come up often in any campaign!DEVOTION TO A GODThe "chosen of a god" model for paladins works too, I'll freely admit. There has always been a lot of slippage between the "paladin as spiritual exemplar" and "paladin as divine servant" concepts--2nd edition clearly favors the latter (see especially the excellent FR sourcebook Faiths & Avatars), but I think 1st and 3rd edition somewhat favor the former. The problem with making paladins choose a god is twofold: first, you would expect each god to bestow different powers; and second, unless the god plays a quite active role in the campaign the paladin's goals are not greatly restricted. The player may write down a code of behavior for the DM (which will probably be easier to follow than the LG paladin's code), but their character will have little in the way of practical goals or lifelong sacrifice. To exaggerate a bit, imagine a Barbarian who declares himself a champion of Thor, then keeps spending his gold on the proverbial ale and whores "because that's what Thor would do".  Perhaps he has a practical goal as well: "slay all giants", which he ignores most of the time because the campaign doesn't have any giants nearby. IN CONCLUSION...None of this, of course, has anything to do with the paladin as a balanced, playable class. It all relates to the paladin's role in the campaign and to the 'implied setting' of the rules.  All three variants are perfectly viable, but I think we can all admit that this choice will have a significant impact on the feel of a campaign. As you may be able to tell, I prefer the former.Cheers!</blockquote>

Verification