Why Should It Be Hard To Be A Paladin?

[pawsplay]

No, he doesn't need proof. That's a relatively modern conceit, not a universal.

Not only that, with the wide variety of spells that would prove guilt fairly easily, it's a moot point anyway.

Does a paladin way more than a duck? Is there blood on the queen's sheets?

 

[pawsplay]

The thing is, as written the Paladin is an odd fit with D&D. The inspiration it is drawn from is largely that of the knight errant, the Knights of the Round Table, the Peers of Charlemagne, and the like. But in each of these instances, the source material is generally tied quite tightly to Christianity.

I think, by Christianity, you meant to say "Norse and Celtic paganism." Charlemagne's knights were a significant development in Christianity. However, the Knights of the Round Table tales are drawn from a pagan milieu, with only the barest veneer otherwise. Arthur is a Bretonish chief, Merlin (Myrddin) is a druid hero, Lancelot's stories were stripped from Bedwyr, Galahad is half-fey, Morrigaine is a goddress, the Lady of the Lake is a goddess, Excalibur is from the same legend as Aragorn's broken blade which is also retold in Poul Anderon's The Broken Sword. And, of course, martial honor is a pagan virtue, not a Christian one.

Galahad is the main inspiration for paladins, and according to the stories, he was the son of the Lady of the Lake by Lancelot's adultery, was fair in form but immensely strong, completely morally pure, killed Saracens on the spot for disrespecting the cross, and occasionally would just smite someone for not being as noble as he.

Joan of Arc is another source... she was a visionary, who led an army, who ended up perishing when her moral mission failed to coincide with certain political realities.

The most significant RPG-related paladin I can think of is Paksenarrion, created by Elizabeth Moon, who is a pagan character and must contend with ritual purity related to a deity of harvest and nature, and spends much of her time wondering about the true nature of her powers.

Lancelot is a fighter who multiclassed to paladin, then promptly discovered he couldn't hack it.

 

[el-remmen]

In my campaigns, there is room for both "the world is black and white" type paladins, and high-minded paragons of virtue who push the envelope of what acceptable mortality is toward more "modern" ideals.

That being said, playing either of those kinds (or something in-between) is not easy, nor do I think it should be.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

One thing I hate is the whole "you must be Good" type campaigns, which include at least 1 paladin throughout its duration, and the game always comes down to 'kill it and take its stuff', which by D&D standards, isn't Evil. And there is always a Blasphemy spell in there somewhere, just because there's nothing you can do about it, because you have to be Good. :\

If you think paladins are hard to play, then just be a Crusader instead. All the zeal, none of the nonsense.

 

[FireLance]

In my campaigns, there is room for both "the world is black and white" type paladins, and high-minded paragons of virtue who push the envelope of what acceptable mortality is toward more "modern" ideals.

I think there are about as many definitions of "paladin" as there are definitions of "hero" and "lawful good", and I try to accomodate as many as I can in my games (in other words, if I'm not fundamentally against it, I'll allow it).

That being said, playing either of those kinds (or something in-between) is not easy, nor do I think it should be.

You can't just leave that statement hanging. Tell us why playing a paladin shouldn't be easy.

 

[Vocenoctum]

The difference is that I don't intend to present my players with situations that will have them tied up in moral conundrums for hours. If they wander across a scruffy group that radiates evil, it's because they've just raped and plundered a village, not because they've been cheating the village's merchants.

I've played numerous paladins, though I'm not the "detect evil, smite evil" type, I use the Evil-dar repeatedly and often. Some of the DM's get irritated by it, but knowing that the merchant is evil and bears watching is just as useful as spotting evil before it's visible.

I have had plenty of DM's that think the alignments are all equally represented. I think Humanity is generally Neutral (60%) with real evil being maybe 5%. Neutral guys can still do evil without being evil.

If a DM plans on screwing the paladin player over with moral dillemas, then just tell the players "no Paladins" at the start and make it easier.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Bear in mind that the average adventuring party have a brigand-ish look to them, and spend a lot of time wandering in the lawless parts of the world. That being the case, would a wandering Paladin be justified in ambushing your PCs as they travel on their way to the dungeon?

Maybe, yes. I do not find it ridiculous at all.

In fact, pretty darn close to exactly that happened all the friggin' time to Arthurian knights. They usually parleyed successfully before anyone got killed. Usually.

Storyteller01's ideas are playable...in some kind of campaign I have never participated in.

I want to play a heroic character cut from the same cloth of the old tales I am familiar with, ones that are greatly romanticized for sure, but otherwise carry much or the original tone and flavor of a world that cherishes (and mourns) for their bold men. If that is not a fit for D&D I do not know what is.

I just cannot think of any story examples of paladin-like characters that fit Storyteller01's standards that are not very modern and (usually) created for children. I am not trying to be insulting or anything like that, but that is how I see it.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Storytellerl01,

I think that your passion for uprightness speaks to your credit as a human being. I just think you are confused about what makes for a good game that most people would enjoy.

IMO it boils down to you presuming moderns concepts based on the idea that magic makes it plausible. If I wanted to play in a modernish world with an extremely thin veneer of fantasy, then I would play something other than D&D.

 

[Storyteller01]

Storytellerl01,

I think that your passion for uprightness speaks to your credit as a human being. I just think you are confused about what makes for a good game that most people would enjoy.

Rather subjective assessment there. Such games were how I was introduced to D&D in the first place. I'm by no means the only one playing them.

IMO it boils down to you presuming moderns concepts based on the idea that magic makes it plausible. If I wanted to play in a modernish world with an extremely thin veneer of fantasy, then I would play something other than D&D.

How is the idea of a god powered knight smiting a necromancer, then going home to count his new stash of gold, any less modern than stories written in comic books?

The game itself is predicated on modern concepts. The stories with the heros always winning are sanitized versions of older, more grittier stories. The little mermaid dies after seeing her prince betray her, little red riding hood gets eaten, the frogs get a tyrant snake for a king, gods commit incest, fairies did more than just make you sleep, beowulf falls to poison, Pursius is killed by Dionesys after supposed earning his happily ever after, and for all the good he does Arthur still dies. Even Bellerophon died when he attempted to ride to the top of Mt. Olympus, and at Zeus' hand (or gadfly, as the case may be).

If we played D&D by the old stories, every character would be cursed to suffer horribly as a moral to children or die horribly in battle as examples of glory to adults. The paladin never prospers on the wealth he finds in a cave, or retires happily with visions of past glories hanging on their wall.

I'm not applying anymore modern thoughts than anyone else who plays. I'm just playing another perspective of them.

 

[Henry]

If we played D&D by the old stories, every character would be cursed to suffer horribly as a moral to children or die horribly in battle as example of glory to adults. The paladin never prospers on the wealth he finds in a cave, or retires happily with visions of past glories hanging on their wall.

For some reason, my mind screamed "Warhammer" when reading this paragraph, because of the discussions I was having in another thread. But while it's true that fairy tales of the last 150 years are a LOT cleaner/happier than the original versions, I don't feel like there's a connect between the modern versions of fairy tales and the Paladin dilemmas on the table. Also in modern stories, Dirty Harry blows away the bad guys in vigilante-style, Martin Riggs from Lethal Weapon is suicidal and a bit nuts but still a hero, and Captain Malcolm Reynolds kicks a stubborn lackey into a jet intake. While a paladin should have higher standards, those standards I don't feel should be counter-intuitive to "kicking unholy butt." The fact that others have a different definition of "righteous butt-kicking" I'm fine with.

I do agree it should be sometimes lonely to be a paladin, but I also believe he shouldn't have to be all cop; I like him better as a little bit cop, and a little bit Dirty Harry.