::Beats head against wall::
::Repeat::
::Infinity::
I think that the alignment restriction of Lawful Good should be changed since I'm sure that the deities can make their own Holy/ Unholy Warriors. I think the restriction should be to the alignment of the deity served and the powers reflect the appropriate alignment. It just makes no sense why only good deities would have a core class of holy warriors with no others out there to "balance the scales".
Giving paladins a whole range of alignment would certainly make the class more popular and played more widely.
But it would lose the identity of a protector and beacon of light.
What I suggest is allowing paladins have any Good alignment and change its code accordingly.
LG = Paladin of Justice
CG = Paladin of Freedom
NG = Paladin of ****** (still did not figure out what would be good for this)
Those are not paladins.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin]paladin history[/url
A paladin is completely linked to law and 'good'. They are not just some "divine" or "holy" warriors which can come in any shape and flavor.
It's kind of like the square rectangle thing:
A square is a rectangle,
a rectangle may not be a square.
A Paladin is a holy warrior,
a Holy warrior may not be a paladin.
Actually from the link you gave me they are more linked to law. They stated as Imperial Guard and court officials. Both needed to be highly lawful.
Actually from what they say the D&D paladin never existed in real world, they only existed in stories from those times.
So I see not problem to add additional paladins to the mix for people to play (for anyone wanting to see how it was done properly check out the Champion class in the Arcana Evolved)
Actually from what they say the D&D paladin never existed in real world
He so did. My neighbour can smite zombies and heal just by touching you. She showed me: She touched me and I felt much better at once! ;-P
I have no problem to keep the Paladin as a noble knight that fights the forces of evil and chaos.
Everything else should be in a book filled with optional rules. Make 9 classes of Holy Warrior out of it, and don't call them all Paladin of...
I'd like them to have their own names:
LG: Paladin
NG: Saint (?)
CG: Liberator
LN: Juticar
TN: Equaliser
CN: Anarchon
LE: Oppressor
NE: Slayer (?)
CE: Devastator
Gods this will never end.
Those are not paladins.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin]paladin history[/url
A paladin is completely linked to law and 'good'. They are not just some "divine" or "holy" warriors which can come in any shape and flavor.
It's kind of like the square rectangle thing:
A square is a rectangle,
a rectangle may not be a square.A Paladin is a holy warrior,
a Holy warrior may not be a paladin.
Agreed. But from a class design perspective, you don't shoehorn things from the getgo; rather, the starting class should be broad and the character concept can be narrow. Or the PrC that he goes into can be narrow. Heck, if you need the character class to be narrow, then it should only be a campaign specific thing, not a part of the core rules.
In other words, there shouldn't be a Paladin class. There should be a broad overarching Holy Warrior class, with the "Paladin" part being one ninth of it (or rather, that's the way it is and every edition has been perpetuating this mistake, and unfortunately, so is Pathfinder).
Who wants to take bets on the popularity of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting Cleric variant as a "free alignment Paladin alternative"?
IF we have a holy warrior class of which "paladin" is a subset I can go with that. I'm just tired of people, with no knowledge of where the paladin has actually come from saying, "why can't a paladin be x alignment." The answer is simply, "becuase that's not a paladin." It's a cultural issue for me, others have no culture and it causes me issues, becuase in their ignorance they find the arogance to assume they know something. It's why I try to avoid talking about anything I've not been into/ paying attention to.
I like the idea of other alignment Paladins. Gods should have their holy warriors. I think that a Lawful alignment ought to be required and seems appropriate. From a player perspective that really only opens up one alignment normally (Lawful Neutral), since most campaigns aren't evil oriented. But what would a LN paladin be like? Vigorously enforcing the law of their deity while steadfastly holding to the balance of good vs. evil. A paladin of order of whatever ilk. WITHOUT THE RULE OF LAW THERE IS ONLY ANARCHY.
No non-LG paladins.
Non-LG Paladins will never be born in my Campaign.
I would like see a more generic paladin whose powers gained would be based on their alignment. The traditional rpg Paladin upholds a code, and enforces the laws of their order. I think its reasonable to limit the Paladin to being Lawful in alignment, however allow for LG, LN and LE paladins.
(i.e.: LG would smite evil, LN would smite chaotic, and LE would smite good.)
See? SEE? THIS is what I'm talking about! I actually have a link about paladin's in this thread and people still don't take the time to see the difference!
PEOPLE YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE A PALADIN OF DIFFERENT ALIGNMENT!
What you want is a Holy warrior of different alignment. A Holy warrior of any alignment other than LG is not a paladin.
Heck you can be a holy warrior of LG alignment and still not be a paladin. But you cannot be a paladin without being LG.
*Repeats self again*
If it isn't LG it isn't a paladin.
I'm beginning to understand KnightErrantJr's post better, But I will perservere!
Back in Dragon #310, James Jacobs authored an article on paladin-like holy warriors of other non-evil alignments. I myself was quite fond of the article, and there are a lot of good mechanics/ideas in it.
However, when people on here say, "A Paladin can only be lawful good, if they're not lawful good, they're not a paladin," what they are essentially trying to point out is equivalent to saying, "A Mustang GT can only be a Ford sports-car, if the car isn't both a sports-car and a Ford then it can't be a Mustang."
Essentially, people are talking at odds. Some folks would like to see alignment-based martial paragons for additional alignments that are similar to Paladins. However, because the term "Paladin" already has an established definition, those variant classes would have to have distinct names and treatments in order to avoid confusion.
Seriously folks: For those of you who want non-LG holy warriors that are similar to Paladins, just pony-up the $5 for the PDF, use it to make spin-offs of the PfRPG Paladin, and quit beating this dead horse.
Laithoron thank you very much, your words and understand are a balm unto my soul.
*Repeats self again*
If it isn't LG it isn't a paladin.
I'm beginning to understand KnightErrantJr's post better, But I will perservere!
Look, I already answered your link, you just keep ignoring it.
In the link history paladins were Lawful but not necessarily Good.Only the imaginary paladins from the stories were both Lawful and Good.
And those cannot be a basis for a D&D paladin; they could but then your link and statement about historical paladins means absolutely nothing.
So while my suggestion of creating NG and CG paladins is not valid by your link, suggestions about LN and LE paladins IS.
Here's the problem with using the historical definition of Paladin: the history of the real world is not the history of the D&D world. In our world, the church in de facto power at the time was the Roman Catholic Church. And there were no other churches, no other acknowledged gods, no frame of mind other than LG so of course the historical Paladin is going to be LG only.
In D&D, there is a whole pantheon of gods, a slew of established churches (and yes, even chaotic churches can "establish" themselves in this fashion; it's more lax, but it's still there). Therefore, it is only logical for multiple versions of a Holy Warrior to come out.
Besides, the name "Paladin", IMO, is flavor, and flavor is always mutable. Don't like the name "Paladin" for a non-LG Holy Warrior, just change it in your head and on your character sheet. It's just a name.
Here's the problem with using the historical definition of Paladin: the history of the real world is not the history of the D&D world. In our world, the church in de facto power at the time was the Roman Catholic Church. And there were no other churches, no other acknowledged gods, no frame of mind other than LG so of course the historical Paladin is going to be LG only.
In D&D, there is a whole pantheon of gods, a slew of established churches (and yes, even chaotic churches can "establish" themselves in this fashion; it's more lax, but it's still there). Therefore, it is only logical for multiple versions of a Holy Warrior to come out.
Besides, the name "Paladin", IMO, is flavor, and flavor is always mutable. Don't like the name "Paladin" for a non-LG Holy Warrior, just change it in your head and on your character sheet. It's just a name.
LG? You seriously thinks Roman Catholic Church was LG? Or that people working for them as "paladins" were LG?
Next thing, you are going to claim the Spanish Inquisition was also LG. LOL
LG? You seriously thinks Roman Catholic Church was LG? Or that people working for them as "paladins" were LG?
Next thing, you are going to claim the Spanish Inquisition was also LG. LOL
Hindsight is 20/20, even historical hindsight. Yeah, now we can look back and see that what they did was wrong/improper/not the best way to go about it. But if I were to put myself in the shoes of the people back then, then "the Church acts with the authority of God, they have the legitimate authority on Earth and I can't imagine that they'd take action that would go against God's will". A Paladin living at that time would consider himself LG and wouldn't for a second doubt or question that belief.
Those are not paladins.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin]paladin history[/url
A paladin is completely linked to law and 'good'. They are not just some "divine" or "holy" warriors which can come in any shape and flavor.
It's kind of like the square rectangle thing:
A square is a rectangle,
a rectangle may not be a square.A Paladin is a holy warrior,
a Holy warrior may not be a paladin.
That's exactly that.
Hindsight is 20/20, even historical hindsight. Yeah, now we can look back and see that what they did was wrong/improper/not the best way to go about it. But if I were to put myself in the shoes of the people back then, then "the Church acts with the authority of God, they have the legitimate authority on Earth and I can't imagine that they'd take action that would go against God's will". A Paladin living at that time would consider himself LG and wouldn't for a second doubt or question that belief.LG? You seriously thinks Roman Catholic Church was LG? Or that people working for them as "paladins" were LG?
Next thing, you are going to claim the Spanish Inquisition was also LG. LOL
That is good and great, but D&D does not work like that. By D&D rules, that was not LG. So by D&D Rules, that behavior can be represented by LN and LE as well.
So, paladins can be LG, LN and LE in D&D rules if their basis is real world history.
That is good and great, but D&D does not work like that. By D&D rules, that was not LG. So by D&D Rules, that behavior can be represented by LN and LE as well.So, paladins can be LG, LN and LE in D&D rules if their basis is real world history.
Actually everything in D&D is based on something else, and that largest part of that is an idealised medival world with magic, the paladin was based on the concepts of the knights of the camelot which were in turn based on the tales and legends surrounding an actual class of people "paladines" that where supposed to be known for their continuous good and lawful activities and codes as espoused by the Catholic Church of the time which decided what was good and just.
So yeah, at the time that was LG, becuase the code of Chivilary was considered the code of LG. Granted we see problems with it from our current modern views but the ideal for this would be the "Knight's Code" from dragonheart, and the old stories.
So we base the idea for this "ideal Knight" this Paladin, on these histories. IF one of those paladines or Knights of the Round table where found wanting they suffered greatly for it and where quite possibly kicked out.
However Also remember that Paladins in D&D understand better than almost anyone else how one simple little mistake can ruin your entire life (and powers) and how redemption can bring you back. Thus they are more likely to try and find ways to redeem people than any other class.
Y'all need to check out "Three Hearts and Three Lions" by Poul Anderson. It was the literary source for paladins in D&D from Day 1. When you play a paladin you are not playing the earthly historical or a vague amalgorum of fantasy paladins, you are playing one from this book.
|
Actually from the link you gave me they are more linked to law. They stated as Imperial Guard and court officials. Both needed to be highly lawful.
Actually from what they say the D&D paladin never existed in real world, they only existed in stories from those times.So I see not problem to add additional paladins to the mix for people to play (for anyone wanting to see how it was done properly check out the Champion class in the Arcana Evolved)
the Paladin is based in Chales Magnus (Charlemagne) Palace Guards... and yes they where quite the paladins of noble spirit and lawful demeanor, as much as our medieval times let anyway
champions have a different, if interesting, approach... still the paladin is an embodiment of ideals
for reference of different alignment "paladins" there are 2 dragon magazines dealing with non-evil "paladins" and evil paladins, they have already the name and the "class modifications"
any way... while i would leave paladins and champions co-exist in the same campaign, and i would like to see "champions" of the other faits... the true is Paladins are LG, no discussion
if a player can't play a paladin ebcause its LG and compromised with a religion or commited to an idea... he should be playing other thing and NOT a Paladin in the 1st place.
LG? You seriously thinks Roman Catholic Church was LG? Or that people working for them as "paladins" were LG?
Next thing, you are going to claim the Spanish Inquisition was also LG. LOL
the Spanish Inquisition was not run by the church... ok priest managed and organices and did everything... but the people who decided who was a bishop or who to persecute in the end fall in the hands of the Kings and Viceroys...
this was because with the appearance of America the effort to manage this land in the "name of God" was imposible for Rome, so when the Kings of Spain asked for freedom to organice their lands (which were the ones with more of it) the church acepted happily...
so in the end the debasement and cruelty of Spanish Inquisition falls in the hands of their Catholic Kings... which first and foremost need was money... that why they took it against Jews (many of who were rich at the moments) and the enemies of the state, meaning the Saracene, after years of Reconquista i suppose they wanted every muslim out of Spain...
i did an investigation afew years regard this topic, more explicitly directed to the Inquisition in Mexico... but both Spanish and Mexican Inquisition are almost inseperable... different circumstances and detail, same head and deliveration, still all was about money.
Still most Inquisitor even spanish ones would fall more inline with LN than evil... they were saving your soul after all.
Who wants to take bets on the popularity of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting Cleric variant as a "free alignment Paladin alternative"?
mmm its nice... but i like my domains more now
and more important... i still play my cleric as LG so... in the end if you want to play a LG Holy Warrior its fine, if you want to play a non LG Paladin... 1) well good luck finding a DM who will let you, 2) don't expect this to go to the main rules... and i really hope it will never be there, 3) there are already articles detailing it, check them... iwill try to check which Dragon Magazine are this... but i make no promises
Back in Dragon #310, James Jacobs authored an article on paladin-like holy warriors of other non-evil alignments. I myself was quite fond of the article, and there are a lot of good mechanics/ideas in it.
310? mmm ok then i thin 311 was the one with the evil versions... i think
edit: nop 312
both articles are quite good (snif, back when i could get them inmy "local" store)