|
That aside, legal positivism in its modern form is largely antithetical to the medieval mind, and it stands are antithetical to the American tradition, from which the very idea of the paladin arises.
Now that's a far shot on both counts. The greatest legal positivist of modern time, H.L.A Hart is an American. And the positivist school of thought is very strong with many US Supreme Court judges. You could read several of their classic rulings and find traces of "follow the law because it is law" concept.
Note: I am not American, so maybe I don't have as strong attachment to several concepts as many posters here do.
Also, the idea of Paladin actually hails from an idealized concept of knighthood in Charlemange's times.
|
Also, the idea of Paladin actually hails from an idealized concept of knighthood in Charlemange's times.
The D&D Paladin seems to have borrowed heavily from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts & Three Lions, which was about a Dane, but written by an American, so it's provenance is all over the place. I'm sure the Song of Roland, Knights Hospitaler, the whole Courtly Love romanticization of knighthood that came from 'the Continent' (since calling it France was unacceptable to the British), etc. were also inspirations, but they were obviously all better in the original Klingon.
So, totally Klingon.
ya know the Knights Hospitaler were the inspiration behind the cleric, not the paladin
I'm happy with things as they are. Add me to the list of those that see the Cleric as the holy warriors of any individual god/faith.
The average priest that spends his time in the local village/town/city temple, attending to the masses, is an Adept. Or maybe even an Aristocrat or Expert.
Clerics end up being the "elite" champions of the faith, and a bit less common. Which also allows me to control what kind of healing the PC's have access to in some instances. :)
CG's holy warrior is the Battle Oracle, without a doubt. I made one as a backup character in our current game, and I must say I'm excited to try the oracle out.
That being said, I would like to try the Paladin again someday. They are my (undergraduate) school's mascot after all!
|
I honestly think the Inquisitor is a strong contender to be the holy warrior for alignments outside of LG and CE. Their judgements are strong, their weapons get to be Bane weapons for free that do a LOT of extra damage the higher level you get. You get access to the heal spell along with a bunch of other useful things. It having a D8 hp can be fixed with Toughness or a better con.
Also, although the paladin gets amazing saving throws plus its CHA to saves, the Inquisitor gets the ability to take no side affect damage from fort or wills saves, which is nice.
No the cleric was built on the idea of the military orders of the crusades. And they do fill that role. Clerics are the military arm of their faiths as the class is currently written.
Paladins however are the champion for all that is good, right and just. Not just a single god.
See, I guess I'm letting my reading get in the way, because I don't see it that way at all. Divine power CANNOT exist in a world without Gods. Case in point, DARK SUN. As Originally written, there were no gods AND no Paladins. Also, I'm a fan of the Elizabeth Moon novels 'The Deed of Paksennarion'. Only the Gods can create Paladins there. In fact its a huge deal to get accepted to a Paladin Order and get training. You already have to be a Knight ( indicating they are more of a Prestige Class there ). In this case why would any Gods even HAVE Paladins? Paladins DON'T NEED them, and in fact an organized Church, even a Lawful Good one would get in his way. Dogma, being what it is, in any case. Just my two cents.
While for myself I agree a paladin should drawl power from a god, they never have, except in Forgotten realms.
As far darksuns, No gods was not way ya did not have paladins, the books said something along the lines of " The idea of dedicating oneself to the ideas of Good and right are long since dead on athas"
There was indeed a few undead paladins running about, but no living person raised in the harsh world of Athas could understand such an alien concept of the paladin code.
That was why there was no paladins as they did not fit the theme of the setting.
Don't Golarion paladins have to be affiliated with a deity too? I was thinking they did...
Aside from that though, paladins wouldn't necessarily belong to religions (as in being part of the church hierarchy), but they almost certainly would belong to orders (think knights templar and the like), because there's strength in numbers, political as well as martial.
Don't Golarion paladins have to be affiliated with a deity too? I was thinking they did...
No they do not, Many however do and some gods whose values and teaching do not clash to hard with the paladins code have orders.
I think All NPC paladins are such paladins. If ya do have a god they would have to not clash to heavy with your code, limiting them to One step for the most part.
I honestly think the Inquisitor is a strong contender to be the holy warrior for alignments outside of LG and CE. Their judgements are strong, their weapons get to be Bane weapons for free that do a LOT of extra damage the higher level you get. You get access to the heal spell along with a bunch of other useful things. It having a D8 hp can be fixed with Toughness or a better con.
Also, although the paladin gets amazing saving throws plus its CHA to saves, the Inquisitor gets the ability to take no side affect damage from fort or wills saves, which is nice.
This is promising. I was one of those advocating for the Templar, but this might do in a pinch. Thanks for pointing this out (I don't have the APG).
Also keep in mind that Inquisitor's are not bound by a code The APG says this
" Although inquisitors are dedicated to a deity, they are above many of the normal rules and conventions of the church. They answer to their deity and their own sense of justice alone, and are willing to take
extreme measures to meet their goals."
They are more outside the church and its "rules" for the most part. While the Cleric might be the military arm of the church,the inquisitor is the special forces. He has one job, to root out and destroy the enemies of his faith.
In many ways I think this class is very much what some folks wanted, but they are put off by his BAB and HD and do not look at what he does.
The templar has gone to pick up a lamp shade which has the word "derail" written all over it. XD
nah the question has been answered, this is kinda free space now.
I still think there should be CG and LE paladins. If Paladins are champions of truth, justice, and the benevolent way, and antipaladins are champions of corruption, depravity, and chaos, then why wouldn't you have champions of the other alignment extremes? A champion of rigid order, control of the weak, the Orwellian ideal? A champion of liberty, personal choice, and individual rights? Someone can hold to either of those ideals just as strongly as a paladin can hold to his ideals, and if the paladin gains a measure of divine power in support of goodness and law, and the antipaladin in support of chaos and evil, then you would very much expect to find warriors who gained similar abilities in support of chaos and good, or law and evil. In fact, the argument that you can have paladins even in settings where there are no gods would seem to give more credit to this argument. If paladins were simply champions of gods, then you could make the argument that CG or LE deities don't want or need paladins. But if they are champions of the ultimate expression of an ideal, then you would find holy warriors of other ideals.
It may "water down" a paladin's identity to have champions of every alignment - it would seem to me that the idealism requires a level of extremism that alignments with a neutral component don't hold to - but it would neither water down nor be absurd to find CG and LE "paladins".
|
|
Also keep in mind that Inquisitor's are not bound by a code The APG says this
" Although inquisitors are dedicated to a deity, they are above many of the normal rules and conventions of the church. They answer to their deity and their own sense of justice alone, and are willing to take
extreme measures to meet their goals."They are more outside the church and its "rules" for the most part. While the Cleric might be the military arm of the church,the inquisitor is the special forces. He has one job, to root out and destroy the enemies of his faith.
In many ways I think this class is very much what some folks wanted, but they are put off by his BAB and HD and do not look at what he does.
Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner ^_^
I also believe this myself but I likewise think people are just put off by these things.
BAB isn't a big deal really since the last attack has an issue of hitting anyway. As for the ones you do get, you get a Bane Weapon as a swift action which is an extra +2 to hit and +2d6 damage against them. Then at later levels its +2 to hit and +4d6 damage (unnamed which I assume bypasses DR though I'm not 100% on this). So this kind of works like smite except it limitless.
To fill in the gap of the BAB even more you have the Judgements which can increase to hit, damage, or even give a nice in combat HoT with fast healing (which ALSO makes up for the lack of a d10 hp).
They get access to healing spells plus much much more. And that's not even ALL the judgements.
They are a divine champion for a deity with a code to follow if you want but not one you HAVE to live by.
AKA ... this, ladies and gentlemen ... is your Templar (And then some in my opinion).
Paladins are supposed to be the champions of all that is right and good, but I don't see why they have to be LG to do that.
Because Neutral Good makes compromises, Your not bound by a strict code, your not bond by strict honor and your not bound by doing what is just and right at all times.
Paladins must be good, the devotion they bring to the oath they swear makes them lawful
You simply can not be NG and be a paladin as your not living up to his oath, the very code that binds him to all that is Right, just and good.
Any good character is bound to do what is just and right all the time, otherwise they are not good or at least they did an act that was not good.
|
|
The D&D Paladin seems to have borrowed heavily from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts & Three Lions, ... I'm sure the Song of Roland, Knights Hospitaler, the whole Courtly Love romanticization of knighthood that came from 'the Continent' (since calling it France was unacceptable to the British), etc. were also inspirations, but they were obviously all better in the original Klingon.
So, totally Klingon.
Gary Gygax said that 'Three Hearts & Three Lions' was indeed an inspiration for the AD&D Paladin, and has that book listed in 1st Editions fabled appendix of inspirational writings.
And count on Set to bust out a second obscure quote/reference right in the middle of an old school post.
Ahhh Chistopher Plummer was superior as a Klingon, but if only he got to play a Grand Moff ...
I have to say I was sort of looking forward to it, but your justification for not having it makes perfect sense James Jacob.
Jason spent quite a bit of time wrestling with the concept of a paladin that lived between LG and CE, and in the end came to the correct decision that there's really no such thing.
FWIW +1
I don't mind that there was not a "paladin for every alignment" class. As it stands now, LG, LN and NG deities can have LG paladins, but who is the elite warrior of Good for the CG deities? I want that kind of holy warrior, with the fighter abilities and the limited spell casting, that can be NG or CG and not just LG.
Paladin for every alignment and Paladin for every extremity are not the same thing. Also, isn't the Antipaladin mostly built as a "lol I'm not a Paladin?"
I still want a holy warrior for any alignment.
Holy Vindicator comes close, but isn't quite the same... you can't start out in the class, you have to take cleric or paladin levels. In any case, I'll probably just write up homebrew classes of my own, modeled on the paladin and antipaladin - just wish there was an official one, premade.
|
|
Any good character is bound to do what is just and right all the time, otherwise they are not good or at least they did an act that was not good.Paladins are supposed to be the champions of all that is right and good, but I don't see why they have to be LG to do that.
Because Neutral Good makes compromises, Your not bound by a strict code, your not bond by strict honor and your not bound by doing what is just and right at all times.
Paladins must be good, the devotion they bring to the oath they swear makes them lawful
You simply can not be NG and be a paladin as your not living up to his oath, the very code that binds him to all that is Right, just and good.
But the thing that many of you fail to take into account is the fact that whereas a lawful good character can get away with doing the occasional "not good" the paladin is not so lucky. There are very real in-game consequences for not living by the tenets of their code i.e. a loss of abilities. No other good character has that fine of a line to walk; even good clerics can get away with things that a paladin cannot. A paladin's code is a regimented one. It is the core of what makes them Lawful Good.
Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
Paladins have standards that go above that of being just good. This is evidenced in their code. A chaotic good or a neutral good character cannot be a paladin because they wouldn't always be willing to adhere to that code. They would always be willing to bend or break the code as it suits them. A paladin does not have the luxury to do that. They have to follow the code whether its inappropriate or not, whether it's convenient or not. You can't just drop the mantle of paladinhood when it suits you; you're either a paladin or you're not.
Seekerofshadowlight has it right on the money; he and I usually see eye to eye when it comes to this very issue of paladins. Paladins exist to inspire those who are good while simultaneously bringing fear to those that are evil. They are the soldiers of good, not necessarily of the faith (that is the cleric's role). That is why they can exist in worlds where there are no gods, because they do not draw their abilities from the gods. They are drawn rather from their faith, from the very belief that they doing what is good and right.
Following a code isn't inherently a lawful ideal - the CE antipaladin has a code as well, in game. Barbarians can't be lawful (or can they, in PF?) but most cultures that produce "barbarian" types have strong honor systems.
It is possible to adhere strongly to a code and be chaotic - it is just more likely to be a code of your own devising, rather than one an order imposed on you.
|
|
Following a code isn't inherently a lawful ideal - the CE antipaladin has a code as well, in game. Barbarians can't be lawful (or can they, in PF?) but most cultures that produce "barbarian" types have strong honor systems.
It is possible to adhere strongly to a code and be chaotic - it is just more likely to be a code of your own devising, rather than one an order imposed on you.
I never said that a chaotic person couldn't follow a code. But the point of being chaotic (or even neutral, for that matter) is that you don't have to follow that code. They can be (and often are) very fluid in how they do things. The paladin has to follow the code; otherwise he is not a paladin. The barbarian doesn't have to follow the honor codes of his tribe to be a barbarian.
Oh, Chaotic people do tend to follow codes, they just most of the time end up being personal codes and not an order-wide or nation-wide code. This is why the anti-paladin is CE and not LE, since while they have a code, it is also a personal code. Also, because a CG person's code tends to be personal and not shared, then it is not a good alignment for someone like the paladin. Batman is usually my example of CG, whatever others may or may not say about him.
Clerics are the ones (in fact, the ONLY ones) whom the deities actually invest powers in, and clerics can be of any alignment.
(And inquisitors. Sorry to nitpick.)
I always thought of Lawful people as more orderly, more peaceful, and more calm. (Which is why I could never grasp the concept of an OCD Paladin being a true Paladin) And yes I do believe that Lawful Evil people are orderly, calm, and peaceful... they just tend to obtain that in some not so nice ways, but they still keep the order. Slaying some rebels to keep the peace, that's plenty lawful. Which is exactly why I wanted a Lawful Evil version rather than the Chaotic. I'm not saying they can't uphold to a code or honor, but it's not the Dark Rigid image that I expect a Paladin to fall to.
Creative Director
|
Clerics are the ones (in fact, the ONLY ones) whom the deities actually invest powers in, and clerics can be of any alignment.(And inquisitors. Sorry to nitpick.)
I'm actually not sure how much of a hardline stance I'm gonna be taking on inquisitors. I THINK I'm okay with an inquisitor who doesn't have a deity, but instead is an inquisitor of a philosophy or a dead god or something like that. It's certainly an interesting idea to open it up to inquisitors of Razmiran, for example...
Because I am both Bored at Work and Easily Amused, Grimshado Theater Presents:
Sir NeutralGoodalot: These slaves live in deplorable conditions. We must Free them!
Sir LawfulGoodenough: Alas and alack my good friend. There is naught we can do. These poor souls have been sentenced to a lifetime of servitude in punishment for their crimes.
Sir NeutralGoodalot: But.. no one should be forced to live like this!
Sir LawfulGoodenough: I agree. But it is not our place to tell these people their laws are wrong.
Sir NeutralGoodalot: But it is our place to be shining beacons of hope - to demonstrate and uphold in the most visible way possible the very ideals in which we believe.
Sir LawfulGoodenough: And we took an oath to respect legitimate authority.
Sir NeutralGoodalot: Aye, my literal minded friend, that we did. But I Submit to you that any authority which would to this to it's own people is not legitimate no matter how lawfully it came into its power. It's what we in the Order of the Ambiguous Treatise refer to as 'a Loophole.'
Sir LawfulGoodenough: ...
Sir NeutralGoodalot: Cogitate upon that, my lifelong companion, whilst I remove these slaves from the very conditions which threaten to slowly and painfully end their lives.
Sir LawfulGoodenough: ... *face turns red. Steam begins to rise from the top of his helmet*
Sir NeutralGoodalot: You just sit here and decide whether you're going to arrest me and turn me in when I'm done doing the right thing, stop me from doing it, or help me.
Sir LawfulGoodenough: *head explodes with the moral quandry*
Sir NeutralGoodenough: God's Teeth! I lose more Paladins that way...
I understand James' comment about a Paladin of every alignment detracting from how special the Paladin is. I don't agree with it exactly.
Why should any class be inherently any more special than any other class? All PC classes, pretty much by definition, are already special, and above the norm. Why is an ethical extremist with a capacity for laying the divine smack-a upon his enemies suddenly more special than a studious bookworm capable of laying the eldritchally manipulated smack-a?
That said, why does the 'Paladin' from the Order of the Ambiguous Treaty have to have the exact same Hit Die, BAB, Save Bonuses, and Spell Progression with some 'equivalent by differently flavored' Special Abilities?
I, too, have always longed for Non-Lawful Good Paladin Alternatives. By name alone, the INQUISITOR seems to fit the flavor of a Lawful * extremist more concerned with the DOGMA and RULES than with the inherent ethics behind them. This kind of ethical Extremist SHOULD have different abilities than a Paladin. I always liked the concept of the BLACKGUARD prestige class, but also always wondered why there was not a Core Class to represent this same flavor/role.
If you take away the 'Religion' aspect of it, I, personally, see 6 flavors of 'Paladin':
- The Punisher of the Wicked and Defender of all things GOOD
- The Doer of EVIL Deeds and Lord of the Weak
- The Hidebound Keeper of Tradition and Righteous Upholder of the LAW
- The King of Corruption and Bringer of CHAOS
- The Righteous Upholder of LAW and Defender of all things GOOD
- The Doer of EVIL Deeds and Bringer of CHAOS
The first four guys on the list are probably considered a bit off their rocker by the general populace. The last two guys are probably considered whack-jobs even by the first four.
They should EACH have a flavor and MECHANIC that is unique.
All of which is a really long way of saying that I really believe the PALADIN should be a Prestige Class, along with those other five guys, and that none of them should be a Base Class.
Your Mileage will, of course, vary.
I am also of the 'Clerics are the Martial Arm of the Church' philosophy. If the Cleric is simply your average every day temple priest, why Armor Proficiency of any kind? Why Anything other than a few simple weapon proficiencies? These are not talents your average church parson needs - even in a world where Spellcasting and Miracles are commonplace threats faced by the populous.
The Hellknight fits my description for a Champion of Law. It even has Smite Chaos :)
The Hellknight fits my description for a Champion of Law. It even has Smite Chaos :)
well that is what a hell knight is. They are Judge Dread in spiky armor. Some of em are even paladins. Not sure if the paladin hellknight are the hellknight PRC however
It warps the view of the cosmology to say "Only people who are both dedicated TO LAW and good can get special powers,"....
So then it's a good thing no one except you has said that?
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
|
I'm actually not sure how much of a hardline stance I'm gonna be taking on inquisitors. I THINK I'm okay with an inquisitor who doesn't have a deity, but instead is an inquisitor of a philosophy or a dead god or something like that. It's certainly an interesting idea to open it up to inquisitors of Razmiran, for example...Clerics are the ones (in fact, the ONLY ones) whom the deities actually invest powers in, and clerics can be of any alignment.(And inquisitors. Sorry to nitpick.)
Finally a way for someone to play a Paladin or Cleric of Aroden then! Use the Inquisitor class, add some flavor and fluff and there you go.
Personally I hav always thought there should be no problem with a Cleric of Aroden... he just doesn't realize that Asmodeus is the one granting the powers through proxy and disguise...
|
An approach that was taken by Paradigm Concepts for their Arcanis world in 3.5 was to have Holy Champions by deity, and making each of them a distinct base class.
Downside : page count went up significantly.
Upside : each class was truly unique and pertinent to the setting.
The trouble with that kind of approach, is that you have to integrate the classes into the world, and that may be a bit much, considering all that has been introduced with the APG recently.
|
Creative Director
|
An approach that was taken by Paradigm Concepts for their Arcanis world in 3.5 was to have Holy Champions by deity, and making each of them a distinct base class.
Downside : page count went up significantly.
Upside : each class was truly unique and pertinent to the setting.The trouble with that kind of approach, is that you have to integrate the classes into the world, and that may be a bit much, considering all that has been introduced with the APG recently.
And the problem there is that we're being VERY conservative at including any Golarion flavor in our rulebook line. In fact, beyond the names of the core 20 deities... that's ALL of Golarion that's in there. So building any sort of class that's effectively a specialty focus character for a specific deity is a no-go.
|
I'm actually not sure how much of a hardline stance I'm gonna be taking on inquisitors. I THINK I'm okay with an inquisitor who doesn't have a deity, but instead is an inquisitor of a philosophy or a dead god or something like that. It's certainly an interesting idea to open it up to inquisitors of Razmiran, for example...
I've been very interested in unusual or non-mainstream inquisitors (or those who follow dead gods) and the one I always seem to come back to is the Inquisitor or Razmiran. The real question is, what domains would be most appropriate?
|
So in the end, we abandoned the templar concept because it's simply not worth doing.
The word "templar" is a good one though, and some day we might end up using it for something else entirely.
James, since you are still swinging though here, can I say a belated +1, but also: The word "Hospitaller" is equally as good (IMO) and one I'd love to see included if Templar comes back around. It's also been covered much less frequently.
|
|
Templars were NOT removed for space. Jason spent quite a bit of time wrestling with the concept of a paladin that lived between LG and CE, and in the end came to the correct decision that there's really no such thing.
A paladin is a champion of law and good. An antipaladin is the exact opposite of that. There's no real way to build something that's "in between" really.
hoo-hockey.
now if you said that there must be a good and evil component I'd agree; but this constant refrain of "Robin Hood couldn't been a pally" is ludicrous. The core principle of the paladin is they protect those who cannot protect themselves; they uphold the law as a side job when the law is actually just. Paladins should be "Any Good" and anti-pallys should be "any evil."
Instead I'm forced to play "mr. stick up the butt" who's always distracted by fine, rustic architecture.
sorry if this comes off too stand offish, but this has always been a sore spot for me.
I'm actually not sure how much of a hardline stance I'm gonna be taking on inquisitors. I THINK I'm okay with an inquisitor who doesn't have a deity, but instead is an inquisitor of a philosophy or a dead god or something like that. It's certainly an interesting idea to open it up to inquisitors of Razmiran, for example...Clerics are the ones (in fact, the ONLY ones) whom the deities actually invest powers in, and clerics can be of any alignment.(And inquisitors. Sorry to nitpick.)
An Inquisitor of Humanism! I like it. Take that, Inquisition!
As a minor aside, the MacManus brothers from Boondock Saints are Inquisitors, without a doubt.
|
Creative Director
|
Templars were NOT removed for space. Jason spent quite a bit of time wrestling with the concept of a paladin that lived between LG and CE, and in the end came to the correct decision that there's really no such thing.
A paladin is a champion of law and good. An antipaladin is the exact opposite of that. There's no real way to build something that's "in between" really.
hoo-hockey.
now if you said that there must be a good and evil component I'd agree; but this constant refrain of "Robin Hood couldn't been a pally" is ludicrous. The core principle of the paladin is they protect those who cannot protect themselves; they uphold the law as a side job when the law is actually just. Paladins should be "Any Good" and anti-pallys should be "any evil."
Instead I'm forced to play "mr. stick up the butt" who's always distracted by fine, rustic architecture.
sorry if this comes off too stand offish, but this has always been a sore spot for me.
The game already supports a robin-hood style character—the ranger.