Paladin Killing Attackers


Rules Questions

201 to 216 of 216 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Seriphim84 wrote:
Aranna wrote:

I think the real argument here is between interpretations of the Paladin class. On one side there are traditionalists who treat the class as it was intended to be an icon or paragon of chivalry, law, and good. The Paladin was above the petty concerns of gods and they didn't even need to worship one. Dishonorable behavior was strictly forbidden, and dishonorable included fighting unfairly or treating defeated opponents poorly. On the other side you have the new movement trying to turn the paladin into a simple holy warrior. No strict code binds him other than his beliefs in his god and since gods are often fickle in many cases this allows the paladin a wide range of acceptable action. Certainly nothing more restrictive than his own alignment binds him, dishonorable methods aren't banned and might even be preferred under the right god.

I don't see the two sides agreeing ever... there is a fundamental difference in world view even if the two sides might be able to meet in the middle over certain actions.

I partially agree with you. I think there are two sides that won't agree. However I think the other side believes that a Paladin is just a class (like every other class) that can be played in different ways and with different beliefs. They are not paragons but people who strive for good and justice over their own desires.

I think if you look closer you will find what I said is 100% the same as what you just said. "A class just like any other class" is what I was getting at with "A simple holy warrior". "That it can be played different ways" is what I was stressing with "a wide range of acceptable action". And lastly "not paragons but people who strive for good and justice over their own desires" is identical to "Certainly nothing more restrictive than his own alignment binds him" since his alignment is Lawful Good.

Shadow Lodge

@Aranna
Fair enough. I must have had my forum lenses on. My apologies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Aranna wrote:

The Paladin was above the petty concerns of gods and they didn't even need to worship one.

That's an aberration of 3.X. Us older schoolers always had our Paladins tied to a diety.

I will have to trust you on this I guess. Largely because my big immersion into D&D came with 3.x e and I have only briefly played the older editions. Hmmm... wait... {Aranna opens her copy of AD&D 2nd} Nope no need for a paladin to actually serve a god. Hardly surprising since even clerics in 2nd edition didn't need to serve gods and could instead serve an ideal. I don't own a copy of 1st edition... but I wonder if you were using a house rule LazarX or an old first edition rule? That's when Paladins were created right?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Aranna wrote:

The Paladin was above the petty concerns of gods and they didn't even need to worship one.

That's an aberration of 3.X. Us older schoolers always had our Paladins tied to a diety.

I will have to trust you on this I guess. Largely because my big immersion into D&D came with 3.x e and I have only briefly played the older editions. Hmmm... wait... {Aranna opens her copy of AD&D 2nd} Nope no need for a paladin to actually serve a god. Hardly surprising since even clerics in 2nd edition didn't need to serve gods and could instead serve an ideal. I don't own a copy of 1st edition... but I wonder if you were using a house rule LazarX or an old first edition rule? That's when Paladins were created right?

Back in the day, no such rule was ever written. Because it was inconceivable that clerics and paladins would not be tied to a deity. Because you had to have something for a holy symbol besides a generic circle. So you were a Paladin of Hieroneous or a Cleric of St. Cuthbert. or the Evil High Priestess of Lolth. Whoever you were divine wise, you were connected to someone.


I wish I could have played 1st edition in a proper game... it sounds like a very different place (not just from your comments but from the old grognard tales of Gygaxx as well.)


Serve the ideal, celestial courts, the ideas of justice, etc etc.


Aranna wrote:

I wish I could have played 1st edition in a proper game... it sounds like a very different place (not just from your comments but from the old grognard tales of Gygaxx as well.)

I know some people at the uni I'm at, that still play 2nd ed. Some friends also want to break out the 2nd ed stuff, if you are really interested in 1st ed, try to get the rules such as they are and go for it. It might be perfect. Newer is not always better.


LazarX wrote:
Aranna wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Aranna wrote:

The Paladin was above the petty concerns of gods and they didn't even need to worship one.

That's an aberration of 3.X. Us older schoolers always had our Paladins tied to a diety.

I will have to trust you on this I guess. Largely because my big immersion into D&D came with 3.x e and I have only briefly played the older editions. Hmmm... wait... {Aranna opens her copy of AD&D 2nd} Nope no need for a paladin to actually serve a god. Hardly surprising since even clerics in 2nd edition didn't need to serve gods and could instead serve an ideal. I don't own a copy of 1st edition... but I wonder if you were using a house rule LazarX or an old first edition rule? That's when Paladins were created right?

Back in the day, no such rule was ever written. Because it was inconceivable that clerics and paladins would not be tied to a deity. Because you had to have something for a holy symbol besides a generic circle. So you were a Paladin of Hieroneous or a Cleric of St. Cuthbert. or the Evil High Priestess of Lolth. Whoever you were divine wise, you were connected to someone.

I find the idea of a cleric or paladin wielding a symbol of justice itself to be inspiring. Or, a symbol of the LG realms and ideas. If it has power, and a symbol, it can work. There is a lot behind the deities after all, perhaps they can act selfishly as they wish to continue, so the truest course is to be devoted to LG proper.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For the interested among us...

BECMI Players Companion (Relevant bits only) wrote:

A LAWFUL wandering fighter may be known as a Paladin if he meets the following requirements:

1) A fighter must swear fealty (an oath of service) to a Lawful church to gain Paladin status. The fighter must be Name Level [9th] or greater to be accepted by the church. Thereafter, the Paladin may be summoned by the church's leaders (the Theocracy) at any time, and must do as they command, as long as the service aids the powers of Good.

<snip>

AD&D 1E Players Handbook wrote:

A paladin is a fighter sub-class, but unlike normal fighters, all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment and always remain lawful good or absolutely lose all of the special powers which are given to them. They have both fighting abilities and limited spell powers (at high level). To become a paladin a character must be human, have a strength of not less than 12, a minimum intelligence of 9, a wisdom of 13 or more, a minimum constitution of 9, and not less than 17 charisma. If a paladin has both strength and wisdom in excess of 15, he or she gains the benefit of adding 10% to the experience points added by the Dungeon Master.

Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins. If they ever knowingly perform an act which is chaotic in nature, they must seek out a high level (7th or above) cleric of lawful good alignment, confess their sins, and do penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform an evil act, he or she loses the status of paladinhood, immediately and irrevocably. All benefits are then lost, and no deed or magic can restore the character to paladinhood; he or she is everafter a fighter.

<snip>

The following strictures apply to paladins:

<snip number of magic item limitation as previously described in thread>

2) They will never retain wealth, keeping only sufficient treasures to support themselves in a modest manner, pay henchmen, men-at-arms, and servitors, and to construct or maintain a small castle. [...] Excess is given away, as is the tithe (see 3. below)

3) An immediate tithe (10%) of all income - be it treasure, wages, or whatever - must be given to whatever charitable religious institution (not a clerical player character) of lawful good alignment the paladin selects.

<snip>


I miss tithing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

Hmmm... wait... {Aranna opens her copy of AD&D 2nd} Nope no need for a paladin to actually serve a god. Hardly surprising since even clerics in 2nd edition didn't need to serve gods and could instead serve an ideal. I don't own a copy of 1st edition... but I wonder if you were using a house rule LazarX or an old first edition rule? That's when Paladins were created right?

Yep, I remember that in 2E, but nobody around us ever did anything with it...

Except ONCE I played a paladin of truth and justice... And it was STILL the gods of justice and Paladins who looked down and granted him powers anyway...

he didn't push their church.... but he DID push their ideals, and that was good enough for them :)


The way my world is shaping up, there aren't many gods, are some powerful faiths, but domain clerics might pop up a bit more.


Tithing was interesting. I still do it in some respects when I play paladins, but I don't give 10% since it is now nearly impossible and very meta to do so, as it assumes the paladins knows the monetary value of every magical item he gets. Was way easier when it was 10% of the gold, and magical items had no price.

Liberty's Edge

Most of the "bad guys" in the Pathfinder Society Mods are written as "fanatics who will not surrender". I would consider the villains in the campaign settings to be fair game for summary execution, especially when they NEVER SURRENDER. I have seen very few adventures where the players actually benefit from taking prisoners and showing mercy.


It isn't about benefit, it is about doing what is right.

With fanatics though, taking them apart is easier than negotiating a surrender.

201 to 216 of 216 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Paladin Killing Attackers All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.