What *IS* a Paladin? [Archive] - Wizards Community

What *IS* a Paladin? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Aramil_silverwind
07-02-04, 03:15 AM Before you read this, this is NOT another "would a paladin lose his paladinhood if _____" thread. Ok, with that dealt with... onward.

My question is imple... what IS a paladin? Myself and my gaming group all have different oppinions of such.

For me, a paladin is a paragon of good. They are always polite and courtious to those that give them the same regards, and also to those who have not shown their manners yet. They seek to redeem evil and wrongdoers, and if they cannot in any way, shape, or form, (such as demons and chromatic dragons) be redeemed, they are to be killed without any kind of mercy. They only spend what money they need to, and all spare change goes to charities and such. I could go on and on with this, but I think you all get the point. While monks strive to make thier mind and body one thing, the paladin strives to make himself and the very essence of good into one being. My paladin is very much exalted, and could be nothing less.

The other oppinion in my group (theres only 2 of us that bother with this kind of philisophy) is that palainds are more like knights of the chalice. Demon-slaying, evil-booting, holier-than-thou, for the greater good. I do not have the exact description, but I will PM the holder of this oppinion to put his 2 cents in.
Persephone Imytholin
07-02-04, 08:21 AM Settle in.

The word 'paladin' comes from Latin 'palatinus', meaning palatine or imperial. It strictly refers to one of the twelve peers of the court of Frankish king Charlemagne (literally 'Charles the Great'), but has since expanded to mean the idea of a 'heroic champion' - like a French version of Arthur's little clique of legendary knights. Fun stuff.

The biggest difference is that while Charlemagne existed and Artus is mere speculation, we know about one. The other is practically reserved for historians and classicists.

Now, on with the rant. Despite good historical evidence of an apathetic attitude toward religion from those with status in the early middle (aka dark) ages, the legends of these paladins are heavily steeped in religious imagery. Combined with the purple prose mediaeval writers loved to indulge in, it's clear to see how the paladin came to be confused with a paragon of holiness.

Enter TSR, who revive the idea of a 'paladin' as a godly warrior. It's pretty clear-cut - bashing heads for duty and deity. By the 3e definition, devotion to righteousness is sufficient - and deities don't matter a toss. That kind of thinking's actually just fine by me - it seems, somehow, more fitting for a paladin to serve the pure ideal of righteousness than a divine puppeteer with some endgame beyond the mortal ken.

Aside: Despite popular belief, deities are just in it for themselves. Some like 'good', but it eventually percolates down to a selfishness which can be defined as 'evil'. Fun fun fun.

Let's ignore the d20 paladin for a minute, and instead focus on the old 2nd ed days. Leafing through the PH, we find:

"A paladin may not possess more than 10 magical items. Furthermore, these may not exceed one suit of armor, one shield, four weapons (arrows and bolts are not counted), and four other magical items.
A paladin never retains wealth. He may keep only enough treasure to support himself in a modest manner, pay his henchmen, men-at-arms, and servitors a reasonable rate, and to construct or maintain a small castle or keep (funds can be set aside for this purpose). All excess must be donated to the church or another worthy cause. This money can never be given to another player character or NPC controlled by a player.
A paladin must tithe to whatever charitable, religious institution of lawful good alignment he serves. A tithe is 10% of the paladin's income, whether coins, jewels, magical items, wages, rewards, or taxes. It must be paid immediately."

This brings us a little closer to the spirit of the fantasy Paladin. The paladin must be Lawful and Good (keep them seperate, they mean different things), and gives what (s)he doesn't need to worthy causes. Excess isn't something a paladin should ever be caught indulging in, especially when dealing with foes.

Curiously, the 3e PH brings us this gem - "punish those that harm or
threaten innocents" - which, given the Paladin's deference to authority, means that where possible a paladin should find restitution that doesn't involve killing.

Overall, a paladin's job isn't to make themselves into the essence of good. The paladin's job is to bring purity and good, and all other things happy and virtuous, to the people and the land. The paladin's job is as much King and Country as religious. Keep in mind that the paladin should, at times, be the sole bastion of good in the midst of darkness and despair, and torn between their duties. This is when their Code shines the brightest - when it's used as a tool to bring about internal conflict, and drive the story from without and within.

Your paladin should be a holy pain in the... ears (it's an anagram). They should be an exemplar of all things good, even attempting to reason with creatures that will always be evil. A paladin turning the dead isn't vanquishing a threat, they're returning the dead to their eternal rest. A paladin doesn't play good cop, bad cop. They'll try to reason with even the vilest of creatures, because inspiring good is a holier deed than vanquishing evil - and, ideally, they should stop their party members from shooting on sight. The paladin is a walking angstfest, torn between the desire to create the greatest good, while protecting that which there already is.

And that's what makes them interesting.
Aramil_silverwind
07-02-04, 02:25 PM Originally posted by Persephone Imytholin
They'll try to reason with even the vilest of creatures, because inspiring good is a holier deed than vanquishing evil

This seems to be the only real difference between our views. Your paladin seems to be a bit "blinded by goodness" as they might say. What point is there of trying to redeem a Balor? or convert a Red Wyrm into a follower of Pelor? With such creatures, there is no point of reasoning, because they cannot be redeemed by anything (short of that cursed exalted spell). Shouldn't such complete and utter evil be destroyed? I mean Devils just CANNOT be redeemed.
Merxis
07-02-04, 03:51 PM Originally posted by Aramil_silverwind
This seems to be the only real difference between our views. Your paladin seems to be a bit "blinded by goodness" as they might say. What point is there of trying to redeem a Balor? or convert a Red Wyrm into a follower of Pelor? With such creatures, there is no point of reasoning, because they cannot be redeemed by anything (short of that cursed exalted spell). Shouldn't such complete and utter evil be destroyed? I mean Devils just CANNOT be redeemed.

now, there you are wrong. It could happen, I mean, if you point out that the average adventurer earns more than the average pit fiend on a yearly basis, you can start them on the right track...

its just a lot more likely you will end up a pile of paladin goo on his foot then it is the pit fiend will join you. :D

seriously though, any of the ways you described above can work. They all are just different ways of helping good-ness prevail over evil-ness. A 'paladin' in D&D covers a huge array of possible characters, even when it is one of, if not the, most defined class. You can play a Paladin that resembles Aragorn from LOTR if you want too, and it will make perfect sense. Good over evil *check*... and thats really all thats required.
That is one of the biggest strengths of 3.0/3.5 D&D, it is so open-ended. You can do so much and still follow the rules. the Paladin class may not have the wealth of characters available to it that the Rogue does, but the golden-clad lawful-stupid sword-and-board wielding tank is not the only way to play a paladin.
zioth
07-02-04, 04:43 PM You may want to read The Once and Future King, by T.H White. It's a very well-told account of Arthurian legend, but besides that, it includes a lot of characters that can be considered palladins. These include Arthur himself (wise and endlessly forgiving), Lancelot (strong and heroic but none too bright), Galahad (pious and good to the point where he considers everyone else below him) and several others.

If you use that book as a guideline, you'll end up with a game that has a wide variety of palladins, each with his own view on what palladinhood means, but all of whom qualify for the title.

Besides being lawful and good, palladins often personify one or more particular traits, such as heroism, piety, honor, chastity, or innocence. When creating a palladin's personality, it could be useful to take lawfulness, goodness, and one other trait, and take them all to an extreme. The third trait will temper and modify the other two, and create enough variety that no two palladins will be alike.
Aki Warren
07-02-04, 08:43 PM I hardly think Lancelot was a Paladin, since all he was really intrested in was killing and women. That's more like a Barbarian, fighter, or normal Human to me. He was just really good at fighting.

I personally perfer the 2e paladin. A Paladin should reason as much as possible with a being before slaying it. That is to say, reasonably possible. Obviously the forces of good gave the Paladin a mind (and a wisdom score!) good enough to make those types of decisions.

For instance; A child is pointing a crossbow at a cleric, claiming his god is evil and sinful. The cleric is talking the child down slowly, but the Kid looks determined, and seems ready to fire. What do you do?

A Paladin will have to decide which is better for the forces of good. Killing the kid, shooting at the kid and risking missing, letting the Cleric attempt to talk him down, or perhaps just aiding the Cleric in talking him down. Difficult to say. And what if the child shoots the cleric and kills him? What then?

Some people play the paladin as a knight. I think this is foolish; Knights should be fighters with Prestige classes. Paladins are more like...Heroes really. They, almost above all other classes, are heroic. That is what makes them shine.

Honestly, this is why Paladins are restrictive. Yes, they are strong, but difficult to roleplay (unless you do Lawful Stupid). A good example of a Paladin is Sturm/Steel Brightblade (Yes Steel worshipped the Goddess of Darkness, but he was still a Paladin. Tanis was merely lawful (perhaps netural) good, that is the difference!)

BTW, play Dragonlance. Any God who would give up immortality for his children is a good god in my book, and not out for himself
HammerHeart81
07-03-04, 01:27 AM To me, the Paladin is a warrior who believes in doing the right thing and sticks for the little guy. Sure we hear tales of Paladins putting the holy smack down on some demon but what about the Paladin that forms a bucket brigade to put out a fire, or applying healing to the sick and injured. This is no task that is too great or to small be it smiting a dragon or help a peasant put up a fence, a pladin is someone who is here to help.
Persephone Imytholin
07-03-04, 02:40 AM Posted by HammerHeart81
"[Even to] help a peasant put up a fence, a paladin is someone who is here to help."

Picking up on this point, why don't paladins do more in the way of general community service? It seems to me that a paladin shouldn't be raising castles, they should be setting up a Bleak Cabal style soup kitchen, running an orphanage or conducting rehab programs for problem mediaeval youths.

Oh, and, play Planescape. It pays to be peery of all Powers, especially the ones hanging out on Celestia.
Trydan
07-03-04, 07:55 AM Originally posted by Persephone Imytholin
The word 'paladin' comes from Latin 'palatinus', meaning ... Although I've nothing to add, I'd like to put in a personal thank-you to Persephone Imytholin for that post. It was really enlightening, and gave a good perspective on where all these things came from and the original essence of the class.

Well done and, once again, thanks.
Persephone Imytholin
07-03-04, 11:37 AM Thanks, Trydan. Happy to share.
The Philosopher King
07-05-04, 11:08 AM Wait, a paladin thread that doesn't involve ridiculous stories of baby munching and baseless assertions that pallies aren't l33t? Well I never. :)

So... what's a paladin, then...
Instead of the paragon of good per se, I'd be more likely to say the paragon of righteousness (oh, I know, a dirty word!) Honour, Valour, Glory all that sort of stuff. I don't think a paladin has to be a nice guy, but a good guy. He does the right thing (once he works out just what that is, no mean feat), defeats the evildoer, halts the tide of chaos (not 3e style liberalism to pander to you pesky moderns, but proper baby eating, granny stabbing, town destroying chaos) protects the weak and abused, feeds the poor when he gets a chance, and goes home to plan out the best way to forge a crusader state in Baator.
Ok, maybe that's just my paladin, Leonidas, but hey.

why don't paladins do more in the way of general community service?

That seems to be more of a cleric's job rather than a paladin's, to me. I view the paladin more as the adventuring arm of the faith. I guess the model of the Arthurian and Carolingian knight in shining armour (shining because it's magical) is one of the ones I'd definitely invoke in order to explain paladinness. (I even toyed with naming my pally Orlando Furioso, after Roland)

I think that the chivalric crusader ideal is also a big part of how I conceive of a pally, (of course, that particular ideal comes up an unnerving amount in my daily life, but that's a whole nother neurosis) and I have to say that the inclusion of "punish those that harm or threaten innocents" in 3e is probably a step closer to that.

Well I hope that's at least coherent, but I have my doubts.

Oh, and It pays to be peery of all Powers
has anyone read Sara Douglass' Crucible trilogy? It comes to mind reading that. The main character acts fairly paladinesque. In that he tries to do what he thinks is right but the Powers the Be keep screwing him over.:)
zioth
07-05-04, 11:13 AM Originally posted by Aki Warren
I hardly think Lancelot was a Paladin, since all he was really intrested in was killing and women. That's more like a Barbarian, fighter, or normal Human to me. He was just really good at fighting.

He wasn't so much interested in killing, as in meeting every challenge, and proving himself to be the best fighter. He only killed people who wanted him dead. And he wasn't so much interested in women, as in rescuing damsels in distress. The exception, of course, was Guenevere, but his love for her is part of what makes him interesting. Like all characters in the book, and like all interesting characters in general, he is flawed.

Lancelot fights for law and goodness, and he rises to every challenge offered, from rescuing a damsel to putting down a tyrannical lord. He's also not all that smart, so he's not always fighting for the right cause. I think he still qualifies as a palladin.

It would be easy to make arguments for and against the palladinhood of other characters in the book, but I think that, dispite their flaws, they all fit within the range of what could be considered a palladin.

Galahad, for example, has no consideration for other human beings. He'll always fight for the greater good, with the aid of his godly wisdom, even if it doesn't seem good at the time (like when he repeatedly makes a fool of his father). Or at least he fights for Christianity, which, in the context of Arthurian legend, is the pinnacle of goodness.

Arthur is a warlord, and at one point, he tried to murder his own son, but he does everything he can to bring peace to England. He wants nothing more than peace (and religion).
Gold Halberdier
07-07-04, 05:08 AM A paladin to me has always been based around a simple phrase: A self-disciplined, self-sacrificing, caring protector of the people. This is more a description of a personality type than a class, I suppose, but I've always thought a true paladin should have these four traits in some strength, or else just a be a "god's bullyboy." Certainly there are many ways for these traits to mix and express themselves.

Those four words cover most of the bases already mentioned, though without the religious leanings; a strong spirituality helps a paladin deal with the difficulties inherent with being a self-appointed protector of the people- namely the people themselves are generally ungrateful gits. It's the discipline that seperates the paladin from your typical NG cleric, because the paladin doesn't have the same sort of connection with a god, the paladin isn't constantly re-assured of his 'righteousness' and must come up with his own answers. IMHO, when a paladin transgresses against his personal code he loses his powers not because some god or the nebulous 'powers of good' have taken them away, but because he knows in his heart that he doesn't deserve them and must earn them back. The Atonement spell is a just a convenient way to quantify this in game terms, but should never substitute for actual self-forgiveness. It is because a paladin cares about people, not an attitude of what is more holy, that he can never without consequence end a life, and will always try to redeem those who have fallen from grace. A paladin doesn't needlessly kill because of a deep inner respect for life and the living, not because his priest said it was wrong. A protector can be a warrior who defeats outside threats, but is just as easily the healer who tends the sick, the volunteer who helps build the sandbag wall against the flood, or the diplomat that prevents the war.
Andragonor
07-08-04, 01:44 AM To me a paladin and knight are the sam, but for a few thing.
A Paladin, fights for the church were a knight fights for King.
There cods and faith may be the same, but to how they answer
to at the and of the day is.
m_man96
07-08-04, 03:19 PM Oh, Paladins. Is there no class that offers so many choices for both good and bad roleplaying?

I see the paladin core class as the stereo-/archetypical hero/heroine, although I believe the posters who say that the paladin can be played differently. In regards to their code of conduct, I believe paladins have to follow five specific rules always in order to remain a paladin:
1. Protect those weaker than yourself from the villainous, and aid those stronger than yourself in the struggle against villainy.
2. Uphold the law always, and reprimand those who willingly transgress the law.
3. Fight against corruption and villany while remaining honorable yourself.
4. Always be honorable in your dealings with others, and be merciful to those who ask for it.
5. Redeem those who are worthy and wish to repent, and smite those who willingly practice villainous acts. Forcibly redeem others only when you believe you can. If you do not, show good reason for abandoning the vile to evil.

To me, the above rules constitute the paladin's code of conduct.
Helmed Horror
07-08-04, 08:14 PM a good ol' boy scout to be plain and simple

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Aramil_silverwind 07-02-04, 03:15 AM	Before you read this, this is NOT another "would a paladin lose his paladinhood if _____" thread. Ok, with that dealt with... onward. My question is imple... what IS a paladin? Myself and my gaming group all have different oppinions of such. For me, a paladin is a paragon of good. They are always polite and courtious to those that give them the same regards, and also to those who have not shown their manners yet. They seek to redeem evil and wrongdoers, and if they cannot in any way, shape, or form, (such as demons and chromatic dragons) be redeemed, they are to be killed without any kind of mercy. They only spend what money they need to, and all spare change goes to charities and such. I could go on and on with this, but I think you all get the point. While monks strive to make thier mind and body one thing, the paladin strives to make himself and the very essence of good into one being. My paladin is very much exalted, and could be nothing less. The other oppinion in my group (theres only 2 of us that bother with this kind of philisophy) is that palainds are more like knights of the chalice. Demon-slaying, evil-booting, holier-than-thou, for the greater good. I do not have the exact description, but I will PM the holder of this oppinion to put his 2 cents in.
Persephone Imytholin 07-02-04, 08:21 AM	Settle in. The word 'paladin' comes from Latin 'palatinus', meaning palatine or imperial. It strictly refers to one of the twelve peers of the court of Frankish king Charlemagne (literally 'Charles the Great'), but has since expanded to mean the idea of a 'heroic champion' - like a French version of Arthur's little clique of legendary knights. Fun stuff. The biggest difference is that while Charlemagne existed and Artus is mere speculation, we know about one. The other is practically reserved for historians and classicists. Now, on with the rant. Despite good historical evidence of an apathetic attitude toward religion from those with status in the early middle (aka dark) ages, the legends of these paladins are heavily steeped in religious imagery. Combined with the purple prose mediaeval writers loved to indulge in, it's clear to see how the paladin came to be confused with a paragon of holiness. Enter TSR, who revive the idea of a 'paladin' as a godly warrior. It's pretty clear-cut - bashing heads for duty and deity. By the 3e definition, devotion to righteousness is sufficient - and deities don't matter a toss. That kind of thinking's actually just fine by me - it seems, somehow, more fitting for a paladin to serve the pure ideal of righteousness than a divine puppeteer with some endgame beyond the mortal ken. Aside: Despite popular belief, deities are just in it for themselves. Some like 'good', but it eventually percolates down to a selfishness which can be defined as 'evil'. Fun fun fun. Let's ignore the d20 paladin for a minute, and instead focus on the old 2nd ed days. Leafing through the PH, we find: "A paladin may not possess more than 10 magical items. Furthermore, these may not exceed one suit of armor, one shield, four weapons (arrows and bolts are not counted), and four other magical items. A paladin never retains wealth. He may keep only enough treasure to support himself in a modest manner, pay his henchmen, men-at-arms, and servitors a reasonable rate, and to construct or maintain a small castle or keep (funds can be set aside for this purpose). All excess must be donated to the church or another worthy cause. This money can never be given to another player character or NPC controlled by a player. A paladin must tithe to whatever charitable, religious institution of lawful good alignment he serves. A tithe is 10% of the paladin's income, whether coins, jewels, magical items, wages, rewards, or taxes. It must be paid immediately." This brings us a little closer to the spirit of the fantasy Paladin. The paladin must be Lawful and Good (keep them seperate, they mean different things), and gives what (s)he doesn't need to worthy causes. Excess isn't something a paladin should ever be caught indulging in, especially when dealing with foes. Curiously, the 3e PH brings us this gem - "punish those that harm or threaten innocents" - which, given the Paladin's deference to authority, means that where possible a paladin should find restitution that doesn't involve killing. Overall, a paladin's job isn't to make themselves into the essence of good. The paladin's job is to bring purity and good, and all other things happy and virtuous, to the people and the land. The paladin's job is as much King and Country as religious. Keep in mind that the paladin should, at times, be the sole bastion of good in the midst of darkness and despair, and torn between their duties. This is when their Code shines the brightest - when it's used as a tool to bring about internal conflict, and drive the story from without and within. Your paladin should be a holy pain in the... ears (it's an anagram). They should be an exemplar of all things good, even attempting to reason with creatures that will always be evil. A paladin turning the dead isn't vanquishing a threat, they're returning the dead to their eternal rest. A paladin doesn't play good cop, bad cop. They'll try to reason with even the vilest of creatures, because inspiring good is a holier deed than vanquishing evil - and, ideally, they should stop their party members from shooting on sight. The paladin is a walking angstfest, torn between the desire to create the greatest good, while protecting that which there already is. And that's what makes them interesting.
Aramil_silverwind 07-02-04, 02:25 PM	Originally posted by Persephone Imytholin They'll try to reason with even the vilest of creatures, because inspiring good is a holier deed than vanquishing evil This seems to be the only real difference between our views. Your paladin seems to be a bit "blinded by goodness" as they might say. What point is there of trying to redeem a Balor? or convert a Red Wyrm into a follower of Pelor? With such creatures, there is no point of reasoning, because they cannot be redeemed by anything (short of that cursed exalted spell). Shouldn't such complete and utter evil be destroyed? I mean Devils just CANNOT be redeemed.
Merxis 07-02-04, 03:51 PM	Originally posted by Aramil_silverwind This seems to be the only real difference between our views. Your paladin seems to be a bit "blinded by goodness" as they might say. What point is there of trying to redeem a Balor? or convert a Red Wyrm into a follower of Pelor? With such creatures, there is no point of reasoning, because they cannot be redeemed by anything (short of that cursed exalted spell). Shouldn't such complete and utter evil be destroyed? I mean Devils just CANNOT be redeemed. now, there you are wrong. It could happen, I mean, if you point out that the average adventurer earns more than the average pit fiend on a yearly basis, you can start them on the right track... its just a lot more likely you will end up a pile of paladin goo on his foot then it is the pit fiend will join you. :D seriously though, any of the ways you described above can work. They all are just different ways of helping good-ness prevail over evil-ness. A 'paladin' in D&D covers a huge array of possible characters, even when it is one of, if not the, most defined class. You can play a Paladin that resembles Aragorn from LOTR if you want too, and it will make perfect sense. Good over evil check... and thats really all thats required. That is one of the biggest strengths of 3.0/3.5 D&D, it is so open-ended. You can do so much and still follow the rules. the Paladin class may not have the wealth of characters available to it that the Rogue does, but the golden-clad lawful-stupid sword-and-board wielding tank is not the only way to play a paladin.
zioth 07-02-04, 04:43 PM	You may want to read The Once and Future King, by T.H White. It's a very well-told account of Arthurian legend, but besides that, it includes a lot of characters that can be considered palladins. These include Arthur himself (wise and endlessly forgiving), Lancelot (strong and heroic but none too bright), Galahad (pious and good to the point where he considers everyone else below him) and several others. If you use that book as a guideline, you'll end up with a game that has a wide variety of palladins, each with his own view on what palladinhood means, but all of whom qualify for the title. Besides being lawful and good, palladins often personify one or more particular traits, such as heroism, piety, honor, chastity, or innocence. When creating a palladin's personality, it could be useful to take lawfulness, goodness, and one other trait, and take them all to an extreme. The third trait will temper and modify the other two, and create enough variety that no two palladins will be alike.
Aki Warren 07-02-04, 08:43 PM	I hardly think Lancelot was a Paladin, since all he was really intrested in was killing and women. That's more like a Barbarian, fighter, or normal Human to me. He was just really good at fighting. I personally perfer the 2e paladin. A Paladin should reason as much as possible with a being before slaying it. That is to say, reasonably possible. Obviously the forces of good gave the Paladin a mind (and a wisdom score!) good enough to make those types of decisions. For instance; A child is pointing a crossbow at a cleric, claiming his god is evil and sinful. The cleric is talking the child down slowly, but the Kid looks determined, and seems ready to fire. What do you do? A Paladin will have to decide which is better for the forces of good. Killing the kid, shooting at the kid and risking missing, letting the Cleric attempt to talk him down, or perhaps just aiding the Cleric in talking him down. Difficult to say. And what if the child shoots the cleric and kills him? What then? Some people play the paladin as a knight. I think this is foolish; Knights should be fighters with Prestige classes. Paladins are more like...Heroes really. They, almost above all other classes, are heroic. That is what makes them shine. Honestly, this is why Paladins are restrictive. Yes, they are strong, but difficult to roleplay (unless you do Lawful Stupid). A good example of a Paladin is Sturm/Steel Brightblade (Yes Steel worshipped the Goddess of Darkness, but he was still a Paladin. Tanis was merely lawful (perhaps netural) good, that is the difference!) BTW, play Dragonlance. Any God who would give up immortality for his children is a good god in my book, and not out for himself
HammerHeart81 07-03-04, 01:27 AM	To me, the Paladin is a warrior who believes in doing the right thing and sticks for the little guy. Sure we hear tales of Paladins putting the holy smack down on some demon but what about the Paladin that forms a bucket brigade to put out a fire, or applying healing to the sick and injured. This is no task that is too great or to small be it smiting a dragon or help a peasant put up a fence, a pladin is someone who is here to help.
Persephone Imytholin 07-03-04, 02:40 AM	Posted by HammerHeart81 "[Even to] help a peasant put up a fence, a paladin is someone who is here to help." Picking up on this point, why don't paladins do more in the way of general community service? It seems to me that a paladin shouldn't be raising castles, they should be setting up a Bleak Cabal style soup kitchen, running an orphanage or conducting rehab programs for problem mediaeval youths. Oh, and, play Planescape. It pays to be peery of all Powers, especially the ones hanging out on Celestia.
Trydan 07-03-04, 07:55 AM	Originally posted by Persephone Imytholin The word 'paladin' comes from Latin 'palatinus', meaning ... Although I've nothing to add, I'd like to put in a personal thank-you to Persephone Imytholin for that post. It was really enlightening, and gave a good perspective on where all these things came from and the original essence of the class. Well done and, once again, thanks.
Persephone Imytholin 07-03-04, 11:37 AM	Thanks, Trydan. Happy to share.
The Philosopher King 07-05-04, 11:08 AM	Wait, a paladin thread that doesn't involve ridiculous stories of baby munching and baseless assertions that pallies aren't l33t? Well I never. :) So... what's a paladin, then... Instead of the paragon of good per se, I'd be more likely to say the paragon of righteousness (oh, I know, a dirty word!) Honour, Valour, Glory all that sort of stuff. I don't think a paladin has to be a nice guy, but a good guy. He does the right thing (once he works out just what that is, no mean feat), defeats the evildoer, halts the tide of chaos (not 3e style liberalism to pander to you pesky moderns, but proper baby eating, granny stabbing, town destroying chaos) protects the weak and abused, feeds the poor when he gets a chance, and goes home to plan out the best way to forge a crusader state in Baator. Ok, maybe that's just my paladin, Leonidas, but hey. why don't paladins do more in the way of general community service? That seems to be more of a cleric's job rather than a paladin's, to me. I view the paladin more as the adventuring arm of the faith. I guess the model of the Arthurian and Carolingian knight in shining armour (shining because it's magical) is one of the ones I'd definitely invoke in order to explain paladinness. (I even toyed with naming my pally Orlando Furioso, after Roland) I think that the chivalric crusader ideal is also a big part of how I conceive of a pally, (of course, that particular ideal comes up an unnerving amount in my daily life, but that's a whole nother neurosis) and I have to say that the inclusion of "punish those that harm or threaten innocents" in 3e is probably a step closer to that. Well I hope that's at least coherent, but I have my doubts. Oh, and It pays to be peery of all Powers has anyone read Sara Douglass' Crucible trilogy? It comes to mind reading that. The main character acts fairly paladinesque. In that he tries to do what he thinks is right but the Powers the Be keep screwing him over.:)
zioth 07-05-04, 11:13 AM	Originally posted by Aki Warren I hardly think Lancelot was a Paladin, since all he was really intrested in was killing and women. That's more like a Barbarian, fighter, or normal Human to me. He was just really good at fighting. He wasn't so much interested in killing, as in meeting every challenge, and proving himself to be the best fighter. He only killed people who wanted him dead. And he wasn't so much interested in women, as in rescuing damsels in distress. The exception, of course, was Guenevere, but his love for her is part of what makes him interesting. Like all characters in the book, and like all interesting characters in general, he is flawed. Lancelot fights for law and goodness, and he rises to every challenge offered, from rescuing a damsel to putting down a tyrannical lord. He's also not all that smart, so he's not always fighting for the right cause. I think he still qualifies as a palladin. It would be easy to make arguments for and against the palladinhood of other characters in the book, but I think that, dispite their flaws, they all fit within the range of what could be considered a palladin. Galahad, for example, has no consideration for other human beings. He'll always fight for the greater good, with the aid of his godly wisdom, even if it doesn't seem good at the time (like when he repeatedly makes a fool of his father). Or at least he fights for Christianity, which, in the context of Arthurian legend, is the pinnacle of goodness. Arthur is a warlord, and at one point, he tried to murder his own son, but he does everything he can to bring peace to England. He wants nothing more than peace (and religion).
Gold Halberdier 07-07-04, 05:08 AM	A paladin to me has always been based around a simple phrase: A self-disciplined, self-sacrificing, caring protector of the people. This is more a description of a personality type than a class, I suppose, but I've always thought a true paladin should have these four traits in some strength, or else just a be a "god's bullyboy." Certainly there are many ways for these traits to mix and express themselves. Those four words cover most of the bases already mentioned, though without the religious leanings; a strong spirituality helps a paladin deal with the difficulties inherent with being a self-appointed protector of the people- namely the people themselves are generally ungrateful gits. It's the discipline that seperates the paladin from your typical NG cleric, because the paladin doesn't have the same sort of connection with a god, the paladin isn't constantly re-assured of his 'righteousness' and must come up with his own answers. IMHO, when a paladin transgresses against his personal code he loses his powers not because some god or the nebulous 'powers of good' have taken them away, but because he knows in his heart that he doesn't deserve them and must earn them back. The Atonement spell is a just a convenient way to quantify this in game terms, but should never substitute for actual self-forgiveness. It is because a paladin cares about people, not an attitude of what is more holy, that he can never without consequence end a life, and will always try to redeem those who have fallen from grace. A paladin doesn't needlessly kill because of a deep inner respect for life and the living, not because his priest said it was wrong. A protector can be a warrior who defeats outside threats, but is just as easily the healer who tends the sick, the volunteer who helps build the sandbag wall against the flood, or the diplomat that prevents the war.
Andragonor 07-08-04, 01:44 AM	To me a paladin and knight are the sam, but for a few thing. A Paladin, fights for the church were a knight fights for King. There cods and faith may be the same, but to how they answer to at the and of the day is.
m_man96 07-08-04, 03:19 PM	Oh, Paladins. Is there no class that offers so many choices for both good and bad roleplaying? I see the paladin core class as the stereo-/archetypical hero/heroine, although I believe the posters who say that the paladin can be played differently. In regards to their code of conduct, I believe paladins have to follow five specific rules always in order to remain a paladin: 1. Protect those weaker than yourself from the villainous, and aid those stronger than yourself in the struggle against villainy. 2. Uphold the law always, and reprimand those who willingly transgress the law. 3. Fight against corruption and villany while remaining honorable yourself. 4. Always be honorable in your dealings with others, and be merciful to those who ask for it. 5. Redeem those who are worthy and wish to repent, and smite those who willingly practice villainous acts. Forcibly redeem others only when you believe you can. If you do not, show good reason for abandoning the vile to evil. To me, the above rules constitute the paladin's code of conduct.
Helmed Horror 07-08-04, 08:14 PM	a good ol' boy scout to be plain and simple