3. Tips for Paladins

Tips for Paladins


  • @13f2d2827f=ZANETAR:

    Fine, fine, Zyph… I'll play along.

    If there is a warrior gaining divine power through Law and Good (as domains), then why isn't there one for Chaos and Evil? ... There you go ... Unbalanced.

    As a reply to this I'll post a quote from an out of date D&D booklet, which may not show he rules, but which does show the -spirit- of the paladin:

    @13f2d2827f=Anti-Paladins:

    What better nemesis for a paladin than his direct opposite, an "anti-paladin" that embodies the forces of evil? As themirror image of a normal paladin, an anit-paladin might be able to detect the presence of good, generate an aura of protection against good creatures, and wield an "unholy" sword.

    Though DMs may experiment with any type of character they like, we discourage the use of anti-paladins. Good and evil are not merely mirror images of each other. Just as the forces of good have their unique champions, the paladin is intended as a unique champion of good. The paladin originates from a tradition of dynamic balance, in which the forces of good are few and elite and in which forces of evil are numerous and of lesser quality. Allowing anti-paladins blurs this basic relationship.


  • Fine, fine, Zyph… I'll play along.

    If there is a warrior gaining divine power through Law and Good (as domains), then why isn't there one for Chaos and Evil? ... There you go ... Unbalanced.


  • Yep 😉 You hit it on the head. "Good" and "Law" are powers of thier own by the Core rules, as are anything else that has a domain. They are actual realms and philosophies of those things that are divine in nature and thus grant the power through the belief in it. Its the same reason why in 3.0 you can have a Cleric of Destruction. Not following a god that likes destruction, but worships the aspect and concept of Destruction itself. They could have say the destruction domain (duh) and possibly lets say "Fire" domain because fire destroys things or "War" domain because Through war there is destruction 😉 They made the Core Rules so that you don't HAVE to have gods or follow gods so that it was a more wide open and accessible game path.

    So to answer what you said. Yes, the paladin in the core 3.0 rules does get his divine abilities from the concepts of Good and Law and to deviate from a Paladins Code is to lose touch with those concepts and thus fall

  • ?

    The odd thing about what is said in the 3.0 PHP Zyphlin is that, "Divine power protects the paladin and gives her special powers" and "Paladins must be lawful good, and they lose their divine powers if they deviate from that alignment". In both cases referring to the paladins powers as powered by the divine. And unless the force of Good and the force of Law are actual divine powers that can grant those abilities… then individual gods must be the source of their power and inspiration.

    But then it does go on to say that "Paladins need not devote themselves to a single deity. Devotion to righteousness is enough for most." So the PHP kinda leaves it up in the air as to why a god would grant them powers if they do not serve that god as a zealous advocate to that individual god. And then what would be the ultimate purpose behind the paladin class?

    Good thing we are in the FR campaign where they spell it out, "All paladins of Faerûn are devoted to a patron deity, chosen at the start of their career as paladins."

  • ?

    @3386cc3158=Gildor:

    Clerics: Holy priest of the God
    Paladin: Holy warrior of the God

    stating the obvious sort of here..

    IMHO Paladins should be sort of serving the clerics

    but don't quote me on that

    😉

    More like paladins are the do'ers and clerics are the say'ers. In terms of one serving the other? Who tends to be more fanatical? The priest who officiates congregations of faithful in a temple? Or a crusader who decides to convert heathens by force and action? I would say that one does not report to the other… rather... they are probably more conservative and zealous branches of the same organization. Kind of like the difference between the Sierra Club and the ecco-terrorist that spike trees and chain themselves to them.


  • Hehe, this is actually rather moot. The point of a paladin by 3.0 D&D is a Holy Warrior for Good and Law. Not a god. For the forces of Good and Law. You want your holy warrior for a god, thats what a cleric is. Doesn't mean a paladin doesn't follow a god, but its not needed in 3e core rules, you fight for law and good.

    However, Faerun is to much of a god laden world for that, and the use of "forces" as divine energies doesn't fly in Toril. SOOOOO, paladins have ot have a good in Faerun and they are the holy champions of that god. However, so as not to make Lawful good Gods be teh only ones with Holy Champions they made an AMAZINGLY easy Prestidge class to get into called the Divine Champion which should pretty much be called 'Paladin without being or following a Lawful Good person" 😉 For some strange reason NWN decided to change this to Champion of Torm instead of Divine Champion (no freaking idea why). But that is how PnP handled the weird thing of a paladin seeming to overlap purpose with a cleric


  • Clerics: Holy priest of the God
    Paladin: Holy warrior of the God

    stating the obvious sort of here..

    IMHO Paladins should be sort of serving the clerics

    but don't quote me on that

    😉

  • ?

    @f37c0623e7=Kanen_Hightower:

    @f37c0623e7=robilar:

    Clerics are divine warriors.
    Paladins are what were originally Cavaliers. They are mounted knights that fight for honor and (now) faith but the true agents of the priesthood are the clerics.

    This is incorrect. The Paladin subclass of Fighter was around much earlier than the Cavalier Paladin that you are referring to. Paladins have always been LG Holy warriors (they used to get even more perks that made this more evident). Check your sources.

    Perhaps robilar was referring to real life?

    Historically, paladins, as we have come to us the term in a modern sense was first used in that way around 1050 AD. The knights of Charlemange were reffered to as paladins. The word dates back to Roman times when it referred to palatines… or an officer of the Palatium or Byzantine palace. Basically a noble land owner.

    The term cavaliers on the other hand, only really started being used synonomously with paladins and knights in 1588 AD. They were royalist supporter of Charles I during the English Civil War. And the entymology of cavailer comes from caballarius which late latin for horseman.

    The chivalric code more often refers to the paladin... where the cavalier would be more like cavalry officer. Both had codes of conduct, but one was more of an militaty officer's code and the other was more of a noble's code of governance.

    Now in terms of D&D? Yeah... the cavalier was defintely an add on after the paladin... if I remember correctly, it was first brought out as a concept in Dragon Magazine prior to the subclass being added on to the paladin. Basically the idea was to have a class that was a knight who followed a lord and country, rather than a holy crusader that followed a religious doctrine.


  • Divine warrior, cleric, meh…

    You know what I meant. Having the one class that is specific to LG tips the game out of balance. I look at a paladin as being something of blend between a warrior and a priest. (Technically this is incorrect, but bear with me.) Only allowing this type of 'blended' class to LG characters is kinda… yeah.

    Not that it matters anyways. This thread wasn't intended to discuss what DnD ought or ought not have or do. I'll be quiet.


  • @10614774ae=robilar:

    Clerics are divine warriors.

    Paladins are what were originally Cavaliers. They are mounted knights that fight for honor and (now) faith but the true agents of the priesthood are the clerics.

    This is incorrect. The Paladin subclass of Fighter was around much earlier than the Cavalier Paladin that you are referring to. Paladins have always been LG Holy warriors (they used to get even more perks that made this more evident). Check your sources.


  • Clerics are divine warriors.

    Paladins are what were originally Cavaliers. They are mounted knights that fight for honor and (now) faith but the true agents of the priesthood are the clerics.


  • So I can't have a paladin of Cyric? Damn…

    😛

    I do think the game is slightly unbalanced in not having a divine warrior for chaos or evil. sigh Meh. (Blackguards are, but they're a prestige class, so...)

    Very good post.