What does a paladin do (or should be doing)?

[Zaphling]

As far as this debate goes (and this aint the only thread...) I was in the "paladin re-producable, therefore doesnt need its own class". My perception was that niche classes should be achievable, but not necessarily represented as classes.

I have read the arguments. Putting aside the strength of the points put forward, the impression I get is that alot of people really do want the paladin as a class unto itself (and the ranger for that matter). So whilst the arguments havent TOTALLY won me over on their merit alone, the sheer overwhelming number of people who support paladins, rangers and other fringes classes as classes unto themselves convinces me to change my position.

I think I will support fringe classes as classes. After all, who am I to tell other people how to enjoy their game?

Correct. Who are we, especially the PALADIN haters, to say that IT SHOULD NOT BE a class. If you don't like it to the guts or something, then don't use the paladin at all.

It doesn't mean since the haters will strike the paladin down, the paladin loyalists cannot use it. Accept it, no use arguing.


On a side note, compare this:

Level 10 Fighter / Level 10 Cleric
vs
Level 20 Paladin

The multiclass will only get the lower level class abilities of the two, while the full class don't have to suffer that.

Plus, if someone wants to play a paladin, like myself, we don't want to start out as a fighter or cleric before we can achieve the class that we really wanted. It's a waste of time.

 

[Arctic Wolf]

At first I thought there wasn't a difference but after thinking about it, I would say that there is a difference between the paladin and fighter/cleric multiclass.

Clerics are blessed with divine magic and they can use it how they want. This explains why they are better healers and are a bit more diverse in what they can focus to specialize in with this magic.

Paladins are blessed with divine fortitude and strength, and sent to do what their deity or divine code states since they are an embodiment of their diety. They are the god's elite soldiers and sent to deal with their enemies while the cleric is used in amassing followers through prayer.

I hope this may help and I am sorry if this doesn't help xD.

 

[Li Shenron]

This leave the question, what a paladin actually is and how the class is different from a fighter/cleric multiclass character. I don't have any answer to that.

I think the nature of the Paladin is very different from that of a Cleric, but in general it is setting-dependent.

The way I typically like seeing it, is that the Paladin is a champion of good who answered an unearthly "call" that goes beyond structured religions. This way, it is very different from any Cleric the main purpose of whom is always to foster his religion, which of course may also imply to be good, but there is never a "God of Goodness" so a Cleric's #1 drive is always different, and Good comes more as a complement or consequence.

But clearly this is only one option, and definitely not the most popular. Another way I would like to see the Paladin is that of a special elite force that fights evil with brutality and any means necessary, and therefore must adhere to a harsh self code of conduct to avoid even the slightest temptation which may lead them away from their duties. A concept perhaps similar to the Assassin in Diablo II.

OTOH, the most common type of campaign setting in D&D is the "kitchen sink" where every single religion is the same and has their own Paladins. But if you start having "Paladins of Lathander", "Paladins of Tyr", "Paladins of Torm" etc, then obviously the differences between a Cleric, a Paladin and a devoted Fighter start to fade out.

 

[Yora]

Yes, paladins have a unique fluff.
Yes, people want paladins, so the game should have paladins.

But that still leave the question what abilities a paladin could have that would be different from the abilities a fighter/cleric would have.

Many people made good and helpful posts, but there has been exactly one who actually had any ideas what distinctive abilities a paladin class could have. ^^

 

[Leatherhead]

Many people made good and helpful posts, but there has been exactly one who actually had any ideas what distinctive abilities a paladin class could have. ^^

They don't actually need distinctive abilities. Just different portions.

 

[KesselZero]

Restricting paladins to LG is something hands down I will fight tooth and nail. I may not like the class and may not want it to be considered a "core" class, but in a polytheistic setting where the gods are frequently antagonistic to one another and fight via proxies on the physical world, every deity would have holy warriors of some type. First step to making a paladin class I won't hate is making it flexible enough that any deity can have a paladin without too much mental gymnastics to make it fit.

As I said, this I'm more than fine with for much the reasons you give.

Lancelot and Galahad were definitely not paladins either.

Why not? I'm curious as to your thoughts here. I haven't read the Dresden Files, unfortunately, so I can't compare.

 

[Neonchameleon]

4e Essentials IMO has it right. What Paladins are when push comes to shove is fanatics. They aren't divine or even dedicated necessarily to a God (although many are) so much as a living exemplar of a virtue. So you get Paladins of Sacrifice (the classic LG Paladin) and Paladins of Valour (non-evil). And the Blackguards are, naturally, an exemplar of a vice.

At that point you really do get Sir Galahad whose "strength is as the strength of ten because my heart is pure" - and he really isn't a cleric.

 

[Daggerswan]

You can call it fluff if you want, but the whole LG and Chivalry thing was a real mechanic in the game. It was the price you paid for being a bad-ass. I agree that a lot of people played them as Lawful Stupid. But the DM should have stopped that real quick before it got out of hand. When I first started playing 1e (a long time ago) our DM told us that if we wanted to play a Paladin we had to play according to the principles of whatever personality we were basing the character on. Did Roland massacre the children of the enemy? No (so no killing baby Orcs).

And as for the whole "Cleric can be a Paladin". At the early levels? Maybe. But by level 10 the Cleric is no longer the melee guy. I've been playing this game a long time so please don't BS me.

I have to say though, I would be totally fine with the Paladin as a specialized class not found in the stripped down core. And I have already stated that a Fighter-Cleric would be too watered down to be a Paladin.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Let's also not forget that some of us just don't like multiclassing all that much.

So we have no 'Fighter/clerics' that would be taking the place of paladins to begin with.

 

[Abstruse]

Why not? I'm curious as to your thoughts here. I haven't read the Dresden Files, unfortunately, so I can't compare.

First off, go read Dresden Files. Just trust me. Book 1's good, Book 2's better, and Book 3 will blow your friggin' mind. And Michael (who appears first in Book 3) is what I wish every paladin was played like. He's definitely Lawful Good, but he's also definitely not Lawful Stupid. He has a strict moral code and he knows exactly what that code entails, but he doesn't expect others to live up to it either. He accepts people as they are including their faults. He may chastise them for it, but it's closer to a parent going "I'm disappointed in you" than trying to convert someone. He's much more "lead by example", proving that a holy and virtuous life leads to a good life and bringing more good to the world. The downside in D&D terms is, again, Christian. Which doesn't fit with pretty much any of the D&D pantheons.

And I think the debate on Arthurian mythology comes from the fact that there's just so many different sources and so many different stories. In some of the later versions which include the Holy Grail, there's a lot more of that ideal of Christian chivalry in the stories and it shows through in the knights. But in earlier versions (and versions that draw off those earlier myths), they were probably formed before Christianity was widespread in England. So the stories, even when they show some Christian influence, aren't focused on those ideals. Lancelot, for example, is still an expert fighter even after he breaks his oath to his king and friend by laying with his queen. I don't even recall ever hearing the story mentioned before about Lancelot losing his "miracles" after losing his virginity or ever having "miracles".

Galahad, though...that's my fault. I was confusing him with Gawin (who has a far more interesting story IMO). Galahad's a footnote in the pre-Grail stories, mentioned as being the most pious and virtuous knight but not much else is talked about. It wasn't until the quest for the Grail was added to the stories (pretty much with Troyes).

Honestly, it's incredibly difficult to talk about Arthurian myth because, like the vampire myths of Eastern Europe, they changed with the rising influence of the Church. They originally had nothing to do with the Grail or Christian virtues directly, but it was added in over the years, especially when the ideal of the "virtuous knight in shining armor" and idea of chivalry started to spread (which the idea of chivalry far post-dates the origins of most Arthurian myths). There's so many versions of the same stories that it's almost impossible to determine which one is the "canon" version as it just depends on the author at the time.

I can go into a lot more detail on vampire myths evolving, though, because it's something I've done more research into. Arthurian myths have only really interested me as the tropes they formed applied to the fantasy genre. But vampire myths really have nothing to do with this discussion except as an example of this sort of morphing over time.