The Great Paladin Discussion
-
Ok, so the polls and the prospects of changing the paladin system both excites and frightens me. Now, I am not one of those people who think that the paladin needs to stay LG only but I am looking at it from a differnt angle than most people it seems. The poll discussions seem to be taking things in favor of paladins being opened up to every diety or to dieties of extreme alignments. Both cases really bother me because I do not think that every deity would have warriors of the paladin skillset nor do I think that a paladin serves an alignment at all.
First off, a paladin is a choosen warrior of a god. Not a divine champion but instead the god recognized them or choose them for some purpose or reason that serves the faith. This means that as a player, the Paladin might be the non-app concept that requires the most responsibility from the player. You are taking on that responsibilty by making the assumption that your god has choosen you for something and given you powers to accomplish this goal. I may be wrong, as I do not know how closely the DM team watches all the paladins, but I don't think they watch them anywhere as near as they watch app characters. Right now, it is very easy for the DM team to see the actions of a LG only paladin and decide if they have fallen or not due to a very strict code. Not all dieties have a strict code or dogma as much as the LG ones do but some in fact do.
Secondly, the paladin skillset is thus: they are a warrior who is granted powers and a specific skillset to serve the faith. Key word is warrior. Not all faiths have a militant arm and some faiths prefer druids, ranger or bards to be their favored warriors and in the case of rangers, they do in fact already get powers gifted by their nature god.
What I would propose, instead of the two current popular ideas, is a list of faiths that would have a paladin and some faiths that would require at least 1 level of a multi class in something else to show that they are indeed favored by their deity for a purpose but are also true servants of that faith.
Examples of each would be:
Mask is a god of deception and trickery and as such an outward holy warrior of his faith does little to further his dogma, either not having paladins or forcing paladins to multi-class into rogue or something to that effect would make more sence to the paladin.
Mielikki is a nature goddess who has a "knighthood" of a sorts but it is comprised of druids and rangers who take a militant rule to protect the forest. In this case it makes sence to have a paladin if they multi-class in ranger.
Bane makes total sense to have paladins as they are, except replacing smite evil with something similar but smite chaotic or smite good would make more sense. The key is that they have a militant arm that paladins would make up or lead.
Kelemvor is a LN deity but even though he is of a neutral alignment it still makes sence for him to have paladins to safeguard crypts and fight against undead
Malar is CE and I could potentially see him having paladins to safeguard the Hunt and combat followers of Nobanion, however, the heavily armored paladin kinda breaks the principals of Malar's faith.
Gond - I could see a paldin of Gond but they would have to have a very specific rule, such as delving into deep locations to excavate crafting supplies, guarding smiths and crafters, or taking on dangerous quests to further technology and invention.I guess my main point is, that no matter how you open up paladins, when you do open them up to more than just LG, the only way I see it working is if ALL paladins are watched very carefully, almost so much as app characters, to make sure they are doing something relating to their dogma, otherwise, the paladin becomes just another class like figher/ranger/rogue that is used just for its mechanical purpose and no longer tells a unique story.
-
What's your goal in this post?
The changes you rail against are going to go in most likely. I appreciate that you're trying a kind of "counter-offer" here.
However, the main issue with it–what you suggest is MUCH more complex and in some cases illogical. Malar can't have Knights? When there are plenty of canon knights/warriors of Malar in Cormyr especially.
-
Well, yes. I don't think alignment was ever the main concern in this discussion.
It's just that making paladins more "flexible" sounds like bastardizing the idea of the class.
Fighters, rogues, sorcerers - they're flexible. But some classes (Paladins, druids, moks) come with a built-in, uniformed, maybe even rigid flavor. Paladins of Mask or Eldath make as much sense as druids of Tyr.That said.. Did we really need the third thread on this same topic?
-
I get what you are saying Moloch because Malar is one of the patron deities of Cormyr, but what that, in my mind, comes back to is what Melly and Zool talked to me about on several occasions. Most of the Forgotten Realms is Polly-theistic. They are like the romans or the greeks and pray to whatever god makes sence at the time. People will prey to Malar for meat, people will pray to Tyr for Justice, Hoar for revenge, Ilmater for healing and so on and so forth.
Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm hoping someone will correct me if I am, but Paladins tend to pull closer to being mono-theistic. Sure they believe in all the other gods, but they tend to pray to and follow their own god above all others and sometimes see them as supierer to all the other gods. I will admit that my main understanding of Malar is from CoA as I never really saw him portrayed in any other Forgotten Realms lore or PnP/video games I played but he does put a great deal of emphasis on hunting as a beast would, up close and without too much armor. Granted the Purple Dragons worship Malar, but they aren't really paladins of Malar are they?
Honestly the point of my post isn't that my idea is better, its mainly a discussion because I think that when/if we open up paladins at all the system is going to be complex as hell and also for people to correct me if I am in fact wrong. It just really bugs me that most of the posts in the poll seems to be for paladins being "paragons of an alignment" when I feel they are supposed to be "paragons of a god". I also fail to see how every god should have paladins unless someone would like to give me examples and correct me?
I'm not trying to call people wrong, I just fail to understand the logic and am hoping someone will help me with this since most of the ideas I brought up in the polls wern't addressed by others.
-
Paladins are not closer to monotheistic. In the Realms they tend toward henotheism, which is the upholding a single deity over others.
I appreciate the discussing and friendly manner, just saying, your idea is not as well thought out as other ideas put forth of making paladins more clearly reflect a henotheistic approach to any deity or a pantheistic approach to a specific ideological alignment. So rather expect this discussion isn't likely to make much impact unless the idea was fleshed out by someone who had a very solid comprehension of classes, mechanics, lore, and the philosophies behind the Forgotten Realms cosmos.
There are canon examples of paladins of every faith in the Forgotten Realms these days. So yes, you are wrong. The Paladins of Alignment idea is canon. So is the Paladin of any faith. So, admittedly, is the LG only Paladin.
But we are not removing LG Paladins, we will be supporting more open interpretations that have been vetted through a canon source and make sense in Realmslore.
-
Thank you Moloch. As I said, this wasn't really me saying others were wrong, so much as I was trying to get a better understanding myself of the FR ideoligy of the Paladin and Learn from the more experienced playerbase and DM's. It was always my understanding that Paladins were, as you all said in the other threads, not a "champion" of a god but still choosen by that god for a specific purpose. Paladins have always been my pet class for any game I play and I was having a hard time really understanding their focus on Alignment rather than diety which for some reason bothered me. How does a paladin get choosen by an alignment? Unless I am missing something, and Alignment has no corporeal form but is represented by gods through their portfolios. It was my understanding that paladins recieve their powers from a specific diety.
-
I kind of question your assertion that the paladin is the champion of a god. I say the paladin is not a champion of a god but a champion of an ideal. In that sense, paladins of the extreme alignments make total sense, as the extreme alignments represent ideals. I continue to assert that the deity and the deity's dogma come into play when the paladin tries to figure out his or her approach to upholding those ideals.
-
Depending on which version under consideration we pick latoskinned, I will be insuring the In-Game lore is understood by players and will answer your questions at that point.
-
Depending on which version under consideration we pick latoskinned, I will be insuring the In-Game lore is understood by players and will answer your questions at that point.
OK now I understand. I had thought that we were changing mechanics to better stick with current lore, but the discussion and new system will not only effect mechanics but the IG lore itself? I guess this really answers my question and makes my discussion moot then huh?
-
First off, a paladin is a choosen warrior of a god. Not a divine champion but instead the god recognized them or choose them for some purpose or reason that serves the faith.
I disagree with this. Paladins choose to be paladins just as often as they feel a calling. Paladins are not common, but they are not hyper special rare people. They are warriors who uphold a strict code of honor (or in the case of CE and some CG, dishonor).
-
This hurts my head. Wait to see what the DM team has to say when they are done arguing amongst themselves, THEN you get to growl.