Paladins...meh.

[Drew]

A holy crusader for the forces of good. A character who can fight, wear armor, and cast spells. What comes to mind? Cleric or paladin? The cleric is a martial champion of a particular god or religion. Hes inspired by Christian crusaders, only with a polytheistic and fantastic bend. The paladin is more inspired by an Arthurian archetype, but hes still a martial champion of a particular god or religion. Despite the subtle differences, I submit to you that both classes fill the same niche.

My point? Im looking for constructive ways to make paladins different enough from clerics to make them an enjoyable alternative. What are paladins in your game? Are they members of a specific religious order? Are they knights empowered by their piety? If a new player told you that he wanted to play a holy champion that wanted kick evils butt, how would you decide whether the character he was imagining was a cleric or paladin?

The paladin needs an overhaul. His niche needs stronger definition, or he needs to be made more mechanically interesting. There just isnt that much for a paladin to do. Yeah, he can fight. Thats not the point of the class, though. That isnt what makes it interesting. And he isnt that great a fighter, really.

Smite evil sucks. At C&Cs slower advance rate (which I like), its going to be quite a while before your average player even picks up the ability to smite. Once he does, he gets to add a small bonus to one lousy attack per day. If he missesthats it. Ability gone. The ranger, on the other hand, gets to add his level to every damage roll against a whole broad range of enemies. Every time he attacks. All day long.

What else does the paladin have? Remove disease? Very flavorful, but rarely comes up. On a side note, what possible reason could we have for limiting this to a per week basis? Unless disease is cropping up left and right in your campaign, the poor paladin probably isnt getting a whole lot of enjoyment out of this ability. Make it a per day ability. That way, between adventures, the paladin can go spread the mercy of his god to the pestilent masses.

Because of their weak archetype, the paladin doesnt give the GM much fluff to fall back on. Take away the rangers class abilities and, as a GM, I can still make sure the ranger rocks in the woods. He can point out clean water, find signs of recent monster activity, and help the party avoid wilderness ambushes. What can the paladin do? Shine brightly in his armor? Intimidate the forces of evil? Get a good rate at the inn because of his high charisma? What?

Im no power gamer. I fully understand that story and character concept are often reason enough to play a particular class. The paladin, however, falls short on both concept and mechanics. Whats a GM to do to make the paladin more fun to play?

Alternately, do you just disagree with me? Am I missing something? Do paladins in your campaign somehow rock? I welcome your ideas, insights, and opinions.

[phadeout]

One way to solve this, is to combine the Knight and Paladin into one Class (give everything the Knight has, to the Paladin). Then drop the Knight class. But that's kinda going to far with it.

Maybe just give the Paladin the Knight's riding abilities.

On a non-mechanics note, making the Paladin different than the Cleric may be very difficult.

He can basically do what a Fighter AND a Cleric can do.

He's good at Military stuff and Religious stuff.
_________________
"If everyone was drunker, was beer cheaper? And if they were more drunk the further back one goes, is there a time when everyone was completely soused all of the time? And, could I go there?" -Davis Chenault

[gideon_thorne]

I'd say your missing a few things.

At first level.

The character can cure disease. Sure its once per week, but then he's also not a cleric.

Detect Evil. Knowing when evil approaches, and being ready for it, is a pretty kick ass ability I think. No limit on this use.

Divine aura. +2 to AC and +2 to Saves is pretty impressive. Plus, the character cannot be touched by summoned or conjured creatures. Think about it.. what is a summoned or conjured creature? Demons, devils, elemental beings... And the paladin cant be physically touched by these beings.

Immune to all diseases of any origin. Even spell caused disease.

Lay on hands. Self healing in a bottle. How useful is that?

A decent fighter as well

And this is all at first level. How powerful a character do you want?
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[serleran]

I do not like the class, and never have. However, after reading some stuff from OD&D... the paladin is even more godly, making me despise them more. I find the class to be too useful... and I am very glad spellcasting was removed - that was a step toward weakening the character, which it needed.

[Drew]

gideon_thorne wrote:
I'd say your missing a few things.

The character can cure disease. Sure its once per week, but then he's also not a cleric.

It just seems like a strange restriction to me. Better not have those paladins removing disease once per day. I mean, think of the ramifications! Easy house rule, I guess.

gideon_thorne wrote:
Detect Evil. Knowing when evil approaches, and being ready for it, is a pretty kick ass ability I think. No limit on this use.

That is neat from a conceptual standpoint. You make detect evil sound like a kind of holy spider-sense. Detect evil isn't always active, though. The character would have to know something is up in order to be using it. Either that, or wander around constantly detecting evil. That's what the player in my campaign did, and it got pretty annoying. The thing was, at first level, he didn't have much else to do.

All too often, I've seen bad players use Detect Evil as an excuse to attack every neutral evil innkeeper in the realm. Even for a good player, I can't think of too many times when knowing someone's alignment really gives a big advantage.

"Hey, these orcs that are attacking us are evil!"

"Thanks for the update, Sir Obvious. Next you'll be telling us that the demons, red dragon, and vampire are evil."

I do see this being a small advantage when a given NPC is trying to deceive the players. In my world, lots of average folk in an average town might be evil. Knowing who is and who isn't generally isn't a major benefit.

I like the idea of "being ready for evil's approach." I'll try to work that in. Maybe give the paladin a head's up in order for the party to prep. Or simply rule that he's rarely surprised by evil creatures. You're making me think that detect evil should be more of a passive ability. Like a "detect evil intent" kind of thing.

gideon_thorne wrote:
Divine aura. +2 to AC and +2 to Saves is pretty impressive. Plus, the character cannot be touched by summoned or conjured creatures. Think about it.. what is a summoned or conjured creature? Demons, devils, elemental beings... And the paladin cant be physically touched by these beings.

I admit that I don't have my PH in front of me. A point to you (and the paladin), good sir.

gideon_thorne wrote:
Immune to all diseases of any origin. Even spell caused disease.

Do diseases come up in a lot of other people's games? They just seem unheroic and kind of unfun to me. Conan doesn't get the flu. He slays his enemies and takes their stuff!

Being immue to disease is like being immune to a rare monster's save-or-die attack. Sure, its great when it comes up. Otherwise, its basically a non-ability.

gideon_thorne wrote:
Lay on hands. Self healing in a bottle. How useful is that?

Yeah, I like the idea. The amount healed looks small to me, but that's based on my experiences in d20. C&C characters seem to have fewer HP, so I'll hold my judgement.

gideon_thorne wrote:
And this is all at first level. How powerful a character do you want?

I appreciate your thoughts. Again, I'm not looking for a more powerful class. Simply a more interesting one. You gave me some good ideas toward achieving that goal as a GM.

[gideon_thorne]

Drew wrote:
It just seems like a strange restriction to me. Better not have those paladins removing disease once per day. I mean, think of the ramifications! Easy house rule, I guess.

Well, the explanations one can come up with are many. The power could be an act of will, or drawing upon the inner being (chi). Divine power is one explanation, and is a measure of piety.

The uses per week increase at various levels. So eventually, the Paladin can do nearly what a cleric can.

Now. This is where the class can be altered, depending on the flavor of the game. Eastern samurai mystical paladins might have Chinese medicine (acupuncture, nerve points and the like) as a means to effect a cure for the disease. The process might take a week. As per a time intensive procedure.

Quote:
That is neat from a conceptual standpoint. You make detect evil sound like a kind of holy spider-sense. Detect evil isn't always active, though.

I like the idea of "being ready for evil's approach."

.....

I'll try to work that in. Maybe give the paladin a head's up in order for the party to prep. Or simply rule that he's rarely surprised by evil creatures. You're making me think that detect evil should be more of a passive ability. Like a "detect evil intent" kind of thing.

True. This ability is best used when the character knows he's in a dangerous situation. Dungeons, the temple of the evil sorcerous overlord.

However. Paladins are generally described as the martial arm of a church or other religious body. Its their job to suss out the heretical wherever they find them. Sometimes the righteous can be very self righteous. And a major pain in the ass to folks who are otherwise minding their own business.

Quote:
Do diseases come up in a lot of other people's games? They just seem unheroic and kind of unfun to me. Conan doesn't get the flu. He slays his enemies and takes their stuff!

Sure, but an evil god of disease is a nasty bastard. Think of the Legend of Huma novel as a reason why Disease might crop up a lot. The followers of the God Morrigon were ones to use diseases to take out the more effective opposition. Other clerics and the like.

In short, it depends on the game.

Quote:
Being immune to disease is like being immune to a rare monster's save-or-die attack. Sure, its great when it comes up. Otherwise, its basically a non-ability.

Always places for disease in a fantasy or medieval setting. It was everywhere. And when you have slimes, molds, fungi, creatures with decaying matter in their claws, rabid wolf bites and the like, the ability can come up a lot.

Quote:
I appreciate your thoughts. Again, I'm not looking for a more powerful class. Simply a more interesting one. You gave me some good ideas toward achieving that goal as a GM.

There's a lot one can do with the class to adjust it to fit to a campaign. The question then becomes, what are paladins in your game?
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Buttmonkey]

I ended up chucking the paladin from my campaign with a vague intention to rewrite the class sometime in the future. After reading Elizabeth Moon's The Deed of Paksenarrion, my idea of a paladin was permanently changed. DOP does an amazing job of fleshing out clerics and paladins from a D&D-type perspective. The primary distinction in her version is that while clerics are granted magical abilities (i.e., spell-casting) by their deities, paladins are in fairly direct communication with their deities and basically go around killing/adventuring wherever their deities tell them to. Seen from that perspective, the classes are distinct. But paladins would also be a fairly railroaded class if implemented that way since the CK would always be telling the paladin's player what quests she has to take (if she refuses, the PC would presumably lose its paladin status).

I've never played 3.x, but I believe Moon's concept of a paladin would be a prestige class. Basically, the PC starts as a fighter or cleric and, after reaching a certain level and otherwise qualifying, would become a paladin and get all sorts of nifty paladin powers (as opposed to ever being a 1st level paladin). I like this idea a lot and would like to implement it, but at the same time I don't want to create a railroaded PC. I keep putting off the problem until tomorrow.

[Coleston the Cavalier]

I think some people just aren't comfortable with a the idea that a person can live their life dedicated to something higher and better than themselves. They live to serve all that is good and lawful - and they willings die doing so. In cultures where the "good guys" are really just bad guys who do "something good," folks have a hard time seeing that Paladins can be powerful heroes. Here' someone yo don't have to worry about. When all the neutral and chaotic folks run for to save their own skin, paladins stay and do the right thing.

Paladins, even C&C paladins, as Gideon pointed out, have many powerful abilities.

Now, I don't believe that everyone on the planet needs to love paladins, but do we really have to keep saying we don't need them? If yo don't want to play them, don't.
_________________


John Adams

[gideon_thorne]

Coleston the Cavalier wrote:
I think some people just aren't comfortable with a the idea that a person can live their life dedicated to something higher and better than themselves. They live to serve all that is good and lawful - and they willings die doing so. In cultures where the "good guys" are really just bad guys who do "something good," folks have a hard time seeing that Paladins can be powerful heroes. Here' someone yo don't have to worry about. When all the neutral and chaotic folks run for to save their own skin, paladins stay and do the right thing.

Paladins, even C&C paladins, as Gideon pointed out, have many powerful abilities.

Now, I don't believe that everyone on the planet needs to love paladins, but do we really have to keep saying we don't need them? If yo don't want to play them, don't.

Or even a cause not so good and lawful. I can see paladins of all alignments who are proactive and forthright defenders of their high ideals. How those ideals take shape, and what the core tenants are, is, of course, entirely dependent on the campaign.

Remember, the original Assassin (spelled Hassassin) was a holy warrior of a particular ethos and set of moral guidelines.

Folks might not always agree with the morals or ethics, but that makes them no less valid a code for a paladin like class.

Now, I tend to not be very paladin like personally... However. I've been told I play an outstanding paladin character.

Whether a player finds a character boring or not, is entirely up to them. One can do a whole lot with even the least 'cool tricks' character.

In a game of high fantasy and heroism.. one always needs a character class of pure ideals, whatever they might be.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[serleran]

Quote:
I can see paladins of all alignments who are proactive and forthright defenders of their high ideals.

Exactly. That is one major reason I dislike the class. Its too narrow and specific. Its not what I would call an archetype, per se, as the way it is presented is only a slightly different cleric (at least, most often)... basically, a cleric with a sword. Oooh. Wow. How exciting.

This is why, like with clerics, I generally suggest making them religion-specific. Makes more sense.

[gideon_thorne]

I should digress a bit and make this note.

There are only 9 paladins in my game. One for each of the alignments. Its got to do with some long winded exposition on balance and endless pedantic noise about my own game. But in short, to become a paladin in my game is a long hard slog.

This is because I do it the old fashioned way. One starts out as a Fighter (OD&D Basic boxed sets) until level 10 is reached. The one takes on the mantle of a Knight (after various suitable deeds are accomplished. Its a title in my game, not a class). Some characters stop there, simply because Knight is a very prestigious thing to be in my game. In fact, each paladin has knightly retainers.

But on to the paladin. Should one of these Knightly sorts prove worthy of the high ideals of the particular ethos the Paladin's alignment dictates, one of the 9 paladins takes the character in service and sends them along on various quests. (The character begins as a level 1 Paladin as per the C&C PHB, modified) This, usually, when one of the paladins is either close to dying, or perhaps has died.

"There can be only two.. a master and an apprentice." ^_~`

At high levels, these Paladins are staggeringly powerful and influential. Hence the long slog to get there.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[TheNewGuy]

For those who want to see a really excellent implementation of "specialized" clerics and paladins as Serleran suggests -- with mechanics you can import into your own C&C/D&D campaign fairly easily -- I say yet again, pick up a copy of Green Ronin's The Book of the Righteous.

The book is written for D&D 3.0, BUT if you pick up the PDF version HERE or HERE, it comes bundled with 3.5 rules for the Holy Warrior (i.e. customizable paladin) class, to account for changes in the base paladin between 3.0 and 3.5.

For evilly-aligned paladins under this system, you'll want the Unholy Warrior's Handbook right HERE.

TheNewGuy
_________________

_________________

_________________
________

"But if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you"

[gideon_thorne]

AD&D 2nd edition Paladin's Handbook works good for this too. ^_~`
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Moorcrys]

I liked the old AD&D, human only, lawful good, hard as hell to qualify for, tithing, magic-item limited paladin -- complete with strict paladin code and a fair but strict DM. It made the class special and exciting.

When all the restrictions and limitations are taken from the class some of that elite, walk-the-line flavor which makes it interesting is lost, imho. Not everyone should want to play a paladin... it's supposed to be a tough road. Some players love the challenge.

I guess I'm a purist when it comes to this class. The idea of halfling paladins running around in the game irritates me.

There was a great Dragon article hundreds of years ago with alternate paladins based on alignment. One of my favorites -- I'm all for holy warriors of different alignments, but I'm with that author in thinking they shouldn't be paladins, they should be something else specific to their alignment, and they should have specific abilities depending on their alignment and chosen god. In my world, a Lawful Evil holy warrior isn't a paladin, he's an Illrigger.
There's also a great article in the old dragons called "It's Not Easy Being Good", which is all about playing a successful paladin. Great reading as well. I think it's in one of the Best of Dragon volumes...
_________________
----------------

Moorcrys

[phadeout]

Moorcrys wrote:
I liked the old AD&D, human only, lawful good, hard as hell to qualify for, tithing, magic-item limited paladin -- complete with strict paladin code and a fair but strict DM. It made the class special and exciting.

When all the restrictions and limitations are taken from the class some of that elite, walk-the-line flavor which makes it interesting is lost, imho. Not everyone should want to play a paladin... it's supposed to be a tough road. Some players love the challenge.

I guess I'm a purist when it comes to this class. The idea of halfling paladins running around in the game irritates me.

This sums up how I feel exactly.

In 2E I never felt the Paladin was "off".

But in C&C, I do. The balance of restrictions and powers was great. And it didn't seem in anyway to conflict with the Cleric. They were a totally different character to play, though a LG Cleric might be close, they weren't the same.

I also liked the Paladin's Handbook.

Here's something you can add to the Paladin to make give them a little boost. Take a nudge from the Ranger:

When fighting Greater Evil the Paladin may add his Class Level to his Damage Rolls.

Greater Evil: Any Evil being that is 5HD greater than the paladin, or that has 20HD or more regardless of the paladin's level, is considered a Greater Evil.

Or you could apply the Level Damage Bonus against say CE (or all Evil) Demons (any of the extra-planar ones you choose as a CK).
_________________
"If everyone was drunker, was beer cheaper? And if they were more drunk the further back one goes, is there a time when everyone was completely soused all of the time? And, could I go there?" -Davis Chenault

[Treebore]

My problem is your all right, depending, as mentioned several times, on what is wanted in a given campaign.

Part of my problem is that I am still Playtesting C&C. Mostly in my home game, which is now at 15th level for single classes and 12/12 for the dual classed characters.

Now here is what I have done to the Paladin so far in my house rules, I needed to also show what I have done with the Ranger so you can see a fuller picture of the rules:

Paladins:

When they gain the Smite Evil ability they can use it once per day per level. OR they can choose to have "religious enemy" under the same rules as the Ranger's "enemy". Then choose a new one every two levels, like the Ranger does. They can only do one or the other, not both Smite and Religious Enemy.

Rangers:

Get to choose an enemy at 6th level and every other level thereafter. IT must be pretty specific, such as Ogres, Frost Giants, Vampires, Worshippers of the "Forest Burners", etc... This allows you to add your bonus to all SIEGE checks against them, including attack maneuvers, AND add your level to the Damage if they didn't qualify for your marauder before. CK approval, of course.

Yes, I have them gain the "Smite Evil" or "Religious Enemy" at 6th level.

I also have them serve a specific deity. They could also serve a pantheon, but enforce the "laws" of that pantheon as a whole.

Eventually, I too will go back to "Paladins" of each alignment, like I did in 1E and 2E, based on the awesome article in Dragon magazine about these Paladins, and the Anti-Paladin, who doesn't serve a deity per se, but believe in anarchy and "might makes right", etc...

I also have Paladins have the Horsemanship skill of the Knight, including the Lance, but after that they go down different paths.

Paladins actually get a LOT of help from their church. That is one thing I see way to many CK/DM's afraid to address, for clerics too. They treat Paladins and Clerics as if they are in a religious vacuum. Their church will give them whatever aid they can, and the resident High Priest agrees is "reasonable" (IE what the game master agrees is reasonable and the church has the resources to provide).

When you put a church behind a cleric or Paladin they become the most powerful characters in the game. Similar to the influence of Cardinals and Bishops with Roman Catholics. Probably stronger, because in a fantasy game the gods are most definitely real, and proven over and over again to be real. Every cure light wounds, Cure Disease, etc... is "cast" invoking the name of a deity and using their Holy Symbol. Wizards cannot do it.

So in my game world, not believing in gods is a sign of insanity.

So in my games, the Paladin is very involved in the Church, of Tyr. He has even fully financed the building of a major temple on his Baronial Lands. He even showed honor to Odin by allowing, and helping to finance it as well, the building of a pretty impressive temple to Odin as well.

So he gets a lot of aid from not only his patron deity, Tyr, but Odin, and his church is extremely willing to aid the Paladin in any way they can.

Now being a Paladin, and this even goes for clerics, they don't ask for just anything. They only ask when they truly need assistance to do something they cannot do themselves.

So for me, making the Paladin interesting, and Clerics, means I make their church and god living entities, like they should be. Which adds a dimension of interest, and power, no other class can match, except the Druid. Wizards can come close with influential Wizard Guilds/Orders, etc... Maybe even more so if they live in a society like the City of Glantri.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Treebore]

Moorcrys wrote:
I liked the old AD&D, human only, lawful good, hard as hell to qualify for, tithing, magic-item limited paladin -- complete with strict paladin code and a fair but strict DM. It made the class special and exciting.

When all the restrictions and limitations are taken from the class some of that elite, walk-the-line flavor which makes it interesting is lost, imho. Not everyone should want to play a paladin... it's supposed to be a tough road. Some players love the challenge.

I guess I'm a purist when it comes to this class. The idea of halfling paladins running around in the game irritates me.

There was a great Dragon article hundreds of years ago with alternate paladins based on alignment. One of my favorites -- I'm all for holy warriors of different alignments, but I'm with that author in thinking they shouldn't be paladins, they should be something else specific to their alignment, and they should have specific abilities depending on their alignment and chosen god. In my world, a Lawful Evil holy warrior isn't a paladin, he's an Illrigger.
There's also a great article in the old dragons called "It's Not Easy Being Good", which is all about playing a successful paladin. Great reading as well. I think it's in one of the Best of Dragon volumes...

Great articles your referring to, I still have them, kept safe, because of how awesome they are.

I also agree with the "purity" of the Paladin, and the tithing, but not so much on the magic item limits, and not at all on the "human only". It makes no sense to me that only Humans would have "Paladins", or their equivelant. I find it harder to believe that a human is capable of being that pure at all. But since I try not to let "reality" interfere too much I give humanity the benefit of the doubt and say they are capable of having Paladins.

But I can certainly see Paladins in other races too. Dwarf, Halfling, gnome, half orc, whatever. Its all about the deific piety, not their race.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Moorcrys]

Treebore wrote:
I also agree with the "purity" of the Paladin, and the tithing, but not so much on the magic item limits, and not at all on the "human only". It makes no sense to me that only Humans would have "Paladins", or their equivelant. I find it harder to believe that a human is capable of being that pure at all. But since I try not to let "reality" interfere too much I give humanity the benefit of the doubt and say they are capable of having Paladins.

But I can certainly see Paladins in other races too. Dwarf, Halfling, gnome, half orc, whatever. Its all about the deific piety, not their race.

Completely true and more supportable than my human-centric paladin belief. However, the thought of halfling and gnome paladins running around in my world gives me the sighs... totally biased against it.

I have a level limit sytem in my camaign as well as some barred classes for certain races. Not as stringent as AD&D, but they are there. Maybe it's Tolkein skewered, but I can't see halflings or gnomes as mighty warriors -- they need to exploit more race-appropriate strengths to become great in the world. Sure they can become fighters, but they don't advance beyond a certain level. Other races have been born, bred, and meet cultural demands for conflict, much moreso than the 'races underfoot'. I can see elf paladins, half-elf paladins, dwarf paladins... some races just don't fit with certain classes for me, like gnome barbarians. Not that it can't be justified, it just makes my DM head hurt.

I always go with the standard 'humans can be the most blackhearted villains or the most purehearted saints' philosophy. My world is 'humanocentric', so they get most of the love gamewise.

Now that doesn't mean if a player really wanted to play something 'off the list' that we wouldn't figure something out. That's just my baseline.

EDIT: I enjoy reading your houserules too, btw. A lot of cool stuff in them and great ideas.
_________________
----------------

Moorcrys

[Lurker]

I've always enjoyed playing the Paladin (D&D1 & 2) & unfortunately I don't get to play now (C&C) as much as I'd like so all my comments are thoughts and ideas that I haven't been able to test much

First the cure disease. Very cool if you ever come up against a mummy or fight cultists of a plague god. To make it more useful, 1 a siege check to use it more than once a week. I'd also bump it from 6 & 12 level to 4,8,12 to get extra cures a week. -I tend to lean to more low level games so 6 takes a while & 12...good luck there!

Detect evil is always on at least for big baddies. To see if some one is just "e"vil you still need to concentrate but an 'E"vil person or thing, i.e. high level evil cleric or succumbs in human form, you will feel something is wrong & with a check you have a fairly good idea what is wrong...

Divine Aura, evil can't touch you... to me that includes undead too. They can still hit the force of the swing etc etc so you can be knocked around, but that last mm between you and them is protected by the aura. (Like a bullet proof vest & a slug. You still fill a heck of a kick, but the bullet doesn't push through) No level draining touch etc.

Divine mount, the paladin gets the knights ability to ride with the mount only

Smite evil, I treat like the rangers favored enemy and give at a lower levee too

Out side of combat the Paladin is very helpful in role-playing as he has large influence in not only the church but also among nobles to. Played well i.e. he is fair and not highhanded with the commoners he'll have influence there too.

I also require an even stricter code on him than on the knight plus as he is a type of knight & a servant of the church there are times when he is being pulled in two differing directions. (picture a knight in Henry VIII's court that is friends with the king but blessed by the church (pre Anglican church) as the schism comes who do you chose to side with...)

In my games (we'll when I DMed in the day) That was huge as roleplaying was a bigger part and would get you as much exp as going out & killing monsters

Sorry if I've covered things already covered in to previous posts, I'm in-between feeding the baby, letting her play and getting her to nap so can only glance over comments before she wakes up again...
_________________
"And so I am become a knight of the Kingdom of Dreams and Shadows!" - Mark Twain

Forgive all spelling errors.

Knight Errant & Humble C&C Society Contributor
C&C Society

[Lurker]

Oh yeah I forgot to mention I agree with Serl and others. There should be classes like the Paladin but for other races or alignments. Id forgotten about the dragon article. It was full of great ideas Ill have to look into!

Also as mentioned before the hassasin (or killer for any church not just a mid-east one) Picture an assassin mixed with a knight or paladin. Oh what fun!
_________________
"And so I am become a knight of the Kingdom of Dreams and Shadows!" - Mark Twain

Forgive all spelling errors.

Knight Errant & Humble C&C Society Contributor
C&C Society

[serleran]

For me, I like the concept of the Jahi: a harlot-paladin-assassin. Weird, yes, but hella fun in certain style games (and not, I don't mean ones that focus on sexuality... I mean ones that mimic things like James Bond or La Femme Nikita.)

[BLOOD AXE]

The Paladin could use a tweek.

Smite Evil is weak. Compare it to the Ranger's ability vs. Giants & Humanoids. Those foes are common in most campaigns & the abilty is always usable. Starts at level 1, not 9 too.

I gotta look for that Paladin article, I know have it.

[BLOOD AXE]

Dragon Mag #106 -Plethora of Paladins.

Elf chick with horse and psudoragon familiar on the cover.

[Turanil]

One could have paladins be an order of inquisitors/judges/protectors of the population. They travel the land, chastise / punish evildoers (thus their combat abilities), and protect / help the weak and innocent (thus their cure disease, lay on hand abilities). Their detect evil ability comes well to perform their duties. They wouldn't need to serve a church although they would be devout followers of some local deity of law and goodness. They would exist primarily in a LG kingdom, but some paladin apprentices would have gone to other lands pursue the same mission, although it's a little more tricky, because they are not officials in other lands. In any case, these paladins are more secular than religious, contrary to clerics who serve their god and church as their religion dictates.

Houserule: I would give Horsemanship of knight to paladins, but only with their special mount, not other ones. Then, I would give paladin social in-game benefits when in their LG kingdom (are trusted officials with special rights and privileges, get bonus to Cha checks, etc. - one right could be of allowed wearing armors and weapons in towns where it is otherwise forbidden).
_________________
Homebrews Wiki a list of campaign settings on the web.

[Treebore]

I thought about only having Horsemanship with their special mount, but I axed it because it made no sense to me, the Paladin is the one who knows the Horsemanship, not the Special Mount. So I have the Paladin "know" Horsemanship, period. Besides, Horsemanship fits my concept of Paladin, and the Knight has plenty of other "cool powerz" that he remains very different from the Paladin. They just have some overlap, which they have in my mind anyways. Mainly in Horsemanship and the basic code of conduct.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[phadeout]

Treebore wrote:
I thought about only having Horsemanship with their special mount, but I axed it because it made no sense to me, the Paladin is the one who knows the Horsemanship, not the Special Mount. So I have the Paladin "know" Horsemanship, period. Besides, Horsemanship fits my concept of Paladin, and the Knight has plenty of other "cool powerz" that he remains very different from the Paladin. They just have some overlap, which they have in my mind anyways. Mainly in Horsemanship and the basic code of conduct.

And don't forget, the Knight needs a lot less Experience to level...
_________________
"If everyone was drunker, was beer cheaper? And if they were more drunk the further back one goes, is there a time when everyone was completely soused all of the time? And, could I go there?" -Davis Chenault

[gideon_thorne]

Lurker wrote:
Divine Aura, evil can't touch you... to me that includes undead too. They can still hit the force of the swing etc etc so you can be knocked around, but that last mm between you and them is protected by the aura. (Like a bullet proof vest & a slug. You still fill a heck of a kick, but the bullet doesn't push through) No level draining touch etc.

Course, granted, this ability doesn't stop the critters in question from throwing big farking rocks at the Paladin.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[gideon_thorne]

One more thing. Put a holy avenger in the hands of a paladin, and they become positively insane in power.
Magic resistance 5 + level....

Magic Users beware!
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Dagger]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Lay on hands. Self healing in a bottle. How useful is that?

Isn't that what Healing Surges are for?

::Ducks and runs::
_________________
Rusty

[gideon_thorne]

dagger4192 wrote:
Isn't that what Healing Surges are for?

::Ducks and runs::

Well, you know some folks. They just are old fashioned with the hands on approach.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley