T O P I C R E V I E W |
AlmightyPhalanx |
Posted - 04 Feb 2013 : 23:08:16 (For edition 3.5, exclusively)
Hey there, I am confused about something I hope someone can clarify.
According to the sun elf description:
"Sun elves favor the traditional paths of the elven folk: fighter and wizard. No sun elf could truly be described as a barbarian, although a sun elf raised among wilder kin might, on very rare occasions, choose to take levels in the barbarian class. They make good bards, and even if they are not noted for their light-hearted revels, the ancient songs and lore of a learned bard are worthy of a sun elf’s respect. Sun elves are also the foremost clerics and paladins among the elven races. The arts of stealth and archery are not widely practiced among sun elves, so rangers and rogues are relatively scarce among them."
However, to my knowledge there can be no paladins with the Seldarine as their patron deity, since none of the Seldarine will grant divine spellcasting to lawful followers. Sun Elves are extremely zealous, and I cannot imagine one of them being a paladin or divine spellcaster of a non-Seldarine deity.
My question is; can there be an elf Paladin who has one of the Seldarine as his patron? |
30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
TBeholder |
Posted - 12 Mar 2013 : 13:09:21 Paladin and ranger aren't very well defined in context of 3.x ed. with its free fighter/druid and fighter/cleric multiclassing (and would be bard if raw 3.0 wasn't too crude to recognize "song magic"). And for cases when one really needs something more specific, custom options are more attractive, IMHO.
quote: Originally posted by Kilvan
It is not Realm-Canon, nor do I think it should be allowed, but there is a paladin-ish Prestige Class for Corellon' champions called accordingly The Champion of Corellon. You can find it in Races of Destiny, an official sourcebook but not for the Realms.
"Races of the Wild" (here's the "official" list with sources, BTW). Also... Knight Protector ("Complete Warrior") - straightforward defensive class, no built-in spellcasting. Though both of them have arbitrary prerequisites - heavy armor and mounted combat should be a matter of style. Double so for elves. Thus, here are two other PrC (from "Complete Divine") worth considering, and with more reasonable prerequisites at that: Seeker of the Misty Isle - elven "knight errand", spellcasting "+1 level of existing divine spellcasting class". Divine Crusader - plain and simple: champion of a deity as such. Minor spellcasting; the only flaw is its annoyingly arbitrary resistances.
quote: Originally posted by The Masked Mage
Paladins were very specific sub-class, limited to humans and lawful good. This got turned on its head by Dragonbait, the Saurial paladin
Technically, saurial holy warrior is not a normal paladin, which was mentioned. At least, we know that Dragonbait got Detect Evil replaced with more powerful Aura Sight, but had no special mount, and presumably it's normal for them. Where it really got turned on its head was Shield of Innocence. |
Razz |
Posted - 12 Mar 2013 : 02:52:21 I guess people missed the part where I said Richard Baker stated that the CG elven deities do have paladins. |
Barastir |
Posted - 11 Mar 2013 : 11:03:53 quote: Originally posted by Andrekan
I am a bit curious haven't dug in the old books but as I read all of this the class 'Avenger' was ringing in my ears. I believe these were a concept before, between, or during 2nd edition and fleshed out again in 4e. I don't recall all of what they are by definition but it seemed like they were a divine class of champions used by non-Lawful Good deities. Not completely sure but someone might check that out.
As I mentioned in one of my posts in this thread, some friends made a 2e Avenger as a CE "anti-paladin". Originally, though, the Avenger concept was to be different, and having the original Avenger in mind the Ravenloft editors released their version of the class in the books related to the Domains of Dread sourcebook/era.
In the original D&D, as a cleric could follow the path of druid, a fighter could later become a paladin, if lawful, or an avenger, if chaotic. However, back then alignments were only Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic, there were no combinations with Good, Neutral and Evil. Well, probably it was supposed that all heroes would be good (even if the monsters also showed only L, N or C alignments). Beingo so, heroes would be actually chosing between (AD&D) LG, NG or CG.
My friends back then understood that, in original D&D, "Chaotic" meant "Evil", and that's why they chose the name Avenger for the anti-paladin. The Ravenloft designers, though, made the avenger a Chaotic Good hero, and this class was perfect for the setting because avenging someone was a darker, somber quality, fit for a Ravenloft hero. |
Bladewind |
Posted - 10 Mar 2013 : 22:22:27 The Al-Qadim AD&D setting introduced the Holy Slayer rogue kit, but they had to be Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil and were obviously inspired by the hashshashin of persian/syrian history. They did an excellent job in describing these expendable self sacrifing agents strict adherence to a near paladin like code. But Holy Slayers are definately no lawfulgood paladins, though.
_______
I think paladins are paragons of roleplaying, given that playing a paladin imposes quite a challange on the player by limiting his freedom in choices of dealing with a story/scenario. The paladins essence to me IS linking mechanical divine benefits to roleplayer constraints. The tithe, the duty to defend the weak, to never flee in the face of evil and the particular faiths adittional dogmas all play in as a price a player pays to get the rewards of paladinhood.
Divine warriors are more diverse bunch, and are perfectly fine as mixes of fighter/ cleric/rogue kits or divine feats PrC's or substitution levels. Holy Slayers of 2nd ed, Black Flame Zealots of 3rd ed or 4e's excellent Avenger class are great examples of this flavour of character. |
Andrekan |
Posted - 10 Mar 2013 : 17:20:20 I am a bit curious haven't dug in the old books but as I read all of this the class 'Avenger' was ringing in my ears. I believe these were a concept before, between, or during 2nd edition and fleshed out again in 4e. I don't recall all of what they are by definition but it seemed like they were a divine class of champions used by non-Lawful Good deities. Not completely sure but someone might check that out.
There are a lot of good point brought up in this thread. Even if I have broken the rules on this in past games as no races were allowed to be Paladins other than Human at one point in the edition game.
Paladins still are LG in my mind beyond the game. |
Diffan |
Posted - 10 Mar 2013 : 12:31:06 quote: Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
As I understand it, the point of the paladin -- and in particular, the alignment restriction -- was to conform to archetypes like the Knights of the Round Table. From that angle, the LG restriction makes sense.
However, there have been variant paladins presented, in 3.x. I don't recall the source, but it basically presented divine warriors, with other names and abilities. They weren't the same as paladins, but they were similar in that they were knights of their faith, with divine abilities.
For me, so long as you don't call them paladins, that is a very workable solution. I'm fine with limiting the specifically LG paladin abilities to those paladins that are LG, but I see no issue with other divinely souped-up swordswingers with other abilities.
I'd be cool with the Crusader class name and the Paladin as a sub-option with differences to the core class based on their devotion to a Lawful Good alignment. What I'd rather NOT see is mechanical ties to that alignment (or, if possible increases of abilities when targeting those of opposed alignment). For example, a Paladin (LG-Crusader) can Smite his enemies BUT when his enemy is that of an Evil alignment it does more damage or has an effect or lasts longer. something that doesn't nerf the ability in many situations but just enhances the mechanics of those situations when they come up. |
Razz |
Posted - 07 Mar 2013 : 02:20:13 I asked this to either Richard Baker or Sean Reynolds years back and their response (I really think it was Rich) was that:
YES. It was entirely supported for the Seldarine to have LG Paladins to champion their people. It was never made clear, but it was definitely RAI, similar to why Sune and Selune have paladins.
So feel free to run elf paladins |
Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Mar 2013 : 16:29:46 As I understand it, the point of the paladin -- and in particular, the alignment restriction -- was to conform to archetypes like the Knights of the Round Table. From that angle, the LG restriction makes sense.
However, there have been variant paladins presented, in 3.x. I don't recall the source, but it basically presented divine warriors, with other names and abilities. They weren't the same as paladins, but they were similar in that they were knights of their faith, with divine abilities.
For me, so long as you don't call them paladins, that is a very workable solution. I'm fine with limiting the specifically LG paladin abilities to those paladins that are LG, but I see no issue with other divinely souped-up swordswingers with other abilities. |
Diffan |
Posted - 05 Mar 2013 : 15:56:03 quote: Originally posted by Markustay
quote: Originally posted by Kilvan
I guess I just don't understand why someone would insist on playing a paladin while not respecting what at consider the most important aspect of the class... <snip>
Yeah, totally agree here.
For me its like someone asking, "I want all the benefits of something, but none of the downsides".
And I'd probably agree with you IF the Paladin was mechanically superior to the Fighter or better than a Cleric/Fighter combo to warrant the shoe-horn role-play element. But sadly, it isn't. The restriction on Alignment serves really no mechanical purpose or balance point (from a v3.5 P.O.V) and serves to restrict all but the most narrowly defined role-play of any other class. And for what, to gain an (arguably) mediocre special attack, pretty horse, and some off-healing features? Really, the only two awesome class features the Paladin receives is Divine Grace and Immunity to disease (magical or otherwise) and that's about it. And you can get these from other PrCs a few levels later.
quote: Originally posted by Markustay
Or better yet, just write some treasure and experience on their Character sheet each week, so they don't have to bother with all that boring 'playing stuff'. Lets jump right to the rewards part. Just assume they always win at everyone and save them some time. After all, its only fair.
Holy non sequitur Batman! |
Markustay |
Posted - 05 Mar 2013 : 12:59:34 quote: Originally posted by Kilvan
I guess I just don't understand why someone would insist on playing a paladin while not respecting what at consider the most important aspect of the class... <snip>
Yeah, totally agree here.
For me its like someone asking, "I want all the benefits of something, but none of the downsides".
I'd say, "get in line behind the other 5 billion humans".
Or better yet, just write some treasure and experience on their Character sheet each week, so they don't have to bother with all that boring 'playing stuff'. Lets jump right to the rewards part. Just assume they always win at everything and save them some time. After all, its only fair.
*Grammatical Correction |
see |
Posted - 05 Mar 2013 : 11:42:48 Assuming you want to hold to 3.x FR by strict rule-as-written, you could not have (non-UA) paladins of Corellon, because FR had a specific setting rule, overriding the general 3.x rules, that all paladins had to follow a deity within one step of LG, or Sune.
However, it was still possible to play a paladin of the Seldarine, because of an obscure bit of lore from 2nd edition. Specifically, there is in Elves of Evermeet the goddess Khalreshaar. Who in Demihuman Deities was stated to be the same goddess as Mielikki, who is NG in alignment, fitting the one step rule.
With the 4th edition lore that Sune and Hanali Celanil are the same deity, of course, you can work the cross-edition lore the other way, and have an elven paladin following a CG member of the Seldarine use the one exemption from the one-step rule for paladins.
A third trick would be to use Power of Faerun's Heretic of the Faith feat, which allows a two-step violation of the alignment rule, though as specifically written it only exempts clerics.
I'm not saying you have to contort a character concept through one of those holes; I simply mention them because they exist. |
Diffan |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 19:43:34 quote: Originally posted by Kilvan
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your point that a DM should allow a non-LG paladin otherwise the player will use optimizing boards to do something uberpowerful. I could point you to other options, totally viable in terms of power AND flavor, which would respect the concept of the LG paladin while giving you a character you want to play.
Such as? I'm interested in what sorts of options you'd point to that would allow a person to play the concept of an Elven Paladin who worships Corellon from 1st level onward. Obviously a simple solution is Fighter/Cleric multiclass, but that's still only achievable at 2nd level and doesn't really fit the whole "Smiting" thing as Corellon doesn't have the Destruction Domain (which grants smite 1/day as a domain feature). My point wasn't that the DM should've allowed me to play a non-LG paladin (because he didn't) nor did I go to the Char_Ops boards with the attitude to wreak the game. I actually went there because I didn't know (at the time) how to really build a non-Paladin "Paladin of Chaos" and was looking for ideas. The Crusader/Cleric/RKV option looked cool and thought I'd try it out. But really, I used a LOT of non-core options as far as feats and items went that make the character far stronger than I imagined. But hey, that's v3.5 for ya.
quote: Originally posted by Kilvan
I guess I just don't understand why someone would insist on playing a paladin while not respecting what at consider the most important aspect of the class, its rigid, extremely LG code of conduct. A knightly champion of good and freedom has so many great, powerful and cool options beside the paladin class, which as you said isn't that powerful to begin with.
For one, it depends on how someone looks as the Paladin's class (or any class for that matter). I started D&D primarily with 3E and so I don't have a lot of the preconceptions when it comes to the terms and names of classes. I don't have (or really want) the nostalgia of playing only Human Paladins of LG that was so prevalent with older editions of the game. To me, that's just one very narrow aspect of a class, but not the end-all or be-all of that class. I view the Paladin as a divine champion of a deity and the causes they strive for via their Alignment. Sure, Paladins are (only) Lawful Good to a lot of people, and that's fine. But it's also something else (alternative alignments) for others and that's OK too.
I personally enjoy having LOTS of options to choose from and allow players to freely express their ideas via character concepts. The rigid requirments of Alignment (any clas that has them) often impedes concepts for no other reason than to push an iconic belief brought upon by previous incarnations of the game. Again, I'm all for DMs to put in their own restrictions on what they believe should be or not be in the game, but I don't feel the rules need to force these beliefs by way of some "official" capacity.
As for the Paladin's "power", I've made it work despite other, stronger options. Personally I just enjoy going through 1 class (and perhaps 1 prestige class) to get the concept I'm after. When I start to multiclass it then becomes it's own mini-game of min/max'ing that I'm really just getting tired of. I'd rather just have my concept be easy to gain with 1 class and perhaps some feats (and spell selection). Jumping through hoops just isn't my cup of tea anymore. So in that regards, an elven paladin concept is simpler to make by using the Paladin of Freedom (re-named Liberator) class that the Unearthed Arcana supplement provided rather than Ftr/Clr or some combination of classes. I know what to expect (power-wise), I know what options work best for it (Battle Blessing feat, Extra Smite feat, elven-paladin substitution levels, Charging Smite feat, Rhino's Rush spell, etc.), I know what magical items to strive for and research (Holy Avenger, for example).
quote: Originally posted by Kilvan
For what it is worth, we allowed a Warblade once, got to level 12, and we killed him and rolled something else because its damage output was just ridiculous. So nothing from the Tome of Battle in my games anymore.
I've enjoyed the Tome of Battle immensely since it debued. I got my Crusader to about 14th level in one game and supringly he did quite well amongst 7th and 8th level spells of villians. Though I knew it was a matter of time (level wise) before he'd die to some death-effect spell or having a Wall of Iron fall on him or having an evil wizard conjure a flying beast, pick me up, and drop me from 9,000 ft up in the air and I'd have to roll up a spellcaster just to contribute to the adventure. But that's pretty much what I expect when playing high-leveled v3.5 games with friends who play Wizards, Clerics, and Druids. |
Barastir |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 18:54:17 quote: Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus [So an evil deity wouldn't want someone who can wear heavy armor, cast divine spells, lay on hands, and smite? They wouldn't want someone who is empowered directly by them, sworn to up hold their (twisted) ideals and meet out their (un)holy justice? Someone who is empowered by them directly and who loses that power when they stray from the path(arguably more of a concern among followers of an evil deity)?
You can argue blackguard takes this role, but that begs the question as to why it's a prestige class- why wouldn't evil have a class to train people in from the ground up instead of making them take other class levels first? Why would they only want fallen champions of good?
Cause it's fun to corrupt them, in their opinion... Seriously, I see this role occupied by death knights, for example. That's all about taste, sincerely... Priests usually also fill those roles in every alignment, just paladins used to be attached to some ideals, that I think don't apply to all deities of all alignments. I see that both the cleric and the paladin classes were originally inspired in knights like the templars, just like cavaliers and crusaders, later. So I decided, in my campaigns, that paladins would be the romantic ideal knights...
Once again, that's my point of view, and the way I see from someone who likes following the classicals. I recognize creating new possibilities for villains - and heroes - is a must, especially for gaming reasons, but I like to tie my stories to the stereotypical "elves are as good as a fey can be, dwarves are honored and stubborn, and paladins are the ideal heroes of mankind - who have its villains, but can be counted on the good peoples" kind of campaign. And yes, even then I can create a lot of unique LG dwarves, who are themselves very different from my lot of varied LG paladins... Well, and this is one of my roleplaying challenges.
Finally, the evil deities have plenty of agents, a lot of them capable of taking the role an evil paladin or sacred warrior could fill, IMHO. The Faiths & Avatars series provides a lot of suggestions for the deities' servitors...
I see the point about terminology, and I'm not here to discuss if an evil knight can be called an "evil paladin", "blackguard", "avenger" (as my friends called their homebrew evil knights some 20 years ago, based on Basic D&D), but to say that I prefer to stick paladin to the LG sacred warrior, and that I see no need to have "reversed" paladins, just as I don't need good vampires, for example.
Once again, I'm not trying to convince anyone that this ot that is wrong, I'm just saying that a campaign can run with or without these elements - I usually ignore more than 70% of the Monster Manuals, and prefer low-magic games where things like being invisible or flying are rare, supernatural and viewed with awe...
EDIT: In my first post, I cited undead and dragons as evil archetypes, not necessarily as champions of evil deities... In the original D&D there were only evil dragons, then came the gold dragon, based on the eastern dragons, and only after that the other metalics. I'm sure evil deities - and DMs - have a lot of options for their agents, including evil paladins, if you think they are nice for your game.
Oh, and all the talk about classes I posted is about 1e/2e, the ones I know better. My campaign is 2e... |
Kilvan |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 18:31:41 I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your point that a DM should allow a non-LG paladin otherwise the player will use optimizing boards to do something uberpowerful. I could point you to other options, totally viable in terms of power AND flavor, which would respect the concept of the LG paladin while giving you a character you want to play.
I guess I just don't understand why someone would insist on playing a paladin while not respecting what at consider the most important aspect of the class, its rigid, extremely LG code of conduct. A knightly champion of good and freedom has so many great, powerful and cool options beside the paladin class, which as you said isn't that powerful to begin with.
For what it is worth, we allowed a Warblade once, got to level 12, and we killed him and rolled something else because its damage output was just ridiculous. So nothing from the Tome of Battle in my games anymore. |
Diffan |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 17:29:00 quote: Originally posted by Kilvan
quote: Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
So an evil deity wouldn't want someone who can wear heavy armor, cast divine spells, lay on hands, and smite? They wouldn't want someone who is empowered directly by them, sworn to up hold their (twisted) ideals and meet out their (un)holy justice? Someone who is empowered by them directly and who loses that power when they stray from the path(arguably more of a concern among followers of an evil deity)?
He didn't say they don't want someone with that dedication, he said it doesn't need to be a paladin. Bane could very well create his own "class" of fighter/priest, infuse them with divine powers, slap in a rigid code of conduct, and call it a Tyrant (sounds cool actually...), but it wouldn't be a paladin.
Ok, so color me confused. I'm coming strictly from a game-mechanics standpoint and by that, the player asking the DM to play a Paladin of Bane (or Corellon as the case may be). Would it not be easier to take a singular class that already has mechanics, has been playtested, has official support, and accepted as a core class and just change a few things rather than forcing the player to create/build a brand new class or come up with Multiclassing combinations just to "justify" his concept?
I had a DM once that thought just as others did, as I wanted to play a Paladin of Chaos (specifically, worshipping Tempus). I didn't really care if I was called "paladin" or something else like Tempest or Carnage or something "battle-ish" but the mechanics of the class suited what I wanted. The DM was staunch in his opposition of anything other than LG Paladin class. So I went to the Character Optimization boards, found that a Crusader (tome of battle)/ Cleric/ Ruby Knight Vindicator was FAR more powerful than a lowly Paladin and created that instead. The DM then became pretty mad when I started to challenge the difficulty of his encounters due to the optimized character. It would've just been easier to let me play a paladin and forgo the optimization/broken combos that comes along with fullfilling concepts.
quote: Originally posted by Kilvan
quote: Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus You can argue blackguard takes this role, but that begs the question as to why it's a prestige class- why wouldn't evil have a class to train people in from the ground up instead of making them take other class levels first? Why would they only want fallen champions of good?
I agree, Blackguard shouldn't be a prestige class. Unless evil deity wants their champions to be the strongest only, and you have to be already powerful to be deemed worthy. A good deity would be more inclined to give a chance to everybody. That being said, paladins orders have very rough selection trials and training, you cannot become a paladin just because you wanna try. This applies even if mechanically they removed stats requirements in 3rd ed.
Which is just flavor and fluff from a gamist point of view. An evil Paladin order would still have a rough selection due to trails and training, of which I feel more deaths would occur than just outright denying the class (which I feel would be the case with non-evil organizations). But D&D's restrictions on Alignment/Code of Conduct has always been an extreamly poor balancing point for their mechanics. Perhaps it made sense in pre-3E but with the advancemnt of other Core classes (Cleric, Fighter, and Rogue) the requirments to adhere to a strict code come up sort of cheesy and unnecessary for a class to actually function. Heck, one needs just to look at the Tier system of 3E and see where Paladin's lie (tier 5, I believe) and they wouldn't move up one notch were a peson to remove the heavy-handed RP restrictions. They literally do nothing to balance the features granted (meaning, the features are already weak to begin with).
quote: Originally posted by sleyvas
On what I'm about to say, its my personal feel obviously. Of all the "alternate" paladins, I actually have the most problem with the "paladin of freedom" as an option. The regular paladin with its stiff need to be both lawful and good provides a relatively good guideline for playing the class with years of examples. The paladin of tyranny is next in line for being extremely understandable and "DM'able", because he's got a code that he follows, follows the laws as they pertain to keeping the community under control, he's just skewed towards tyranny. Next, the paladin of slaughter.... or as some would call him, the anti-paladin.... his goal is to bring in strife and death wherever he goes, all centered on himself and/or his deity. Obviously, the blackguard work with both those alternate versions. The paladin of freedom though I can see players choosing as a means to get the paladinic abilities without adhering to the stringent code or having to deal with the issues of being evil (and lets face it, you get nice abilities as a paladin because of those stringent guidelines). Therefore, that's one of the classes that I wouldn't allow in my game. If someone wanted to be a warrior champion of their deity and be chaotic good, I'd guide them towards other options.
I see what you mean, but I respectfully disagree. A Liberator (CG paladin) does indeed need a code of conduct to follow, but the player and DM should come up with one. This would probably mean helping free oppressed people, fueling indivdualism and helping people express themselves freely. I don't see it as some sort of Powergaming option to get out of adherance to roleplay, but as a different perspective of roleplay. The features gained by the v3.5 Paladin class aren't excessively great, espically after 5th level, and really don't warrent a strong RP requirement that we've seen. Espically with the myrid of options prsented to other classes such as the Fighter and Cleric. I may not like resorting to Multiclassing Ftr/Clr to gain a "Paladin-esque" character but I do so because it's far more powerful (in terms of mechanics) and it's not worth the trouble of arguing with a DM set in their views on how a particular class MUST be played. I just hate restrictions because I feel it's a shackle on my imagination.
quote: Originally posted by sleyvas
For example, some have mentioned the Champion of Corellon. I'd also mention the divine crusader from Complete divine, the divine champion from the PGtF, the divine disciple from PGtF (NOTE: the divine disciple works well with divine crusader if you want to increase the character spell list a little bit). Then of course, there's all kind of stuff in the Complete Champion book.
Now, that all being said, as I noted earlier, there are plenty of options for Faerunian pantheon elven paladins, and as some have pointed out I don't see Corellon having a problem with having a paladin serving him. This statement from the Champion of Corellon class doubly confirms such "The quickest way to become a champion of Corellon Larethian is to advance as a fighter, due to the difficult feat requirements. However, a level of cleric, paladin, or rogue (preferably paladin, because it maximizes your base attack bonus) will be quite useful in meeting the skill requirements."
Combine that with the class requirements and you have a definitive 3.5 answer.... Corellon has paladins
Entry Requirements Race: Elf or half-elf. Alignment: Any nonevil. Base Attack Bonus: +7. Skills: Diplomacy 4 ranks, Knowledge (religion) 2 ranks. Feats: Proficient with all martial weapons and heavy armor, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mounted Combat. Special: Must worship Corellon Larethian. Special: In addition to the feats above, you must also take either Weapon Focus (longsword) or Exotic Weapon Proficiency (elven thinblade or elven courtblade).
But really, that's a LOT to go through just to complete a concept that could easily be done with 0 Requirements at 1st level. One might as well just play a Chaotic Good Crusader [Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords] of Corellon and gain the concept from the start. You get self-healing powers (Crusader's Strike), smite (anyone) at 6th level, the ability to hamper your foes (Iron Guards Glare stance; -2 to adjacent enemies attacks against anyone but you), the abilty to absorb damage (Delayed Damage Pool), the ability to reroll one saving throw 1/day, Charisma modifier to Will Saves, and a slew of other powers that are usefull in and out of combat. |
Kilvan |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 16:20:52 quote: Originally posted by sleyvas
We have a 3.5 answer saying he has paladins, we have a realms entry stating that Sun Elves are often paladins, we have previous editions stating he has knighthoods in his service. With all 3 of these combined, do you honestly think its a detail to quibble over? It would all come down to "do in your own realms whatever you want" in the end anyway, and I'd feel 100% certain that any WotC answer is going to be either "definitively yes" or "if you want it to be". I can't contrive a single instance in my head where they're going to say "definitely no, Corellon has no paladins in the realms" and thereby contradict their own works.
Of course not, I'm not debating over details, I'm having a discussion. As for if Corellon would accept paladins, which I doubt, I would very much like to see a Realms source on this. Sure sun elves can be paladins, that's Realms-canon, but not of elven deities, which is the point. |
sleyvas |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 16:13:18 quote: Originally posted by Kilvan
quote: Originally posted by sleyvas
Combine that with the class requirements and you have a definitive 3.5 answer.... Corellon has paladins
Definitive 3.5 answer, but not necessarily in the Realms. I'm beginning to think we could ask Ed on this one.
We have a 3.5 answer saying he has paladins, we have a realms entry stating that Sun Elves are often paladins, we have previous editions stating he has knighthoods in his service. With all 3 of these combined, do you honestly think its a detail to quibble over? It would all come down to "do in your own realms whatever you want" in the end anyway, and I'd feel 100% certain that any WotC answer is going to be either "definitively yes" or "if you want it to be". I can't contrive a single instance in my head where they're going to say "definitely no, Corellon has no paladins in the realms" and thereby contradict their own works. |
Kilvan |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 15:31:45 quote: Originally posted by sleyvas
Combine that with the class requirements and you have a definitive 3.5 answer.... Corellon has paladins
Definitive 3.5 answer, but not necessarily in the Realms. I'm beginning to think we could ask Ed on this one.
|
sleyvas |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 15:22:57 On what I'm about to say, its my personal feel obviously. Of all the "alternate" paladins, I actually have the most problem with the "paladin of freedom" as an option. The regular paladin with its stiff need to be both lawful and good provides a relatively good guideline for playing the class with years of examples. The paladin of tyranny is next in line for being extremely understandable and "DM'able", because he's got a code that he follows, follows the laws as they pertain to keeping the community under control, he's just skewed towards tyranny. Next, the paladin of slaughter.... or as some would call him, the anti-paladin.... his goal is to bring in strife and death wherever he goes, all centered on himself and/or his deity. Obviously, the blackguard work with both those alternate versions. The paladin of freedom though I can see players choosing as a means to get the paladinic abilities without adhering to the stringent code or having to deal with the issues of being evil (and lets face it, you get nice abilities as a paladin because of those stringent guidelines). Therefore, that's one of the classes that I wouldn't allow in my game. If someone wanted to be a warrior champion of their deity and be chaotic good, I'd guide them towards other options. For example, some have mentioned the Champion of Corellon. I'd also mention the divine crusader from Complete divine, the divine champion from the PGtF, the divine disciple from PGtF (NOTE: the divine disciple works well with divine crusader if you want to increase the character spell list a little bit). Then of course, there's all kind of stuff in the Complete Champion book.
Now, that all being said, as I noted earlier, there are plenty of options for Faerunian pantheon elven paladins, and as some have pointed out I don't see Corellon having a problem with having a paladin serving him. This statement from the Champion of Corellon class doubly confirms such "The quickest way to become a champion of Corellon Larethian is to advance as a fighter, due to the difficult feat requirements. However, a level of cleric, paladin, or rogue (preferably paladin, because it maximizes your base attack bonus) will be quite useful in meeting the skill requirements."
Combine that with the class requirements and you have a definitive 3.5 answer.... Corellon has paladins
Entry Requirements Race: Elf or half-elf. Alignment: Any nonevil. Base Attack Bonus: +7. Skills: Diplomacy 4 ranks, Knowledge (religion) 2 ranks. Feats: Proficient with all martial weapons and heavy armor, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mounted Combat. Special: Must worship Corellon Larethian. Special: In addition to the feats above, you must also take either Weapon Focus (longsword) or Exotic Weapon Proficiency (elven thinblade or elven courtblade). |
Kilvan |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 15:19:38 quote: Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
So an evil deity wouldn't want someone who can wear heavy armor, cast divine spells, lay on hands, and smite? They wouldn't want someone who is empowered directly by them, sworn to up hold their (twisted) ideals and meet out their (un)holy justice? Someone who is empowered by them directly and who loses that power when they stray from the path(arguably more of a concern among followers of an evil deity)?
He didn't say they don't want someone with that dedication, he said it doesn't need to be a paladin. Bane could very well create his own "class" of fighter/priest, infuse them with divine powers, slap in a rigid code of conduct, and call it a Tyrant (sounds cool actually...), but it wouldn't be a paladin.
quote: Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus You can argue blackguard takes this role, but that begs the question as to why it's a prestige class- why wouldn't evil have a class to train people in from the ground up instead of making them take other class levels first? Why would they only want fallen champions of good?
I agree, Blackguard shouldn't be a prestige class. Unless evil deity wants their champions to be the strongest only, and you have to be already powerful to be deemed worthy. A good deity would be more inclined to give a chance to everybody. That being said, paladins orders have very rough selection trials and training, you cannot become a paladin just because you wanna try. This applies even if mechanically they removed stats requirements in 3rd ed.
|
Diffan |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 15:13:30 quote: Originally posted by Kilvan
quote: Originally posted by Ayrik
This seems to have become an argument about terminology.
"Paladin" does indeed have very specific definitions, dictionaries will offer several, histories offer several more, Gygax/AD&D and subsequent fantasy genre/games offered our classic LG champion of the faith and justice, etc.
I use the term paladin in a broader context, and in the particular case of elven paladins championing the cause of Corellon (the archetypical elven god and champion of elven archetypes and causes) I see very little room for ambiguity. To be sure, these guys aren't LG human paladins, but I feel they are similar enough as a category to be called (CG) paladins. Invent a different term if you prefer to keep "true paladins" unsullied.
I think it's much the same as the differences between priests and, say, druids (who are also priests). Each priest is a essentially a unique "specialist" class dedicated to a particular deity/religion, each basically gets unique variations in their powers and abilities, their treatment in the novels and game rules. But calling them different names doesn't change what they are, it only serves as a way to identify and differentiate them for reference. Terminology.
Right, I think so too. Does every alignment (9 btw, not 5) needs a special class for holy warriors representing that ideal? Probably not, but if there were to be one for CG, I wish it was called something other than Paladin of Freedom/anything else. It'd be ironic if they were free to call themselves anything they wanted, and went with a derivative of their disciplined counterparts.
As far as the name goes, I'm perfectly fine with the name "Paladin" referring to Lawful Good paragons of virtue. But the mechanics behind the class should be able to encompass multiple versions with just a few changes here and there. Actually, I think each alignment could use the same base concepts (smite, auras, lay-on-hands, some divine spells, Divine grace) but just have the name changed to fit the theme. Lawful Neutral "paladins" are called Justicars. Chaotic Good ones are Liberators. Lawful Evil ones are Blackguards, and so on. I would, however, say that the only alignment the class Paladin couldn't be is True Neutra/Unaligned. To me, the alignemnt aspect is where the paladin draws his conviction and strength from, not just the deity he worships.
So as long as the term Paladin refers to the Lawful Good element of the "Crusader" class, other terms that depict different version of that same class are OK. The mechanics behind the "Crusader" class are pretty stremlined through out all versions, regardless of what you call yourself. This is why I prefer non-alignemnt based mechanics as it tends to work well for a variety of options and not pigeonhole that character to working well only in limited instances. The Crusader would be able to Smite (regardless of alignment), he would have Lay on Hands (to heal himself or others to aid their quest, be it heroic or vile). He would gain immunity to fear and to disease. And he would have 1 specific element that works based on the alignment (s)he's chosen. That way, only one thing is changing from one character to another and not 3 or 4 things and a host of different spells (as it is in v3.5's alternate versions). |
Kilvan |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 15:09:56 Back to elves, from what I know Lawful elves are very rare, and there isn't a lawful elven community anywhere, right? Is it possible that a LG elf, even though he'd be a servant of Corellon, would be seen as to rigid and bound by words/laws instead of ideals to be respected by the community?
More so, isn't being Lawful in some way against the teaching of Corellon himself? Sure, probably not as bad as being evil, but close second I'd think. |
Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 14:57:07 quote: Originally posted by Barastir
That's exactly the point. The paladin used to be a champion of a lawful good deity and a representative of his or her ideals, or a champion of law and good supported by a deity that promoted those ideals. The point (even culturally) is that the champion of law and good was the paladin, a kind of cavalier, while evil has its own representatives - or ways of working in the world - through dragons, undead, necromancers, hags and such.
Note that I'm not saying that evil gods would have their special agents in the world, only that they would not be paladins... Some would be normal fighters, others would be rogues or assassins, and some would not even be humans or humanoids... Some would be their deities' chosen...
Well, since I try to run my adventures based on those mythical principles, I choose not to use - or overuse - exceptions, like good undead or dragons, for example (although a ultimately rare neutral can be used nicely).
So an evil deity wouldn't want someone who can wear heavy armor, cast divine spells, lay on hands, and smite? They wouldn't want someone who is empowered directly by them, sworn to up hold their (twisted) ideals and meet out their (un)holy justice? Someone who is empowered by them directly and who loses that power when they stray from the path(arguably more of a concern among followers of an evil deity)?
You can argue blackguard takes this role, but that begs the question as to why it's a prestige class- why wouldn't evil have a class to train people in from the ground up instead of making them take other class levels first? Why would they only want fallen champions of good?
Lets take evil out of the equation for a minute; a chaotic deity wouldn't want a servant with the same powers?
As for your selection of evil creatures, it begs the question of whether they're "servants of evil" or just independent creatures that happen to be evil. Hags and undead don't necessarily serve a greater evil and if they do that evil isn't necessarily a deity, unlike a paladin. And with the metallic/chromatic divide, there should be as many good dragons(many of them being lawful good) as evil(though in my home game I skew all dragons towards neutral).
To me it simply doesn't make sense that if a deity who isn't lawful good could empower a servant in the fashion of a paladin, they wouldn't. I'd like to think of deities as being more pragmatic than that.
|
Ayrik |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 13:31:11 "Paladin of Freedom" is a pretty lame class title, agreed. Even uninspired "Blade of Corellon" is a noticeable improvement.
Nine basic flavours of paladin is just the usual D&D obsession of forcing contrived symmetry and completeness, the one-of-everything problem which expands a handful of cool (or necessary) things into a completely artificial and bland array filled with at least a few varieties which make no logical sense at all. |
Kilvan |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 13:08:50 quote: Originally posted by Ayrik
This seems to have become an argument about terminology.
"Paladin" does indeed have very specific definitions, dictionaries will offer several, histories offer several more, Gygax/AD&D and subsequent fantasy genre/games offered our classic LG champion of the faith and justice, etc.
I use the term paladin in a broader context, and in the particular case of elven paladins championing the cause of Corellon (the archetypical elven god and champion of elven archetypes and causes) I see very little room for ambiguity. To be sure, these guys aren't LG human paladins, but I feel they are similar enough as a category to be called (CG) paladins. Invent a different term if you prefer to keep "true paladins" unsullied.
I think it's much the same as the differences between priests and, say, druids (who are also priests). Each priest is a essentially a unique "specialist" class dedicated to a particular deity/religion, each basically gets unique variations in their powers and abilities, their treatment in the novels and game rules. But calling them different names doesn't change what they are, it only serves as a way to identify and differentiate them for reference. Terminology.
Right, I think so too. Does every alignment (9 btw, not 5) needs a special class for holy warriors representing that ideal? Probably not, but if there were to be one for CG, I wish it was called something other than Paladin of Freedom/anything else. It'd be ironic if they were free to call themselves anything they wanted, and went with a derivative of their disciplined counterparts.
And for that "What's a paladin?" reference, Ultima X/Spoony's review |
Ayrik |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 11:28:25 This seems to have become an argument about terminology.
"Paladin" does indeed have very specific definitions, dictionaries will offer several, histories offer several more, Gygax/AD&D and subsequent fantasy genre/games offered our classic LG champion of the faith and justice, etc.
I use the term paladin in a broader context, and in the particular case of elven paladins championing the cause of Corellon (the archetypical elven god and champion of elven archetypes and causes) I see very little room for ambiguity. To be sure, these guys aren't LG human paladins, but I feel they are similar enough as a category to be called (CG) paladins. Invent a different term if you prefer to keep "true paladins" unsullied.
I think it's much the same as the differences between priests and, say, druids (who are also priests). Each priest is a essentially a unique "specialist" class dedicated to a particular deity/religion, each basically gets unique variations in their powers and abilities, their treatment in the novels and game rules. But calling them different names doesn't change what they are, it only serves as a way to identify and differentiate them for reference. Terminology. |
Barastir |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 09:41:04 That's exactly the point. The paladin used to be a champion of a lawful good deity and a representative of his or her ideals, or a champion of law and good supported by a deity that promoted those ideals. The point (even culturally) is that the champion of law and good was the paladin, a kind of cavalier, while evil has its own representatives - or ways of working in the world - through dragons, undead, necromancers, hags and such.
Note that I'm not saying that evil gods would have their special agents in the world, only that they would not be paladins... Some would be normal fighters, others would be rogues or assassins, and some would not even be humans or humanoids... Some would be their deities' chosen...
Well, since I try to run my adventures based on those mythical principles, I choose not to use - or overuse - exceptions, like good undead or dragons, for example (although a ultimately rare neutral can be used nicely). |
Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 07:33:15 The question here is really one of "What's a paladin?" (cookie to whoever gets that reference).
Is a paladin a beacon of lawful good? A paragon of justice, order, compassion, and chivalry?
Or is a paladin a soldier? A warrior of a god, empowered to carry out their will?
Paladins, generally speaking, aren't empowered by the personification of "lawful good" itself. They're empowered by the lawful good deities they worship. But why would only lawful good deities empower mortal agents in this way?
I personally lean towards the "champion of a god" school of thought and allow paladins of different alignments. |
Kilvan |
Posted - 06 Feb 2013 : 00:13:24 I'm glad that there are rules to allow for non-LG paladins, because I want people to play the game the way they want. If WotC is able to provide ruling for such demands (CG paladins, monster PCs, gods stats, stuff like that), all the better. But I believe that official rules for Paladins of Freedom are more to respond to fan demands to an acknowledgment that paladin should be anything other than LG.
But as with anything else, as Farrel just pointed out, this is YOUR Realms. |
CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 05 Feb 2013 : 22:41:35 Most elves pay some sort of tribute to Corellon, but since you're looking for a paladin, then yeah, either the Forgotten Flower or a Paladin of Freedom. I own Demihuman Deities but I don't normally look at the statistics since I don't play D&D much, but one of the few times I did play I was a Paladin of Freedom. I prefer to role play through writing, and so the technicalities don't matter as much. |
|
|