| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
 Posted - 30 Oct 2009 : 20:32:12
|
Hello fellow scribes
While reading Races of the Wild I came upon an interesting prestige class, the Champion of Corellon, which is basically a heavy-armored elven fighter with the lay on hand ability (in other words, an elven paladin). While being a paladin is not a pre-requisite for the PrC, it is hinted that it is the most basic way to go down that path (mainly because of the LoH ability). It made me wonder, is there a faction of elven paladins in the realms? For all I know, the closest thing they have to paladins are the bladesingers. I know that in 3.5 it is possible, but is it used in realmslore? I have a hard time imagining a stern, disciplined paladin in a race with such a chaotic nature, much less a whole group of them.
Thanks
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 30 Oct 2009 : 21:02:09
|
The concept of elven paladins was one of my many beefs with 3e. In the Realms, the concept of a "paladin" is a human creation. It's unique to their race, and while there's no particular reason an elven deity couldn't make a paladin, they've been doing fine for many thousands of years before the paladin was invented, and I don't see why they'd start now. I agree that the paladin's "niche" is taken up already by the bladesinger (and maybe other fighter/mages like the swiftblade, if you want to go that route).
The only way I'd see an elf becoming a paladin is if they were adopted by humans near a paladin training center. Growing up in the human culture, the young elf could yearn to be a paladin, but if they became one, they would be trained by humans and would almost certainly be worshipping human gods. I don't see any sort of elven paladin organization every springing up, and I'm not aware of any in Realms canon. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
 |
|
|
Ghost King
Learned Scribe
USA
253 Posts |
Posted - 30 Oct 2009 : 22:12:34
|
| I agree with Hoondatha here. Not a big fan of elf paladins in FR and make it very difficult for anyone to give me a good reason to play that combindation in my campaigns. The only "semi-cannon" Realms would be the Neverwinter games where an elf was a paladin. But she was a paladin of Tyr and was called directly to serve by Tyr in a dream (if I remember correctly it has been so long since I even played the series). Which supports Hoondatha's statement that an elf could possibly be a paladin...if they serve a human culture god of the Realms. But I too have seen that prestige class and I think it is an attempt to have a similar version for the elves but with their own elven influence. But again I call my example "Semi-Cannon" Realms for I don't know how much stock is given to games made in the realms. I think the Neverwinter series is a stand alone alternate campaign of FR, but I can't say for sure. |
Edited by - Ghost King on 30 Oct 2009 22:13:45 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31726 Posts |
Posted - 30 Oct 2009 : 22:59:37
|
I think Hoondatha has the right of it.
In the Realms, an individual elf may decide to become a paladin in a non-elf church. However, the concept of a paladin itself is something almost inherently tied to the humans [except for aasimar and saurials in 2e for example], and thus isn't really a part of elven society.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Knight of the Gate
Senior Scribe
USA
624 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2009 : 02:27:36
|
Just for the sake of playing devil's advocate: Evermeet (the 2E Sourcebook, not the novel by Elaine) mentions not only gold elven knights (heavily armored cavalry) who have 'sacred duties', but also the dragonriders who have bonded with the dragons beneath Evermeet, any of whom could easily be paladins.
Insofar as the 'feeling' that elves don't have paladins, IMO, this is a matter of how you view the elves. I agree that the Torillian native elves don't scream 'Paladin' to me, but the exiles from Tintageer are a different matter. Their culture is one of inherited nobility: The perfect breeding ground for Paladins.
Having said all of that, my first choice for a patron for elf Paladins is Mystra. It's known that a large number of elves worship her, and she's got the right alignment- furthermore, the continued existance of magic is paramount to the survival of the elves, and I can see an elf (particularly one not intelligent enough to become much of a mage, or who is a sorceror) who loves magic and is of a lawful bent gravitating toward paladinhood.
Of course, if you're using the UE variant paladins, the chaotic pals might work too.
Just some thoughts |
How can life be so bountiful, providing such sublime rewards for mediocrity? -Umberto Ecco |
Edited by - Knight of the Gate on 31 Oct 2009 02:30:40 |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2009 : 02:57:01
|
I disagree. I don't think it's just my view of Faerun's elves, all of canon backs me up. You can be a heavily armored knight and not be a paladin. In fact, the vast majority of heavily armored human knights aren't paladins. Just because you're a noble doesn't mean you're a paladin, or a mounted warrior. It's a class the is absolutely tied into the culture.
As another example, you don't find any paladins among the horse barbarians of the Endless Waste. Why? They're master horsemen, they could conceivably be incredibly deadly paladins. But there aren't any because it isn't part of the culture. They worship different gods in different ways, their values are skewed towards other ideals than "western chivalry." The elven culture is very well established and significantly predates any native human culture. They are also, by nature, proud and prone to "not created here" syndrome. I don't see any reason for the elves to adopt the concept of the paladin, except in exceedingly rare single instances.
Finally, one can have a "sacred duty" without being anything close to a paladin. The baelnorn who guard the Vale of Lost Voices aren't even clerics, let alone paladins (they're all fighters), yet they have a "sacred duty" to guard the resting place of Myth Drannor's elves. And the dragon riders are explicitly stated to be mages, high mages, or fighter/mages, with the occasional pure fighter thrown in for good measure. I'm not sure how you're turning them suddenly into paladins. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Knight of the Gate
Senior Scribe
USA
624 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2009 : 03:11:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
I disagree. I don't think it's just my view of Faerun's elves, all of canon backs me up. You can be a heavily armored knight and not be a paladin. In fact, the vast majority of heavily armored human knights aren't paladins. Just because you're a noble doesn't mean you're a paladin, or a mounted warrior. It's a class the is absolutely tied into the culture.
As another example, you don't find any paladins among the horse barbarians of the Endless Waste. Why? They're master horsemen, they could conceivably be incredibly deadly paladins. But there aren't any because it isn't part of the culture. They worship different gods in different ways, their values are skewed towards other ideals than "western chivalry." The elven culture is very well established and significantly predates any native human culture. They are also, by nature, proud and prone to "not created here" syndrome. I don't see any reason for the elves to adopt the concept of the paladin, except in exceedingly rare single instances.
Finally, one can have a "sacred duty" without being anything close to a paladin. The baelnorn who guard the Vale of Lost Voices aren't even clerics, let alone paladins (they're all fighters), yet they have a "sacred duty" to guard the resting place of Myth Drannor's elves. And the dragon riders are explicitly stated to be mages, high mages, or fighter/mages, with the occasional pure fighter thrown in for good measure. I'm not sure how you're turning them suddenly into paladins.
I'm not 'turning them into paladins': I'm pointing out that the elves have the necessary cultural elements to produce paladins. If you have a hereditary nobility, if you have a tradition of knighthood, if you have a culture which rewards devotion to duty and deity, then you have the required cultural elements for paladins. Further, nowhere in FR canon is it stated that the Paladin is a human creation; point in fact, I'd assume that they learned the tenets of Paladinhood from Outsiders- with whom the elves had far more extensive and far ealier contact than humans did. Look at it this way: If I described a high level knightly character who slept beneath a sacred (god-given) island with her bonded dragon mount, waiting for the gods or the gods chosen representatives to call on her for aid in defending the island, most FR fans would think 'Paladin'. So just by adding 'elf' to that description, this thought is invalidated? I can't agree with that thought. Furthermore, the sourcebook 'explicitly states' that the dragonriders under Evermeet are not paladins since (get this): Elves *couldn't be paladins* in 2E- I suspect that if the rules had allowed them to be Pals, at least some of them might have been.
In closing, Hoondatha; you're welcome to your opinion, and I can see where you come from with it- I have always felt differently, dating back to 2e.
|
How can life be so bountiful, providing such sublime rewards for mediocrity? -Umberto Ecco |
Edited by - Knight of the Gate on 31 Oct 2009 03:20:59 |
|
|
|
goatunit
Acolyte
USA
31 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2009 : 09:11:56
|
I would also like to point out (while not entirely disagreeing with our esteemed anti-elven paladin friends), that an Calishite religious zealot wearing a turban and holding evil djinn at bay with a holy scimitar seems as appropriate a candidate for the Paladin class (in my opinion) as any Helm-worshiping knight of the Silver Marches.
I think it's more likely that the elves (and Calishite folk, for that matter) would have a name other than "paladin" for such individuals, but I don't think that the class abilities are at particular cultural odds with either group. |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2009 : 15:18:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by goatunit
I would also like to point out (while not entirely disagreeing with our esteemed anti-elven paladin friends), that an Calishite religious zealot wearing a turban and holding evil djinn at bay with a holy scimitar seems as appropriate a candidate for the Paladin class (in my opinion) as any Helm-worshiping knight of the Silver Marches.
I think it's more likely that the elves (and Calishite folk, for that matter) would have a name other than "paladin" for such individuals, but I don't think that the class abilities are at particular cultural odds with either group.
For my part, I believe that the chaotic nature of elves makes them less (not) likely to submit to the harsh code of conduct of paladins. While different races and cultures may have variants for the typical paladin, all of them must meet the main requirement, in this case, being lawful good and nothing else. I totaly agree with your Calishite example, all paladins are not men in shining armors yelling Torm oh Helm's name at each strikes (in fact, I can't stand those guys). |
|
|
|
Knight of the Gate
Senior Scribe
USA
624 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2009 : 16:50:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by goatunit
I would also like to point out (while not entirely disagreeing with our esteemed anti-elven paladin friends), that an Calishite religious zealot wearing a turban and holding evil djinn at bay with a holy scimitar seems as appropriate a candidate for the Paladin class (in my opinion) as any Helm-worshiping knight of the Silver Marches.
I think it's more likely that the elves (and Calishite folk, for that matter) would have a name other than "paladin" for such individuals, but I don't think that the class abilities are at particular cultural odds with either group.
Well-said. When I used to run 2E, I took the idea of the specialty priest and applied it to the Paladin concept, coming up with the 'holy warrior' class. Each deity had his/her own holy warrior, with each one receiving a different set of granted powers; I think back and wonder if that might not be a better idea than the blanket 'Paladin' class.
In any case, we've come somewhat off-topic. Kilvan, there are (obviously) differing schools of thought on the subject. I'd say, though, that elfin paladins would at best be rare, and almost always be Gold Elves (who tend more towards Lawful alignments, and have more of a chivalric tradition than the other subraces). |
How can life be so bountiful, providing such sublime rewards for mediocrity? -Umberto Ecco |
|
|
|
Ghost King
Learned Scribe
USA
253 Posts |
Posted - 01 Nov 2009 : 08:01:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Knight of the Gate
quote:
Originally posted by goatunit
I would also like to point out (while not entirely disagreeing with our esteemed anti-elven paladin friends), that an Calishite religious zealot wearing a turban and holding evil djinn at bay with a holy scimitar seems as appropriate a candidate for the Paladin class (in my opinion) as any Helm-worshiping knight of the Silver Marches.
I think it's more likely that the elves (and Calishite folk, for that matter) would have a name other than "paladin" for such individuals, but I don't think that the class abilities are at particular cultural odds with either group.
Well-said. When I used to run 2E, I took the idea of the specialty priest and applied it to the Paladin concept, coming up with the 'holy warrior' class. Each deity had his/her own holy warrior, with each one receiving a different set of granted powers; I think back and wonder if that might not be a better idea than the blanket 'Paladin' class.
In any case, we've come somewhat off-topic. Kilvan, there are (obviously) differing schools of thought on the subject. I'd say, though, that elfin paladins would at best be rare, and almost always be Gold Elves (who tend more towards Lawful alignments, and have more of a chivalric tradition than the other subraces).
Figure I'd knock out two birds with one stone here.
First off, I'm not totally disagreeing with either of your assetments. But first the Calishite example then I'll get back to the elf explanation.
Calishites being paladins I can see and fully support. They are humans, they have had a society that while it has seedy, underhanded dealings within and outside its boundaries and a reputation as such as a people they still have a very lawful society. They also very successfully for a short while made an empire which shows they are capable of having order strong enough to build such a nation. They meet all the requirements to have an actual paladin for while the society as a whole is more neutral to neutral evil in nature I think a paladin is possible and probably greatly needed in such a harsh, unforgiven arid climate with people just as cruel ruling the majority of probably good citizens (or slaves).
However, elves I've always had a very strict policy with regarding classes such as the paladin that require lawful in their alignment. I just don't see the race as a whole able to have such dedication. They while dedicated to traditions and championing the cause of good just don't have ability to will themselves as a people all behind a cause. Too many would not support the other and see it as a threat to their very survival AND they are always thinking first and foremost about the individual over the whole (mind you just taking the alignments basic meaning and general elf not heroes or pcs which don't have to follow this stricture).
Now gold elves I can see as being more lawful in a certain sense. To me they always appeared as the benefactor not the crusader. They want power and they certainly want to guard against threats and even willing to sacrifice people to get it done, but they would still rather sit back and hold on to what power they have then actually muster to the aid of someone else. So my vote would say they are more neutral good then actually lawful good. They use traditions when it is benefical to do so, but will ignore them at earliest convince to gain power/influence with the least bit of risk to themselves.
Now to say in conclusion, I think a single elf (any type -- even a drow, but he/she would be like the .000000000000000001% to actually be a paladin) could become a paladin of a deity that allows paladins, but not one that would be an elven deity. Bladesingers, however, I think could be seen as the "elf paladin" for it shares many of the same virtues and ideals of the paladin, but is definately set within elven society mind set and code of conduct. I could even see elf fighters possibly even sharing such ideals, but not have the abilities of a paladin. And the Champion of Corellon would again be an example of the elvish version of a paladin, but very clearly isn't a paladin. They share the same goals just go about them in different manners and share some common abilities with each other.
So while I agree partly with you guys and I do think your examples are plausable I, like Hoondatha, just don't see it happening except in a very rare circumstance. However, a Calishite being a paladin would have me raise an eyebrow at seeing one wouldn't say it isn't possible, just not very likely if they lived in Calimport their whole lives. |
Edited by - Ghost King on 01 Nov 2009 08:18:04 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2009 : 02:59:18
|
What I'm not understanding is why the paladin class is so closly linked to the human race or why that even matters? I'm assuming it's stemming from the complexity of the 2E rule-set but even dwarves in 2E could be paladins.
While the concept of elven (eladrin) culture bends towards an individual freedom and chaotic nature, I don't see why this has to be the case 100% of the time.
Furthermore, has no one seen the Paladin of Freedom alternative features listed in the Unearthed Arcana supplement? It's an awesome way to create a "holy-warrior" style elf while adhereing to the culture of a predominantly chaotic beings. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36797 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2009 : 03:17:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
What I'm not understanding is why the paladin class is so closly linked to the human race or why that even matters? I'm assuming it's stemming from the complexity of the 2E rule-set but even dwarves in 2E could be paladins.
Not in core, they couldn't. It was only humans. Dwarves could, however, be fighter-clerics. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 02 Nov 2009 03:18:20 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31726 Posts |
|
|
Marc
Senior Scribe
657 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2009 : 14:44:36
|
| I wouldn't allow them unless the character is raised in a human culture known to have paladin traditions, or I'd allow something close, like a lawful gold elf holy warrior of Labelas with a few class features changed. |
. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2009 : 21:50:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
What I'm not understanding is why the paladin class is so closly linked to the human race or why that even matters? I'm assuming it's stemming from the complexity of the 2E rule-set but even dwarves in 2E could be paladins.
Not in core, they couldn't. It was only humans. Dwarves could, however, be fighter-clerics.
Ah, that explains it. Thanks for reminding me why I don't play 2E anymore . |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2009 : 22:38:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
What I'm not understanding is why the paladin class is so closly linked to the human race or why that even matters?
Two different meanings of 'paladin' are being conflated here: the original specific D&D one, and a loose bastardized one derived -- starting with the 'anti-paladin' -- largely from people wanting to keep the name-glamour and special abilities of the class without its philosophical and moral purpose. The first is a narrow concept like the druid or the bladesinger; the second is a wide concept generalized from it, like the priest/cleric. The Realms simply happens to use the first sense, and doesn't use the term 'paladin' for the second.quote:
While the concept of elven (eladrin) culture bends towards an individual freedom and chaotic nature, I don't see why this has to be the case 100% of the time.
As the Sage posted above, it's not that no elves are ever paladins, but that the institution of paladinhood -- a particular type of human chivalric knighthood -- isn't one native to elven culture and society.quote:
Furthermore, has no one seen the Paladin of Freedom alternative features listed in the Unearthed Arcana supplement? It's an awesome way to create a "holy-warrior" style elf while adhereing to the culture of a predominantly chaotic beings.
This is the point at which those of us who prefer the original non-expanded sense of 'paladin' wonder what purpose is achieved extending the word to a different concept altogether.
In any case, it's an easy change to the Realms to make in your own campaign. |
Edited by - Faraer on 02 Nov 2009 23:21:08 |
|
|
|
goatunit
Acolyte
USA
31 Posts |
Posted - 03 Nov 2009 : 04:12:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Two different meanings of 'paladin' are being conflated here: the original specific D&D one, and a loose bastardized one derived -- starting with the 'anti-paladin' -- largely from people wanting to keep the name-glamour and special abilities of the class without its philosophical and moral purpose. The first is a narrow concept like the druid or the bladesinger; the second is a wide concept generalized from it, like the priest/cleric. The Realms simply happens to use the first sense, and doesn't use the term 'paladin' for the second.
I just wanted to say that this is a very astute observation. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 04 Nov 2009 : 19:22:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Two different meanings of 'paladin' are being conflated here: the original specific D&D one, and a loose bastardized one derived -- starting with the 'anti-paladin' -- largely from people wanting to keep the name-glamour and special abilities of the class without its philosophical and moral purpose. The first is a narrow concept like the druid or the bladesinger; the second is a wide concept generalized from it, like the priest/cleric. The Realms simply happens to use the first sense, and doesn't use the term 'paladin' for the second.
To me that sounds like an elitist stand point derived from previous edition's concepts of what a Paladin is (or has to be).
To grab a quote from Webster (The definiton of Paladin):
1 : a trusted military leader (as for a medieval prince)
2 : a leading champion of a cause
So it's only because of previous editions that we get the holier-than-thou, self-righteous, and Lawful Good knight of virtue idea and any other "holy-warrior" is written off as a "bastardized" verison?
This is just another example of why I've been hard-pressed to play previous editions. I can easily see a iron fisted tyrant of Bane who is championing His cause in the name of vengeance. So why would this style of character be limited to the benefits of a Paladin?
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
As the Sage posted above, it's not that no elves are ever paladins, but that the institution of paladinhood -- a particular type of human chivalric knighthood -- isn't one native to elven culture and society.
True, I'll hand you that elves and eladrin are not subjected to that sort of institution and thus aren't privi to that style of fighting or chivalry. But I can easily see warriors of Corellon that demonstrate the prayers and powers of paladins just as comparison can be made between a human cleric of Helm to that of a elf cleric of Corellon.
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
This is the point at which those of us who prefer the original non-expanded sense of 'paladin' wonder what purpose is achieved extending the word to a different concept altogether.
The purpose achieved is a righeous warrior for individualism and freedom that holds to beliefs dictacted by Corellon Larethian to defend the innocent from strife and tyranny, protect sacred places of nature, and give alms to someone an elven society would deem worthy. (ie. an elven paladin). |
Edited by - Diffan on 04 Nov 2009 19:39:16 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36797 Posts |
Posted - 04 Nov 2009 : 22:17:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Two different meanings of 'paladin' are being conflated here: the original specific D&D one, and a loose bastardized one derived -- starting with the 'anti-paladin' -- largely from people wanting to keep the name-glamour and special abilities of the class without its philosophical and moral purpose. The first is a narrow concept like the druid or the bladesinger; the second is a wide concept generalized from it, like the priest/cleric. The Realms simply happens to use the first sense, and doesn't use the term 'paladin' for the second.
To me that sounds like an elitist stand point derived from previous edition's concepts of what a Paladin is (or has to be).
To grab a quote from Webster (The definiton of Paladin):
1 : a trusted military leader (as for a medieval prince)
2 : a leading champion of a cause
So it's only because of previous editions that we get the holier-than-thou, self-righteous, and Lawful Good knight of virtue idea and any other "holy-warrior" is written off as a "bastardized" verison?
The thing is, prior editions did not rely on the dictionary for class definitions. In 2E in particular, classes were drawn from legendary sources, be they real like Charlemagne, entirely fictitious like Hercules, or people that may or may not have existed in some form, like Merlin. And the classes weren't based on what those people truly did, but what legends claim they did -- in short, the classes were built around those perceived to be heroes. The classes came not from the dictionary, but from myth and legend. They came not from a place of hard fact -- they hail from a realm of wonder.
Here's a blurb about paladin from the 2E PHB (working from the version on the Core Rules CD-ROM, so I don't have a page number): "Throughout legend and history there are many heroes who could be called paladins: Roland and the 12 Peers of Charlemagne, Sir Lancelot, Sir Gawain, and Sir Galahad are all examples of the class."
The entire concept of a D&D paladin is built on the idea of the knights of legend -- holy champions charged with upholding goodness and law. It's even canon for the Realms. From pages 2 and 3 of the old FRA:
quote:
The knightly code, as recognized in the Realms, is as follows, rated from most generally important to those of lesser (but still critical) import.
- Defend any responsibility given, even unto death;
- A knight's word is his law;
- Show courage in all things;
- Show honor to those above one's station;
- Earn respect from those below one's station;
- Leadership is the responsibility of the high-born and the fit;
- Battle is the test of worth (this is rated higher by those knights who strongly venerate Tempus);
- Be courteous to all women (or all men, depending on the sex of the former cavalier);
- Bring death to those who raise their weapons against a knight or those entrusted into the knight's protection;
- Choose death before dishonor.
The same section also noted the knightly virtues:
quote:
The knightly virtues in the Realms are:
Honor
Bravery
Glory
Good faith
Unselfishness
Courtesy
Pride in self and others
So the entire concept of a D&D paladin was built on the knight in shining armor, the divine champion who upholds the tenets of his deity while in service to a lord or nation.
And that is what I think the issue is here: we have a long-established definition, and a new version of it that doesn't match. Wizards and rangers, too, have long-established definitions in the D&D game, though they have fewer restrictions. Making a paladin into something new is like building a new kind of ranger who abhors the wilderness, or a mage who uses magical items but casts no spells at all -- it turns the class into something it was never meant to be.
While I like the idea of there being holy warriors who swing a sword and call down divine wrath at the same time, I see no reason that they all have to share the name paladin. Sorcerers and wizards are alike in casting spells, but they both do it in a very different manner -- and no one is calling for them to all be called the same thing.
It's fine to have something similar, but don't give it the same name -- doing that is how we wound up with a setting crawling with Chosen of various deities, with some Chosen having little more than a fancy title and others being forces to be reckoned with. Expanding the definition of a word with a special meaning makes it just a common word, one with no special connotations at all. When everyone and their brother can be a paladin or a Chosen, what's the point of doing it?
I love the idea of holy warriors of all alignments -- but unless they're LG, call them something new.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 04 Nov 2009 : 22:54:29
|
Chambers has 'one of the twelve peers of Charlemagne's household; a knight errant, or paragon of knighthood'; the Shorter Oxford says 'Each of the Twelve bravest and most famous warriors of Charlemagne's court. Also, a knight errant, a champion.' It's a precise cultural allusion that carries strong knightly and Christian connotations circling the core image from medieval romances. You're welcome to call a non-knightly or non-virtuous champion a paladin loosely and figuratively and perhaps be understood, but there are good reasons -- preservation rather than dilution of meaning, respect for D&D and Realms traditions, demihuman distinctiveness, avoiding strayed subcultural jargon and confusion between different senses -- for not doing so.
As it happens, there are elven knights described in the World of Greyhawk Glossography encounter listings, rendered as even-levelled fighter/clerics. This seems a fine basis for developing elven knighthood, with the unique nomenclature and imagery it deserves.
Incidentally, I have a sense from early-published Realmslore that paladin orders are beginning to be a bit of a relic even in 14th-century Faerūn, a romantic overhang from a passing age. I'm not sure if I read something that implied this, read it between the lines, or mistook it from something.
Also incidentally, those who've read Elizabeth Moon's Deed of Paksenarrion, which includes a full interpretation of D&D-style paladinhood, may be interested to know that she's writing sequels -- see http://www.paksworld.com/. |
Edited by - Faraer on 04 Nov 2009 23:25:03 |
|
|
|
Knight of the Gate
Senior Scribe
USA
624 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2009 : 01:13:54
|
If we're gonna debate the precise etymological origin of the word, it comes from the Roman title 'Palatinus', meaning a functionary of the Senate (which was convened on the Palatine hill). Sooooo... the point is, none of this matters. The Paladin is defined by the game edition you're using. In 2E, there are no core elf Paladins; in 3E there are.
What we're discussing is *are elf Paladins VIABLE in the Realms* I think so, others think no. |
How can life be so bountiful, providing such sublime rewards for mediocrity? -Umberto Ecco |
|
|
|
Knight of the Gate
Senior Scribe
USA
624 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2009 : 01:26:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Two different meanings of 'paladin' are being conflated here: the original specific D&D one, and a loose bastardized one derived -- starting with the 'anti-paladin' -- largely from people wanting to keep the name-glamour and special abilities of the class without its philosophical and moral purpose. The first is a narrow concept like the druid or the bladesinger; the second is a wide concept generalized from it, like the priest/cleric. The Realms simply happens to use the first sense, and doesn't use the term 'paladin' for the second.
To me that sounds like an elitist stand point derived from previous edition's concepts of what a Paladin is (or has to be).
To grab a quote from Webster (The definiton of Paladin):
1 : a trusted military leader (as for a medieval prince)
2 : a leading champion of a cause
So it's only because of previous editions that we get the holier-than-thou, self-righteous, and Lawful Good knight of virtue idea and any other "holy-warrior" is written off as a "bastardized" verison?
The thing is, prior editions did not rely on the dictionary for class definitions. In 2E in particular, classes were drawn from legendary sources, be they real like Charlemagne, entirely fictitious like Hercules, or people that may or may not have existed in some form, like Merlin. And the classes weren't based on what those people truly did, but what legends claim they did -- in short, the classes were built around those perceived to be heroes. The classes came not from the dictionary, but from myth and legend. They came not from a place of hard fact -- they hail from a realm of wonder.
Here's a blurb about paladin from the 2E PHB (working from the version on the Core Rules CD-ROM, so I don't have a page number): "Throughout legend and history there are many heroes who could be called paladins: Roland and the 12 Peers of Charlemagne, Sir Lancelot, Sir Gawain, and Sir Galahad are all examples of the class."
The entire concept of a D&D paladin is built on the idea of the knights of legend -- holy champions charged with upholding goodness and law. It's even canon for the Realms. From pages 2 and 3 of the old FRA:
quote:
The knightly code, as recognized in the Realms, is as follows, rated from most generally important to those of lesser (but still critical) import.
- Defend any responsibility given, even unto death;
- A knight's word is his law;
- Show courage in all things;
- Show honor to those above one's station;
- Earn respect from those below one's station;
- Leadership is the responsibility of the high-born and the fit;
- Battle is the test of worth (this is rated higher by those knights who strongly venerate Tempus);
- Be courteous to all women (or all men, depending on the sex of the former cavalier);
- Bring death to those who raise their weapons against a knight or those entrusted into the knight's protection;
- Choose death before dishonor.
The same section also noted the knightly virtues:
quote:
The knightly virtues in the Realms are:
Honor
Bravery
Glory
Good faith
Unselfishness
Courtesy
Pride in self and others
So the entire concept of a D&D paladin was built on the knight in shining armor, the divine champion who upholds the tenets of his deity while in service to a lord or nation.
And that is what I think the issue is here: we have a long-established definition, and a new version of it that doesn't match. Wizards and rangers, too, have long-established definitions in the D&D game, though they have fewer restrictions. Making a paladin into something new is like building a new kind of ranger who abhors the wilderness, or a mage who uses magical items but casts no spells at all -- it turns the class into something it was never meant to be.
While I like the idea of there being holy warriors who swing a sword and call down divine wrath at the same time, I see no reason that they all have to share the name paladin. Sorcerers and wizards are alike in casting spells, but they both do it in a very different manner -- and no one is calling for them to all be called the same thing.
It's fine to have something similar, but don't give it the same name -- doing that is how we wound up with a setting crawling with Chosen of various deities, with some Chosen having little more than a fancy title and others being forces to be reckoned with. Expanding the definition of a word with a special meaning makes it just a common word, one with no special connotations at all. When everyone and their brother can be a paladin or a Chosen, what's the point of doing it?
I love the idea of holy warriors of all alignments -- but unless they're LG, call them something new.
Couldn't agree more, Wooly. As I said above, I had conceived a 'holy warrior' class in 2E. I agree anyone called a Paladin should be LG... but that doesn't preclude elves (See how I brought it back to the topic, there? ) If a LG elf worships an appropriate god, and acts as a holy warrior to that god, that elf is a Paladin, IMHO. |
How can life be so bountiful, providing such sublime rewards for mediocrity? -Umberto Ecco |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2009 : 01:51:27
|
| Thanks for all your comments, it has been quite interesting. I find myself agreeing 100% with Wooly. Holy warriors of all alignments/deities are great, but if he is not LG, don't call him a paladin. |
Edited by - Kilvan on 05 Nov 2009 01:59:29 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2009 : 02:45:57
|
I guess it's my opinion (and I see that I'm in the minority) that the restrictiveness of previous editions when linked to the Paladin class was a bad thing. I'm just a guy who hates rules mucking up my role-play, lol.
And as for the "Chosen" bit, if it was never meant to be popular among many deities, it should never have been accessable to PCs in the first place. |
Edited by - Diffan on 05 Nov 2009 02:49:18 |
|
|
|
Joran Nobleheart
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2009 : 04:25:51
|
| If a person were playing 2nd Edition and wanted to play a paladin of sorts, they could always use the Crusader kit from Faiths & Avatars, and recieve several benefits from doing so, including priest spells and if the DM allows, the paladin benefits from wielding a holy avenger. It's a really great kit, and defintely worth a look. |
Paladinic Ethos
Saint Joran Nobleheart |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2009 : 04:48:47
|
In my opinion, elves in the Forgotten Realms have a culture that is every bit as favourable for paladins as any human culture I can mention.
We've got codified rules of honour and chivalry*, we have nobles and royalty that inspire a degree of loyalty that approches religious worship and we have a deeply spiritual and religious people. And while the Monster's Manual may list elves as CG, that simply doesn't squire with the way they are portrayed in the novels.
They take a very long time to deliberate before taking action. They revere tradition and view the fact that something has always been done a certain way as a strong argument to continue doing it. Gold elves, and moon elves to a lesser extent, have elaborate rituals of formal etiquette as well as complex laws.
Their culture is very slow to change, if it changes at all. Impulsiveness and haste are viewed with disapproval and concern. Social status defines the role an individual plays and both the nobility and commoners are bound by their roles to certain duties**.
And, last, but not least, let's remember what Princess Amnestria said of Elaith when she found his rigid adherence to duty, unquestioning obedience and acceptance of his position in life infuriating:
"You're such an elf!"***
Seems to me that if I used the alignment system, most of the older and wiser elves of Evermeet and probably other established realms would be more likely to be Lawful than Chaotic.
*See Elaine Cunningham's depiction of Arilyn and Elaith.
**Elaith's reaction when he learned that he was the liege lord of a given elf-maid as well as his musings about having come to view Waterdeep as his domain, with all the noblesse oblige that implies for him.
***'The More Things Change'. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Elven Paladins
