Do you like PE Paladin class concept?

[Alexjh]

i want paladins to be complete bigots who dont comprehend grey areas and do more evil than good in the name of good

 

That's a bit inflexible surely? I certainly think there should be zealots with the Paladin orders who are like that, but every organisation is made of factions and individuals with different beliefs and views. Certain orders might be more extreme than others, but if you go completely down that direction 100%, not only are they less interesting but it kind of puts it in a situation where every single member of a class is missing the point of their own class...

[thracian]

i want paladins to be complete bigots who dont comprehend grey areas and do more evil than good in the name of good

 

That's a bit inflexible surely? I certainly think there should be zealots with the Paladin orders who are like that, but every organisation is made of factions and individuals with different beliefs and views. Certain orders might be more extreme than others, but if you go completely down that direction 100%, not only are they less interesting but it kind of puts it in a situation where every single member of a class is missing the point of their own class...

or better say, a companion with my description.

[Chaos Theory]

As long as they're not just gimped fighters with "turn undead" or "smite", which is really all they are in D&D. I never thought their defensive stats justified their use when a fighter could DPS and tank.

 

And now that it sounds like Priests/Clerics can wear heavy armor and there aren't apparently "healing" spells per se, I wonder what niche Paladins will play beyond pure role-playing.

[Sacred_Path]

Btw, you could just as well accuse people in law enforcement of having no understanding of "grey areas".

[wanderon]

As long as they're not just gimped fighters with "turn undead" or "smite", which is really all they are in D&D. I never thought their defensive stats justified their use when a fighter could DPS and tank.

 

And now that it sounds like Priests/Clerics can wear heavy armor and there aren't apparently "healing" spells per se, I wonder what niche Paladins will play beyond pure role-playing.

 

From the PE wiki http://eternitywiki.com/Paladin

 

A paladin's commands can stave off impending death, overcome fatigue, or hasten the charge to close breached defenses. And though they are not always pledged to the service of a god or gods, paladins are so singularly focused on their chosen cause that their souls are continually creating a wellspring of spiritual energy from which they can blast groups of foes in their immediate vicinity.

 

Sounds like a series of command type buffs and soul powered smite are on the table at this point.

[kenup]

-snip-

Switching descriptions doesn't change DnD paladins. Especially if you compare them to angels. Theoretically angels are supposed to be lawful good, they follow the law of a god. Paladins are humans, so they are also restricted a lot by the society's law, on top of whatever god they follow. And because they are humans, they take things too far lots of times.

 

Personally I would prefer a Knight Templar kind of approach, if only to run a joke on classic DnD kind paladins that might be scarce in PE. They still follow their code/law, but they have brains and are not deceiving themselves about their actions. A Templar doesn't care about good or evil when performing his/her duty. Duty is their goal, regardless of what it takes. A paladin's goal is doing good, mostly through the use of law, but they might be too blinded by the lawful or heroic part to see their wrongs/evils(this can be true for a lot of characters, but paladins are restricted by alignment).

Edited November 21, 2012 by kenup

[Alexjh]

I'm curious as to why you would place the Paladin title over the Chaotic Good alignment description - Paladins were always restricted to Lawful Good in the D&D based CRPGs I have played??

 

It simply fits me general view of a Paladin. I wouldn't view them as lawful at all, that's why I hated Baldur's soo much.

 

- The Knights of the Round Table

- Jedi

- Captain America

- Superman

- A Jihadi leader

- Samurai (but not necessarily Ronin)

- Arguably several of the Star Trek captains

 

All those are governed by a political institution which use a false religious/philosophical image.

 

-The Knights of the Round Table: First World Order, World Peace, The Light of the World... Hmm, reminds me of something.

-Jedi: Corrupted by their own laws, they never sought the true source of the force (Midi-Chlorians), that's why none of them resurrected but one, Qui Gon (Which could easily be the only true "Paladin" figure).

-Captain America: A guy who operates under the United States of America with the President at his side? Give me a break.

-A Jihad leader: Murderers with a political background, same as the Crusaders (Obeying the Throne of Rome?)

-Samurai: These guys are the worst examples of a Paladin.

-Star Trek Captains: Guys who follow the Federation of Obey us or you'll be Destroyed.

 

What are we really aiming for here?

 

The concept of a "false religious/political" image doesn't make sense. They are religions or politics, they aren't "false", they may be noble, monsterous, kind, cruel, one might have a specific belief in one thing, one might believe in the opposite . Whether you personally deem them good or evil, right or wrong is purely subjective, they exist or "exist". As for paladins and equivalents of whatever belief system these are, the important thing is that they believe in it, and its teachings, it doesn't matter if you agree with them.

 

I'm also slightly baffled by what versions of these thing's you've been watching/reading about - Rome had nothing to do with the crusades, and was long gone by that point (Holy Roman Empire perhaps, but that wasn't really that much to do with Rome), Captain America in all his appearances since the 60s has always been a character who goes with what he thinks is right, not what he is being told to do (his enemies are largely Nazi's so he kind of has to do the opposite), the Federation can be a bit cruel, but doesn't really invade anyone in any episode I've ever watched, with your Star Wars stuff it sounds like you are going with some sort of extended-universe thingy which isn't really the same canon as the film. Samurai are very much the same base archetype as Paladins, just through a different cultural lens - both are highly code based warriors who believe martial prowess is the way to protect their respective codes/charges.

 

As for where you've got your view of paladin I'm not sure, even their name suggests deference to authority, its etymology originally goes back to something like "palace official".

Edited November 21, 2012 by Alexjh

[Felithvian]

The concept of a "false religious/political" image doesn't make sense. They are religions or politics, they aren't "false", they may be noble, monsterous, kind, cruel, one might have a specific belief in one thing, one might believe in the opposite . Whether you personally deem them good or evil, right or wrong is purely subjective, they exist or "exist". As for paladins and equivalents of whatever belief system these are, the important thing is that they believe in it, and its teachings, it doesn't matter if you agree with them.

 

You would consider Catholics as religious people? No, right?

 

Most religions are formed by terrestrial wisdom, which by no means hold any sort of relation with a God. Therefore, they cannot be viewed as religious people. You've never seen Crusaders perform miracles, right? Those who are more favoured than others in the use of divine magic, have clearly established a new sort of relationship with their God/Gods, not their Orders. Most of you people tend to simplify the case with an Arthurian order of knights who follow a moral code. This is not the case, mainly because none of these knights have any sort of Magic/Spells, therefore they are nothing more than mere warriors following a common traditional (Yet sinful) goal. They are not Paladins.

 

I'm also slightly baffled by what versions of these thing's you've been watching/reading about - Rome had nothing to do with the crusades, and was long gone by that point (Holy Roman Empire perhaps, but that wasn't really that much to do with Rome)

 

Rome - Vatican City, Vatican City - Rome

 

It's the same thing. When I mentioned the "Throne of Rome", I meant the Pope. Someone who has clearly mixed politics with religion, leaving Christianity with no Saints at all. Same should apply for an Order which emphasizes in the world, rather than their God.

[Alexjh]

The concept of a "false religious/political" image doesn't make sense. They are religions or politics, they aren't "false", they may be noble, monsterous, kind, cruel, one might have a specific belief in one thing, one might believe in the opposite . Whether you personally deem them good or evil, right or wrong is purely subjective, they exist or "exist". As for paladins and equivalents of whatever belief system these are, the important thing is that they believe in it, and its teachings, it doesn't matter if you agree with them.

 

You would consider Catholics as religious people? No, right?

 

Most religions are formed by terrestrial wisdom, which by no means hold any sort of relation with a God. Therefore, they cannot be viewed as religious people. You've never seen Crusaders perform miracles, right? Those who are more favoured than others in the use of divine magic, have clearly established a new sort of relationship with their God/Gods, not their Orders. Most of you people tend to simplify the case with an Arthurian order of knights who follow a moral code. This is not the case, mainly because none of these knights have any sort of Magic/Spells, therefore they are nothing more than mere warriors following a common traditional (Yet sinful) goal. They are not Paladins.

 

I'm also slightly baffled by what versions of these thing's you've been watching/reading about - Rome had nothing to do with the crusades, and was long gone by that point (Holy Roman Empire perhaps, but that wasn't really that much to do with Rome)

 

Rome - Vatican City, Vatican City - Rome

 

It's the same thing. When I mentioned the "Throne of Rome", I meant the Pope. Someone who has clearly mixed politics with religion, leaving Christianity with no Saints at all. Same should apply for an Order which emphasizes in the world, rather than their God.

 

I am not quite sure what you mean by that first bit can you try explaining it again?

 

As a major issue, there is very minimal presence of the idea of "magic" in historical religions beyond perhaps faith healing and exorcism to my knowledge, certainly nothing faintly resembling the battle clerics of fantasy games so the clerics are far more an abstraction than the paladin. What we do have is warriors who have performed miracles - most notably Joan of Arc and Galahad as far as popular culture is concerned. In the latter's case, the whole point of the character is that he is the only one pure enough to see the grail. Bearing in mind the Knights of the Round table are specifically mentioned as being one of the foundations archetypes of the class.

 

This is possibly where we have to make differentiations about the origins on the archetype: the premise of orders of knights who seek to fulfill a cause is largely separate to the premise of warriors with holy powers. The classical fantasy paladin is a combination is a merging of these two, there isn't that much of a precedend for the paladin in its modern form to my knowledge. The real world paladins certainly made no claim to mystical powers.

[Pshaw]

Honestly I always thought that Paladin was class stuck between Warlord and Cleric. More to the point anything you wanted to do as a paladin you could generally do as one of those other classes. Want to be an inspiring charismatic warrior who helps those in need? Just play a warlord like that. Want to be an instrument of your gods beliefs on the field of battle? Just make a cleric. Granted if you want both you have to be a paladin but that just seemed like a pretty narrow niche to fill. So I would say if your game allows for your priests/clerics to get into the thick of battle paladin's aren't really needed in that holy warrior type way. PE seems to be going in that direction to me.

[Umberlin]

I've never really liked Paladins, or many of the traditional classes in general, but Obsidian have their own take. Heck, I'd have prefered an RPG that threw the majority of the genres traditions to the wind, but I'm willing to accept the choices Obsidian are making anyways. Mostly because I tend to like their games regardless. You can find most of these, and other, takes on Paladins in all sorts of RPGs out there anyways, so I'm not entirely sure Obsidian throwing the usual Paladin concepts out are entirely a bad thing. If people want the usual takes on Paladins, they can likely find those out there, somewhere, across various RPGs . . . so I don't see the harm in Obsidian doing this instead.

[Tsuga C]

Once more, I concur with TrashMan and find the "charismatic general" a bit lacking. Better to just call the class "Warlord" and avoid false advertising. Paladin is a word with a great deal of RPG history and carries with it certain qualities and expectations, notably being associated with a religious order and functioning as their military arm.

 

Providing the class isn't a dud, I'll undoubtedly make a paladin protagonist and will certainly exercise what options are available to play as a traditional D&D paladin.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Tsuga C

[Agelastos]

 

From the PE wiki http://eternitywiki.com/Paladin

 

 

Hm. I may just have to play a paladin instead of a fighter in P.E., now that they're not necessarily religious knights or paragons of virtue any more.

[Merlkir]

Once more, I concur with TrashMan and find the "charismatic general" a bit lacking. Better to just call the class "Warlord" and avoid flase advertising. Paladin is a word with a great deal of RPG history and carries with it certain qualities and expectations, notably being associated with a religious order and functioning as their military arm.

 

Providing the class isn't a dud, I'll undoubtedly make a paladin protagonist and will certainly exercise what options are available to play as a traditional D&D paladin.

 

The thing is, the word "paladin" has a lot of pre-RPG context, which seems to be (at least to some extent) inspiration for PE. They're like...duuuude, they're bringing the paladin back man! Totally!

[Umberlin]

Once more, I concur with TrashMan and find the "charismatic general" a bit lacking. Better to just call the class "Warlord" and avoid flase advertising.

 

Change the name and then people complain that they don't have a Paladin in P:E (as if I care). Change the mechanics/lore, and then people complain that they don't get to play the concept Obsidian came up with. Change this and that or something else and people still complain. The base thread is a complaint. The moral of the story is that no matter what Obsidian does, there will still be someone complaining.

 

At the end of the day, at this point, I think I'd rather hear people complaining because of a decision Obsidian made on their own, rather than listen to people complaining about a something Obsidian changed due to complaints.

 

-

 

Let's be serious, there have been many takes on a Paladin, all over the board, Quest for Glory's implementation of a Paladin was on the concept of Honor, more than anything else, quite apart from some of the usual Paladin entries. Not being in line with other RPGs, nor in line with religious order style or others, one might pass them by, but Quest for Glory offered solid fare when it came to Paladins, even having to earn the right to be one. Might we not just give what Obsidian are trying to do a chance? Especially in light of the usual takes on Paladins being plentiful, all about the RPG genre, in many incarnations, right there for the playing.

[Darkpriest]

Paladins are a concept that is derived from knighthood, but in service of the god before the king/queen. Templars could be probably nearest RL "popular" example

[LadyCrimson]

I tend to lean towards that view of seeing Paladins (in most games) as being a cross of Fighter/Cleric, and not being all that good at either role. They're handy if you only want to take up one party slot instead of 2 and don't mind their limitations, but other than that ... I don't tend to use them or like them because I don't find them very interesting or useful.

 

I think Paladins (again, in games....) are less about their mechanical/skillset abilities and more about roleplaying. Some people like the idea of a more "noble" or "cause" oriented class. Honor, a "good" morality code, all of that. These roleplaying qualities are not, imo, limited to having an "I believe in a higher power/God" as the only defining motivator. Hence, if they aren't the defining aspect of P.E.'s Paladins, I'm fine with that. I probably still won't use them, tho, unless they bring a lot more to the table than per average for such a class.

[jezz555]

In AD&D, paladins were originally essentially the group censor/parole officer who would kick your ass any time you tried to do anything he didn't approve of. Because it was the class that demanded the highest stats and was unabashedly the most powerful, but with the stipulation that you had to be good. So you essentially had one goody-two-shoes moralizing jerk-bag threatening to smite anyone else in the party who wanted to loot bodies or get ahead through duplicity, most old school D&D players have a few horror stories to that effect.

 

This archetype doesn't really work for modern day rpg video games though because you aren't playing with other characters who you may need to keep in line, so they have evolved into a more fighter/cleric, crusader/templar archetype and personally I prefer that. The good only restriction is no longer relevant to the archetype.

Edited November 21, 2012 by jezz555

[Agelastos]

In AD&D, paladins were originally essentially the group censor/parole officer who would kick your ass any time you tried to do anything he didn't approve of. Because it was the class that demanded the highest stats and was unabashedly the most powerful, but with the stipulation that you had to be good. So you essentially had one goody-two-shoes moralizing jerk-bag threatening to smite anyone else in the party who wanted to loot bodies or get ahead through duplicity, most old school D&D players have a few horror stories to that effect.

 

Sounds more like Lawful Stupid than Lawful Good. Characters like that are just annoying.

[jezz555]

In AD&D, paladins were originally essentially the group censor/parole officer who would kick your ass any time you tried to do anything he didn't approve of. Because it was the class that demanded the highest stats and was unabashedly the most powerful, but with the stipulation that you had to be good. So you essentially had one goody-two-shoes moralizing jerk-bag threatening to smite anyone else in the party who wanted to loot bodies or get ahead through duplicity, most old school D&D players have a few horror stories to that effect.

 

Sounds more like Lawful Stupid than Lawful Good. Characters like that are just annoying.

 

My thoughts exactly, but the worst part was that most of it was enforced by the rules.

Edited November 22, 2012 by jezz555

[Darkpriest]

In AD&D, paladins were originally essentially the group censor/parole officer who would kick your ass any time you tried to do anything he didn't approve of. Because it was the class that demanded the highest stats and was unabashedly the most powerful, but with the stipulation that you had to be good. So you essentially had one goody-two-shoes moralizing jerk-bag threatening to smite anyone else in the party who wanted to loot bodies or get ahead through duplicity, most old school D&D players have a few horror stories to that effect.

 

Sounds more like Lawful Stupid than Lawful Good. Characters like that are just annoying.

 

My thoughts exactly, but the worst part was that most of it was enforced by the rules.

 

it was not enforced, it was simply misunderstood by players I would guess... LG Paladin does not equal stupid character or straight up lawful stupid

[Juneau]

 

 

Did you Photoshop that?

[wanderon]

It's hard to imagine that the concept of a lawful good character who always wants to remain within the laws of the land and his god and never falter from the tenets of good as he understands them and almost always carrys a huge blessed sword would not be the most popular and emulated of all options in video games -

 

I guess it's just because most gamers live this way every day in real life and when it comes to gaming they want to try something different...

[Felithvian]

To hell with the morale codes & the chivalristic ideals! This will not save your soul, nor grant you any sort of power from your God. Only an unquestionable & extreme source of Faith can produce such thing as a Paladin.

 

Death to the False Orders! Death to the False Paladins! Martyrdom and Sanctity for the win!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzvjOg9zBSI

Edited November 22, 2012 by Felithvian

[Darkpriest]

It's hard to imagine that the concept of a lawful good character who always wants to remain within the laws of the land and his god and never falter from the tenets of good as he understands them and almost always carrys a huge blessed sword would not be the most popular and emulated of all options in video games -

 

I guess it's just because most gamers live this way every day in real life and when it comes to gaming they want to try something different...

 

lawful does not mean to abide the laws of the land, if the laws are unlawful in view of the "greater picture" (which in DnD have specific alignments) then the paladin fallows only his code... that's the lawful thing for him. The code of the order, the vows, the virtues of his god