[Fwd: Paladins] [Archive] - Birthright.net

Franz Berthiller

01-16-1997, 11:25 AM

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 19:22:07 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: bfranz@noet.at
From: "Matthew M. Colville"
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Paladins

>Hi, there!

>All I want say, is that it is dangerous, if the DM just ignores the
>alignment restrictions and don=B4t change anything else on the character.
>I fear that this can spoil the game.

First off, Paladins aren't the only class with alignment
restriction. If a Cleric commits acts against his God, then he's in
trouble too.
Secondly, why *must* alternate Paladins just be duplicates of the
PHB Paladin without the alignment restriction? A CG Paladin could have a
whole different set of restrictions and abilities.

>For example two characters in a party play Paladin-characters, one the
>LG-guy we all know and the other a modified CG-Paladin.
>I believe it could get frustrating for the LG player, when he sees how
>difficult it is for him to keep up his high standards, while the other
>one is just messing around (in the eyes of the LG-guy) without being
>penalized by his god, the DM, or anyone else.

That's ridiculous. A: What you're descibing could *always* be
true, regardless of the class makeup of the party. A LG Paladin could be
*just as put out* by the behavior of a CG Priest or Druid. B: Why does the
LG Paladin *have* to look at the CG Paladin, who has his own restrictions
which *could be* just as restrictive as the LG Paladin's, and think he's
'messing around?" Why can't they respect each other? I referr you to the
Diamond Throne series by David Eddings which is, in essence, an entire
series about a Party of Paladins all from different churches and different
alignments who *like* each other.
The problems you're describing could be true of anyone with any
conviction in a party. If you *decide* to play a character that way, fine,
but you can't argue it's *innate.*

>I really love the play a Paladin. And in my campaign just the most
>unusual, devotest, bold, fearless and honarable personalities can be
>paladins.

Look at each of those adjectives. Any of them could apply to
anyone, regardless of alignment. You can be *evil* and still value honor,
devotion, boldness, and lack fear!

> As long as the character is LG, I believe that he can never
>loose his goal and maintain his virtues all the time.

Whoah, you mean a LG character can't stray from his alignment? I
know you don't mean that, so I'm confused. What Virtue is might differ
from culture to culture, alignment to alignment. Therefore it could also
differ from Paladin to Paladin.

>I guess we are not argueing about paladins, but about kits.

Ick! I *hate* 'Kits.' Kits are just role-playing ideas for people
with little imagination. Kits were the worst idea anyone at TSR ever came
up with. What I'm talking about are actual subclasses! Not just
'variations on a theme.' Ick, ick, ick. I *liked* it when Dragon Magazine
offered new and different *classes.* When 2nd Edition came out, and there
were so many 'kits' that they decided tor release The Complete Minutae
Books, I stopped reading Dragon!

Brian Green

01-16-1997, 07:59 PM

About Paladins:

I agree with whomever said Evil people can still have honor, courage,
etc. I've played an "Evil Paladin" on a few occasions. I think they
are a very good alternative. :)

Basically, the "Evil Paladins" I have played where LE. They upheld the
laws, but mostly because the laws benefited them and gave them an avenue
to power. The philosophy of my Evil paladins have been to spread the
philosophy of his/her god and maintain order (of course, with him or
herself as part of the ruling elite).

An example of a class of Evil Paladins is in the back of one of the
Dragonlance books, the Knights of Takhisis (sp?). They are the
"opposite" side of the coin for the Knights of Solamnia. I'm not a huge
DL fan myself, so I don't remember the name. :( Although they state
the class is for NPCs only, they give exp tables and everything. :)

Although I usually don't like playing Evil charcters because of the
conflict they cause in a party, I do like LE "paladins" because they
have to have such a strict sense of honor. If their superiors command
them to protect a party of adventurers (even if they are all LG), he
will do so willingly and without question. He knows that it will serve
the greater good (evil?) to do so. However, he will have his limits,
won't let the party push him around. He always knows that he can do
what he wishes, but that he will have to explain himself to his
superiors, and perhaps face punishment for his actions.

As far as conflict with LG Paladins, I see it this way: Unless the
opposition is one that you find weak and miserable, they are to be
respected for their honor and prowess. It would be a shame to kill such
a person without first trying to win them to your side....

I think that the LE version of the "paladin" make for exellent
role-playing opportunities. When I played one, my superior ordered me
to kill an unarmed person. Although my character didn't like doing it,
he knew that he had to. Turns out the person wasn't 100% unarmed, and
threw up a wall of fire. Because he had to follow orders, my character
walked right through the wall of fire (at tremendous damage to his
person) and slew the victim.

The party didn't like me after that, but they *knew* that I would follow
my orders and not harm them if I were not attacked first. A kind of
grudging respect.

Comments?

"And I now wait / to shake the hand of fate...." -"Defender", Manowar
Brian Green, pchild@iastate.edu aka Psychochild
|\ _,,,---,,_ *=* Morpheus, my kitten, says "Hi!" *=*
ZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ "If you two are so evil, then why don't
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' you just...EAT THIS KITTEN!"
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) - "The Tick", Saturday morning cartoon.
Check out: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~pchild to find out more 'bout me!