- ----------
> From: Gary V. Foss
>
> I think it is generally a bad idea to tell players how to play their
> characters. The fact that paladins get played so badly seems to be a
fault of the character class description rather than the fault of all the
players who play them.>

I always thought it was part of the DMs job description to make sure
everyone is acting in accordance with their alignments and classes and
races and whatever.

> Part of the problem with the paladin character class as I see it is that
its description is too restrictive. If a player wants to play his
character as you suggest, then he is welcome. If he wants to play his
character some other way, I think he should be encouraged to do so. I
don't think charisma should be the
> defining characteristic of a holy warrior unless the player wants that to
be the way the character is run.>

True, it DOES all depend. In BR, though, there are several different types
of Paladins already, so if someone wants to play a Paladin differently,
there are alternatives to the "standard".

>
> Even with your comments, however, why should paladins be required to have
a 17 charisma? That's the very top end of the scale, making the character
class incredibly restrictive. It defines the class in a way that gets in
the way of role-playing. I just don't see why it should be like that.>

Because Paladins are the ultimate symbol of a gods own devotion to his/her
devotees in the campaign world. They have the high Charisma to make them
more competent at rallying and leading the disparate parts of a gods
followers in a world. How does a high Charisma get in the way of
role-playing? That "Reaction Adjustment" bonus makes them VERY convincing
in role-playing situations, and a silver tongue goes a long way in the
world of politics - just ask Mr Clinton :)

> As I see it, paladins should be "lightened up" a little bit. They should
be holy warriors in the same way that rangers are warriors who emphasize
nature. I've never heard of someone keeping a ranger out of a dungeon
adventure simply because his skills are geared towards the outdoors.
Similarly, I think paladins should be given more leeway. If a player in my
campaign wants to play
> a hard-drinking, foul-mouthed warrior for Cuiraecen then I think he
should be allowed. It makes sense given the philosophy. I say go with
it.>

Paladins are not just "devotees" a certain god - they are fanatical leaders
of hordes of true-believers. Fanatical tree-huggers would probly be more
apt to become Druids. Rangers are Warriors who specialize in sneaking and
peaking in the woods, and operating in small groups. The "lone wolf"
aspect is probably responsible for their being able to use two weapons
simultaneously without penalty :)

> I'd like to fundamentally redefine the paladin class. That is, I'd like
to define paladins as holy warriors rather than as knights of law and
good. This would eliminate the term that seems to have offending the AD&D
designers so much: Anti-paladin. If paladins can exist for any god, then
they can be as variable and interesting as the gods....>

Again, it all depends. The Crusader Class from Spells & Magic, in my
opinion, goes a long way towards making "Paladins for everyone" a reality.
The REAL question to ask is "how many Paladins are there in a given
campaign?" If they are fairly common, then there IS something wrong. How
many players are actually going to allocate such a precious roll as a 17 to
an ability like Charisma? *I* havent had one since my high school days.

> In the Oriental Adventures book gone OOP many moons ago, they had a
character class called the Sohei, which were sort of monk-warrior types. I
like the idea of paladins being a kind of a blend of their current
description as modified by BR and the sohei class, which would make them
less restricted in theme and playability.>

Actually, I think the old Sohei class was merely the OA version of the 1st
Edition Paladin. They were a LOT more fleshed out in the OA material than
the generic Paladin has ever been.

> This is, of course, a change from the core rules that I will make part of
my house rules which people are free to ignore, but I'd suggest that it
makes a lot of sense and might be something that should be incorporated
into the system as a whole.... The restrictiveness of the paladin
character class interferes with play, and I don't like that. If we loosen
things up a bit game mchanics
> flow more easily and a gaming session is more fun.>

I still dont understand how they are restrictive, so cant even contemplate
how they interfere with play. The Paladin is MEANT to be role-played, more
so than any other character, and thus the high Charisma requirement.

James