Ryan Freire wrote:

> >Have you ever actually had a paladin do that with any regularity in a
> campaign? I
> >can't remember it happening in a campaign I ran, at least not any more
> than the rest
> >of the PCs inspired people to take up swords against their
> oppressors....
> >
> >Gary
>
> That comes from the players not playing the paladin well, Dragon
> Magazine has a very good article about roleplaying high charismas in
> number 243, basically outlining how a paladin should act to show a high
> charisma and still be a noble holy warrior. The purpose of a paladin is
> to spread the faith and inspire people to want to worship his deity, the
> same as priests (who i think should have high charisma's as well) and
> people arent going to want to follow someone who isnt any more
> charismatic than a good barmaid, much less someone who is offensive and
> holier-than-thou.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> As for the thought of paladins for everyone, the closest i think erik
> would come would be a ranger, ruonil would be more interested in fighter
> mages, or solid mages. i see belinik as being the only evil diety to
> actually have the antipaladin, seeing as kriesha comes off as more
> priestly, and elole has her thieves, who operate more in her style.

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....

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.

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 mechanics
flow more easily and a gaming session is more fun.

Gary