I felt the need to write this based on the "Open-minded paladins?" thread.
Long ago, there was a Dragon article detailing paladins of other alignments, beyond L/G. Ever since, I have run with paladins of different alignments. L/G still follow Heironeous and Mayaheine, and some others, but many of the Pholtian or Cuthberian paladins became L/N. Pelor has N/G paladins, Nerull N/E paladins, Trithereon C/G, and so on. Below is a list of the alignments and the gods typically associated with such paladins (or champions, as I have now come to call them):
L/G: Arvoreen, Garl Glittergold, Heironeous, Mayaheine, Moradin, Rao, St. Cuthbert
L/N: Istus, Pholtus, St. Cuthbert
L/E: Hextor, Nerull
N/E: Nerull
C/E: Erythnul, Gruumsh
C?N: Kord, Ralishaz
C/G: Corellon Lareithian, Kord, Trithereon
N/G: Pelor
Obviously this list is not comprehensive (I don't have my LGG handy...), but I think it paints a clear picture. Any thoughts, additions or changes? All comments are welcome. _________________ Greyhawk is dead; long live Greyahwk! It is not heresy; I will not recant!
I've run two myrikhans (NG paladins) of Heironeous, even though he's about as LG as you can get. If I were to run an alternate paladin of Hextor, I might make him or her LN since some of his followers are that alignment. LN Hextorians have a lot of angst, usually.:-)
Personally, I have always felt Paladins were the apex of knighthood... and should thus be only LG. In my campaign, I did however,introduce Knights and Orders that could be of many differing alignments and ethos.
I think that what 3rd edition should have done was start with the basic classes (Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Thief) and allowed customization through skills, feats, and prestige classes.
With respect to Paladins, they already made Blackguards a prestige class that can be taken by many different types of warrior classes that desire to be Chaotic Evil holy warriors. Why not make a Paladin prestige class for Lawful Good holy warriors, a Lion prestige class for Lawful Neutral holy warriors, etc.?
It seems that such a system would have been much more streamlined while offering at least as much customization and choice as the current system.
You can sort of do that with the generic classes from Unearthed Arcana, and to some degree with Pathfinder with the alternate class features.
There are also...in the Complete Champion I think there was something called the Grey Knight...or something like that. It let you basically be Lawful Neutral and still be a paladin.
I liked the change for 4th edition in that Paladins became holy warriors for any religion. Though I have never done it I have thought getting rid of the Paladin class, and having something like a 'Champion' class that can be devoted to any alignment, or god.
Ugh I always hated it when they would call something anti-paladins. They did that for Pathfinder for evil paladins. I like Blackguard much more. That's just me though, never really liked to use it as its name. I'm okay with it as a description though. :P
Never cared for Anti-Paladin, I can see Paladin for other alignments though Templar makes more sense for holy warrior. A Paladin is a specific type of holy warrior found in certain faiths.
I understand what you're saying, but you suggest too much "change" for me. In what way?
As I'm always saying, "you" did not invent the word "Blackguard." Neither did WotC, or Paizo, or myself. Or anyone else here.
Blackguard has never meant "holy warrior" in any sense and has been used to describe people who weren't necessarily "unholy warriors" either, people who weren't even warriors of any kind.
Argon wrote:
Quote:
Templar makes more sense for holy warrior
Again, no of us invented that term either. And the Kinghts Templar (who did invent the term) were a specific order of knight and specifically associated with the Catholic Church -- not the Muslim "church," or the Pelorian church, or the Boccobian church.
Secondly, properly described, the clerics, priest and warriors of Nerull's church are not holy, they are unholy.
This, or course, is just a very simple way of explaining it -- from my point of view. Their are others here who will disagree; such as Rasgon (Not singling him out!).
But I'm not going to bother getting into those arguments. I was just expressing my view in response to what Argon and Iressi originally said regarding my previous statement.
We all have are preferences to explain Paladins. I say to each, his own.
Anti-paladins just does not sound like a good description. I know it was created way back in 1E. Still never did anything for me. I also don't play alignment for gods, perception is my guide on the gods. So depending where you are on Oerth Nerull's clergy might not receive the negative reactions many would assume he should receive. Though I would agree most would fear the winter lord, others would show his priests a begrudging respect.
I certainly use them. IMC the paladins of Trithereon are very important. Anyone who has read my old Verbobonc stuff can see that. There is now a paladin of Trithereon in my campaign, and he's having a lot of fun with it.
I must admit, my initial reason for doing this, a way long time ago, was the Thrommel/Fragarach issue in T1-4. Granted, the easy fix was to just change the sword's alignment. However, never being one to do things the easy way, I used the dragon article to create new paladins of non-LG alignments.
I have used LN Paladins of Pholtus, based in the Theocracy of the Pale, and actually had a player play one once. I've also used a LE Illriger, paladin of Hextor, as a major badguy.
Because clerics are the fighting monks and militant priests of the various cults.
Paladins are something else IMGHC.
I go with this:
Quote:
Paladin class Based largely on the character of Holger Carlson from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, as well as Anderson's original sources, Charlemagne's paladins in the medieval French chansons de geste ("songs of deeds"), particularly The Song of Roland and Ariosto's Orlando Furioso. The paladin's tie to a special war-horse is also from Three Hearts and Three Lions.
("I do not mean a saint, but a warrior whom God gave more than common gifts and then put under a more than common burden." -- Martinus, in Three Hearts and Three Lions, by Poul Anderson.)
I think the paladin works best in service of a unified, high moral ideal with monotheistic (or henotheist) elements.
I see three ways to fit that into GH. one is to use Pholtus. But that seems odd, as he has neutral tendencies, and Hieroneuos is the "arch-paladin."
Another way is to make Heironeous the patron of all paladins.
But I think I prefer a third way. Paladins do not get powers from any of the named and listed gods. They draw their gifts from Lawful Good as a cosmic force, or from an unnamed higher power that embodies it. It's not a "god" in the sense that the beings clerics and specialty priests serve are gods. It doesn't have stats and one won't encounter it in avatar form. But the paladins feels its call and they battle evil with its blessings.
Paladins , being spiritually gifted, do tend to be pious men. But their relationship with gods like Hieroneous is different from that of the clergy. They may emulate gods who uphold their ideals and ethos of Lawful Good.
YMMV, for sure!
And all this aside, I like the other approaches presented in this thread,
It's fun to see different DMs doing different things.
I do like that the Dragon article with seven ''paladins" gives each of the new classes a new name and new abilities.
That means that the paladin is still the champion of LG.
It's just that the other alignments also have champions.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
