I wouldn't quite say "head explode", but I sure wouldn't CALL such a character a paladin. But I do think its an excellent idea to have some sort of Holy Warrior for any warrior deity in your setting. In my own setting I have three for LG, NG and CE I call Paladin, Champion and Anti-Paladin.
For me personally, although it wouldn't be a "Paladin" per say, I agree that all Deities should have their own version of a Knight of their order. That Knight should have special powers and abilities above and beyond their fighter equivalent (or possibly other abilities entirely depending on whom they worship). This is one of the few things that I liked about 3E in that there was created a Divine Champion.
I say they wouldn't be a "Paladin" merely because in my nostalgic brain I think of Paladins as ONLY lawful good virtuous knights. But that doesn't stop other types of characters being essentially 'The chosen elite' of any deity.
I would only disagree a little Spyder to say there are deities with no business having Holy Warriors; like a goddess of love or fertility; or even a god of magic or something. I would limit Holy Warriors to those sects that are somewhat warlike in nature.
But yeah, if its called a paladin its got to be LG!
@atcDave - excellent point. To make one minor additional modification, to take Mask as for instance, any "Divine chosen one" would have a preponderance of stealth and miss-direction abilities instead of holy might.
The abilities wouldn't have to be martial in nature; merely that they would in some way reflect the Deity and the sphere of influence that they lord over.
I wonder how many heads in this thread would explode if I mentioned my friend's Chaotic Neutral Paladin that my DM let him play in our current ongoing Pathfinder game.
I'm totally cool with this. I think this is one of the things that 2e got wrong. Virtually every deity should be able to have some kind of mystic warrior, and their abilities should reflect the deity itself. Oh wait, they do, they're called clerics. Instead the designers decided to splice an alignment-based spirituality with a typical knight in shining armor class.
I think 3+e did a much better job of handling this (even if it sucks at almost everything else). Sure, they still have paladins, but they also make clerics much more viable.
Someone had mentioned how patron deities could change one's approach to things, and I think that's a good point. Torm, Tyr, and Helm all have a strong Law emphasis with their portfolios, but Lathander and Ilmater are more oriented towards Good. So, I think a paladin of Ilmater could justify interacting with the Shadow Thieves much easier as he would be more concerned about how Imoen (and probably many other) innocent people are likely suffering in this prison. Actually, that's one thing I would have liked in this game. Instead of Cavs, UHs, and Inquisitors, have the kits and abilities be based on a patron deity. But that's a whole other conversation.
Actually further developing clerics and your own kits IS part of 2E; the core books talk a lot about modifying these things to meet individual needs. Many of the supplemental books talk about this in more detail. BG follows a simple version of the rules with just a few options (like a small number of kits); but 2E is really all wide open for different campaign settings.
I do remember the section in the 2E PHB (or was it DMG) that explained that the template provided was just a generic cleric, but there was also a subset of rules included so you could instead create multiple cleric subclasses to fit a setting. However, I've never seen any setting actually put this to practice. Instead, they've always referenced the generic cleric.
Back to the topic at hand, my Cav is in Cloakwood 1 for the dispute between Aldeth and the druid. I'm sure I'm not the only one who isn't terribly happy as to how this turns out. I feel like any LG character is more obligated to find the more peaceful solution, in which case you're kind of railroaded here. You have two options:
1) Sorry, Aldeth, I'm going to be a smart ass and help them kill you. 2) Hey druid people, can't we all just get along?
You really only get the "peaceful" dialogue option with one party, forcing a fight from the other side.
I think the idea with Aldeth's episode is that you're coming in a bit late in the game to make any meaningful headway into a peaceful solution. Both parties have already killed a member of the opposing party. You simply CAN'T resolve things peacefully.
@atcDave - agreed 100%. A paladin and his alignment should be kind of like an annual review. if there is anything in that review that is a surprise to the employee, the employer wasn't doing a very good job. any game that I DM'd (or played a Paladin), even small transgressions would be discussed. Any big "Got ya" type decisions would be predicated by "are you SURE you want to do this? You feel a wavering in your soul and faith as you contemplate the decision."
For me thats just a really annoying way to play a Paladin, theres no need to be forced to review every minor transgression. Major discussions and how they effect your Paladin should be discussed with the DM but bothering over every action is a terribly tedious way to play. We roleplay to have fun and theres no need to bother agonizing over every little transgression. You can just assume that your deity understand that humans are not perfect (after all, they are only mortals).
I just play my Paladin like hes a knight of the Round Table. I'm only human, I'll make mistakes because no ones perfect but I will atone for my failings with righteous fury in glorious combat.
I do remember the section in the 2E PHB (or was it DMG) that explained that the template provided was just a generic cleric, but there was also a subset of rules included so you could instead create multiple cleric subclasses to fit a setting. However, I've never seen any setting actually put this to practice. Instead, they've always referenced the generic cleric.
For me thats just a really annoying way to play a Paladin, theres no need to be forced to review every minor transgression. Major discussions and how they effect your Paladin should be discussed with the DM but bothering over every action is a terribly tedious way to play. We roleplay to have fun and theres no need to bother agonizing over every little transgression. You can just assume that your deity understand that humans are not perfect (after all, they are only mortals).
I just play my Paladin like hes a knight of the Round Table. I'm only human, I'll make mistakes because no ones perfect but I will atone for my failings with righteous fury in glorious combat.
That's a great way to play, for you. For me, back when I played PnP (which was a LONG time ago), I was all about obsessing about my characters. And as I stated before, I was always the biggest critic of my Paladin's performance (quite often significantly more so than my DM was). So I would discuss my motivations and my actions with my DM. If I was in doubt, I would ask. I basically saw it as the prayer that he did when he was conflicted about things. it added an additional layer to my gaming.
Yes, a Paladin is human and can make mistakes. My paladin would hold himself to a higher standard. He would stumble from time to time, but he would atone ten fold when he did. I probably played the most lily white Paladin in the game. But it's all good. Different strokes for different folks.
@the_spyder Basically, it sounds like your Paladins suffer from Scrupulosity, which makes sense when divine retribution is actually an expected consequence of failing to uphold your moral standards.
Obviously you play a Paladin from a more lenient alternate universe where the world is so chaotic that even the act of simple act of alphabetically arranging your bookcase makes you "lawful".
No. It's a fair cop that I tended to play my paladin as if he suffered from Scrupulosity. But that is the fun of it. Paladins in my view are supposed to be difficult animals to get your hands around.
Yeah, technically speaking, the generic cleric shouldn't exist in BG, since they don't exist in Faerun. While every god in Faerun does have "generic" clerics, a god can only grant spells from spheres related to their portfolios and the exact equipment restrictions vary from god to god. And then there are specialty clerics who take it even further, gaining additional more specialized abilities related to their god's portfolio, but tend to lose something or otherwise have additional penalties.
A case in point. No cleric of Talos can ever cast healing or raising spells nor any spell that creates or restores, because Talos is pure destruction incarnate and cannot create or restore anything since those effects fall under none of his portfolios. They still get access to healing and necromantic spheres but can only cast the reversed versions of spells (I.e. Cause wounds, Harm, Enervation, Poison, cause disease, Slay Living, Energy Drain, Destruction) but also gain access to the Greater elemental and weather spheres, since he is also a nature deity and has command over the destructive powers found in nature.
Comments
I say they wouldn't be a "Paladin" merely because in my nostalgic brain I think of Paladins as ONLY lawful good virtuous knights. But that doesn't stop other types of characters being essentially 'The chosen elite' of any deity.
But yeah, if its called a paladin its got to be LG!
The abilities wouldn't have to be martial in nature; merely that they would in some way reflect the Deity and the sphere of influence that they lord over.
I think 3+e did a much better job of handling this (even if it sucks at almost everything else). Sure, they still have paladins, but they also make clerics much more viable.
Someone had mentioned how patron deities could change one's approach to things, and I think that's a good point. Torm, Tyr, and Helm all have a strong Law emphasis with their portfolios, but Lathander and Ilmater are more oriented towards Good. So, I think a paladin of Ilmater could justify interacting with the Shadow Thieves much easier as he would be more concerned about how Imoen (and probably many other) innocent people are likely suffering in this prison. Actually, that's one thing I would have liked in this game. Instead of Cavs, UHs, and Inquisitors, have the kits and abilities be based on a patron deity. But that's a whole other conversation.
Back to the topic at hand, my Cav is in Cloakwood 1 for the dispute between Aldeth and the druid. I'm sure I'm not the only one who isn't terribly happy as to how this turns out. I feel like any LG character is more obligated to find the more peaceful solution, in which case you're kind of railroaded here. You have two options:
1) Sorry, Aldeth, I'm going to be a smart ass and help them kill you.
2) Hey druid people, can't we all just get along?
You really only get the "peaceful" dialogue option with one party, forcing a fight from the other side.
I just play my Paladin like hes a knight of the Round Table. I'm only human, I'll make mistakes because no ones perfect but I will atone for my failings with righteous fury in glorious combat.
Yes, a Paladin is human and can make mistakes. My paladin would hold himself to a higher standard. He would stumble from time to time, but he would atone ten fold when he did. I probably played the most lily white Paladin in the game. But it's all good. Different strokes for different folks.
A case in point. No cleric of Talos can ever cast healing or raising spells nor any spell that creates or restores, because Talos is pure destruction incarnate and cannot create or restore anything since those effects fall under none of his portfolios. They still get access to healing and necromantic spheres but can only cast the reversed versions of spells (I.e. Cause wounds, Harm, Enervation, Poison, cause disease, Slay Living, Energy Drain, Destruction) but also gain access to the Greater elemental and weather spheres, since he is also a nature deity and has command over the destructive powers found in nature.