which RPG has the best Paladin playstyle /vrpg/? I liked playing as one in Wotr. in that game if you play as one you are basically immune to alot of magical effects thanks to high saving throws, smite which allows you tank and deal tons of damage to any evil enemies, get a magical horse or a powerful temporary enchantment and lay on hands which can heal+cure any debuff you and your companions
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Deadfire.
It's also improved in the sense that they're not dedicated to gods and aren't necessarily "holy".
>Paladins are martial zealots, devoted to a god, a ruler, or even a way of life. They can be found in any culture where a fanatical group of like-minded individuals have formed a warrior society dedicated to advancing their cause. Among those aligned to their worldview, paladins are viewed with respect and admiration, if a bit of fear. Many paladins hold leadership positions in armies and mercenary companies, but in the heat of battle their fanaticism often overrules the chain of command - and common sense.
https://pillarsofeternity2.wiki.fextralife.com/Paladin
They don't feel like paladin at all
>It's also “improved” in the sense that they're completely divorced from their thematic origin and everything that made them unique or interesting was removed
Soulless, just like PoE in general. How appropriate.
More like paladins only being tied to good gods and needing to be lawful is not only creatively restricting, but fricking boring. Especially when they just boil down to autistically only being about doing "good deeds".
They're effectively all one note.
>Paladins being lawful good is boring
>Paladins wearing heavy armor is boring
>Paladins being martials is boring
>Paladins being restricted to RPGs is boring
I just made a great Paladin in FIFA, frick yeah creative freedom. Who needs concept to have meaning.
>Especially when they just boil down to autistically only being about doing "good deeds"
Haven't played Deadfire yet, but in the original PoE, paladins have to follow a certain set of behavior to get some bonuses for their powers. It isn't even necessarily just being good guys. Some orders want you to be diplomatic, some more benevolent, others ruthlessly upholding order.
Despite paladin itself being a meh class, the game encouraging you to roleplay within the virtues of your order is really neat. You are not forced to do so, but the game tracks how you do quests and deal with problems, not just with some binary good-evil choices.
>More like paladins only being tied to good gods and needing to be lawful is not only creatively restricting
That’s what they are. If you dislike that, I would suggest another class more in line with what you’re thinking of.
>but fricking boring
Either a subjective matter of taste, or a failure of imagination, take your pick.
>Especially when they just boil down to autistically only being about doing "good deeds".
Failure of imagination.
>They're effectively all one note.
If you can’t find an interesting roleplaying angle within the class, then either the class isn’t for you, or a failure of imagination, take your pick.
>That’s what they are
No, that's what they were in D&D and it sucks shit.
>failure of imagination
It's literally severely railroading the character into being the exact same shit as everyone else making a Paladin. It outright severely limits imagination.
It's outright hilarious how you play the lack of imagination card when that is the entire problem with the D&D idea of Paladins. It's a one note stereotype everyone that plays it in D&D has to follow.
But good thing D&D isn't the only setting with Paladins and other settings don't have to follow the insanely moronic idea of their Paladins.
They’re ripping off D&D and we all know it. That’s where the RPG archetype comes from. Like I said, if the concept doesn’t appeal to you, I suggest choosing a different class more in line with what you’re imagining. That’s the beauty of it, right? No, you’d rather ram that round peg into that square hole until it fits?
Protip, D&D didn't invent "good boy holy warrior".
You can tell how bad this guy, and others, are as a roleplayer. They can't even figure out how to vary a personality based on Law and Goodness, which are extremely broad concepts.
>You can tell how bad this guy, and others, are as a roleplayer
Making excuses for an extremely restrictive class that only applies to D&D by attacking others is pathetic.
It's on the level of when a game constantly crashes randomly a fanboy just says "get good". It's just deflection and lashing out when someone dares to say anything remotely critical about something they have emotionally attached themselves to.
>all one note
A Paladin has to make the hard moral choices, things you couldn't even imagine doing.
Except they don't. The lame excuse if ever pressed for a grey moral choice is to go "what does my one note god want me to do?".
A Paladin order founded to dedicate their efforts to end wars quickly to reduce the amount of death and suffering is not something that's possible with D&D Paladins. Because if it came down to it, a D&D Paladin would save 100 people even if it meant 10 000 more people would die later, because that's the a shallow stupid "good boy" scenario.
Or since they're lawful, they would arrest Robin Hood to prevent him from stealing from the corrupt rich people, since that's the "good" thing to do.
>Or since they're lawful, they would arrest Robin Hood to prevent him from stealing from the corrupt rich people, since that's the "good" thing to do.
That's the moral choice. A lawful good paladin could go after the corrupt rich, as he would see them as more evil and destructive, since they are bending laws and causing greater harm.
If he were to stand with the law and try to stop Robin Hood, he could choose to only stop the immediate criminal act that the man attempts, and then allow him to escape.
>no harm was done, i stopped his criminal acts and gave him a lecture. now if you want me to arrest and allow you to execute a man for your ego, then you are the evil i must smite
>That's the moral choice. A lawful good paladin could go after the corrupt rich, as he would see them as more evil and destructive, since they are bending laws and causing greater harm.
Except he would first be forced to bring Robin Hood in (and he would most likely be jailed and executed), which would lead to tons of poor suffering.
Then said Paladin would be clearly unqualified to take down the corrupt rich people since they're effectively just warriors and not have the skillset or connections to handle organized corruption. Unless you think walking up to someone's manor door and say "admit to your crimes" works.
>and then allow him to escape.
Not lawful behaviour, since you'd be actively breaking the law. Especially if they were a wanted man, which Robin Hood was.
>since they're effectively just warriors
They're usually part-diplomat. They're usually meant to be trained in social skills, giving speeches, leading men, mentoring people in how to be good, etc.
I would say they're warrior-monks, rather than just spellswords with divine magic.
We're on different depictions of paladins now, unfortunately.
Also, lawful and good are not separate. If he is lawful good then he believes in just laws, not just any old laws. You're thinking lawful neutral.
A lawful good paladin would not defend a lawful evil tyrant just because they are both lawful. The tyrant may be acting within a legal framework, but it would be an unjust legal framework that benefits evil rather than humanity.
Damn, meant to attach a picture to force you to read my post.
>They're usually part-diplomat. They're usually meant to be trained in social skills, giving speeches, leading men, mentoring people in how to be good, etc.
Which are not relevant when trying to take down organized crime. A magical dice roll to appeal to every crimanal to fall to their knees and admit to their crimes and give you all the evidence you need is utterly moronic.
>You have the mind of a child
No, D&D Paladins literally only work if you treat the world like a child would. D&D Paladins are literally made for children.
nta but that's a ton of bad faith arguments you're making, conflating lawful good with lawful stupid with the
>but he has to follow every law because lawful
no, a lawful good aligned character is allowed to ignore and disobey unjust and outright evil laws. they are under no obligation to follow them if they clash with their moral code. which is why it can be more compelling to see a paladin to do what he believes is the right thing even in morally ambiguous situations rather than cynically reducing them to an order of obedient zealots
The alignment system in DnD is stupid and archaic and their alignment lock is even more stupid. It just dumbs things down.
If we use the Robin Hood again as an example, stealing being illegal is not an evil law. So Robin Hood breaks a non-evil law and if the Paladin helps to let him go, they are now breaking non-evil laws too (aiding and abetting a criminal).
The laws the rich people are abusing don't have to be "evil" either, in fact they most likely aren't.
Regardless, this is but a small sliver of the issues with DnD Paladins that just dumbs everything down and puts heavy restrictions in bad ways.
i disagree. paladins, if you play them right are quite capable of compromise even in DnD so long as it doesn't betray his beliefs. this is why you send paladins for negotiations or diplomacy missions if not for their high charisma stat. if he knows they would treat the man inhumanely if he turns him in to the authorities, a paladin can chose to be merciful instead. and if he found the stolen items on him, he'll return them to their respective owners (or let slaves go regardless if you consider them property).
Doesn't matter what mental gymnastics you want to do to pretend DnD Paladins are secretly amazing, they are by far the most restrictive character to not only play but also to have in a party.
You can take and expand upon the archetype in more interesting ways, which other media has. This in turn appeals more to people that want something more complex.
Restrictions force you to think and act like the character, so you can ROLE PLAY as them. You know, like in a fricking role-playing game.
It seems that paladin haters are the same people who try to self-insert in every game.
>Restrictions force you to think and act like the character
If I give you a completely filled in character sheet with the blandest but most restrictive character one can imagine, in your mind that's awesome and everyone would love to RP as that. So much so that tons of others should play with that exact sheet, otherwise they "lack imagination".
but you do lack imagination. you don't even understand how restrictions free you.
>but you do lack imagination
Nice logical fallacy and goalpost moving.
Since you don't deny it, I can only naturally assume you think that playing with my totally filled out character sheet with the blandest and most restrictive character possible is something that is truly for people with immense imagination and something they would enjoy the most.
A modicum of restrictions that can allow for intersting interactions is good. D&D Paladins is the exact opposite of that. But hey, you're clearly close-minded an irrational, so why even bother to treat you as someone rational.
but to a person with excessive imagination, no amount of restriction is confining. this isn't even a value judgement about you or me, it's a fact about humanity. no, your real beef is with other people and how they think, it's psychological envy.
>but to a person with excessive imagination, no amount of restriction is confining
It is moron. It's also a question of what said person would enjoy.
Would they enjoy playing are someone else's bland as frick character or one of their own?
You have no case, so give up you gigantic moron.
i'm not making a case, i'm explaining things to you. a person with excessive imagination can more easily see how to express themselves within the restrictions that bind them. you can't, and this is why your characters are blander no matter what they are and why you depend on setting and fiction. you are boring, stop crying about it.
What you're """explaining""" is fricking wrong and irrelevant ramblings.
You're trying to peddle the ancient "restrictions breed creativity" as something revolutionary and all encompassing (as in all restrictions and no matter the quantity results a more interesting and imaginative outcome), the latter of which is objectively wrong.
If the restrictions in place only allowed you to choose the color red or blue, that wouldn't magically result in it being more imaginative or allowing people with good imagination to come up with something better.
Not only that, it's a question of preference and what results in more interesting and complex results.
People with strong imagination would opt for a less restrictive character that they can shape on their own than being given a highly restrictive and generic template that's almost entirely filled out. If you disagree you're a supremely moronic human being. And before you go on about some moronic exception, they just prove the norm.
You're a fricking inhumanely moronic mongoloid that argues for the sake of arguing, despite having to actual point. Not to mention you missing the plot entirely.
No other class as as limiting in a bad way as D&D Paladins while not compensating with unique gameplay. It pigeonholes people into playing something that is effectively always the same, with irrelevant minor differences like their name, gender and shit.
Now naturally since you're a subhuman ape you will continue to argue despite having no point. But I don't have the patience to coddle morons.
>only allowed you to choose the color red or blue, that wouldn't magically result in it being more imaginative or allowing people with good imagination to come up with something better
consider the infinite shades of red and blue available, consider purple. imagination is freeing, it is infinite. no restriction can hold it.
>I don't have the patience to coddle morons
you lie, you'll continue to respond no matter how long it goes on for.
>consider the infinite shades of red and blue available
Are you illiterate? I said "red or blue".
>u lie, you'll continue to respond no matter how long it goes on for.
No, this is the final one. This final one was mainly just me being baffled how you just keep posting more and more moronic posts. That I keep thinking
>no way this moron can say something even more stupid
Yet lo and behold. But interacting with someone THIS fricking stupid is pointless. So keep shitposting and drooling on your keyboard if you want.
Based. Restrictions are good. Only self-inserters think otherwise.
>Based. Restrictions are good. Only self-inserters think otherwise.
Every single class has restrictions. It's why it's a class.
But the wrong or too many restrictions have a negative effect.
Restrictions that allow for greater flexibility are the best ones. Hence why say the Deadfire Paladins are better than D&D ones, even disregarding how they play much better and more unique.
>it's a dumb moron thinks that a lawful person must ALWAYS follow every law
I hate reruns, I HATE RERUNS!
>>it's a dumb moron thinks that a lawful person must ALWAYS follow every law
>However, a paladin will not honor a law that runs contrary to his alignment. A government may believe that unregulated gambling provides a harmless diversion, but a paladin may determine that the policy has resulted in devastating poverty and despair. In the paladin's mind, the government is guilty of a lawless act by promoting an exploitative and destructive enterprise. In response, the paladin may encourage citizens to refrain from gambling, or he may work to change the law.
>Particularly abhorrent practices, such as slavery and torture, may force the paladin to take direct action. It doesn't matter if these practices are culturally acceptable or sanctioned by well-meaning officials. The paladin's sense of justice compels him to intervene and alleviate as much suffering as he can.
What the frick are you on about? None of that is true.
What group of Paladins in D&D want to end wars with as few people dying and suffering as possible, no matter the means.
Of course none of his autistic rambling makes any fricking sense, you're talking to an unironic fricking tankie zigger. See:
The zigger wasn't even me (aka
), but your point is moronic regardless. Russian intelligencia has frick all to do with vatnigs and to call Dostoyevsky non-western in terms of literature is sped behaviour. And if you don't like Dostoyesky, then take Goethe, Poe, Kafka or Shakespear.
>Improved by making it worse
>more nuance, variation and areas to explore over dumb one one simplicity
Yes, you go ahead and stick to the same dumb shit then.
being lawful good is boring
When they can only be awful good. Yes. It's a massive restriction in a road of many that limits what the character can be.
wearing heavy armor is boring
>Paladins being martials is boring
What does that have to do with anything.
>Paladins being restricted to RPGs is boring
When the restrictions are so excessive it means all characters are basically the exact same shit, then yes it's dogshit.
You didn't even understand what was written and called it stupid, despite it being laid out in layman terms. Bravo.
You guys have brainrot and ejaculate over making the exact same character for the 1000th time
They wont let baby play his edgy dark elf paladin that is atheist and is only faithful to strenght and blood boohoo.
If anyone has limited imagination it's you if that's where your mind instantly went.
Being able to tackle law, perceived mercy, kindness and such in different ways (which a DnD Paladin can't) would be different and interesting interpretations. Especially since they don't even have to be tied to a god.
It is an interpretation any other cleric like class can have. Heck, fidelity to an idea or ideology is not limited to gods really.
You are stripping the paladin of what makes him what he is and calling It creativity. In fact, ALL you wanna do, is fit into every archetype the edgy morally gray stories you so much adore.
>morally grey
>edgy
Any world not made for literal children has more nuance to it than "good vs evil".
Even capeshit has more nuance to it, which is saying a lot.
Fact is you're a fanboy of D&D and has exceptional emotional bias tied to the subject, which makes any actual discussion with you pointless anyway.
If you think the childlike naive idea of Paladins in D&D is the "best" and "only" version, then feel free to think so. You're clearly not interested in alternatives because clearly you're just overflowing with imagination.
The fact that you keep babbling about objective good being a childlike concept is proof enough that you see yourself as a that very mature guy above others.
In reality, however, you are just incapable of enjoyment, things either fit into your warped view or reality or they arent enjoyable.
Fact is, you are a reddittor
>The fact that you keep babbling about objective good being a childlike concept
How is it not? Do you think IRL people are good and evil? That the world is some cartoon with mustache twirling villains? The world is not black and white.
>lose the argument
>parrots "i accept your concession hurrr"
So you're illiterate and lack basic reading comprehension.
You claimed that Paladins could easily take down deeply rooted organized crime, yet failed to elaborate on it. You didn't counter any of the problems I raised like why would a criminal give any information to some random ass Paladin knocking on their door (assuming they even found them).
You just outright ignored all of it and then deluded yourself into thinking you """won""" like the close-minded person you are.
No wonder you find Paladins so appealing when you're so simple and close minded.
I'm saying D&D ones couldn't function in a believable non-black and white world.
But that's the least of the problems with D&D Paladins, as has already been explained. But clearly the D&D fanboys don't care, they just want to shitpost and attack people for daring to critizise their beloved D&D Paladins.
>But that's the least of the problems with D&D Paladins, as has already been explained. But clearly the D&D fanboys don't care, they just want to shitpost and attack people for daring to critizise their beloved D&D Paladins.
lol, is this a bot?
>Do you think IRL people are good and evil?
There are genuinely good people and there are really fricked up bad people. The good people try, but they're not perfect and sometimes fail. But they want to help others. There are evil people who would sell their own grandmother into sex slavery just to benefit themselves. But they're not genius villains and often frick up.
Answer this:
Is altruism actually selfishness because you only help out other people to make yourself feel good?
>There are genuinely good people and there are really fricked up bad people.
Nope. People have good and bad qualities. In the rare cases where someone might have a range of mental disorders, bad upbringing, being in a bad situation that mostly results in them doing "bad" things those people are extreme exceptions where the planets basically have to align.
>Is altruism actually selfishness because you only help out other people to make yourself feel good?
Meaningless question and irrelevant.
Like if a person funds and help run an orphanage, but loves watching kids nude and also helps shower them (but not touching), is that person good or evil?
I want leftist paladins and templars
Rosacrucian paladin, believes we wuz and has mage spells like greater invisibility
Heaven's Gate Paladin, can teleport to other planets by way of comet express
Jonestown Paladin, can compel followers into camps like a fighter attracts keep warriors in 1st, lay on koolaid to poison women, children, and minorities
NXVIM Paladin, can control women through a branding of flesh
There are so many fascinating religions and relationships with higher powers to explore if we just stop limiting the paladin concept.
>How is it not? Do you think IRL people are good and evil? That the world is some cartoon with mustache twirling villains? The world is not black and white.
Our faults do not turn us into evil men, as long as we strive for good and justice. I suppose you can grasp that though.
But yes, good and evil do exist
>Do you think IRL people are good and evil?
Yes
Play a warrior or a warlock then
A D&D paladin can do all those things. If you can't then that is not an issue with the class.
>A D&D paladin can do all those things
In the shittiest and most limited ways possible. They are by design one-note in D&D.
What a homosexual way to portray Paladins.
>N-no Paladins arent good because they are religious and religions are Evil and prejudiced, they are only seem as good among their peers Im such a smart boy.
Paladins made moronic, hate this shit.
I agree, turning the Paladins into military orders was the right move.
>It's also improved in the sense that they're not dedicated to gods and aren't necessarily "holy".
Oh yes, such an improvement. I am in awe.
Its funny how he keeps replying to it over and over.
>It's also improved in the sense that they're not dedicated to gods and aren't necessarily "holy".
Not even reading the rest of your post, frick fedora tippers. You've convinced me to never give Deadfire a chance.
Anon, you've been samegayging and seething for over a week now.
I remember enjoying the NWN1 mods Midnight and Twilight. You play a novice paladin in it. I think the last part of the trilogy was never made and it was a shame.
watsapaladin
>Ultima meme
The nations of Asia, Africa, and Europe, advanced with equal ardor to an encounter which would change the history of the world. In the six first days of tbhltory combat, the horsemen and archers of the East maintained their advantage: but in the closer onset of the seventh day, the Orientals were oppressed by the strength and stature of the Germans, who, with stout hearts and iron hands, asserted the civil and religious freedom of their posterity. The epithet of Martel, the Hammer, which has been added to the name of Charles, is expressive of his weighty and irresistible strokes: the valor of Eudes was excited by resentment and emulation; and their companions, in the eye of history, are the true Peers and Paladins of French chivalry.
BG3 Paladin is very fun to play as. Smite in that game is just "chef kiss
Final Fantasy is the only franchise that does the noble paladin justice. Paladins are not supposed to be stunted 4th level casters, especially in a system with such heavily armored priests. Paladins are supposed to get 1-6 level holy magic and their own curated list of 7,8,9 tier Blademagic.
Delubrum Reginae Savage is my favorite piece of multiplayer vRPG content of all time
DnD Paladins? Is smite in other games?
WoW Paladins? Sure they're great in the lore. Some how the invunerability bubble is already more iconic than smite evil.
Give me Cecil, Beatrix, Agrias, Orlando, Warrior of Light
>Paladins are not supposed to be stunted 4th level casters, especially in a system with such heavily armored priests. Paladins are supposed to get 1-6 level holy magic and their own curated list of 7,8,9 tier Blademagic.
Not to mention they had to wait til like what, 9th level? They weren't accepted into paladin orders til then at least. Hell, needed to be level 5 for your magical steed.
Yeah, turn undead at 3 (turns as a cleric two levels lower), mount at 4, casting at level 9. Detect evil, saving throw bonus, immunity to disease, aura of protection from level 1. Cast spells as a cleric 8 levels lower (maximum caster level of 9) and does not get bonus spells from wisdom (although he does get 10% bonus XP if both his STR and CHA are above 16). Can't join an order before 9th level, as you pointed out, except the radiant heart auxiliary, after 4th level.
flaccid
>blademagic
Sounds like some kino rifts shit, but I never heard of it in D&D unless you mean wall of blades which is something only clerics were cool enough for.
It's from Ivalice
dnd style paladins only make sense if they're in a morally black and white cartoony world, otherwise they quickly fall apart once something morally grey happens. which if you're trying to make a realistically believeable world, morally grey things are the norm.
Why does a game need realism? Such hubris from a godless man.
How many ITT can even name the First Paladin?
a setting needs to be believable in context, unless you want a poorly written and established world
Was Gygax's DnD poorly written or established? No. You are a victim of propaganda.
>Was Gygax's DnD poorly written or established?
Yes it was. It was then poorly expanded on and currently has a lot of baggage.
>>Was Gygax's DnD poorly written or established?
>Yes it was.
It wasn't for storygays. It was a post apocalyptic world full of petty warlords calling themselves dukes or kings, with vast dungeons and ruined cities from a more ancient civilization or empire, usually one that fell into decadence. It's Howard/Leiber/Vance/Lovecraft KINO and built PERFECTLY to facilitate GAMEPLAY. It's the epitome of gameplay > story, and yet still manages to feel real in its own way.
Mount and blade is the only game that begins to approach what Gygax' d&d was.
>we sell our loot and buy a herd of cows and our retainers drive the cows forward into the dungeon to set off all the traps in front of us
Kino.
Cows can't use staircases. Dogs are best bang for your buck.
Dogs aren't heavy enough. Just bribe peasants.
lol there is a rule in OD&D that basically says if a player character does shit like this, they're murdered by an angry peasant mob.
Greased pigs are the best. They'll squeeze out of half of the traps and keep going, triggering more.
Also, if any get caught in a fire trap then you've got delicious free food just waiting for your party.
Yes. Yes it was.
Gothic 2
Why do chuds hate moral ambiguity? It's a rhetorical question, I know the answer.
Why do commies hate clearly established and defined concepts?
There's plenty of room for moral ambiguity in D&D archetypes, the original assumption was that you're playing a morally ambiguous graverobber who's adventuring primarly for loot. The Paladin was one of the few classes not falling into that moral ambiguity, because it represents the archetype of the knight in shining armor, an archetype with deep roots and traditions, from the Knights of the Round Table, to the knights of Charlemagne.
"But I want to play a morally ambiguous paladin" is a nonsensical claim. Just play a fighter, or a cleric.
>Why do commies hate clearly established and defined concepts?
You make the mistake of assuming the DnD Paladins applies to all other forms of Paladins in other media.
You also make the mistake of assuming everyone likes excessively restrictive and dumbed down ideas which result in very low amounts of variety and not in the interesting way.
>from the Knights of the Round Table
Yes, Knights performing all manner of noble acts like sleeping with and stealing their King's wife. Betrays their King and starts a war. Being complete buttholes. Stuff like that sounds totally like DnD Paladins.
>You make the mistake of assuming the DnD Paladins applies to all other forms of Paladins in other media.
It's the only meaningful definition of paladin.
>Yes, Knights performing all manner of noble acts like sleeping with and stealing their King's wife. Betrays their King and starts a war. Being complete buttholes. Stuff like that sounds totally like DnD Paladins.
Yeah D&D paladins do bad shit as well, because they're played by humans, this creates an interesting tension with their oaths. You play a paladin either because you want to uphold your oaths and ideals, or because you want to play around with this tension. Restriction gives the role meaning. If you drop the restrictions and just make the paladin a fighter/cleric multiclass, it becomes just flavorless jumble of mechanics without meaning.
>It's the only meaningful definition of paladin.
Nope. Only in your insular world.
Do you think someone that has never touched D&D and has only Played WoW cares about your prefered version of Paladins?
Do you think the people that have only played Final Fantasy care about your version of Paladins?
Do you think the people that play Deadfire care about D&D versions of Paladins?
Paladins in Diablo, etc. List goes on and on.
Ironically, the worst and most boring, shallow and restrictive version by far is D&D Paladins.
There are too many (bad) restrictions that pigeonhole them in D&D.
>Ironically, the worst and most boring, shallow and restrictive version by far is D&D Paladins.
There are too many (bad) restrictions that pigeonhole them in D&D.
You have the mind of a child. Nothing should be restrictive because restriction bad! No bed time, and you want to have cake for breakfast, woo! You don't understand that restriction is important to imbue meaning into things.
This is like arguing "Heh, what do fans of [Tolkien-derivative work] care about Tolkien? Checkmate, nerd."
Paladins are a historical institution, King Arthur's court was a crusader legend that fictionalized reality to draw men to war. Like Prestor John. I do adore how the viking sword Nouthing was raised in the name of Jesus however.
Lancelot is fan fiction. Using him in any kind of argument shows you know nothing about the actual tales of King Arthur or their origins, Lancelot was not in the original stories and was added in much later by a French bard who was regaling French nobles with the stories and added in a French character to please them, and just like all fan faction self inserts, made him ridiculously bullshit and completely ignored the meaning and intention of the original story in the process.
Everything else in the stories where the Knights committed sins or failed were specifically there to show that they fricked up and fell, which is why they ended up failing to be worthy of the Grail. The only two Knights who actually stayed pure and true were Galahad and Percival. Even Arthur failed.
>Everything else in the stories where the Knights committed sins or failed were specifically there to show that they fricked up and fell, which is why they ended up failing to be worthy of the Grail. The only two Knights who actually stayed pure and true were Galahad and Percival. Even Arthur failed.
nooooooooooooo but people only like paladins because they want to LARP like they're sinless and perfect and holier-than-thou moralists nooooooooooooooooooo
>"But I want to play a morally ambiguous paladin" is a nonsensical claim. Just play a fighter, or a cleric.
Or you just play a Paladin from another setting, like Deadfire
which is infinitely more interesting and nuanced.
>Why do commies hate clearly established and defined concepts?
I wonder if ~~*moral relativism*~~ and communism were created by the exact same people as two paths that both lead to the same goal?
>no you don't understand I'm literally aragon and the woke leftists are all orcs, all of them
>Why can't paladins organize?
A group of Paladins would still not be qualified to take down organized crime.
>detect evil
moronic spell in and of itself. Let alone the alignments in DnD.
>unable to speak false testimony
Even assuming you would even get that far or they wouldn't just ignore you.
With absolutely no evidence you expect to barge in to someone's home, arrest them, the try to interrogate them to force them to admit to their guilt despite having no evidence?
Even disregarding you would never get that far, they could easily just grease palms and have themselves released.
This is even assuming the rulers don't deem their presence necessary or are corrupt themselves.
Paladins in D&D is such a childlike naive idea.
>A group of Paladins would still not be qualified to take down organized crime
Lack of imagination. A group of people who are unable to be bribed and connected to a larger organized religion taking down criminals? Fairly easy.
>moronic spell in and of itself. Let alone the alignments in DnD.
Not a spell, a power and that's not really an argument, you are just showing a personal preference, an emotional reaction, not working within the fantasy intellectually.
>Even assuming you would even get that far or they wouldn't just ignore you.
Yes, those powers allow for a public perception that would validate their claims and make the corrupt squirm. You couldn't just ignore them and say "no evidence" because this is a world where these guys are proven by their abilities and how they interact with those very restrictions you moan about.
>Paladins in D&D is such a childlike naive idea.
It's a fantasy, yes. But your ability to interact with that fantasy intellectually is seemingly quite limited and based on an emotional reaction.
>Lack of imagination. A group of people who are unable to be bribed and connected to a larger organized religion taking down criminals? Fairly easy.
Holy fricking shit, talk about delusional.
Ok, so how would they get any evidence? Asking people nicely? Fricking LOL.
Is THIS how you think organized crime is taken down IRL?
>Not a spell
Irrelevant. The concept of someone being either "good" or "evil" is utterly moronic. It's saturday morning cartoon shit.
>Yes, those
Utterly irrelevant. If you knocked on some corrupt aristocrat or something's manor gate they wouldn't even open the gate or send you away.
>It's a fantasy
Glad we agree that it's a childlike and naive idea D&D has of what Paladins are.
What a boring argument.
>he said, while providing no arguments and just a shitpost
So you do unironically believe that Paladins going around asking people nicely to give themselves up and spill the beans is how they would believable take down deeply rooted organized crime.
You're just saying that paladins couldn't operate in the modern day real world.
I accept your concession. You devolved into a very repetitive and simplistic "nuh uh" argument here purely based on personal distaste for D&D and an inability to engage with its fantasy. You even started talking about "IRL" as if that has anything to do with a fantasy setting where testimony is proven by restrictions that are linked with their provided powers.
>evidence
detect evil
>this guy is evil officer put them in jail
So what if someone is this cartoony idea of evil but has done no crimes?
Are we also going to pretend that no "good" person could perform crimes?
>full of moronic bickering
Maybe you should pay attention and see that the ones that threw a shitfit were D&D players. Or does that not align with your headcanon.
Uh huh. So you'll just ignore these people then
Pillars of Eternity homosexuals proves once again that they're a terrible fanbase.
>Moral restrictions? I'M GOING INSANEEEEEEEEE
Pseuds just like their shit game.
>reeeeee PoE fans are awful because they do not only want to accept and play as this ONE kind of Paladin that exists in D&D
>we'll attack anyone that doesn't agree with us that only D&D Paladins are valid
>but clearly we're not the mentally immature ones
why are people arguing with a teenager?
>people that love the idea of a comical good guy vs evil concept
>people that attack people for not wanting to only stick to this idea
>THEY are not the immature ones
Flawless logic there. How about you try and be less close-minded and hostile. Or is that too "immature" for you?
no, i mean your ideas are so boring and simplistic that they must be from a teenager. everything is inherited from other people and not based on actual experience, which is why you have trouble separating the real world from fantasy. classic teenager tells. i'm not saying you shouldn't be arguing online, but older people have to give you a little leeway and not expect anything interesting to come from you.
>mean your ideas are so boring and simplistic
And what ideas are that? I'd love to hear your misconceived ideas of what you think they are.
your ideas about people and morality. basic internet memes about how no person thinks they are bad and are merely products of their environment that have been bandied about by midwits and shutins for many years. the interesting part about that is that social engineers tend to want to think that way about people, because essentialism flies in the face of their attempts to grasp power, they don't want to think that some things can't be erased. beyond that, you can't separate fantasy from reality, you need fantasy to mimic reality because you aren't able to engage with a world that operates under its own conditions, which is doubly funny because your ideas about reality are functionally a fantasy.
>your ideas about people and morality
Be specific.
>basic internet memes about how no person thinks they are bad
So you're illiterate and project. Not surprising.
Not surprising either that you ramble on about completely irrelevant things to the topic at hand. Extremely ironic for someone claiming others not knowing how to interact with other people with this level of projection and lack of self awareness.
You can't even stay on topic.
This discussion was about how D&D Paladins are too narrow in terms of restrictions, which limits what they can be in very uninteresting and not-believable ways.
>has to be tied to a god
>has to be lawful good
>has to more or less be a human
>has a very black and white worldview
>effectively are just worse warriors but with low level cleric spells
>etc
The D&D Paladin fans reacted violently and lashed out, because someone dared to claim this wasn't amazing and the only way to do Paladins, despite the fact that Paladins have been done in many different ways in other pieces of media.
What you're rambling on about is so far off topic as one could possibly get, while being utterly irrelevant.
>>has a very black and white worldview
>What you're rambling on about is so far off topic as one could possibly get, while being utterly irrelevant.
lol
I know what you mean. I feel the same way about the barbarian class. Why does he have to be angry all the time? Why does every barbarian have to have a berserker rage? Why can't I just play a calm barbarian who casts spells and reads books.
>The D&D Paladin fans reacted violently and lashed out
Bruh. You've been repeatedly told by multiple anons "it sounds like you don't understand or like the class concept, why don't you try a fighter instead? That sounds more like the roleplaying concept that interests you" but that would be too reasonable, right?
>comical
>poisoning the well
Christ is King.
pillars 2 does them better for sure. You can still be the heavy suit good boy or be evil and wear light armor. Can dual wield also in dnd its way too costly and useless.
Paladins only exist because morons think they're too good to be a 'boring fighter' but don't want to actually (role)play as a cleric, but as a fighter with healing skills.
What drives some people to rabidly despise morally good characters, symbols of honour, honesty, purity and heroism?
>What drives some people to rabidly despise morally good characters, symbols of honour, honesty, purity and heroism?
When you don't understand the criticism, that's when.
For Paladins it's that the DnD ones create such a narrow and shallow idea for what the class and character can be. That doesn't just mean the idiotic "Lawful good" alignment, but they fundamentally only work if the childlike idea of good and evil exists in that world.
"Original stories" doesn't exist. These stories change depending on who is telling it and changed with time. The "original" you think of is not the original.
>Our faults do not turn us into evil men, as long as we strive for good and justice. I suppose you can grasp that though.
>But yes, good and evil do exist
Are you christian or something? You sound like a burger.
Good job missing the point, idiot. The other anon claimed that the only version of Paladin that matters is the DnD one, which is fricking moronic.
A "rage" is far less restrictive than a Paladin in DnD and you miss the point being made.
A Paladin has to cross off so many checkmarks on your characters sheet you can't change and none of them shape the character to be more interesting.
>Are you christian or something? You sound like a burger
You reveal yourself redditor, back to your cave you go now troony
So you are a christian burger then. Your shitpost reply with no arguments makes that pretty clear.
homie there is no discussion to engage with a cynical homosexual troony who can grasp that the concept of good and justice can existe even in morally grey settings.
That a pure good character needs not to be without his faults, and that trying to turn a paladin, meant to represent this Knight of justice and good, into whatever fita your cringeworthy sasuke roleplay Idea os simply turning the class away from what makes It what It is meant to be.
A paladin that serves a crown is no paladin, its a fricking Knight. Words mean things you know wienersucker
>posting irrelevant drivel that has nothing to do with the topic, subject discussed or what someone said
Tone down your autism. No one cares about your irrational ramblings.
>symbols of honour, honesty, purity and heroism?
there are evil paladins/priests too.
Teenage angst, daddy issues, low intelligence, a lack of empathy, take your pick.
When you boil it down, the "but muh hero story" chuds are the exact same kind of adolescant crybabies as marvelshits. Its just instead of not being able to handle any characterization more serious than a bald man having nipple skin irritation, these speds can't handle any story that is more complex than good vs bad story for 8 year olds (b-but its actually totally PEGI18 cuz of blood 'n gutz 'n rape 'n warcrimes!!!).
Of course, they will whine and scream about feminists and commies ruining everything with grey morality, but then proceed to ignore centuries of western literature, from Dostoyevky to Sophocles where ambiguity of good and the contradictory motivations of characters are integral to the plot.
In short, to answer , I hate it for the same reason I would hate Dora the Explorer stories if they were a central pillar of midwit RPG plot design.
>western literature
>Dostoyevky
>russia isn't western because muh heckin ukrainerino
>commie is an actual, unironic zigger in current year
Who would've guessed?
"Le epic" deconstruction and subversion of expectations (accompanied by a heavy dose of IRL cynicism brought into a fantasy setting somehow) are the main culprits.
Look around you anon. Most people are jaded and empty inside. Grand heroism doesn't ring as true as did decades or centuries ago.
>deconstruction and subversion
Cope buzzwords to make your empty subjective "I don't like it cuz its different" critique sound profound. Through the entire history of art authors used existing tropes and works as a basis and then proceeded to mutate then, trim them or add to them to create something new. Literally everyone agrees that the late-stage dark and mature westerns btfo the juvenile horsey adventure slop from the 50s. Same shit with your hyper simplistic paladins.
Have fun with your grey CN progressive slop that produces pimples when it has to do with Law and objective Good then. You and your farts seem so much sophisticated for such simple things anyway.
>Ah, you thought X thing was X? Sike! Bazinga! Your expectations have been subverted!
Name a more iconic duo than these posts. Pro tip: you can't.
>the israelites are also orcs and also synonymous with woke leftists, I forgot to mention this
The mechanics in DnD boil down to being a worse fighter with Lay on Hands and low level cleric spells.
For supposedly being such an iconic class, they sure don't have much iconic mechanically going for them.
OP, that's just how paladins always worked in 3E games. Its the exact same in NWN
>spergs thinking d&d 5e paladins has the best gameplay out of all paladins
teenagers fear sincerity, degenerates fear standards, and inferior men can't into fantasy.
>morons itt don't get it's about the gameplay, which is literally in op post
>cares about op
>cares about "gameplay" of a particular class in party games
lol
>videogame board
>op asked about gameplay
>the post that causes d&d spergs to flip out highlighted gameplay
>disregarding how the class plays and functions in a party
people on this board are mentally handicapped, you in particular
people pick what they want to argue about, anon. why restrict yourself to op's confines?
>spergs choose what to sperg out about
yeah, good thing we're not all spergs like you. unrelated and moronic shitfits about how dungeons and dragons paladins are the best version of paladins is not only a subhuman point to push but pointless too, because that kind of shit belongs in /tg/
sure, who actually cares about tabletop or d&d? but, it's fun to mess with hipsters.
god, i wish i was moronic. life would be simpler.
So, this really is some outrage against "tradition" from some anti-D&D hipsters? Yet they just want not-Paladins and not-D&D instead of something original?
No? Someone said he liked deadfire paladins and you started crying about it.
I don't like PoE because it's too derivative of BG and D&D in general, it's like a shadow setting. I wish they would've discarded that baggage and created something interesting.
No, because DnD has been moving away past "le always LG" trope. 5e is actually really cool in that respect, where Paladin's core idea of being super Lawful about their oath is locked in, but the oath it self can be almost anything, with Oathbreaker always being there for extra roleplay for when you HAVE to break the oath.
Rare good PoE criticism. As a PoE fan, my biggest gripes with the setting where the obvious leftover parts from DnD that don't get touched up much.
>Kobolds who serve dragons... because DnD
>DnD style magic that really should be important lore-wise but just isn't and hardly gets mentioned with animacy stealing the spotlight
>Dwarves and Elves that hardly serve any purpose, as they just act like humans, except for mountain dwarves who you never see and who are just DnD dwarves
>These races stand in contrast to humans who have multiple unique empires with their own well-defined cultures and creeds, and ultimately have less flavour then not just humans as a whole, but singular human ethnicities
Uhuh, keep whacking that strawman, bro. "Anything that isn't hyper simplistic good vs evil slop for 8 year olds is marvelhumor". Fricking BG2 was doing Paladin introspection and no one gave a shit. Remember how Keldorn literally looses LG for LN if you don't dissuade him from lawtist vengeance? Or, however shitty was the execution, Aribeth in NWN1's original campaign, who looses her faith in LG after what happens (except 3e was still moronic so the only way the devs thought she could go was blackgaurd route)?
Really, Keldorn example should btfo your nonsense. No, you dolt, a modernized take on Paladins wouldn't be about them actually being le quirky chaotic, but about how their zeal can misguide them, or make them contradict themselves, or how the same principles of being a Paladin could be used for not-so-moral ends by people believing they are LG so hard that they justify all their actions simply by their creed.
This is why I sad "D&D" and not "DnD", like I said, it's a grudge against the past and lame generational hipster vs. grognard stuff. Two of a kind if you ask me.
>oath of vengeance
It just seems it's about the posters themselves rather than about games, like there are "teams" and things unrelated to RPGs at all involved. I just don't know why anyone wants Paladins at all if they don't like D&D, since that's just taking shit from D&D that should be left in it. Like, if I see that word I just roll my eyes and know that the person making the game isn't being creative.
It's the moronic janny. You can tell it's him because every time he swings around he makes the same weird forced threads and manually spends hours deleting dissenting opinions. The catalog is full of the moronic threads he makes every time this happens. Of course he's screeching about deadfire, because he doesn't personally approve of it.
I don't know, I've seen plenty of posters who praise PoE crying about "grognards" and enjoying their "seething", so I don't subscribe to your theory, Farquaad. It's just dumb team shit all around.
>PoE paladins a good unique take on the class
Bullshit. They're just professional mercenaries. There's no reason to call them paladins.
And DnD Paladins aren't members of the 12 Peers, your point? The core principle of zealousness to an idea remains the same.
>The core principle of zealousness to an idea remains the same.
You're describing a knight. A paladin is explicitly a religious warrior (and explicitly a feature of human culture at that, but that was changed too because of homosexuals like you)
>implying that Paladins started off as human only
I assume Gary Gygax knows better what he intended than some fricking homosexual on a mongolian basket weaving forum.
>He doesn't know
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=cleric+dictionary+definition
Why the frick would you assume that the dictionary definition has anything to do with D&D's definition?
Jesus fricking christ. Perhaps the roleplaying class cleric might have been inspired by the real world clerics aka priests.
It was actually inspired by Van Helsing to counter a vampire PC.
This is correct.
A cleric is a religious spellcaster.
Being a spellcaster is not incompatible with being a warrior.
yeah, some of the most powerful mary sues are all martials that use a certain amount of magic
of course there are ultra mega wizard frickers that can warp reality but why not have a scroll that does the same thing and also be a badass action hero
i mistyped the captcha
no RPG has ever done Paladin right because no RPG in which you can play as a Paladin offers interesting moral challanges, so its just a Fighter with some powers but less weapon mastery
There's a reason no one likes paladins in their table top sessions.
i thought this part was cool, one of the only times i can remember a paladin actually using his detect evil powers
feels like there should be tons of oppurtunities to use this in games but never shows up
>i thought this part was cool, one of the only times i can remember a paladin actually using his detect evil powers
>feels like there should be tons of oppurtunities to use this in games but never shows up
I liked the paladin stronghold class quest in BG2 where it's 50/50, random each game, whether a NPC is who they say they are, or an assassin in disguise, and no way to tell other than popping detect evil. You're right, it is a missed opportunity.
ddo or eq1
Normally I would be a bit against the idea of paladins out of pure pedantry: It originates in the companions of Charlemagne, a circle of warriors that while religious weren't exactly anymore dedicated to God than what any other knight was expected to be. As such I would argue that the name is badly employed and that they should be called something like battle-monks or knight-monks.
But the sheer cynicism and nihilistic stupidity in this thread, with people being utterly unable to even grasp the concept of objective, trascendental good existing despite the flaws and sins of its agents on Earth, and that of people commiting objectively evil acts despite having good qualities that could, in better circumstances, serve as a basis for their redemption, makes me favor classic, Lawful Good paladins more, because as dumb as the name may be they nevertheless embody precisely that in their best incarnations, and go completely against the grain of relativistic nihilism some anons here think "mature".
>But the sheer cynicism and nihilistic stupidity in this thread, with people being utterly unable to even grasp the concept of objective, trascendental good existing despite the flaws and sins of its agents on Earth, and that of people commiting objectively evil acts despite having good qualities that could, in better circumstances, serve as a basis for their redemption, makes me favor classic, Lawful Good paladins more, because as dumb as the name may be they nevertheless embody precisely that in their best incarnations, and go completely against the grain of relativistic nihilism some anons here think "mature".
Let's take a look at this very thread:
Paladin enjoyers are: calmly explaining the origin of the class and the meaning behind the class's restrictions, and why divorcing the mechanics of the class from its thematic and roleplaying origins completely destroys it, and players who don't like what the class is should simply play another class that they do like instead, such as a cleric, a cleric/fighter multiclass, or a fighter.
Paladin haters are: sperging the frick out about how the aforementioned calm explanations are "violently lashing out" and having an autistic meltdown about how people shouldn't be allowed to discuss topics that they personally don't care for, and everyone they disagree with should be banned.
Yup, it's /vrpg/ time alright. Some people really can't handle the existence of objective morality and dedication to higher principles and causes than one's self. Typical atheist Redditor types.
Reptilian behavior.
I'm an atheist, I can't stand those types either.
I play paladins and clerics almost any chance I get to make a mechanically decent one.
The world sucks, I don't need to be a nihilist on top of that and add to the shitpile. Fantasy is where you want a better world to happen.
The philosophical side of religion has done a lot of good in the world in times of anarchy no matter how many "lgbtq as personality" gays swoop in to screech about pedos hiding in the catholic church as if they're not also in hollywood x1000. This is always, always, the subtext in these types of discussions, it is the subtext to Deadfire with their paladin orders and fake gods because it was made by an atheist. To spell it out for low iq, low empathy spergs the subtext is that nihilism is the only answer in the universe, that entropy and despair are all-powerful so why not lay down for them? It's GRR Martin vs. Tolkien and I'll always choose Tolkien as one was derivative of the other. Early man didn't sit in the darkness of the cave and wait to die either he got out and hunted and created. He didn't cook up communist ways to steal from others, he created an excess of wealth and spirit for others to enjoy. I am an atheist because I am practical, but I will also choose to go out swinging against the larger cave of the universe rather than pulling others down.
It is fun to depict such a character in a typically fricked up fantasy world while everyone else loses their head to despair.
Mentally ill janny hours already? Get a new job. Your posts aren't of any value to any one.
And thus the low-iq, low empathy spergs are revealed.
You can't address the substance of the post and immediately attack me. I used to be you, I know how to twist the knife too.
Go back to plebbit and stop bumping your shit thread off page 10 every day. You just made this thread to spew /misc/ shit like a 12 year old. Not a single person on this board likes you
>this thread
this was suppose to be a thread where we discuss games where Paladins are fun to play as, not another alignment autism thread you morons
Maybe make a thread that doesn't completely suck shit next time. Or better yet don't make any more threads at all.
This. Jannies should be able to lock down the board at any time in response to schizo spamming incidents. They'll go away once they realize they can't bump or create any more off topic troony Gankerautism.
>off topic troony Gankerautism.
>discussing about rpg in a V-rpg thread is off topic
Yes. We don't want the schizo troons anymore. Maybe if Jannies properly gatekept, things would be different.
Reminder that the first order of Paladins was raised to cleanse the israelites, which liches are biased off of
>A Rabbi Tying The Phylacteries, Franz Obermüller, oil on canvas, undated
And then one day came the Knights Templar, whose main divine mission was to protect israelites on their holy pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Basically to facilitate the travel of HEATHENS and SATANISTS into the heart of the Holy Land.
Why do you keep samegayging
I'm not the OP nor a janny, and multiple people of class here have reached the same anti-nihilist conclusion I have. I make posts of substance here as opposed to nihilistic sperg schizo people that lose their lefty cult indoctrinated minds at seeing a paladin thread, and hilariously I'm the atheist.
Games I have enjoyed paladin or paladin-esque builds in are probably at earliest Ultima, Wizardry, Shining.
Over the years I came to enjoy clerics more as they're more flexible while keeping a theme while you're usually able to lean harder into such things as undead destroying holy magic. Or be just as zealous an agent for religion.
Often paladins and paladin-esque classes are pigeoned into fighter with a few low level heals, but the better designs imo tend to lean hard into defense which goes with the theme of perseverance against a world filled with darkness and men with shallow spirits the best. Such as Mystic Knight in Dragon's dogma. Functional smiting being relatively more recent on the scene than things like Lay on Hands and Turning demons in addition to undead which is another of the cleric/paladin overlap areas.
The paladin is interesting in and of itself purely from a mechanical standpoint because it really represents one of the first real tradeoffs of opportunity cost. Real roleplaying is about tradeoffs and is at its best with the marriage of mechanical to thematic design, the fighter traded restrictions on his behavior for more power was the initial basic deal. Many of them got ripped off with merely low level cleric powers tacked onto a substandard fighter chassis but sometimes it can really work say in a tank and healing deficit kind of game.
The PF titles had better paladins plus WOTR, a world that being a paladin in is made more interesting with a more direct sort of corruption to fight. I'd still like to see a Ravenloft game, no parties, perhaps ARPG and you are a paladin. A thing you definitely don't want to be in Ravenloft.
>I'd still like to see a Ravenloft game, no parties
Yes!
>perhaps ARPG
God, please, no.
What the actual frick is this thread
it's an off topic janny spam thread
Let's take a look at some less-loved paladin mechanics that many players gloss over.
>Magical Item Limit
The paladin's limited access to spells also extends to the number of magical items he may possess. Under no circumstances may a paladin retain more than 10 magical items, regardless of his level, kit, or status. Paladins are limited not only to the number of magical items, but also the type. Specifically, a paladin can have the following:
>One suit of magical armor
This excludes all pieces of normal armor that have been temporarily enchanted, as well as accessories such as a cloak of protection, a helm of protection, or boots of speed (all of which count against the paladin's miscellaneous item limit). A single piece of magical armor, such a chest plate, counts as a full suit for limitation purposes.
>One magical shield
>Four magical weapons
This excludes all normal weapons temporarily affected by enchanted weapon or similar spells, but includes holy swords. A quiver or case of arrows or bolts counts as one item. Individual arrows and bolts are counted as one item if they have special magical properties, such as arrows of direction and arrows of slaying.
>Four miscellaneous magical items
This category includes rings, rods, staves, gems, and scrolls. A bag of beans, a set of ioun stones, and a deck of many things each count as one item. A magical potion counts as one item, regardless of the number of doses. Items temporarily enchanted by spells are excluded.
If a paladin has 10 items, he won't borrow items from other characters. A paladin won't look for ambiguities to exploit; he remains true to the spirit as well as the letter of these rules.
Excess magical items may be given to other lawful good characters, donated to the paladin's religious institution, or simply discarded. Since excess items technically don't belong to the paladin (he won't claim ownership), they may not be sold or traded, even if the paladin intends to funnel the profits to a worthy cause.
>Wealth Limits
A paladin has no interest in wealth for its own sake. He seeks spiritual rather than material satisfaction, derived from serving his faith and his government to the best of his ability. To a paladin, the pleasures of ownership are fleeting, superficial, and ultimately debasing. The rewards of duty are lasting and deep.
Still, the paladin realizes that a certain amount of money is necessary to survive. Rather than forego money altogether, he retains enough wealth to meet his worldly obligations and sustain a modest lifestyle.
A paladin doesn't expect handouts, nor does he rely on the generosity of strangers or his companions. He feels responsible to pay his own way and takes pride in his self-sufficiency. He earns income from treasure, rewards, and fees, the same as anyone else. Unlike most other characters, however, the paladin operates under strict guidelines as to how he can spend his money and how much he can save.
>Excess Funds
All of a paladin's excess funds must be forfeited. This includes all money remaining after he pays his regular expenses, as well as any money not specifically allocated to a savings fund for building a stronghold. He may keep a contingency fund equal to two or three times his normal monthly budget (including maintenance costs and employee salaries for his stronghold) but no more. He may not stockpile money to buy gifts, leave to his heirs, or pay a friend's expenses.
What does a paladin do with the excess? He has three options:
>Refuse it
If an appreciative community offers him a sack of gems for destroying a vampire, he politely declines. ("Your gratitude is more than sufficient.") If he discovers a treasure chest filled with pearls, gold pieces, and a book of poetry, he takes the book and leaves the rest
(and he's likely to give the book to a friend or a library after he's finished reading it).
>Donate it to the church
This does not count as a regular tithing, as it's not considered part of his income.
>Donate it to another worthy institution of lawful good alignment. Suitable recipients include hospitals, libraries, and orphanages. Research facilities, military organizations, and governmental operations are acceptable only if the paladin is certain that the money will be spent on lawful good projects.
Within these guidelines, a paladin may dispose of his excess funds as he wishes. He may donate treasure to a hospital on one occasion, and refuse a monetary reward for rescuing a kidnapped prince on another. However, he may never give his excess funds to another player character, or to any nonplayer character or creature controlled by a player.
Remember, too, that just because a paladin declines a reward for rescuing a prince doesn't mean his fellow party members can't accept it. If a paladin kills an evil dragon, then walks away from its treasure hoard, his companions are still free to help themselves.
Dude, what the frick is wrong with you
>Tithing
A paladin must give 10% of all his income to a lawful good institution. This 10% is called a tithe. In most cases, a paladin tithes to his church or other religious organization. If he doesn't belong to a church or operates independently, he may designate any lawful good organization, such as a hospital or university, as the recipient of his tithes. A paladin has no say in how his tithes are spent, though the money typically goes towards the institution's maintenance, recruitment, equipment, and education costs. A paladin usually tithes to the same institution for his entire career.
A paladin's first tithe usually comes out of his starting funds of 5d4 x 10 gp. After that, he must tithe from all sources of income, including rewards, treasure, wages, and profits generated from his stronghold. When he acquires a gem or magical item, he owes his designated institution 10% of the item's value (as determined by the DM), payable at the earliest opportunity. If he finds a diamond worth 500 gp, he owes 50 gp; if the gem is lost or stolen, he still owes 50 gp (the institution isn't penalized for the paladin's carelessness).
Tithes are due only on funds the paladin actually claims for himself. If he walks away from a treasure or refuses a reward, no tithes are necessary.
It's the paladin's responsibility to get his tithes to his institution as soon as possible. A monthly payment will suffice in most cases, with the paladin turning in 10% of all the income he's acquired in the previous four weeks. If a monthly payment is impossible or impractical-for instance, if the paladin is on a mission halfway around the world, or if he's a prisoner of war-he may make other arrangements, providing he offers a satisfactory explanation. A paladin may personally present his tithings to his institution or he may deliver them by messenger.
Tithes carried by the paladin but not yet delivered are still considered to be the property of the institution. A starving paladin who has no other funds aside from 10 gp of tithes may not spend his tithes on food, unless he first petitions his deity for permission. If he's behaved responsibly-say, if he used his last gold piece to pay for treatment of a dying child-permission is usually granted, with the understanding that the tithes must be replaced.
I did a playthrough of BG 1+2 autistically tracking all of my income and tithing 10% to the temple of Helm, was fun