O Paladin...

(sung to the tune of O Canada)

Hey, it may seem like I am knocking the whole Paladin class (and I guess I probably am when I write how "unnecessary" it is).  But I really bear the guy no ill will...at least, I bear no ill will to the players that like the class. I know they are out there in droves.

But I'll tell you that after reading JM's latest interview over at Grognardia, it's hard for me to knock most of the stuff published by TSR, at least in the early years.  This game was a brand-spanking new creation, and things that got thrown in were done because the player-creators thought they were fun, or made sense, or filled some niche in their game play.  And that's not something I can fault.

However, let me just explain how I see the paladin from my older, more mature "design eyes:"

OD&D: no idea (I don't own Supplement I).

AD&D and BECMI: simply a more bad-assy fighter; behavioral restrictions off-set by cool powers. Displaces the "normal" fighter with the proper attribute scores.

B/X: non-existent.

D20+: a lame-assy fighter; behavioral restrictions off-set by a handful of powers, far out-classed in fighting by actual fighters.

I've already explained why I think the game already has a "Holy/Unholy Warrior" type character in the Cleric class.  But let's look at the inspiration for the paladin, the Danish warrior Holger Carlsen from Poul Anderson's book Three Hearts and Three Lions.

Without going into the entire plot, Holger turns out to be a kind of eternal champion and one of Charlemagne's paladins.  He is very spiritual, as a chivalric knight should be, though not above "baser instincts."  He is very courageous, though not without fear (he sometimes prays to help him master his own fears).  People ask him to "lay hands on them" for blessings with the usual medieval respect (I won't say superstition) for the holy power of a chivalric knight (this doesn't actually heal anyone).  He is a tremendous fighter.  He has a very intelligent horse that mysteriously appeared for him, just as he himself mysteriously appeared when the people were in need of his help (in other words, it's no more supernatural than he is). He is a tremendous warrior.

If you wanted to 'port Holger Carlsen (Ogier the Dane) into a D&D game he would be a fighter. A lawful good fighter, perhaps, one with a high strength, wisdom, and charisma certainly, but a fighter.  There ain't nothing supernatural about him, unless it is the interest that cosmic powers have in him that cause him to be whisked between worlds and dimensions.  He's just a stand-up guy with a weird history plunged into a weird situation.  Oh, and he's a great fighter.

What about his prayers making him "fearless?" Isn't that kind of like he paladin's immunity to fear? No, my friends, that is called a saving throw.  Or good role-playing.

He seems robust and healthy! That is called a good constitution, not an immunity to disease.

No there's no point to adding a paladin to the game when one already has a Holy Warrior (i.e. the cleric)...UNLESS, you want your holy warrior to be more warrior and less cleric.  Which is what's been done.  I say, just let the clerics carry swords (and force them to follow the strict tenets of their faith to retain their powers) and there's no need to add paladins to the campaign...except, perhaps as a Level Title for the Cleric class.

There will be no paladin class in my B/X Companion. Sorry.

The B/X Paladin

Just finished reading Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions (and NOW I see where the D&D troll comes from...right down to the Monster Manual illustration!) and thought it was time to post my thoughts on adding the Paladin to the B/X rules.

I know there are many B/X players out there who, like myself, wish that Moldvay, Cook, or someone had put out the promised D&D Companion set that was promised in Cook's Expert set. I know there are many, like myself, that are less than satisfied by the Mentzer Companion set and wish there had been something more similar in style and tone to our beloved B/X set.  And I know there are some who have worked, or are working, on a retro-clone version of the game.

I myself am undertaking this task...more for the fun of it than anything else (money, prestige, etc.).  Part of the challenge, of course, lies in figuring out what would have been in such a supplement that "never was."  Certainly it would have rules for classes up to 36.  It would have new monsters, spells, and treasure appropriate to a higher level.  It would probably have good information for running a high level campaign.

In looking over my OD&D little brown books, it seems as if all their information is pretty much encapsulated in the B/X rules...I mean more or less (no balrog, for example, but nearly all the other monsters are).  The rules for fighters, clerics, and magic-users...as well as dwarves, elves, and halflings are all there...and the spell lists are pretty much the same.  So as some have speculated previously, I wonder if perhaps it is the information from the various supplements that would have been in the D&D Companion set...and that might mean the paladin would make an appearance.

So check out these descriptions:

(from AD&D)

The class of character bears a certain resemblance to religious orders of knighthood of medieval times.

(from Moldvay's Basic set)

[they] are humans who have dedicated themselves to the service of a god or goddess. They are trained in fighting and casting spells.

(from Mentzer's Companion set)

[he] must swear fealty (an oath of service) to a Lawful church to gain Paladin status...thereafter, the Paladin may be summoned by the church's leaders (the Theocracy) at any time, and must do as they command, as long as the service aids the power of Good.

The last quote explains how a Name level fighter of Lawful alignment may become a Paladin.  But look at the first two quotes...these are taken directly from the description for the CLERIC class.  Here's a little more from the Cleric description in the PHB:

The cleric is dedicated to a deity or deities and at the same time is a skilled combatant at arms...clerics have their own spells bestowed on them by their deity for correct and diligent prayers and deeds...the cleric has the ability to wear armor, carry effective weaponry, and engage in hand-to-hand combat...only humans will have clericism as their sole class...clerics have nearly as good prospect of success in melee combat as fighters.

If one substituted the word "paladin" for "cleric" you would pretty much have an accurate description of the Paladin class (paladins are NOT as good as fighters in melee combat, having fewer multiple attacks and lesser damage output with the lack of weapon specialization; in D20, this difference in melee is even more pronounced).

Interestingly, there is no real description in the AD&D Players Handbook of what exactly a cleric is...the only thing that distinguishes a paladin from a fighter (besides their special powers) is an adherence to alignment restrictions:

...unlike normal fighters, all paladins must begin as lawful good in alighnment and alway remain lawful good or absolutley lose all of the special powers given to them.  They have both fighting abilities and limited special powers (at high level)...Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins.

And that's it for description...everything else details their powers and how they can lose them. The little detail there is could apply to a B/X cleric, especially regarding spells:

clerics do NOT receive any spells until they reach 2nd level (and have proven their devotion to their god or goddess)

Clerics are pretty much everything a paladin is supposed to be, except that they have more spells and are better at turning undead than paladins. Oh, and that stupid rule about "no edged weapons."  And I'm doing away with that (see my prior posts on variable class damage).

Guess there's really no need to add a Paladin class to my B/X Companion set. The paladin is already exists in the rule set.