Topic: Paladins

[EltonJ]

Do you think that the paladin profession defines a rigid archetype?

[Hurin]

Not in a system where any character can buy any skill.

[EltonJ]

Not in a system where any character can buy any skill.

Well, Rolemaster is a skill based system.  And you're right.  Although some professions do certain jobs well.

[brole]

Not in a system where any character can buy any skill.

True.
I think the paladin is one of those professions you can customise by defining their deities in the game world.

Example: a pally serving a sea god could have developed lots of water based skills. Suppose the sea god uses a trident, so this is the paladin's main weapon also.

[MisterK]

Depends on what you call archetype.

Skill archetype ? No. You can have a paladin that focuses in subterfuge skills, in combat skills, in scholar skills, or whatever. In this way, the technical profile provided in the game is only for martial paladins, but there could be others.

Moral archetype ? Yes. A Paladin is not a holy warrior, it is a fighting force for absolute Good. It can be related to a deity but it transcends this connection. In other words, even a paladin of an evil deity would be good - and they would likely have trouble with their divine patron - the character is good, but the god has chosen them to be their agent of evil in the world (a relation a bit similar to what is defined in Better Angels, a superhero game with a twist).

Which implies that there is a notion of absolute good and absolute evil, irrespective of cultures, religions and pantheons in the setting. If there is no absolute good and absolute evil, then paladins cannot exist - what *can* exist is Holy Warriors. And I would personally use the template for Priest Semi spell user provided in the Channeling Companion (RMSS/RMFRP).

[Wolfwood]

Which implies that there is a notion of absolute good and absolute evil, irrespective of cultures, religions and pantheons in the setting. If there is no absolute good and absolute evil, then paladins cannot exist - what *can* exist is Holy Warriors. And I would personally use the template for Priest Semi spell user provided in the Channeling Companion (RMSS/RMFRP).

Not sure I completely get the distinction - IMHO, there doesn't need to be absolute good and evil as long as the paladins _absolutely believe_ that there is universal good and evil. And, as an aside, in many fantasy worlds belief is enough to give birth to an actual deity (or give a new facet to an existing deity) -> we'd get deities representing these strongly believed ideals into the pantheon.

As an another aside, could you destroy a paladin by forcing them to realise that sometimes they can only choose the lesser weevil and that there are no absolutely good outcomes to certain situations? Lancelot was certainly destroyed by his belief in Good and that Love is an aspect of Good.

[MisterK]

Which implies that there is a notion of absolute good and absolute evil, irrespective of cultures, religions and pantheons in the setting. If there is no absolute good and absolute evil, then paladins cannot exist - what *can* exist is Holy Warriors. And I would personally use the template for Priest Semi spell user provided in the Channeling Companion (RMSS/RMFRP).

Not sure I completely get the distinction - IMHO, there doesn't need to be absolute good and evil as long as the paladins _absolutely believe_ that there is universal good and evil. And, as an aside, in many fantasy worlds belief is enough to give birth to an actual deity (or give a new facet to an existing deity) -> we'd get deities representing these strongly believed ideals into the pantheon.

That's relative belief. I don't have a problem with that per se, but I have a problem with that AND paladins.

Paladins are embodiments of a "a specific value of Good", which is both independent from their culture and independent from their religion - they don't *choose* to be Paladins, they are *chosen* to be, and not by their gods. In a less apocalyptic way, they are to Good what Moorcock's Eternal Champion is to Destiny. The only thing is, they can choose to discard the mantle of paladinhood, whereas Elric and the others were pawns until their demise.

IMHO, you might have many different beliefs about what is good and what isn't (that's relative belief), but Paladins are embodiment of an absolute Good that transcends relative belief.
And, incidentally, it heavily restricts them in how they can react to everyday life. They might go against the tenets of their deity to preserve and further absolute Good and still keep full access to their powers (but they earn the deity's wrath...), but if they stray from the path of absolute Good, then they will lose their powers even if they stay faithful to their deity.

And that's why paladins are a conscious setting choice on the GM's part: having paladins means there is an absolute truth, regardless of whether or not the characters know it. If there is no absolute truth, there are no paladins, regardless of what the characters believe. All militant servants of the gods are holy warriors, and they all believe that their faith is right and that they are the good ones and the others are, at best, misguided, and at worst outright evil.

As a matter of fact, Rolemaster, and especially Spell Law, supports both. Such spell lists as Lore (Channeling) include spells that explicitly refer to absolute good and evil. On the other hand, other lists, such as those of the Mythic, explicitly supports relative good and evil, interestingly with a different wording ("enemy"). It is easy to have relative truth in a setting with absolute truth - overarching good and evil, but relative divine powers underneath. On the other hand, it is impossible to have absolute truth in a relative truth setting - if you, as a GM, state that all beliefs are equally valid, then you explicitly stated that one cannot be right and another wrong.

But if, as a GM, you state that the setting is one of relative truth, then you have to curate the lists somehow, because some of them include an explicit reference to absolute truth. And my personal opinion is that, in this case, paladins should be curated as well.

Paladins, in RM as in several other fantasy RPGs, are embodiments of absolute good. They might also serve a deity, but they *do not need to*.

[EltonJ]

All good answers, some are making me think.  The reason why I asked is because there was a discussion about paladins and alignment on the Eberron Discord forums.  Since Paladin is a profession in Rolemaster, I wanted to know how you felt about a paladin's alignment.

I was hoping to get your feelings on the paladin being an agent of good.  Or an agent of evil.  For instance, Eberron is a grey area where alignment is concerned.  The Gods are aloof, but there are some absolutes.  Like the Kalashtar and their struggles with the Inspired.  The discussion was on the absolute good the paladin represents.  I didn't like the discussion because I believe that paladins represent absolute good or at least believe in absolute good.

I wanted to take the discussion here, because in RM, alignments aren't like they are in Dungeons and Dragons. Players have more freedom to define their alignment in RM (although my cousin and I still use D&D alignments for our characters). In RM it's possible to have an evil paladin representing a malefic deity, or a paladin representing a religion like the Blood of Vol in Eberron for example.

[Jengada]

Well crap...I thought I had posted a reply yesterday and it didn't show up.
In my campaign, "Paladin" is just a place-holder term for "semi-channeler of a given religion." Every religion has clerics, and many but not all have some sort of semi-channeling support for the clerics. In many cases, that is a fighter, similar to the classic paladin IF the religion is a benevolent, good religion. In every case, though, the semi-chan. is a devoted, passionate follower of the faith who has pledged to serve as the clerics and church laws direct.

For example, right now my players are dealing with the church of assassins and thieves. The church has two branches of semi-channelers, one branch that focuses on the thievery side and one that focuses on the assassination side. They share some spell lists, but each has one or two lists that are specific to their side of things. This makes more sense for the way the church works, than having fighters with spells. I start the build from the paladin costs, but adjust some skills according to the nature of the church.

[jdale]

In my current campaign, there are no gods (anymore -- they appear in the in-world mythology), but there are warriors who are members of various churches and temples and imbued with the appropriate types of power. Some can even contact sources of wisdom beyond the mortal sphere, but not gods. So in terms of their social role and function, they are paladins, but any consequence of violating their faith would come solely from other members of that same faith. (I don't call these professions paladins though. There are aether knights, river warders, disciples, etc.)

In a setting where gods are present and actively involved, I would expect that the gods would have strong opinions about the actions of their paladins. A paladin is empowered with martial power on behalf of the deity and most gods are going to care about how that power is wielded. They will not want people committing wrongs in their name, which aside from doing whatever harm will also undermine people's belief and faith in them. So I think the question is, in the setting, how involved are the divine patrons? How aware are they? Do they know what the paladin is doing, or only what people report in prayers? Do they have insight into the paladin's mental state? Do they intervene in the world, how often, and at what personal cost (if any)? Probably the level of divine attention will increase as the paladin becomes more prominent and more powerful (i.e. higher level).

For fantasy settings I normally prefer relatively hands-off deities. Giving players more agency is more fun. Small violations probably should not elicit consequences, the deity should not be a back-seat driver. But major violations should matter. Limiting divine knowledge makes this easier. This is just personal preference though.

[intothatdarkness]

In my setting paladins are fighting champions of specific deities. They derive their power from their specific god, so they are semi-spell users of Channeling by definition. Where mine might vary is they have to undergo various trials at certain levels, and if they pass they gain access to new spell lists defined by (and unique to) their deity. For example, a paladin who serves the god of light would gain access to the Magician list Light Law should they pass their trial. I also modified a few lists from the Noble Warrior and add those in as well for paladins who are successful. Paladins who don't pass can continue to advance, but they don't gain the lists and have a limited number of opportunities for more trials (although they can still develop the basic paladin lists). If they screw up, they can kiss those lists goodbye.

I don't use alignments per se, but each deity has some generalized standards of behavior and conduct paladins are expected to follow.

[Thot]

The way I see it, RM professions describe "learning types". What you learn most easily, and what not so much.

So technically, there could be an atheist Paladin, because he's just wired that way... he just won't be a member of any cult (and probably won't have access to Channeling magic, which would be a bummer, I guess).

[netbat]

The way I see it, RM professions describe "learning types". What you learn most easily, and what not so much.

So technically, there could be an atheist Paladin, because he's just wired that way... he just won't be a member of any cult (and probably won't have access to Channeling magic, which would be a bummer, I guess).

+1 This! ^

I always thought RMSS didn't go far enough to reduce professions to the basic learning types and just had pure-spell user, semi-outdoors, semi-fighter, and semi-urban; or just used something like Tim Dugger's "Irregular Realms" or Peter Mork's "Balanced Profession Design" from the Guild Companion. The major difference in all RM between professions has always been spell lists and that should have been handled with lifestyle training packages instead of the profession bloat.

[EltonJ]

The way I see it, RM professions describe "learning types". What you learn most easily, and what not so much.

So technically, there could be an atheist Paladin, because he's just wired that way... he just won't be a member of any cult (and probably won't have access to Channeling magic, which would be a bummer, I guess).

+1 This! ^

I always thought RMSS didn't go far enough to reduce professions to the basic learning types and just had pure-spell user, semi-outdoors, semi-fighter, and semi-urban; or just used something like Tim Dugger's "Irregular Realms" or Peter Mork's "Balanced Profession Design" from the Guild Companion. The major difference in all RM between professions has always been spell lists and that should have been handled with lifestyle training packages instead of the profession bloat.

I see.  No wonder you asked for training packages for the druids in my Eberron conversion.

[jdale]

So technically, there could be an atheist Paladin, because he's just wired that way... he just won't be a member of any cult (and probably won't have access to Channeling magic, which would be a bummer, I guess).

To be a paladin (or any channeling profession) in terms of aptitudes, you'd need to have a particular aptitude for connecting to the divine source (whatever that means in the setting). I'm not sure what it would mean to say a character has such an aptitude but also is incapable of learning those things. That seems inherently contradictory. They are open to the divine, and also closed to it.

That's especially true in a world where the gods are present, manifest, and openly interfering in the world. You have to be actively denying evidence in such a setting to be an atheist. In game terms, you lack intuition for the spiritual aspects of existence.

[rdanhenry]

On the other hand, if you have a Paladin channeling the God of Atheists (who has a sweet gig... never bothered by pesky prayers) in a world where Channeling is the only obvious manifestation of divine power, his own powers are his counterargument to those who claim Channeling as evidence that gods are real. "I say that they are nothing but superstition, yet I perform the same so-called 'miracles' as those who bow at altars." He has a great capacity for faith, or he  wouldn't be a Paladin, but that faith is just directed in the opposite direction.

[jdale]

But does it make sense that his intuition, the stat which defines that connection, is leading him utterly wrong? He's got great intuition about everything except the fundamentals of his own abilities?

[Hurin]

I'm not sure where I stand on the concept of a 'God of Atheists'. On the one hand, humans have shown they can make a God of pretty much anything. On the other hand, the literal meaning of Atheism is a denial of god. I can say that I don't see atheism as a religion -- I see it as the opposite of religion.

Where this concept might get more interesting to me is a Paladin who believes that the 'gods' are not really divine but rather just powerful beings that don't deserve our worship. This is a paladin of euhemerism we might say. This would be especially appropriate to say Shadow World, since one could argue that even the Lords of Orhan are just beings from another dimension rather than true gods.

The question then becomes, 'What power is the Paladin Channeling?' It has to be some external source or its not really 'Channeling'. Perhaps you could have a Paladin of the Unlife?

Alternatively, I guess his 'intuition' could be telling him that the gods aren't really gods in the way people are alleging. He could be a Paladin of doubt, or skepticism, or reason. The most appropriate stat for that would not be Intuition, though, it would be Reasoning.

[Thot]

So technically, there could be an atheist Paladin, because he's just wired that way... he just won't be a member of any cult (and probably won't have access to Channeling magic, which would be a bummer, I guess).

To be a paladin (or any channeling profession) in terms of aptitudes, you'd need to have a particular aptitude for connecting to the divine source (whatever that means in the setting). I'm not sure what it would mean to say a character has such an aptitude but also is incapable of learning those things. That seems inherently contradictory. They are open to the divine, and also closed to it.

That's especially true in a world where the gods are present, manifest, and openly interfering in the world. You have to be actively denying evidence in such a setting to be an atheist. In game terms, you lack intuition for the spiritual aspects of existence.

But what if a devout Paladin becomes disillusioned with his gods, and defies them? In some settings, they might punish him for that and take away his access to channeling, regardless of whether he can easily learn it or not.

[jdale]

But what if a devout Paladin becomes disillusioned with his gods, and defies them? In some settings, they might punish him for that and take away his access to channeling, regardless of whether he can easily learn it or not.

Can you take away "access to channeling" or only "access to the power I have granted"? I think only the latter.

So here we have a person, newly bereft of their ties and perhaps holding some bitterness towards them, and with a natural talent for channeling. It seems to me that divine entities who are opposed to those gods might actively seek out this person as being a great asset for them. It might be very hard to opt out of entanglements with the spiritual realm entirely.