I'm still not seeing why racial restrictions--usually "human only" or something very close to it--on the paladin are a desired feature. Is this just because that was how it was originally done, or it there a good reason for carrying forward a (now very) dated decision?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1063911I'm still not seeing why racial restrictions--usually "human only" or something very close to it--on the paladin are a desired feature. Is this just because that was how it was originally done, or it there a good reason for carrying forward a (now very) dated decision?

I think the original line of thinking was that paladins come from European legend as opposed to Tolkien. Since European legend didn't have demi-humans, therefore paladins could only be human. That is inconsistent, though, since clerics are also non-Tolkien but demi-humans can be clerics.

From a world-building perspective, it doesn't make much sense to me - given a setting without Christianity. If the cosmology is polytheistic with many different good deities, why are only humans and only lawful good singled out for this?

Paladins are magical (so no dwarves), heroic and brave (so not gnomes), and shining exemplars/defenders of lawful, orderly civilization (so not elves). The way the class and the races are described in the early books, they just don't fit at all with anything except humans.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1063941Paladins are magical (so no dwarves), heroic and brave (so not gnomes), and shining exemplars/defenders of lawful, orderly civilization (so not elves). The way the class and the races are described in the early books, they just don't fit at all with anything except humans.

Greetings!

EXACTLY, FEARSOMEPIRATE! That's precisely what I've been trying to get at. LOL. Thank you for reaching into my mind and organizing my thoughts and expressing them so wonderfully! Outstanding, my friend.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1063941Paladins are magical (so no dwarves), heroic and brave (so not gnomes), and shining exemplars/defenders of lawful, orderly civilization (so not elves). The way the class and the races are described in the early books, they just don't fit at all with anything except humans.

I'll buy that elves are described as tending to be chaotic - but that's just a tendency. There are lawful elves and chaotic humans. An elf can absolutely be a shining exemplar of lawful orderly civilization.

The others don't make any sense to me. Dwarves can be clerics, which is exactly the sort of magic that paladins use. And I see nothing in the material about gnomes being cowardly compared to humans. In AD&D1, they are noted as being particularly skilled in fighting against much larger creatures (gnolls, bugbears, ogres, trolls, ogre magi, giants, and/or titans) - which signifies bravery.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1063941Paladins are magical (so no dwarves), heroic and brave (so not gnomes), and shining exemplars/defenders of lawful, orderly civilization (so not elves). The way the class and the races are described in the early books, they just don't fit at all with anything except humans.

Agreed.

Plus, early D&D, up through 1e, was explicitly humanocentric. The human-only limit on paladins is part and parcel of that humanocentricity.

Quote from: jhkim;1063950I'll buy that elves are described as tending to be chaotic - but that's just a tendency. There are lawful elves and chaotic humans. An elf can absolutely be a shining exemplar of lawful orderly civilization.

AD&D elves are described as nature loving folk who seem both aloof and frivolous to humans, almost drifting out of the world when they get old. Valiant defenders of the world of cities, farms, mines, and ports they are not. Certainly an elf would not care to build a small keep within riding distance of the farms surrounding Hochoch so he can teach the commoners virtue and discipline.

QuoteThe others don't make any sense to me. Dwarves can be clerics, which is exactly the sort of magic that paladins use.

Not in 0e (where Paladins were introduced), and only as NPCs in 1e.

QuoteAnd I see nothing in the material about gnomes being cowardly compared to humans.

They're described as furtive and shy IIRC.

A paladin as originally conceived is not merely brave, lawful, good, and blessed by the gods. He is the heroic defender, guardian, and enforcer of law and goodness in the world of Man. He is as much responsible for striking down the evil that threatens Man from within as from without. You've got to keep in mind that in the original concept of D&D, demihuman races are on the wane in a world that increasingly belongs to Man.

Now, I agree that if you stray away from that concept, the Paladin as human-only makes less sense. Particularly in the Mos Eisley Cantina world of the modern Forgotten Realms, there really is no reason at all the Paladin should be human. If you don't want to run a World of Man with demihumans on the boundaries, the race/class restrictions in 1e and earlier feel arbitrary. But in the 1e World of Greyhawk, there is no reason to expect to ever find anything but a human paladin. The most heroic elven warrior in all of the Grandwood Forest is still not a paladin. He's not going to ride out to serve as a shining exemplar of morality and virtue to all the people of the realm. It's just not what elves do. Or gnomes. Or dwarves.

Now IMO, in 40 years, D&D has very much relaxed the implicit setting assumptions of the original game. I think this is fine, and I don't mind at all that they still call the Magic Holy Warrior class a "Paladin." I am simply explaining why it makes sense in the original game's concept that a Paladin was a human only.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1063956Now IMO, in 40 years, D&D has very much relaxed the implicit setting assumptions of the original game. I think this is fine, and I don't mind at all that they still call the Magic Holy Warrior class a "Paladin." I am simply explaining why it makes sense in the original game's concept that a Paladin was a human only.

I haven't played for 40 years, but I have played for more than 30, and I never really bought into the World of Man style you speak of, so even if that was the intent of the original writers, I've always gone at it a bit differently. That said, I still find the newest extremes of races to be a bit much, but I accept that I'm just getting old.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1064029I haven't played for 40 years, but I have played for more than 30, and I never really bought into the World of Man style you speak of, so even if that was the intent of the original writers, I've always gone at it a bit differently. That said, I still find the newest extremes of races to be a bit much, but I accept that I'm just getting old.

It seems like people began diverging from the original conceits very quickly, in large part because the rules themselves overtly encouraged you to build your own world instead of playing in Gygax's (so why do I have to have only one platinum dragon, anyway?). They also demanded hobbits.

Short form - I still think the human-only restriction in 1e AD&D is a meta-game conceit because paladins are European legend rather than fantasy, and it doesn't have good in-game justification.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1063956A paladin as originally conceived is not merely brave, lawful, good, and blessed by the gods. He is the heroic defender, guardian, and enforcer of law and goodness in the world of Man. He is as much responsible for striking down the evil that threatens Man from within as from without. You've got to keep in mind that in the original concept of D&D, demihuman races are on the wane in a world that increasingly belongs to Man.

Now, I agree that if you stray away from that concept, the Paladin as human-only makes less sense.

Even within this sense, I don't see why paladin as human-only makes sense. Even if I accept that dwarves are on the wane and the world increasingly belongs to Man... why does that mean there shouldn't be a dwarf paladin who strikes down evil and enforces law and goodness wherever they go? You specify here that paladins work within the world of Man and defend Man. Do you think human paladins refuse to defend good dwarves who are threatened by evil? I don't think so. Paladins aren't just restricted to the world of Man and refuse to defend the waning races - they will defend humans, dwarves, gnomes, elves, halflings, and whoever against evil. They should serve as exemplars and defenders to people of all races.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1063956But in the 1e World of Greyhawk, there is no reason to expect to ever find anything but a human paladin. The most heroic elven warrior in all of the Grandwood Forest is still not a paladin. He's not going to ride out to serve as a shining exemplar of morality and virtue to all the people of the realm. It's just not what elves do. Or gnomes. Or dwarves.

I don't see any justification for this in the material. In 1e Greyhawk, there is less mixing of the races than in some later settings. So there are more human-only communities and dwarf-only communities and so forth. Humans on average don't go out and defend dwarves, and dwarves on average don't go out and defend humans.

But paladins are the exception. They will go out and defend all people, and serve as an exemplar to all.

Quote from: jhkimThe others don't make any sense to me. Dwarves can be clerics, which is exactly the sort of magic that paladins use.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1063956Not in 0e (where Paladins were introduced), and only as NPCs in 1e.

So in AD&D, dwarves can be clerics. Also, note that in the Monster Manual, dwarves have plenty of fighter/clerics in their communities. The NPC-only rule doesn't say that there aren't dwarf clerics - just that metagame you're not supposed to play them. If it was being consistent, then there could also be NPC-only dwarf paladins.

Quote from: jhkimAnd I see nothing in the material about gnomes being cowardly compared to humans.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1063956They're described as furtive and shy IIRC.

I just double-checked, and I see nothing in the 1e Player's Handbook or Monster Manual to indicate that gnomes are furtive or shy. You might be thinking of halflings, where it is implied by their sneakiness.

Quote from: jhkim;1064044Even within this sense, I don't see why paladin as human-only makes sense. Even if I accept that dwarves are on the wane and the world increasingly belongs to Man... why does that mean there shouldn't be a dwarf paladin who strikes down evil and enforces law and goodness wherever they go? ...So in AD&D, dwarves can be clerics. Also, note that in the Monster Manual, dwarves have plenty of fighter/clerics in their communities. The NPC-only rule doesn't say that there aren't dwarf clerics - just that metagame you're not supposed to play them. If it was being consistent, then there could also be NPC-only dwarf paladins.

This would be a lawful good fighter, not a a paladin.

In particular, dwarves do not particularly get along with non-dwarves. This is expressed mechanically by their CHA being capped at 16, and reduced to 8 for the purposes of recruiting non-dwarves as henchmen. A paladin is not just a great warrior, but an inspiration to all around him. That is why his min CHA is 17. A paladin can recruit at least ten henchmen to follow him, and they are fanatically loyal to him. No dwarf can command this kind of loyalty and devotion from those outside his race.  Furthermore, paladins are moderately ascetic, eschewing gold and jewels beyond what they need to keep their modest keep staffed and their henchmen supplied. This is not a dwarven trait. It is unlikely for a skilled miner to be uninterested in minerals!

The cleric thing should be a clue. Sure, dwarven clerics exist, but unlike human clerics, they are never adventurers.

QuoteDo you think human paladins refuse to defend good dwarves who are threatened by evil? I don't think so.

Indeed, and that's why they can only be humans. Dwarves have massive CHA penalties for interacting with humans. Elves and gnomes cannot ever become 9th level fighters, the level at which you gain a keep and the paladin gains the ability to cast cleric spells. They are practically forced to be more nomadic and reclusive by their level caps. A gnome who establishes himself permanently among humans can only be a thief. An elf can only be a thief or a wizard (and wizard towers tend to be reclusive). So I think that says a lot about what Gygax intended for the role of those races to be in the world.

On gnomes, from the 1e PHB:

"A gnome's preferred habitation is an area of rolling, rocky hills, well-wooded and uninhabited by humans." So "furtive" might be overstating it. But paladins don't prefer to live far away from humans. A paladin might recruit 10 gnomish henchmen and build a small keep in gnome territory, but a gnome would never, ever do the reverse. In fact, gnome fighters are capped at 7th level.

QuoteBut paladins are the exception. They will go out and defend all people, and serve as an exemplar to all.

Indeed...and apparently, in AD&D, only humans will ever do that. Perhaps the Paladin is what it is not just because Paladins are special, but because humans are. Which isn't very PC.

OK, I forgot that AD&D1 dwarves have max Charisma of 16. I'll buy that makes them ineligible for paladins simply because of that on a race-neutral basis. However, I don't buy your level limit arguments.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1064055Elves and gnomes cannot ever become 9th level fighters, the level at which you gain a keep and the paladin gains the ability to cast cleric spells. They are practically forced to be more nomadic and reclusive by their level caps. A gnome who establishes himself permanently among humans can only be a thief. An elf can only be a thief or a wizard (and wizard towers tend to be reclusive). So I think that says a lot about what Gygax intended for the role of those races to be in the world.

That makes no sense. You're saying that anyone who doesn't have their own keep and followers is nomadic and reclusive? By your logic, a gnome can't establish himself permanently even among gnomes. Further, wouldn't that mean that paladins are always nomadic and reclusive, since they don't get a keep or men-at-arms? You agreed earlier that paladins would defend all good races - so that means that there should be paladins among humans as well as paladins among gnomes, elves, dwarves, and others - regardless of their race.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1064055On gnomes, from the 1e PHB:

"A gnome's preferred habitation is an area of rolling, rocky hills, well-wooded and uninhabited by humans." So "furtive" might be overstating it. But paladins don't prefer to live far away from humans. A paladin might recruit 10 gnomish henchmen and build a small keep in gnome territory, but a gnome would never, ever do the reverse. In fact, gnome fighters are capped at 7th level.

Unlike fighters, paladins aren't required to establish keeps, and don't attract men-at-arms. Further, I disagree that a human paladin is any more well-established towards gnomes than the reverse in AD&D1. By the racial preference table, gnomes and humans have equal attitudes towards each other - neutral with some suspicion. The humans don't have a description saying they prefer to live away from gnomes, but that's just because humans don't have a description. In fact, by the racial preferences table, gnomes get along better with all races better than humans - except half-orcs. A gnome is more likely to go out and defend dwarves, elves, and halflings than a human is. And the gnome is just as likely to go and defend a human as a human is likely to go out and defend a gnome.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1063956Not in 0e (where Paladins were introduced), and only as NPCs in 1e.

Perhaps I'm remembering house rules and not the actual rules, but I'm pretty sure that Supplement 1, Greyhawk, said that any fighter who was lawful (no two dimensional alignment system then) with a Charisma of at least 17 could be a paladin. Am I wrong? (The discussion was confusing until I understood that "originally" can apparently mean AD&D 1e.)

There would still be a level limit, but not every human paladin made it to 4th level and they were still paladins.

(We did have house rules to raise level limits by heroic quests, which ironically led to more heroic demi-humans and less heroic humans.)

Quote from: Batman;1062771The Paladin has always been holy warrior. It never really embodied "historical" elements, though there was some classical renditions of writing and Authurian legends it played from. The Court of Charlemagne would never be able to even qualify for the Paladin class - what with the whole slaughtering of pagans who didn't confirm to Christendom and all.

I don't recall any prohibition on that in the 1e PHB. You could play a Paladin as a ruthless, pagan slaughtering SOB if you wanted to.

From the discussion of the 5e "Paladin" it sounds like one more reason why 5e probably ins't the game for me.

Quote from: rawma;1064210Perhaps I'm remembering house rules and not the actual rules, but I'm pretty sure that Supplement 1, Greyhawk, said that any fighter who was lawful (no two dimensional alignment system then) with a Charisma of at least 17 could be a paladin. Am I wrong? (The discussion was confusing until I understood that "originally" can apparently mean AD&D 1e.)

There would still be a level limit, but not every human paladin made it to 4th level and they were still paladins.

(We did have house rules to raise level limits by heroic quests, which ironically led to more heroic demi-humans and less heroic humans.)

Fearsome is wrong and your memory is correct.

To wit From Greyhawk Supplement I page 8

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3020[/ATTACH]

The writeup on Dwarves from Men & Magic Book 1

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3021[/ATTACH]

One could argue that "Dwarves may opt only for the fighting class" precludes them from being paladins. Except that Greyhawk makes a deal out of calling paladins a status while at the same time introducing thief as a class. Indicating that Paladin is a possible benefit of a fighting who is Lawful from the start and has a 17 or higher charisma.

For that matter Elves or Halflings could be Paladins as well, neither have a cap on Charisma and both can progress as Fighting Men.

Now by the time AD&D it became obvious that Gygax and company were aghast at some of the variants and types of campaign being run. For example following was written by Tim Kask as part of the intro to Deities, Demi-Gods, and Heroes.

QuoteThis volume is something else, also: our last attempt to reach the "Monty Hall" DM's. Perhaps now some of the 'giveaway' campaigns will look as foolish as they truly are. This is our last attempt to delineate the absurdity of 40+ level characters. When Odin, the All-Father has only(?) 300 hit points, who can take a 44th level Lord seriously?

And likely non-human paladins was one of the things that Gygax and Kask considered as being done "wrong" as in AD&D the requirement for Paladins were tightened up. Likely because the primary source material for the paladin was Holger Carlson from Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lion (good book, I've read it) and the Charlemagne and Arthurian Mythos. All exceedingly humancentric in their conception of the warrior for good.

And likely this all happened in a 5 minute conversation causing Gygax making a note of it and found it way into the rough draft of AD&D.

Keep in mind that among other considerations for writing AD&D (like being a second bite at the same apple, standardizing D&D for conventions, cutting Arneson out of a version of D&D) was to tighten things to stem the flood of questions they were receive. Among them was undoubtedly can dwarves be paladins.

All of this only pertains to why things are the way they are. What one does with their own campaign is up to them. From personal experience it is not a big deal whether one considers paladins a human things or a holy warrior that any race can take. Nor it not a big deal if you decide that other alignments have paladin like holy warrior as well.

Circa 1984, I introduced the Myrmidon, a Lawful Evil Paladin for the God Set. I personally thought the idea of a CE Paladin to be ludicrous. By it very nature Chaotic Evil doesn't have their shit together enough to have any kind of holy warrior "class". Far more likely is a random mish mash of demonic abilities infused into a individual.

However Lawful Evil is a different story, and thus born the Myrmidon as the true opposite of a Paladin. It worked and persisted because of the nature of my Majestic Wilderlands which featured Set vs. Mitra as one of the central conflicts of the setting. In another setting it may not work as well.

So the question about the nature of the paladin is best answered by considering not what is a paladin? But what is a paladin in that setting?