Author Topic: What is a Paladin to you? Or why Final Fantasy makes everything better  (Read 6253 times)

Offline Libertad

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3618
    • View Profile
    • My Fantasy and Gaming Blog


Artist Unknown

"Justice and retribution are but trifling things.

There are victories of greater worth.

Someday you will know them."


The paladin is many things to many people.  To some it's a holy warrior, whose main mission is to strike down evil.  Others are paragons of law, caring just as much about tradition and authority as serving the greater good.  Unfortunately many Dungeon Masters take a narrow restriction on the paladin, insisting on placing them in situations where they're bound to fail or applying Judeo-Christian ethos of sin on an already-restrictive code of conduct.  All too often we have DMs willing to strip a paladin of their powers for small reasons which wouldn't land other Lawful Good players in hot water, as demonstrated in this RPGnet thread.  A lot of times this stems from DM and player not being on the same page, having different ideas of what a paladin is supposed to be in the game.

After reading an interesting post over on Bat in the Attic of what a paladin means to him, I figured that it would be a fun idea to get some discussion rolling about not just your imagining of the Paladin, but what existing pieces of media best encapsulate the archetype.  In my view, the protagonist of Final Fantasy IV is one of the best examples of a fantasy Paladin.  Below I'll detail why.

Spoiler Warning: Although this game was made back in the early 90s, to truly get a sense of appreciation for Cecil's trials, I'd suggest playing it yourself or watching a good Let's Play (HCBailly's starting a run on this game right now on YouTube).  I'm also still in the process of playing the game, so it's possible I didn't cover some future character development.  If you have FFIV on your gaming radar, return to this blog post when you've reached that point.

Final Fantasy IV: Cecil's Redemption

Cecil Harvey was a loyal soldier of the kingdom of Baron.  Trained in the ways of the Dark Knight, he draws upon fell powers to strengthen his battle prowess.  In spite of this, Cecil is not a wicked soul at heart.  The game starts out with him leading the Red Wings airship legion to attack and steal magical Crystals from the holy shrines of other nations, ordered to by his King to ensure the safety and security of Baron and its people.  Although he loyally carries out his orders, a seed of doubt spreads in his mind when the people of Mysidia beg him not to take away their Water Crystal and put up hardly any resistance.  Combined with the King's recent strange behavior, Cecil raises his doubts to his lord, which results in his demotion and being sent on a mission to Mist, a remote village of mystical summoners.

His King betrayed him, for the ring he was entrusted with to deliver conjured an army of living monsters of fire.  They slaughtered the people of Mist nearly to the last person, whose magical powers were long seen as a threat to Baron's King.  Horrified at his unwitting accessory to ethnic cleansing, Cecil saves a village girl named Rydia and sets off to the nearby kingdom to spread word of Baron's atrocities and hopefully rally enough support against the crown he once served.

Cecil is genuinely repentant and acts altruistically, but he is still a Dark Knight.  Eventually he arrives alone at Mysidia, the land he once invaded at Baron's behest.  The locals stare venomously at him, but the village's elder believes his words and change of heart and tells him of a trial at Mt. Ordeals.  Those who pass the test can become a paladin, a holy warrior sworn to the cause of good.

Linked video of Cecil's trial.

The above scene is very powerful.  To become a paladin is a true test; you do not simply begin play as one, but it comes along as the result of the story.  The battle with his evil self is unorthodox because to truly pass the test, Cecil must not strike his alter ego.  It's a way of telling one who did wrong to face what they did to transform into a better person, not condemn and deny it like a foreign entity to destroy.

Cecil is a paladin, but he did not start out as an icon of righteousness.  Even after his class change he still must atone for his past by stopping Golbez from wreaking havoc on the world.  It's all too easy to imagine a paladin as less of a person and more of an archetype.  Before the slaughter at Mist, Cecil was not so much a willing accomplice to evil so much as a good man who did nothing and let his trust in his lord stay his hand for too long.  By resolving to courageously do what's right in spite of one's own fears and doubts, that's what turned him into a hero, long before he took up the title of paladin.

Cecil is my ideal paladin.  He's not an archon of Law forced to respect those in power, nor a crusader motivated to convert others under the banner of one religion.  All that matters is to do good in the world and stop the spread of tyranny and misery.  That's what a paladin should be to me.  All the other aspects of the Code in Editions, such as never lying, upholding Law as well as Good, is unnecessary window dressing to a class which can easily stand on its own feat as a warrior of virtue.

After all, justice is not the only right in this world.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
I see no other class as fraught as the Paladin.  And, mostly it just seems wrong to me.  Either it's the basic mistake of viewing classes as cookie cutter archetypes or perhaps just that the preconceived notions of this class are particularly strong.  Really, my guess is that it's b/c D&D's alignment system is shit and the Paladin forces you to engage with it and be high minded about it at the same time. 

Cecil sounds like a fine Paladin concept to me.  But, by no means the only one.  Indeed, an Archon of Law also sounds like a perfectly sound and viable one, provided the laws are fairly just (i.e., not Javert or Judge Dredd).  Everything else should be left to the player and, perhaps, to the setting.  My knight expy, who stands by King Roland's side wielding Durandal in a heroic last stand b/c that is what he has Vowed to do has to be as fitting as Cecil is.  Hell, now that I type that the Covenant series' Bloodguard probably qualify as decent Paladins, too, even though they fight unarmed. 

My point is that I think this discussion already gets off to the wrong start.  Once you're debating whether or not this or that class is religious or whatever things have gone off the rails b/c the reins have been stripped from the hands of the person creating and setting out to play the character.  The same is true if someone tells you your character can't lie, or what decisions your character makes when moral quandaries present themselves. 

Two other quick observations.  First, I'm pretty sure that even Clerics don't have to belong to a religion or be religious.  So, somebody telling me my Paladin has to can take a flying leap.  Secondly, the only thing that seems utterly nonsensical is to treat Paladins as Crusaders in the actual historical, "went to the Levant and tried to reconquer it" type of guys.  Monotheism is nonsensical in the standard D&D game worlds.  You might think that Nerull or Tiamat or Lolth are terrible douchebags, but their existence isn't a question at all.  It just seems like a strange lens to put on a D&D game, and especially odd to impose it on an entire core class. 

Offline bhu

  • Uncle Kittie
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16075
  • Fnord bitches
    • View Profile
In my spare time I keep trying a remake of the Paladin class.  Less Lawful stick in his ass and more blood-soaked mercenary who kills enemies of the church in an eternal holy war


Just kidding.  Making Paladins more like warpriests and clerics more like real world monks.

Offline Nunkuruji

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 905
  • I shall bring great terror
    • View Profile
This was actually my 1st introduction to the notion of a Paladin, and as such I've never really had a problem with the different interpretations of Paladin.

When we're talking NPC Paladins, I more try to keep in line with the ethos of the associated deity. Unless there's a great deal of interaction throughout a campaign, character development of a Paladin NPC may not be integral or even interesting. What Paladin really means may not even be correct. Zealot or Crusader might be a more accurate term to use, similar to how Mage or Necromancer may just as well be used to describe a Sorcerer or Wizard.

When we're talking good aligned PC Paladins, I'm really just looking for what one would consider heroic behavior, with obvious things such as self sacrifice.
Cecil's Cover ability & Shield Other being analogous mechanical and spiritual examples.

Paladins/Clerics/etc are supposed to be fallible in terms of what they represent. Outsiders are the ones who are really supposed to be hardline representations of good/evil/law/chaos, etc.

IMO, one of the interesting things you can do as a DM is try to put players into a moral quandary, and see how it plays out.
There are some rules for 'class change' in terms of Blackguard, Blighter, or maybe even Ur-Priest in 3.5.
Similarly I suppose a players archetype/domains could shift in 5e.

Ultimately, it's just a different experience when it's basically 1st person control D&D or even Skyrim, vs. the observation of a written characters journey.


Maybe I'll come back to this and ramble more later....

Offline Chemus

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1929
    • View Profile
Hysterically [sic w/ intent] Paladin meant 'palace familiar'. So, King's man, e.g. Knight of the Round Table ('it's just a model'). The Paladin Class was once intended to be the 'Knight in Shining Armor', the Hero on a Fiery Steed, defender of the innocent, rescuer of beautiful dragons from ravening maidens, charging heedless into battle and surviving.

The Code is mostly the Chivalric Code of medieval Knights that dealt with how you fight, who you fight, and who you fight for. The Pally merely added a Good requirement. In 1e AD&D, after Unearthed Arcana, Paladin was a Subclass of the Cavalier (Knights). All cavaliers had to follow the chivalric code, with differences depending on the good-evil alignment segment. Then pally's had more rules on top of that. The Cavalier/Paladin was supposed to be 'correct' for a medieval European lookalike fantasy campaign.

I understand the sentiment; Paladin should be more Good than Lawful, but that's actually a distortion of the original intent; Paladins were supposed to be altruistic followers of goodly Kings, doing their lawful bidding, and blessed to fight Evil (not Chaos). They didn't actually follow a specific deity in the core books, though some settings altered that somewhat. 3e and beyond has changed them to be more dogmatic than holy, and that is kinda sad.
Apathy is ...ah screw it.
My Homebrew

Offline NumberKruncher

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 192
  • Baruk Khazâd! Khazâd ai-mênu!
    • View Profile
I have always loved the Paladin class. Way too many people have played them as dicks over the years, which I don't like.

A paladin strives to uphold a certain standard, but it doesn't mean they are perfect. 

They strive to set an example for the rest of the party.

I always thought (2nd edition thinking here) that Atonement spells offered a great role playing angle. I thought a paladin should atone for any perceived sin, and people would compliment my role playing when I'd do things like this, even if my character had don't nothing wrong in a game. 

Cecil in FF4 is a great example above. Great story there. You're making me want to play a great game again.
Dwarf FTW.

Offline bluephenix

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
When looking at paladin, I always feel this goes back to differences in alignment.

In my games I've started making it a requirement that my players shove me their background for their characters beforehand and i've openly told them that as very few people in this world know their true nature, thus will be the case for your characters. Ontop I add that god will judge your actions by your objective method and result, not your subjective whims.

 In short, I keep alignments hidden from players until one of them wants to detect or somesuch. I've found it gives players alot more freedom to rp however they want to.

Starting alignment is decided via background story and in the specific case of paladins, I personally don't make them lose any class features unless they fall to nigh the opposite of the morals they proclaim to follow.

Offline Jackinthegreen

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6176
  • I like green.
    • View Profile
+1 for you Libertad.

It reminds me of this old ENworld thread:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?113405-Would-you-allow-this-paladin-in-your-game-%28new-fiction-added-11-11-08%29

Paladins have definitely been screwed around with, and generally for the worse as far as D&D has gone.  I have FF4 on my DS and Cecil's story was quite refreshing.  Dang I need to play that game again.

Offline Libertad

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3618
    • View Profile
    • My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Hysterically [sic w/ intent] Paladin meant 'palace familiar'. So, King's man, e.g. Knight of the Round Table ('it's just a model'). The Paladin Class was once intended to be the 'Knight in Shining Armor', the Hero on a Fiery Steed, defender of the innocent, rescuer of beautiful dragons from ravening maidens, charging heedless into battle and surviving.

After coming back to this thread after a while I just now noticed this. :lmao

Offline oslecamo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10080
  • Creating monsters for my Realm of Darkness
    • View Profile
    • Oslecamo's Custom Library (my homebrew)
Hysterically [sic w/ intent] Paladin meant 'palace familiar'. So, King's man, e.g. Knight of the Round Table ('it's just a model'). The Paladin Class was once intended to be the 'Knight in Shining Armor', the Hero on a Fiery Steed, defender of the innocent, rescuer of beautiful dragons from ravening maidens, charging heedless into battle and surviving.

After coming back to this thread after a while I just now noticed this. :lmao

Somebody said saving a dragon from the princess?

Offline Necrosnoop110

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 989
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
i've openly told them that as very few people in this world know their true nature
All due respect here. What does that really mean and how does they play out?

Offline nijineko

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2408
  • two strange quarks short of a graviton....
    • View Profile
    • TwinSeraphim
not to mention that most people don't know what Good actually is, i.e.: the true nature and characteristics thereof.

Offline fearsomepirate

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
I've always thought of a paladin as a little bit of Crusader plus a little bit of Knight of the Round Table plus a little bit of mythological magic-making. Smite evil, protect the weak, establish shrines, etc.

Offline nijineko

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2408
  • two strange quarks short of a graviton....
    • View Profile
    • TwinSeraphim
there was this one series about a race that had been ignored by the gods for a long time, more or less a barbaric nomad type race, and suddenly one of the gods decides to pick one for a paladin - which individual fought and argued and resisted for a book or two. in that series a paladin was originally sponsored by an alliance of good gods: god of bravery (or valor or fighting or something), god of horses, and god of healing, though over time people had forgotten that so not only did he get a lot of flak and racism in general for being of a (literally) god-forsaken race, but other paladins devoted only to the god of bravery (or whichever he was) discriminated against him.

it was quite an interesting read of a series, can't recall the names, sadly.

in any case, i really liked how paladins were described in that series.

Offline Chemus

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1929
    • View Profile
Elizabeth Moon's Legacy of Gird, and Deed of Paksenarrion (a trade paperback) series. I forget the names of the 3 books in the Deed trilogy, the 3rd one is Oath of Gold.
Apathy is ...ah screw it.
My Homebrew