Talk:Paladin

This artical should be left or the artical's on Paladin's should be broken up to reflect each on the different versions of D&D. Paladin's over time have evolved from 1st edition (similar to Military Catholic Church Orders) to 4th edition (Defenders of the individual faiths) For example if you merge this into defenders of the faith you need to merge Blackguards into the artical as well. This would lose all the flavour of Paladins & Blackguards Hurtzbad 09:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily - Blackguards could very clearly be a paragon path / prestige class as their abilities are more than just evil versions of a paladin's. Divine champion, on the other hand, from my experience in playing it, is more or less just a paladin without alignment restrictions, with just about all the perks aside from the lack of divine spells.


 * If, however, there is a consensus towards creating a second article, I can see about doing that. But I'll need more than "game mechanics" changed to convince me otherwise (especially since we're supposed to avoid crunch). Niirfa-sa 16:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the articles should be merged. Paladins are too much of a DnD staple and may confuse the lay-reader. Paladins are crusaders for good plain and simple, not just defenders of the faith (whether it be good or evil). We might as well merge the cleric article into it if that was the case. Also, we shouldn't be speculating on what paragon paths are going to be created, that's not our job. hashtalk 18:02, 1st October, 2008 (GMT)
 * I agree so far as speculation is concerned. We can keep articles from being merged. However, I do object to creating a separate article. Niirfa-sa 17:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, I may not have been clear in my reasoning. I'm not suggesting a merge based on similarities of class features - Divine Champions and Paladins are from different systems after all. But the role of the paladin and the divine champion is exactly the same. Read this for instance:

"The divine champion is the strong right arm of their deity. They serve as a guardian of holy sites, a protector of pilgrims and a leader of crusades. Though paladins fill these roles in many good-aligned churchs, a divine champion can take up the banner of any deity, regardless of alignment or ethos. These holy warriors are loved by their patron's worshipers and hated by the church's enemies in equal measure. Most champions come from a combat or military background. Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are the most common candidates, though monks, clerics, and the more militant druids frequently pursue this path as well."


 * Sound like the new definition of a paladin to you? It's specifically because of the wiki's deemphasis on crunch that I suggested the merge. If you still disagree with me, I'll drop it. But there's no reason we can't add a line or two detailing the history of the class in D&D while maintaining that, in-universe (i.e., negating crunch), divine champions and paladins are exactly the same thing. Blackguards, on the other hand, are not, as they serve a very different purpose although commonly "fallen" paladins in origin - a blackguard, for instance, doesn't have to serve a deity, although many do. A paladin / divine champion has to serve a deity - it's part of what makes them what they are. Niirfa-sa 05:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)