First there was The Complete Fighter's Handbook. Then there was another one of it. It was called The Complete Thief's Handbook. Then there was another one of it. It was called The Complete Priest's Handbook. Then there was another one of it. It was called...
OK, to cut a long story short, eventually there was a Complete Paladin's Handbook. And by this point the exercise had become somewhat perfunctory, somewhat by-the-numbers, somewhat phoned-in. There are only so many times it is possible to think up variations on the theme of 'Paladins have to be lawful good', and only so much that can be gained from discourses on how to find holy mounts or on the physical manifestations of paladins' detect evil intent abilities (tingly fingertips? toothache? migraine? excess wind?).
Nonetheless, the authors - as with all the other 'Completes' - did attempt to come up with a list of paladin sub-classes ('kits') to provide some variation on the bog-standard paladin theme. I have to confess that, while I nowadays have little patience for either complicated character generation or optionality for its own sake, as an adolescent I lapped this sort of thing up, and spent hours and hours alone in my bedroom coming up with PCs based on the various kits in the different Complete books. As I remember it the Druid and Ranger handbooks were the more imaginative; I had few memories of the Paladin kits, but recently took another look at that book in connection with the Paladin Project and refreshed my memory. I thought it would be fun to write up some reviews and rank the various options.
The way this works is as follows. Each kit is given a rating (out of 5 Lucerne hammers) for distinctiveness, gameability and flavour. Distinctiveness means how much of a USP the kit has in comparison to the other kids (or other character classes for that matter). Gameability means how, well, gameable the kit is - would it actually be fun or interesting to play. And flavour means how interesting and imaginative the concept is to begin with. At the end, all scores are averaged and the kits ranked accordingly.
So, here goes, in alphabetical order.
1. True Paladin. This is the archetypal Paladin as described in the PHB, 'pious and forthright...serv[ing] as the conscience of the party, setting an example of high moral standards and nudging them back on track when they stray from their mission'. It's hard to imagine that this concept could ever be done non-insufferably in practice, isn't it? The True Paladin does what Pladins do - riding about on a horse looking knightly and Lanceloty, and with the abilities one would expect. This is bland, but I suppose the Distinctiveness mark benefits from the fact that it is at least distinct in respect of being the original idea.
Distinctiveness: 3 Lucerne hammers; Gameability: 2 Lucerne hammers; Flavour: 1 Lucerne hammer
2. Chevalier. This is, we are told 'a gentleman warrior' who is 'modelled on the knights of the feudal age', being more along the lines of a knight-proper than a knight-who-does-priestly-things. Admittedly, though, the distinction between the Chevalier and the True Paladin is really wafer thin - the main difference being that a Chevalier is definitionally noble by birth, whereas a True Paladin could be anybody ('an orphan whose abilities were granted by a benevolent deity', for example). The other main distinction is that a Chavelier has various duties and rights arising from the fact that he has a lord and is part of a feudal structure. This is lazily done, although it does improve the Gameablity score, as it does open up possibilities for different modes of play - the Chevalier having to operate within a particular social milieu.
Distinctiveness: 1 Lucerne hammer; Gameability: 3 Lucerne hammers; Flavour: 1 Lucerne hammer
3. Divinate. The Divinate is a warrior-priest type: a smiter of evil who is a 'raging avenger' in battle but a friend to the disadvantaged and impoverished when not. Again, it is difficult to discern what is really all that different about this concept from the True Paladin - the main distinction appearing to be that the Divinate lays more emphasis on theology (his stronghold has to be a monastery, for example). Hence we can indeed probably conceptualise there being a spectrum from Divinate-True Paladin-Chevalier, with Divinate being at the point at which a Paladin shades into a Cleric, and a Chevalier being at the point at which a Paladin shades into a Fighter. Did I mention that the Complete Paladin's Handbook had a feeling having been phoned in?
Distinctiveness: 1 Lucerne hammer; Gameability: 2 Lucerne hammers; Flavour: 1 Lucerne hammer
4. Envoy. This is a skilled diplomat who is sent on missions by his lord or monarch to perform various tasks - delivering a 'banquet invitation to a friendly monarch' or 'opening hostage negotiations with a tribe of cannibals' or even 'representing his country in treaty discussions' or 'venturing into unexplored territories to scout for new trade routes'. I actually quite like this idea - even while wondering what exactly is particularly Paladin-ish about it - and I think a campaign of PCs-as-Envoys would be a lot of fun. Can't quite get 'The Syrians are mad at the Lebanese' out of my head now though.
Distinctiveness: 4 Lucerne hammers; Gameability: 4 Lucerne hammers; Flavour: 2 Lucerne hammers
5. Equerry. This is a 'master horseman with a natural affinity for mounts of all species'. This can apparently include more or less anything (giant lizards, giant owls, griffins, etc.), though the rules specifically say that male equerries cannot ride unicorns. Somebody should tell Gene Wolfe! I suppose this is at least a distinctive concept, although it would be annoying to have an Equerry in the party if being played with somebody keen on the rules-as-written, as they are not supposed to like going underground or indoors. 2nd edition was full of this sort of stuff - passably amusing in a character in a novel but only really likely to be irritating in a PC.
Distinctiveness: 3 Lucerne hammers; Gameability: 2 Lucerne hammers; Flavour: 2 Lucerne hammers
6. Errant. The Errant, as you might expect, is, well a knight-errant - an independent warrior who 'roams the countryside searching for adventure and offering his assistance to any good beings in need'. Again, a campaign of PCs-as-Knight-Errants is one I could see working well as an exemplar of a 'good guy sandbox'. Again, it has to be said, though, that it's difficult discerning what the difference is between this and a True Paladin.
Distinctiveness: 1 Lucerne hammer; Gameability: 4 Lucerne hammers; Flavour: 1 Lucerne hammer
7. Expatriate. The Expatriate (who I think should really be called an Exile) is the converse of the Errant - a Paladin who has been forced to leave home, rather than having taken an oath to go off adventuring. This, we are told, happens when a Paladin is betrayed by the corruption of his lord, patron, order, etc., and therefore has to go ronin in order to stick to his principles. There are role-playing tips agogo here: 'Expatriates are often moody, cynical and bitter...he has little patience with most neutral characters, finding their lack of commitment insipid and contemptible...he crushes his enemies without remorse.' Admit it, as a teenage you would have loved this. Again, as with the Envoy and Errant, this concept would work well if the entire group took on the role, but the Expatriate is one of the few Paladin kits that would fit in with a normal party of PCs doing normal rogueish adventuring things.
Distinctiveness: 3 Lucerne hammers; Gameability: 3 Lucerne hammers; Flavour: 3 Lucerne hammers
8. Ghosthunter. The name of this kit says it all, really. Yes, it's that Hugh Jackman film with Kate Beckinsale swanning about in tight clothes. A decent idea, although trite, and faces many of the problems associated with these specialised AD&D kits; why is the ghosthunter hanging around with the PCs when they're not hunting ghosts, given that this is what he is supposed to do as his calling? An everything-is-ghosthunters campaign would be eminently achievable, though.
Distinctiveness: 4 Lucerne hammers; Gameability: 2 Lucerne hammers; Flavour: 3 Lucerne hammers
9. Inquisitor. The Inquisitor, like the Ghosthunter, specialises in fighting evil magicians. Many of the same comments could be made, but I actually like the idea of this kit a lot better. First, it envisions something actually rather different from the standard Paladin model, but second, it also envisions a campaign style that is very attractive - something more investigative and cloak-and-dagger than is normal; one even imagines the PCs inhabiting a city filled with behind-the-scenes demon summoning, cult-formation and evil alchemy.
Distinctiveness: 4 Lucerne hammers; Gameability: 4 Lucerne hammers; Flavour: 4 Lucerne hammers
10. Medician. This is a Paladin sub-type wo has 'decided she can best uphold her principles by fighting injury and disease'. Expert in herbs, medicines, anatomy and diagnostics, she 'treats the sick, alleviates suffering, and saves lives'. Your patience with playing this concept in a normal PC party will be about the same as that of playing a medtech in a Cyberpunk 2020 party, and the overlap with the cleric is obvious; I suppose it was inevitable that somebody would invent this conceot as a way to fill out a list, but - really?
Distinctiveness: 2 Lucerne hammers; Gameability: 1 Lucerne hammer; Flavour: 2 Lucerne hammers
11. Militarist. This is a battle 'virtuoso' of the Benedict-from-the-Amber-books variety - an elite soldier and general, 'shrewd and fearless', who 'naturally assumes a leadership role' in combat. I always have a problem with presenting character classes or kits in this way: shrewdness, for example, is a quality that really derives from the player rather than the PC, as does 'natural leadership' - and, in any event, doesn't this really sound an awful lot like it's just a type of Fighter?
Distinctiveness: 1 Lucerne hammer; Gameability: 3 Lucerne hammers; Flavour: 1 Lucerne hammer
12. Skyrider. This is a 'warrior of the air' and a 'defender of both the skyways and the earth'. An inevitable concept, but: a) the same thing as an Equerry, specialising in winged mounts, and b) only really workable as long as all the PCs have flying mounts and the campaign is concieved as being, as it were, an 'air war' - gadding about the mountaintops, or between giant trees, or islands floating in a void, or whatever. Not that there's anything wrong with such things. Feels like it ought to be a Ranger, though, quite frankly (and I have a feeling there was even a near-identical Ranger kit...).
Distinctiveness: 3 Lucerne hammers; Gameability: 3 Lucerne hammers; Flavour: 3 Lucerne hammrs
13. Squire. This is a Paladin who serves another Paladin. A Robin figure who never gets to become Batman. Er...is there anything more to be said? Could provide for some laughs, but serves chiefly as another example of 2nd edition AD&D writers' tendency to dream up concepts for characters that would be good in novels rather than classes that would be good in RPGs.
Distinctiveness: 2 Lucerne hammers; Gameability: 2 Lucerne hammers; Flavour: 1 Lucerne hammer
14. Votary. This is, in essence, a Divinate who has a much more militant, extremist attitude - 'grim, self-obsessed and quick to judge'. She 'believes her church is the only true one' and thinks that 'followers of evil faiths...deserve nothing but death'. This would be enjoyable to ham up (again, the writers' emphasis being on what would be fun to role play as) but really indicates a lack of imagination; the text even admits that the Votary and Divinate are more or less the same concept!
Distinctiveness: 1 Lucerne hammer; Gameability: 3 Lucerne hammers; Flavour: 1 Lucerne hammer
15. Wyrmslayer. As the name suggests, this is a dragon-slayer. Much can be said here of what was said in relation to the Ghosthunter, mutatis mutandis. But come on. Dragonslayer? You know you love it.
Distinctiveness: 2 Lucerne hammers; Gameability: 4 Lucerne hammers; Flavour: 3 Lucerne hammers
When the kits are ranked, then, we find them ordered as follows:
1. Inquisitor
2. Envoy
3. = Expatriate
3. = Ghosthunter
3. = Skyrider
3. = Wyrmslayer
7. Equerry
8. = Errant
8. = True Paladin
10. = Chevalier
10. = Medician
10. = Militarist
10. = Squire
10. = Votary
15. Divinate
Overall, this is a poor show, I think. Here's an idea - suggest some new ideas in the comments!
I wrote a much longer comment but realised it was mostly faff and shaggy dog story. For a paladin campaign, I would treat different paladins as different classes. They're thematically paladins but their abilities don't have to overlap - strip the old ones completely, make up new ones.
ReplyDeleteEnvoy sounds pretty good. Our old friend Gnaeus Mescinius Murena was (at least in theory ) a Fetial priest, which offers a few ideas for how that could work.
ReplyDeleteAnd one almost contemplates a division between 'Envoy of my People's God' Fetial and an unmoored idealist 'Peacemaker' envoy.
I think you're a bit harsh on the notion of a Squire. The notion of a Paladin thrust by a vow of humility into the Sancho Panza role could be interesting. And it does suggest a role that gives itself to support rather than Smiting.
I take it they were saving 'Exorcist' for something in the Cleric Handbook. 'Ghosthunter' is ... uninspiring.
Are Inquisitors the Internal Affairs of the Paladin World?
Valkyrie - only female, need to go kill random dudes for Odin every week. Can transform into swans at level 5.
ReplyDeleteI faintly remember these kits. I grabbed as many Complete Handbooks as I could, came to the same conclusion you did, then gave most of them to my nephew.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a scope issue here. The writers are having problems generating alternate paladins so they've expanded their scope to include those who ride mounts (cavaliers?). It's a lack of focus, but then again, how many kits can you really create for a one note class like the Paladin?
Hmm, maybe that should be a contest. Come up with a paladin kit, maybe win a prize.
The Heretic