Also, it seems like very few Immortals can claim to be healers. Chardastes is the only one I can think of right away, and I consider him to be fairly marginal...
Havard
Is it just me or does Mystara have fewer male fighter type immortals compared to deities from other settings? OTOH, we do have quite a few female fighter types.
We could hawk the setting to the Astrid's parlor crowd, I suppose :P
But really, I don't think Mystara has few male fighter-type Immortals -- with Frey, Halav, Kaarash, Bartziluth, Yagrai, Wogar, Bemarris, Gorm, Crakkak, Sharpcrest, The Eternal General, Saimpt Matin, Hattani and Takhati, not to mention Al Kalim, Saimpt Malinois, Ruaidhri Hawkbane, Saimpt Loup, and Kurtulmak.
OTOH, it's true that other settings don't have as many female fighter Immortals, especially as important powers, where Mystara has at least Vanya, Petra, Diulanna, Frejya, Lokena, Liena and Madarua, plus the less related Tarastia (but still not as many as the males).
Also, it seems like very few Immortals can claim to be healers. Chardastes is the only one I can think of right away, and I consider him to be fairly marginal...
Yes, Mystara does have a few "holes", probably due to the fact that most Immortals are former adventurers, so they have less interest for non-adventurous concerns than other powers -- you'll note a distinct lack of agriculture, trade and craft-related powers (all together, we get only Kagyar, Garal, the Twelve Watchers, Saimpt Ralon, Minroth, Asterius, Wayland, Polunius, Sharpcrest and Terra, and most of them have also other concerns, such as being racial patrons).
However, DM lists the following Immortals patrons of healing and health:
Asterius (only in Robrenn), Chardastes, Chiron, Idraote, Ka, Korrigans, Ralon, Simurgh, Usamigaras.
Of these, only Asterius, Chardastes, Saimpt Ralon, and Usamigaras actually have canon basis for being declared patrons of healers, the others being marginally or arbitrarily associated with this area of interest.
GP
But really, I don't think Mystara has few male fighter-type Immortals -- with Frey, Halav, Kaarash, Bartziluth, Yagrai, Wogar, Bemarris, Gorm, Crakkak, Sharpcrest, The Eternal General, Saimpt Matin, Hattani and Takhati, not to mention Al Kalim, Saimpt Malinois, Ruaidhri Hawkbane, Saimpt Loup, and Kurtulmak.
And Thor
But I guess I underestand what Havard is saying, that we have few paladin-like Immortals (honestly, Halav is the only one that is basically it, but he's basically worshipped only by traladarans; Thor and Frey are good candidates as well, but I guess they're too viking for my taste ;) And the lupin Immortals are almost exclusively worshipped in Renardy). Not to say that other settings have many deities with this porftolio, but at least they tend to be more popular than Mystara...
But as you said, we do have a good number of "Ares"-like Immortals. But the funny part is that usually the female war Immortals are simply more popular than the male ones, especially Vanya and Tarastia (ok, not focused on war, but still amazon-like), and Petra for traladarans (quite popular, even if Halav is much more).
Yes, Mystara does have a few "holes", probably due to the fact that most Immortals are former adventurers, so they have less interest for non-adventurous concerns than other powers -- you'll note a distinct lack of agriculture, trade and craft-related powers (all together, we get only Kagyar, Garal, the Twelve Watchers, Saimpt Ralon, Minroth, Asterius, Wayland, Polunius, Sharpcrest and Terra, and most of them have also other concerns, such as being racial patrons).
And Koryis and Alphatia
But still, it's indeed an insuficient number...
But I guess I underestand what Havard is saying, that we have few paladin-like Immortals
Sure, and indeed the Paladin as in 3e or AD&D doesn't exist in Mystara for a reason ;)
(honestly, Halav is the only one that is basically it, but he's basically worshipped only by traladarans; Thor and Frey are good candidates as well, but I guess they're too viking for my taste ;)
Traladarans are very common -- they're found everywhere from the SC to the KW. And Milenians and Thyatians also worship Halav.
And the lupin Immortals are almost exclusively worshipped in Renardy).
And Ochalea :D
And Koryis and Alphatia
But still, it's indeed an insuficient number...
Those two are mostly pacifists rather than agriculture/trade patrons.
GP
Sure, and indeed the Paladin as in 3e or AD&D doesn't exist in Mystara for a reason ;)
Lol!
Ok, but still, there isn't enough of "knight"-like Immortals
Traladarans are very common -- they're found everywhere from the SC to the KW. And Milenians and Thyatians also worship Halav.
Indeed, traladarans/milenians are reasonably common and thyatians living in Karameikos may also worship Halav, but still that excludes most KW nations ;)
And Ochalea :D
Yes, and Ochalea
And probably Sind, since they worship basically ever known Immortal at there
Those two are mostly pacifists rather than agriculture/trade patrons.
Yes, they fit only marginally agriculture/trade and, why not, healing (they're, as you saind, pacifists
). I'm just adding a couple of names to this small list ;)Ok, but still, there isn't enough of "knight"-like Immortals
Even in RW, there are few knight-like gods.
Indeed, traladarans/milenians are reasonably common and thyatians living in Karameikos may also worship Halav, but still that excludes most KW nations ;)
I meant Thyatians as those in Thyatis -- Halav is one of the Immortals worshipped in Thyatis, according to DotE.
And probably Sind, since they worship basically ever known Immortal at there
Indeed. The same could be said of Halav, BTW.
As for the rest of the KW, Minrothad, Ierendi, the Five Shires, Glantri and Rockhome are inappropriate for such Immortals, though for different reasons.
The Northern Reaches and Heldann have Frey and Thor.
Thyatis has Thor, Halav, and the female warrior Immortals.
Ylaruam has Al Kalim, who is also a warrior Immortal.
Alfheim has Mealiden, who's not very knight-like, but then the same goes for the elves in general.
The Broken Lands have Kaarash, who's almost knight-like (as much as a goblinoid can, at least).
That leaves only Darokin, and then mostly the Borderlands, because the Heartlands are too trade oriented to support major cults of warrior gods.
But western Darokin is likely to share much of the Sindhi culture and religion, and eastern Darokin does the same with Traladara and Ylaruam.
So I'd say Halav could be popular in the Selenica region as well, and any of the Sindhi versions of Halav, Frey or even Saimpt Matin could be known in the Akesoli region.
That leaves the central Borderlands, but that's hardly a large part of the KW.
GP
Even in RW, there are few knight-like gods.
But we do have some knight-like saints ;)
I meant Thyatians as those in Thyatis -- Halav is one of the Immortals worshipped in Thyatis, according to DotE.
I know, but I always felt that this never match good with Traladara being basically ot of the KW politics until 900 AC,as canon implies... Using the idea of Traladara as a much more populated and somewhat more involved with external affairs (as you're using at the Traladaran Timeline), it's more feasible, but still Halav shouldn't be amont the most popular Immortals of Thyatis (Ixion, Vanya and Tarastia are already quite war-like, even if not necessarely knight-like)
Indeed. The same could be said of Halav, BTW.
Indeed, but I wonder how the sindhi population imagine him
The Northern Reaches and Heldann have Frey and Thor.
Thyatis has Thor, Halav, and the female warrior Immortals.
Ylaruam has Al Kalim, who is also a warrior Immortal.
Alfheim has Mealiden, who's not very knight-like, but then the same goes for the elves in general.
The Broken Lands have Kaarash, who's almost knight-like (as much as a goblinoid can, at least).
Indeed, those are good patrons for paladin-like characters, even if, basically, only Halav still can be seen as a "quintessential knight" Immortal ;)
That leaves the central Borderlands, but that's hardly a large part of the KW.
Plus those other regions you already mentioned, that are Minrothad, Ierendi, the Five Shires, Glantri and Rockhome, and also the Atruaghin Plateau.
Indeed, I agree that most places that can suport such following indeed have something close to it. But, as I said before, that doesn't change that, basically (and excluding those too viking-like or those who are lupins), we have only Halav as a "knight-like" Immortal ;)
In my experience (and many other Blue Box players) Karameikos is a hero-producing country. They go abroad, and become important heroes. In Thyatis City, people imitate them and their Inmortal patron, their exotic warrior-patron Halav.
Ixion is too imperial, Vanya is militaristic, Tarastia is ok mainly for women-warriors... There is a gap for an Inmortal, Lawful, warrior such as Halav. Also, Halav had friends (Petra and Zirchev), they were an adventurers' group. So, Halav becomes the "standard" hero patron for adventurers.
But we do have some knight-like saints ;)
Not many of them, though.
I know, but I always felt that this never match good with Traladara being basically ot of the KW politics until 900 AC,as canon implies...
But remember that Thyatians were the first to write down the Song of Halav. Also, Traladara was not a major power, but neither it was out of KW politics -- much like middle age Italy, it was a buffer territory between major powers. See my history of Traladara article for an idea of what the Traladarans might have been up to in the centuries between the Dark Ages and the Thyatian conquest.
Indeed, but I wonder how the sindhi population imagine him
Since him and Zirchev are respectively the swordsman and the horseman, I'd put them together in a Asvin-like pair.
Indeed, those are good patrons for paladin-like characters, even if, basically, only Halav still can be seen as a "quintessential knight" Immortal ;)
He's not a knight, he's the typical homeric hero-king.
Since there are few, if any, truly feudal lands in the KW, there are also few Immortals that fit the model -- and IMO Halav doesn't fit any more then Frey or Thor.
Basically, only Thyatis (and by extension Karameikos), the HK and Darokin can have knights. But those would be mostly followers of Vanya.
GP
But remember that Thyatians were the first to write down the Song of Halav. Also, Traladara was not a major power, but neither it was out of KW politics -- much like middle age Italy, it was a buffer territory between major powers. See my history of Traladara article for an idea of what the Traladarans might have been up to in the centuries between the Dark Ages and the Thyatian conquest.
Sure GP, that's why I said that it's just what canon implies, so I'm not considering your timeline for that (which I completely agrees and, BTW, I helped at it a little bit ;))
You know, Marilenev with only 500 souls instead of 50000 and stuff like that...
He's not a knight, he's the typical homeric hero-king.
That's indeed the historical Halav, but not necessarely how the modern traladarans see him, which is basically a paladin character.
Since there are few, if any, truly feudal lands in the KW, there are also few Immortals that fit the model
Yes, I agree with you here, but we could have more paladin-like where we have truly feudal systems (and, BTW, I wonder if we could assume that most, if any, of the medieval nations of Mystara are really feudal; honestly most of the people ever described in canon are free men, even if quite poor; canon says that there are serfs there, but they're almost transparent, in a sense... I wasn't expecting a lot of serfs NPCs, but at least a few of them...)
and IMO Halav doesn't fit any more then Frey or Thor.
Assuming how he was when a mortal, I agree, but I guess modern traladarans see him differently (K:KoA being a good example for that; but, OTOH, K:KoA changed a lot in how Karameikos looks like, from a mix of RW Russia (the regalia Stefan uses is identical of the Tzars) and a renaissance world to a typical medieval nation)
Basically, only Thyatis (and by extension Karameikos), the HK and Darokin can have knights. But those would be mostly followers of Vanya.
Actually, I wonder if a place with so many slaves such as Thyatis could be considered to be truly feudal...
In my experience (and many other Blue Box players) Karameikos is a hero-producing country. They go abroad, and become important heroes. In Thyatis City, people imitate them and their Inmortal patron, their exotic warrior-patron Halav.
I see your point, but I tend to think that any land could produce legendary heroes...
Ixion is too imperial, Vanya is militaristic, Tarastia is ok mainly for women-warriors... There is a gap for an Inmortal, Lawful, warrior such as Halav. Also, Halav had friends (Petra and Zirchev), they were an adventurers' group. So, Halav becomes the "standard" hero patron for adventurers.
I agree with you here. I think the problem of having few "paladin-like" Immortals is simply that we don't have many modern Immortals, and the few we do have are basically unknown and ignored by most churches. Sure, it's indeed a very very difficult task to become a Immortal, but still...
Sure GP, that's why I said that it's just what canon implies, so I'm not considering your timeline for that (which I completely agrees and, BTW, I helped at it a little bit ;))
You know, Marilenev with only 500 souls instead of 50000 and stuff like that...
Sure, but canon doesn't say that Traladara was irrelevant. It just says that Marilenev was a village. Still, it's pretty clear from canon that (a) Thyatians wrote down the Traladaran oral tradition and (b) they took on worshipping Halav. The timeline just gives add some justification...
That's indeed the historical Halav, but not necessarely how the modern traladarans see him, which is basically a paladin character.
The Traladarans see him more or less as the historical Halav, IMO, since the Song of Halav is quite accurate, and there isn't another dominant model -- there's no reason why they should see him as a paladin, since they have no paladinhood or even knightly orders (which were only recently imported from Thyatis).
Yes, I agree with you here, but we could have more paladin-like where we have truly feudal systems (and, BTW, I wonder if we could assume that most, if any, of the medieval nations of Mystara are really feudal; honestly most of the people ever described in canon are free men, even if quite poor; canon says that there are serfs there, but they're almost transparent, in a sense... I wasn't expecting a lot of serfs NPCs, but at least a few of them...)
Actually, there aren't serfs in Karameikos, since it is not a feudal kingdom in the western european, middle ages sense. Serfs exist only de facto (but not de iure) in the Black Eagle Barony. Outside Karameikos, there are serfs in Ostland, IIRC, and indentured servants in Darokin, but it's a different matter.
Actually, I wonder if a place with so many slaves such as Thyatis could be considered to be truly feudal...
Not really. Thyatis is a mix of many RW elements, but feudalism has only a small impact -- mostly in the fact that there are vassals to the Emperor.
But knights imply a much finer grained distribution of vassals, which is not present in Thyatis.
GP
Sure, but canon doesn't say that Traladara was irrelevant. It just says that Marilenev was a village.
A village and the biggest settlement of Traladara
Still, it's pretty clear from canon that (a) Thyatians wrote down the Traladaran oral tradition and (b) they took on worshipping Halav. The timeline just gives add some justification...
Sure, and that's why I like that timeline so much
And yes, Halav was imported into Thyatis, but I wonder how popular he is at there, especially for those thyatians that look down the traladarans.
The Traladarans see him more or less as the historical Halav, IMO, since the Song of Halav is quite accurate, and there isn't another dominant model -- there's no reason why they should see him as a paladin, since they have no paladinhood or even knightly orders (which were only recently imported from Thyatis).
I'm not so sure about that, since we do have the Knights of Halav at the SC, and I don't think they received any more thyatian influence that their eastern cousins ;)
Actually, there aren't serfs in Karameikos, since it is not a feudal kingdom in the western european, middle ages sense. Serfs exist only de facto (but not de iure) in the Black Eagle Barony. Outside Karameikos, there are serfs in Ostland, IIRC, and indentured servants in Darokin, but it's a different matter.
Which is something I always wondered about. Why SCCB says that the thyatians (and Clébard) brought true feudalist to the region, and that Eusdria isn't truly feudal...
Not really. Thyatis is a mix of many RW elements, but feudalism has only a small impact -- mostly in the fact that there are vassals to the Emperor.
But knights imply a much finer grained distribution of vassals, which is not present in Thyatis.
Indeed. So, assuming that for feudal we can underestand the existence of vassals, wouldn't Eusdria be one of the most "feudal" nations of Mystara?
And yes, Halav was imported into Thyatis, but I wonder how popular he is at there, especially for those thyatians that look down the traladarans.
Thyatians are pragmatic people. They may look down to the Traladarans, but appreciate the power of Immortals, regardless of their origins. Note that Halav is just one of several imported Immortals, including e.g. Diulanna, Korotiku, Koryis, Ilsundal and Kagyar. Sure, these are less popular than the big, traditional Thyatian Immortals (Vanya, Valerias, Tarastia and Protius, and Ixion if you add him to the canon list), but they are worshipped nonetheless, especially in their own field (which, in Thyatis, is specifically the strategic and teaching aspect of Halav).
I'm not so sure about that, since we do have the Knights of Halav at the SC, and I don't think they received any more thyatian influence that their eastern cousins ;)
But they're not in Traladara. You might say that the SC Traladarans see Halav in a more crusading way, but not the Traladarans of Karameikos.
Which is something I always wondered about. Why SCCB says that the thyatians (and Clébard) brought true feudalist to the region, and that Eusdria isn't truly feudal...
And neither are Renardy or the SB. Eusdria is sort of pre-feudal.
Indeed. So, assuming that for feudal we can underestand the existence of vassals, wouldn't Eusdria be one of the most "feudal" nations of Mystara?
I don't think so. The lowest ranking vassals in the feudal system have just small patches of land with land-bound serfs, enough to support a single mounted knight and a few retainers (light infantry/archers).
This social system has no correspondence in Mystara at all.
However, that's not the main point. The issue is that Halav hardly fits the "Saint George" stereotype -- he's not a noble knight going on dragon slaying quests, he is a simple craftsman who rises to kingship thanks to the teaching of the Immortals and leads his people in a defensive war. While he is an honorable warrior, he is not specifically concerned with the code of honor typically associated to the knights (which indeed is the portfolio of Thor), being on the other hand associated with craftmanship (swordmaking and metalworking), strategy, and teaching warrior skills, in addition to being a sort of paternal figure.
GP
Thyatians are pragmatic people. They may look down to the Traladarans, but appreciate the power of Immortals, regardless of their origins. Note that Halav is just one of several imported Immortals, including e.g. Diulanna, Korotiku, Koryis, Ilsundal and Kagyar. Sure, these are less popular than the big, traditional Thyatian Immortals (Vanya, Valerias, Tarastia and Protius, and Ixion if you add him to the canon list), but they are worshipped nonetheless, especially in their own field (which, in Thyatis, is specifically the strategic and teaching aspect of Halav).
True, indeed. But, in the end, that means that even if the thyatis do worship him, he wouldn't still be a good patron for thyatian paladins (that's not a problem, since Ixion, Vanya and Tarastia do have their own paladins, but they're not "paladinesque" Immortals themselves).
But they're not in Traladara. You might say that the SC Traladarans see Halav in a more crusading way, but not the Traladarans of Karameikos.
Sure, which makes sense. But I don't see why the traladarans of Karameikos can't see Halav this way either, especially because they have Thyatis just a few miles to the east ;)
And neither are Renardy or the SB.
We know that neither the SB nor Renardy or Bellayne are truly feudal, but SCCB does imply this, saying that the thyatians brought "true feudalism" with then.
BTW, most of RW iberian nations simply weren't part of the "true feudalism" as well, since most of them were under moorish rule most of the Middle Ages, so the SB reflect nicely that, but, as you said, that's hardly "true feudalism".
I don't think so. The lowest ranking vassals in the feudal system have just small patches of land with land-bound serfs, enough to support a single mounted knight and a few retainers (light infantry/archers).
This social system has no correspondence in Mystara at all.
Sure. For feudalism, I'm assuming that it refers to have knights as vassals, since most of Mystara don't even have serfs. And Eusdria have a lot of knights and paladins ;)
However, that's not the main point. The issue is that Halav hardly fits the "Saint George" stereotype -- he's not a noble knight going on dragon slaying quests
Not a dragon, but humanoids in general (and especially gnolls) ;)
he is a simple craftsman who rises to kingship thanks to the teaching of the Immortals and leads his people in a defensive war. While he is an honorable warrior, he is not specifically concerned with the code of honor typically associated to the knights (which indeed is the portfolio of Thor), being on the other hand associated with craftmanship (swordmaking and metalworking), strategy, and teaching warrior skills, in addition to being a sort of paternal figure.
Yes, an important part of his portfolio is indeedthe metalworking, but that's not I problem, for what I can see. Besides, another important part of his portfolio, alongside with metalworking, is fighting evil, especially goblinoids. And he did sacrifice himself protecting the weak, much like a paladin would do ;)
Yes, an important part of his portfolio is indeedthe metalworking, but that's not I problem, for what I can see. Besides, another important part of his portfolio, alongside with metalworking, is fighting evil, especially goblinoids. And he did sacrifice himself protecting the weak, much like a paladin would do ;)
The problem, then, if what you define as "paladin-like behaviour". If it's "self sacrifice and fighting evil", then ok, Halav fits, but OTOH the rarity of this kind of deity is not that surprising -- the Eusdrian knights, e.g., are not self-sacrificing evil-fighters, but honorbound warriors, which is a different thing. And the similar points hold true for warriors all over the KW and SC.
OTOH, Hattani Stoneclaw fits your definition of paladin.
GP
The problem, then, if what you define as "paladin-like behaviour". If it's "self sacrifice and fighting evil", then ok, Halav fits, but OTOH the rarity of this kind of deity is not that surprising -- the Eusdrian knights, e.g., are not self-sacrificing evil-fighters, but honorbound warriors, which is a different thing. And the similar points hold true for warriors all over the KW and SC.
Sure, but the Knights of Eusdria aren't paladins, in the first place ;)
OTOH, the Order of the Immortals have paladins and LG defenders, and they should behave as paladins
OTOH, Hattani Stoneclaw fits your definition of paladin.
Sure, now the only thing missing is a pseudo-feudal culture that worships him and pictures him as a paladin ;)
I agree that the code of honor is a quite important part of a paladin life, especially because they're LG (although Zandra Sulanov doesn't behare as a standard paladin...). But Halav is LG as well, so I don't see why he can't be a patron any warrior (defenders and paaldins included) that have a code of honor that also includes some chivalrous principles (note that the Honourbound code of honor is LN instead of LB; Honourbounds can be LG, but their code of honour doesn't include any "good" principle).
Sure, but the Knights of Eusdria aren't paladins, in the first place ;)
OTOH, the Order of the Immortals have paladins and LG defenders, and they should behave as paladins
I meant Eusdrian knights in a general sense, including the Order of the Immortals. Defenders are temple warriors, who may or may not behave as paladin, but generally do not: paladins are meant as independent warriors going on quests to right wrongs, defenders, even LG ones, are people who stay at a temple to defend it from enemies of the faith. There's as much difference between defenders and paladins as there is between Galahad and the Templars.
Paladins are another matter, of course, but they are very rare in AD&D (the requirement of Cha 17, plus lower levels of Str and Wis, plus strict alignment requirements mean that there are very few paladins around), so I wouldn't count the Order of the Immortals as a congregation of paladins (at least not in the sense you're using).
Sure, now the only thing missing is a pseudo-feudal culture that worships him and pictures him as a paladin ;)
Indeed. That's the point in general for Mystara, there are no cultures where a paladin in the Arturian sense (i.e., Galahad, which is the best fit for your description of paladinhood, IMO) can really thrive.
I agree that the code of honor is a quite important part of a paladin life, especially because they're LG (although Zandra Sulanov doesn't behare as a standard paladin...).
Zandra Sulanov is a construct of the not-that-well-done AD&D version of Mystara. She would have been portrayed much better as a Fighter with the Myrmidon kit -- she isn't even mentioned to be part of any church, let alone given any reason to be a paladin (especially not in the Galahad sense).
But Halav is LG as well, so I don't see why he can't be a patron any warrior (defenders and paaldins included) that have a code of honor that also includes some chivalrous principles
It's not that he can't be (or not especially that), it's just that he isn't, for the simple reason that most LG fighters will be followers of other powers, or see him as other than a paladin patron -- in the case of Traladarans, I think he is not seen as a Galahad like figure (i.e., he is not the ultra-pure, almost angelic, quester) but as a wise army commander and folk hero, which is something different, not unlike Hattani, who shares the same traits, and, like Halav, is not worshipped by Paladins.
Myself, I don't see Galahad-like paladins as especially appropriate to Mystara at all, regardless of whether Halav, Hattani or other Immortals could be adapted as their patrons.
The Defender is IMO the best model of the OD&D Paladin -- i.e., the temple warrior -- and, even when LG, he doesn't match at all the Galahad model.
That's not to say that Galahad-like individuals cannot exist on Mystara, just that they wouldn't be more common than in the real world, and there wouldn't be religions especially built for them.
GP
I meant Eusdrian knights in a general sense, including the Order of the Immortals. Defenders are temple warriors, who may or may not behave as paladin, but generally do not: paladins are meant as independent warriors going on quests to right wrongs, defenders, even LG ones, are people who stay at a temple to defend it from enemies of the faith. There's as much difference between defenders and paladins as there is between Galahad and the Templars.
Now I see your point, and I think the main problem here is indeed the definition of what is a paladin. Honestly I always saw Paladins and LG Defenders as pretty much the same thing. In fact, I always had problems to see the poing of having Paladins (or even Defenders) if the standart cleric is already almost a "holy fighter" (BTW, that's something I have just discussed with a friend, and we came to the conclusion that paladin (and bard as well) is pretty much a redundant class, at least the way it's presented, with spells etc. It would be much more interesting if paladins would be more like "fighters with inspirational abilities"; and the same goes for the rangers and their spells... I simply can't imagine Robin Hood casting spells ;) ).
But I don't see why think of the paladins as "those who go on quests" and the defenders as "those who defend the temples". I think that's the same of saying that only specialist priests stay at the temples, while generic clerics are wanderers. Especially because even the SCCB says that both are basically the same, except that paladins have more special abilities ;)
Zandra Sulanov is a construct of the not-that-well-done AD&D version of Mystara. She would have been portrayed much better as a Fighter with the Myrmidon kit -- she isn't even mentioned to be part of any church, let alone given any reason to be a paladin (especially not in the Galahad sense).
Indeed.
It's not that he can't be (or not especially that), it's just that he isn't, for the simple reason that most LG fighters will be followers of other powers, or see him as other than a paladin patron -- in the case of Traladarans, I think he is not seen as a Galahad like figure (i.e., he is not the ultra-pure, almost angelic, quester) but as a wise army commander and folk hero, which is something different, not unlike Hattani, who shares the same traits, and, like Halav, is not worshipped by Paladins.
I don't see why a paladin has to be necessarely a solitary knight on a quest. Wouldn't Joan of Arc be a good example of a paladin (and not defender or templar, since, using your definition for these classes/kits)? Still, she led an army, much like Halav ;)
Myself, I don't see Galahad-like paladins as especially appropriate to Mystara at all, regardless of whether Halav, Hattani or other Immortals could be adapted as their patrons.
The Defender is IMO the best model of the OD&D Paladin -- i.e., the temple warrior -- and, even when LG, he doesn't match at all the Galahad model.
That's not to say that Galahad-like individuals cannot exist on Mystara, just that they wouldn't be more common than in the real world, and there wouldn't be religions especially built for them.
I think that's the problem is that some paladins/defenders will go on quests, while others will stay behind, defending their faith. A good example of this is Narvaez, which, BTW, is described in RS as having champions that "commonly go on quixotic quests", but obvioulsy a good number of them have to stay behild to defend their nation. And probably many of those who live aren't paladins, or even LG, or else they wouldn't "bring the "good word" to faraway natives (with the help of their might swords)" ;)
Honestly I always saw Paladins and LG Defenders as pretty much the same thing. In fact, I always had problems to see the poing of having Paladins (or even Defenders) if the standart cleric is already almost a "holy fighter" (BTW, that's something I have just discussed with a friend, and we came to the conclusion that paladin (and bard as well) is pretty much a redundant class, at least the way it's presented, with spells etc. It would be much more interesting if paladins would be more like "fighters with inspirational abilities"; and the same goes for the rangers and their spells... I simply can't imagine Robin Hood casting spells ;) ).
Indeed. However, you must take into account that "Paladins" and "Rangers", in AD&D, map some very specific models from literature: Paladins are Galahad-like (models of purity with saintly powers) and Rangers are Aragorn-like (fighters with knowledge of the wilderness and some magical powers -- e.g., Aragorn's healing powers using athelas).
Of course, there other types of rangers and paladins -- you could model paladins on Charlemagne's paladins (they would be simply knights with no clerical or holy powers at all, but definitely with an honorbound like code) and rangers as Robin Hood-like archers, thus with no powers and better skill with bows (note that AD&D Rangers have no special skill with bows, just like Aragorn).
But I don't see why think of the paladins as "those who go on quests" and the defenders as "those who defend the temples". I think that's the same of saying that only specialist priests stay at the temples, while generic clerics are wanderers. Especially because even the SCCB says that both are basically the same, except that paladins have more special abilities ;)
Not entirely true: the SCCB says that Defenders are paladin-like, not that they are the same -- their similarity is in that both are religious warriors, the differences in their roles. Here is the definition of the Defender's role:
A Defender supports the religious hierarchy of a specific Immortal and has the same alignment as the order's priests (if they can choose from several alignments, so can the Defender).
Certain duties are common to all Defenders. They must safeguard their religious order and defend its priests, worship sites, and sacred items. They must protect the faithful and obey the priests. They may even be called upon to punish those who break the faith (assuming the order believes in such punishment).
Note that is specifically mentions its duties as temple guardian/enforcer. Note that there is no mention of self-sacrifice or other specific ideals -- the duties are very down to earth. Basically, the Defender is a member of the armed forces of a church, and he depends clearly from the church itself.
On the other hand, here is the role section from the "True Paladin" (i.e., the standard kit) From the CPH:
The True Paladin is pious and forthright, sworn to uphold a just code of behavior and determined to rid the world of evil. He serves as the conscience of his party, setting an example of high moral standards and nudging them back on track when they stray from their mission. He respects all lawful good authorities and defers to the elders of his faith.
As you can see, in the Paladin's case, personal codes and morals take precedence on temple rulings. Sure, the Paladin defers to the elders of his faith, but he is also respects all lawful good authorities, while the defender has no such constraints -- not any more than any other LG character, at least. By the same token, the Defender is not about ridding the world of evil, but defending the possessions and personnel of a specific organization.
I don't see why a paladin has to be necessarely a solitary knight on a quest. Wouldn't Joan of Arc be a good example of a paladin (and not defender or templar, since, using your definition for these classes/kits)? Still, she led an army, much like Halav ;)
Sure, Joan of Arc makes a good Paladin and a bad Defender. The Paladin is not necessarily solitary, but he is on a quest -- and Joan of Arc was on one, in her case ridding France of the English rule. OTOH, the Defender is not.
Basically, the Paladin's solitude depends in general on the fact that others may not wish or not be able to to follow him to the full extent of his quest (just like it happened to Joan of Arc, BTW), not that he won't accept help (though that may be in some case).
Note also that, while Paladins may occasionally lead or enlist in armies and Defenders may go on solitary quests, this is not their primary occupation.
In the Paladin's case, he makes a good army leader due to his charisma and military skills, but a poor soldier since, even though he is LG, he has a strict moral code that may conflict with orders. On the other hand, the Defender makes a much better soldier, but not necessarily a good army leader.
The roles are therefore similar, but not the same, especially because the definition of Paladin in AD&D is very restrictive.
GP
Indeed. However, you must take into account that "Paladins" and "Rangers", in AD&D, map some very specific models from literature: Paladins are Galahad-like (models of purity with saintly powers) and Rangers are Aragorn-like (fighters with knowledge of the wilderness and some magical powers -- e.g., Aragorn's healing powers using athelas).
Indeed. Still, I guess that would mean that they're multiclass characters, paladin/cleric and ranger/druid or druid/sorcerer. But that's for 3e, it would be more difficult to use this same idea for ad&d, I guess.
Of course, there other types of rangers and paladins -- you could model paladins on Charlemagne's paladins (they would be simply knights with no clerical or holy powers at all, but definitely with an honorbound like code) and rangers as Robin Hood-like archers, thus with no powers and better skill with bows (note that AD&D Rangers have no special skill with bows, just like Aragorn).
Indeed.
3e rangers are quite easy to modify: they already may be proficient with bows, we would only need to remove the spells. Replace it with a better animal companion (just like the druids') would be a good compensation ;)
Note that is specifically mentions its duties as temple guardian/enforcer. Note that there is no mention of self-sacrifice or other specific ideals -- the duties are very down to earth.
Sure, especially because defenders don't have to be Good characters ;)
Basically, the Defender is a member of the armed forces of a church, and he depends clearly from the church itself.
On the other hand, here is the role section from the "True Paladin" (i.e., the standard kit) From the CPH:
I agree that the way both classes/kits are pictured is somewhat different, but the difference is basically the same of a generic cleric and a especialist priest. That don't mean that they're not basically the same thing, only that they're occupying different functions
The True Paladin is pious and forthright, sworn to uphold a just code of behavior and determined to rid the world of evil. He serves as the conscience of his party, setting an example of high moral standards and nudging them back on track when they stray from their mission. He respects all lawful good authorities and defers to the elders of his faith.
As you can see, in the Paladin's case, personal codes and morals take precedence on temple rulings. Sure, the Paladin defers to the elders of his faith, but he is also respects all lawful good authorities, while the defender has no such constraints -- not any more than any other LG character, at least.
But a LG character, paladin, defender or any other, should respect other LG autorities, even from different faiths and cultures. I don't see much differente from a paladin to any other character that is also LG, for choice or commitment to a code of honor.
Besides, the description of the True Paladin don't say anything about temples and faiths. It may fit better a Galahad-like character, but it will also fit a LG Defender from a LG faith.
By the same token, the Defender is not about ridding the world of evil, but defending the possessions and personnel of a specific organization.
I wonder if a Defender of Halav or Ixion would refuse to join a crusade against evil ;)
Sure, Joan of Arc makes a good Paladin and a bad Defender. The Paladin is not necessarily solitary, but he is on a quest -- and Joan of Arc was on one, in her case ridding France of the English rule. OTOH, the Defender is not.
Basically, the Paladin's solitude depends in general on the fact that others may not wish or not be able to to follow him to the full extent of his quest (just like it happened to Joan of Arc, BTW), not that he won't accept help (though that may be in some case).
But then I guess that you agree that Halav is a good example of a paladin (and not a defender) ;)
The roles are therefore similar, but not the same, especially because the definition of Paladin in AD&D is very restrictive.
I always imagine the paladins filling both roles. Honestly, I really liked the way you're picturing them, mainly because then we have an oportunity to make this class different from the cleric (that is already a templar (defender) much more than a priest, as we imagine then for the RW).
Indeed. Still, I guess that would mean that they're multiclass characters, paladin/cleric and ranger/druid or druid/sorcerer. But that's for 3e, it would be more difficult to use this same idea for ad&d, I guess.
That's not the point. Rather, we can't assume that Ranger == Robin Hood in SCCB, for example, because that's not how the AD&D Ranger is defined.
I agree that the way both classes/kits are pictured is somewhat different, but the difference is basically the same of a generic cleric and a especialist priest. That don't mean that they're not basically the same thing, only that they're occupying different functions
Sure, they're both holy warriors, though, not both paladins. Except for being associated with a religion, there's really little in common between the two.
But a LG character, paladin, defender or any other, should respect other LG autorities, even from different faiths and cultures. I don't see much differente from a paladin to any other character that is also LG, for choice or commitment to a code of honor.
Not at all. Ylari LG characters hardly respect Alfheim LG authorities.
I wonder if a Defender of Halav or Ixion would refuse to join a crusade against evil ;)
He probably would refuse, since it would mean abandoning his duties.
But then I guess that you agree that Halav is a good example of a paladin (and not a defender) ;)
Nope, Halav is a typical Local Hero Fighter. Given no Beastman invasion, he would have stayed home.
GP
That's not the point. Rather, we can't assume that Ranger == Robin Hood in SCCB, for example, because that's not how the AD&D Ranger is defined.
Funny, I remember reading on an old Dragon Magazine saying that Robin Hood would be an example of ranger (I can't remember which one, unfortunately). Still, I don't see much point in having classes that are combination of two or more different classes, especially for 3e, since you can simply have a multiclass character.
Sure, they're both holy warriors, though, not both paladins. Except for being associated with a religion, there's really little in common between the two.
Pretty much the same of a especialist priest and a generic cleric. But still, they're part of the same class (Cleric), only have different occupations ;)
Not at all. Ylari LG characters hardly respect Alfheim LG authorities.
I'm not sure if it's a LG character or a LN that you're describing here. Good characters tends to usually share a mutual respect, unless there's a too strong reason preventing that. Sure, it's not that easy for someone know the alignment of another character, but if both have some time to see how the other act and react to different situatons, he would see good deeds being done and should respect them (even if one of them is LG and the other CG). If not, I think we may have instead a LN character here.
He probably would refuse, since it would mean abandoning his duties.
The problem is that both Ixion and Halav (and I'd also include at least Thor as well) have this as part of their portfolios. They're both beligerant Immortals (even if not completely focused on War as Vanya, they see the attack as the best defense against evil), and their Defenders and Clerics (at least the warpriests, assming that we have "non-combatent" priests) should reflect this. That doesn't mean they'll always leave their temples to seek for goblinoids or other evil forces and destroy them, but they shouldn't let other suffer for their lack of action against evil as well.
And for Vanya, her temple is (or at least should be) already organized as a military order. Leaving their temples to fight probably is already part of his duty as Defender of Vanya. But indeed, a Defender of Tarastia would be much much more worried about defending it's temples (and, pehaps, seeking criminals, especially if the local temples are recognized by the local government as part of the juridic system?).
Nope, Halav is a typical Local Hero Fighter. Given no Beastman invasion, he would have stayed home.
Joan of Arc would stay home as well if we hadn't the Hundred Years War ;)
I'm not sure if it's a LG character or a LN that you're describing here. Good characters tends to usually share a mutual respect, unless there's a too strong reason preventing that.
The case with Mystara is that there are many strong reasons why even LG characters don't behave as if they belonged to the worldwide brotherhood of goodness.
The problem is that both Ixion and Halav (and I'd also include at least Thor as well) have this as part of their portfolios.
Actually, neither has. WotI doesn't speak of "fighting evil" as part of the portfolio of Ixion ("he dictates a simple ethical code to his followers: seek peace but be harsh in war; deny aid to the forces of Entropy; give Ixion is due" -- no mention of going out of their way to fight entropy) or Halav (who is only described as patron of intelligent warfare and swordmaking, as well as a patron of the Traladarans), and SCCB doesn't mention Halav at all, and does not say Ixion's portfolio includes crusading or fighting evil. Crusading followers of Ixion, specifically, are actually evil themselves, BTW.
And for Vanya, her temple is (or at least should be) already organized as a military order. Leaving their temples to fight probably is already part of his duty as Defender of Vanya.
"Temple defense" includes a number of duties that can go from taking part in military campaigns, carrying messages for the temple hierarchy, etc. The nature of these duties varies according to the nature of the temple itself, but the Defender, like the OD&D Paladin, is strictly bound to the church (regardless of alignment).
Using the Ixion example, let's say that Baron Hugo of Narvaez, chief of the Church of Ixion (and LE priest) tells a Defender and a Paladin to go kill some heretics (let's say they are CG followers of Valeryas). The Paladin loses his status (and powers) if he complies, the Defender if he doesn't comply.
That's the main difference, in the end -- the Defender is bound to the Church, the Paladin to his code/religion/morals.
In a perfect world, where religions are perfectly aligned, the difference would not exist, and that's why IMO you see the LG Defender and Paladin as the same thing. But in Mystara, priests of Ixion can be of any alignment, which makes the concept of "LG authority" less defined.
Joan of Arc would stay home as well if we hadn't the Hundred Years War ;)
Not really, she had visions well before taking part in the war. She'd probably gathered much less consensus without the war, bu that's another matter.
GP
The case with Mystara is that there are many strong reasons why even LG characters don't behave as if they belonged to the worldwide brotherhood of goodness.
Sure, and I think things don't work that way either. Mutual respect may eventually evolve into cooperation, but usually don't. And, IMHO, most of people usually are neutral (Good vs. Evil axis), and that's why sometimes even mutual respect is hard to achieve.
Actually, neither has. WotI doesn't speak of "fighting evil" as part of the portfolio of Ixion ("he dictates a simple ethical code to his followers: seek peace but be harsh in war; deny aid to the forces of Entropy; give Ixion is due" -- no mention of going out of their way to fight entropy)
Indeed. But as I said, they won't go out looking for goblinoid tribes living in remote places, but will fight those who threatens where they live (and their temples that exist at there).
or Halav (who is only described as patron of intelligent warfare and swordmaking, as well as a patron of the Traladarans)
And fighting goblinoids
and SCCB doesn't mention Halav at all
I always wondered why SCCB left Halav of of the Immortals list. Even if it don't include the cit-states as part of the coast and mentions it very briefly, the traladarans were quite present at the SC region during it's history...
Crusading followers of Ixion, specifically, are actually evil themselves, BTW.
Another thing I always found odd... Even if we assume that Ixion is NG instead of CG, why does he allow LE clerics?
"Temple defense" includes a number of duties that can go from taking part in military campaigns, carrying messages for the temple hierarchy, etc. The nature of these duties varies according to the nature of the temple itself, but the Defender, like the OD&D Paladin, is strictly bound to the church (regardless of alignment).
Indeed. So, the basic difference from a paladin quest and a defender quest is who gives it to him
Using the Ixion example, let's say that Baron Hugo of Narvaez, chief of the Church of Ixion (and LE priest) tells a Defender and a Paladin to go kill some heretics (let's say they are CG followers of Valeryas). The Paladin loses his status (and powers) if he complies, the Defender if he doesn't comply.
That's the main difference, in the end -- the Defender is bound to the Church, the Paladin to his code/religion/morals.
That's an interesting example. But, in the end, the problem is that this Church isn't LG, but LN with some LE individuals on it (even being a villian, I can't see the CoN as a evil church, but as a misguided one ;))
In a perfect world, where religions are perfectly aligned, the difference would not exist
Lol :D
and that's why IMO you see the LG Defender and Paladin as the same thing. But in Mystara, priests of Ixion can be of any alignment, which makes the concept of "LG authority" less defined.
Sure, I see your point, that defenders and paladins are not completely the same thing. But the differente is still only the same a generic cleric and a specialist priest would have ;)
Not really, she had visions well before taking part in the war. She'd probably gathered much less consensus without the war, bu that's another matter.
I don't know much about her, but I guess her visions were mainly about leading France against England. And the war was already at there before she was born ;)
I always wondered why SCCB left Halav of of the Immortals list. Even if it don't include the cit-states as part of the coast and mentions it very briefly, the traladarans were quite present at the SC region during it's history...
Indeed, but by 1010 AC their cultural legacy doesn't include religion.
Another thing I always found odd... Even if we assume that Ixion is NG instead of CG, why does he allow LE clerics?
Because Mystaran Immortals are much less picky than 3e gods. Actually, Ixion is not the only Immortal to allow priests and followers of different alignment.
However, in Ixion's case it is said in WotI that he has a lafwul (anti-entropic), neutral (scholarly) and chaotic (energetic) nature at the same time, and that his scholarly detachment is what defines his Neutral alignment.
Indeed. So, the basic difference from a paladin quest and a defender quest is who gives it to him
You might see it that way, but the difference is actually deeper -- note that the Paladin actually falls from grace if he obeys evil commands from his own church elders, while the Defender loses his powers if said elders say so.
So, the Defender is primarily committed to the church, while the Paladin is primarily committed to his ethics (which may or may not be associated to a church).
That's an interesting example. But, in the end, the problem is that this Church isn't LG, but LN with some LE individuals on it (even being a villian, I can't see the CoN as a evil church, but as a misguided one ;))
Actually, the Church is LG, but the priests are often LN or LE, which is enough to create a major conflict for a Paladin, but not for a LG Defender (who will probably have his own moral issues with the commands he receives, but is committed to obey them).
Sure, I see your point, that defenders and paladins are not completely the same thing. But the differente is still only the same a generic cleric and a specialist priest would have ;)
Sure, and that's a major difference -- the difference between Cleric and Druid, for example.
I don't know much about her, but I guess her visions were mainly about leading France against England.
Yes, but she still saw things that don't exist -- meaning she wasn't that sane to begin with, and would have been so even if there had been no war ;)
GP
Indeed, but by 1010 AC their cultural legacy doesn't include religion.
Sure, but it wouldn't hurt anyone to include Halav and Petra at the list ;)
It even includes Loki alias for Hule (Bozdogan) and Yav!
However, in Ixion's case it is said in WotI that he has a lafwul (anti-entropic), neutral (scholarly) and chaotic (energetic) nature at the same time, and that his scholarly detachment is what defines his Neutral alignment.
I guess the first part (Lawful), actually means Good for AD&D/3e standards. So, he is basically NG or CG
Actually, the Church is LG, but the priests are often LN or LE, which is enough to create a major conflict for a Paladin, but not for a LG Defender (who will probably have his own moral issues with the commands he receives, but is committed to obey them).
LG? Really???
Sure, and that's a major difference -- the difference between Cleric and Druid, for example.
Indeed. That's why I think it would be much better to have warpriests and defenders as the same class while paladins as a completely different thing, using your idea. He would them not receive any spells, but give bonuses to his party, inspiring them for a cause.
Yes, but she still saw things that don't exist -- meaning she wasn't that sane to begin with, and would have been so even if there had been no war ;)
LOL! :D
Ok, Halav had a less religious inspiration (or, at least, a more sane reason) for fighting the gnolls. But he's still a example for others to follow ;)
I guess the first part (Lawful), actually means Good for AD&D/3e standards. So, he is basically NG or CG
Actually, it means Lawful. WotI is a later product, were the confusion between Lawful and Good and Chaos and Evil does not appear anymore.
That's why I think it would be much better to have warpriests and defenders as a simple class while paladins as a completely different thing, using your idea. He would them not receive any spells, but give bonuses to his party, inspiring them for a cause.
That's a possibility, but really depends on the rules. OD&D simply doesn't have that type of paladin (the OD&D Paladin is a Defender), while 4e seems to have Paladins that match your ideas.
GP
Actually, it means Lawful. WotI is a later product, were the confusion between Lawful and Good and Chaos and Evil does not appear anymore.
That's odd, I always imagined Entropy as much more close to Evil than Chaos (most of Entropics are Evil, and only a few of them aren't quite vilanous (Nyx being the most obvious, although she's not good at all, as well), but we have some Lafwul Entropics, like Masauwu).
That's a possibility, but really depends on the rules. OD&D simply doesn't have that type of paladin (the OD&D Paladin is a Defender), while 4e seems to have Paladins that match your ideas.
Hm, I didn't know that. I guess I might like 4e then :D
That's odd, I always imagined Entropy as much more close to Evil than Chaos
Indeed, but that doesn't make Ixion more good. Basically, WotI says that Ixion's personality is complex, including both lawful and chaotic traits. Thus, he is overall Neutral, but is followers can be of any alignment, as long as they respect his (simple) code.
BTW, Masauwu is Chaotic, according to SCCB.
G.
Indeed, but that doesn't make Ixion more good. Basically, WotI says that Ixion's personality is complex, including both lawful and chaotic traits. Thus, he is overall Neutral, but is followers can be of any alignment, as long as they respect his (simple) code.
I see
BTW, Masauwu is Chaotic, according to SCCB.
I wonder how he found a way into the WotL and the LB pantheons, then ;)
I wonder how he found a way into the WotL and the LB pantheons, then ;)
He did only in our version, which is non-canon. ;)
GP
He did only in our version, which is non-canon. ;)
But what explanation is given for that?
But what explanation is given for that?
We changed him to better fit the WotL idea, but it doesn't mean we can use him as an argument in favor Lawful entropics in WotI! ;)
GP
We changed him to better fit the WotL idea, but it doesn't mean we can use him as an argument in favor Lawful entropics in WotI! ;)
Hehe, indeed