Is there a difference between a militant cleric and a paladin in Dungeons & Dragons?
I don’t want to make the assumption that how I play D&D, or have experienced D&D over the years is the same way that you play D&D.
Tapping into the META of the D&D community is an awesome resource through blogs, groups, and Twitter.
So what about playing a Paladin?
Recently I have been exploring playing non-optimized or flawed player characters vs. a min-maxed or generic PC.
The Paladin as an example as the over the top no compromise knight in shining armor that refuses to tolerate evil and follows a strict moral code.
Maybe because the construct of a “paladin” does not exist anymore in western society the only way we know how to play it is in an over the top caricature?
On the opposite side we have the Blackguard which is just the same only doing it the bad/evil way. What about a more neutral kind of Paladin? Not in terms of alignment restrictions, but in actions?
A Paladin who is disillusioned by her/his order and is a bit lax on the “rules”?
Or a corrupt Paladin who looks the other way or uses the status of their order to bring in some personal coin and comfort.
Not in an evil way, so there are no fallen issues, but more on the gray side? What about a Paladin who has committed unspeakable bloodshed for the order, and is now a pacifist- relying on skills checks and feats to get through the game?
Does one always have to play an over the top Paladin, or is that a party expectation?