Why does paladin seem like only use maces?

Story Forum
Prev 1 2 3 4 6 Next
Okay, I'll concede that.

Still though, it sounds woefully dangerous to use a sword handle as a hook compared to a hammer's end.


Swords weren't terrific weapons, but it was mostly because they weren't good at any one thing; they were "decent" at everything


There's a reason why swords were traditionally sidearms, rather than primary weapons, in armored combat around the world.

That depends on the sword and the culture, but I agree with you.

For most armored warriors the preferred weapon was one that had a long reach and could be used both on foot and from horseback. A lance would often be the main weapon (no, not the jousting lances we used in the Argent tournament). Horse archers were arguably the most effective military tactic used on Earth until the introduction of gunpowder.

The only real exception would be the claymore swords used in Scotland (yes, it is real not just in Braveheart). They were large enough to bring enough force to cut through most armor. But their size also made them difficult to use even by trained swordsmen and as a result they were not as widely accepted as other, lighter, weapons.
It's a fantasy convention adopted from the loose and old myth that holy men who went to war did not use edged or impaling weapons since those would make someone bleed more easily and were thus more violent.

this ^

priests use maces as well (and most healing weapons are maces, no coincidence), and since paladins are essentially priests in armor its kind of a callback to that.
I've only read up to The Crystal Shard in his books, but isn't Drizzt known for having a wild, bloodthirsty side?

Kind of plays into the idea that his swords own him.


Eh, not really. He's just very effective.

In fact, he once gave up a sentient sword that literally wanted to own him.

You might be thinking of Artemis, and that gauntlet.

05/11/2013 09:51 AMPosted by Draile
Tell that to Arthas. He was an ordained Paladin who put his faith in Frostmourne over the Light.


I'll give you that. But then again...... Well, Arthas, you know? It's not like other sword-wielding Paladins have had trouble with many of his problems.
I've only read up to The Crystal Shard in his books, but isn't Drizzt known for having a wild, bloodthirsty side?

Kind of plays into the idea that his swords own him.


Eh, not really. He's just very effective.

In fact, he once gave up a sentient sword that literally wanted to own him.

You might be thinking of Artemis, and that gauntlet.

05/11/2013 09:51 AMPosted by Draile
Tell that to Arthas. He was an ordained Paladin who put his faith in Frostmourne over the Light.


I'll give you that. But then again...... Well, Arthas, you know? It's not like other sword-wielding Paladins have had trouble with many of his problems.


Every DK in WC3 have swords. In WoW, DKs are given the choice between two weapons when they come out of Acherus; a sword or an axe. By default, they are given a runeblade as their first weapon.

The symbolism is there. Swords and axes are seen as more violent, more bloody, than a mace.
The symbolism is there. Swords and axes are seen as more violent, more bloody, than a mace.


True. But, I've always thought of maces as much more cruel weapons. Instead of outright killing, (shy of a blow to the head) they cripple and maim. A death by a blade to the vitals, even by bleeding out, is much quicker then the crushing of a breastplate, or the breaking of a limb.
Then again, by the same virtue, it might (and I use that very loosely) be seen as somewhat more merciful than a sword, in that it's much harder to inflict a non-killing or maiming wound with a blade than with a blunted weapon, assuming one was intending to leave their target alive and relatively healthy.
I'll give you that. But then again...... Well, Arthas, you know? It's not like other sword-wielding Paladins have had trouble with many of his problems.


Actually, a lot did. Many of the original Scourge Death Knights were Paladins who pledged themselves to Ner'zhul for power.

We just didn't see them in the WCIII campaign.

That's why when WoTLk was announced a lot of people found it weird that races other than Human and Blood Elf could be DK's. But like Blizzard said, "Arthas isn't racist".
05/11/2013 10:39 AMPosted by Draile
Unless the actual technique is vastly different than what my mind is conjuring, that's just asking to be putting your hands too close to the enemy and leaving yourself too vulnerable.


Not if you do it this way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordstreich
05/11/2013 03:41 PMPosted by Veloran
The symbolism is there. Swords and axes are seen as more violent, more bloody, than a mace.


True. But, I've always thought of maces as much more cruel weapons. Instead of outright killing, (shy of a blow to the head) they cripple and maim. A death by a blade to the vitals, even by bleeding out, is much quicker then the crushing of a breastplate, or the breaking of a limb.


But on the other hand, a broken leg is more likely to heal than a severed leg.
Unless you're a troll...
But on the other hand, a broken leg is more likely to heal than a severed leg. Unless you're a troll...


Only if you live through the battle.

And in a medieval-fantasy world, it's not very likely that someone disabled, screaming and bleeding on the battlefield will survive very long, regardless of the type of wound.

Better to just get it over with.
05/12/2013 10:59 PMPosted by Resileaf


True. But, I've always thought of maces as much more cruel weapons. Instead of outright killing, (shy of a blow to the head) they cripple and maim. A death by a blade to the vitals, even by bleeding out, is much quicker then the crushing of a breastplate, or the breaking of a limb.


But on the other hand, a broken leg is more likely to heal than a severed leg.
Unless you're a troll...


A mutilated leg will need amputation.

I generally view bladed weapons as being both significantly more merciful AND more effective against an unarmored foe.
Maces are like giant Gavels...Gavels of Justice...Palladins = Justice.

...And fab hair!
The only real exception would be the claymore swords used in Scotland (yes, it is real not just in Braveheart). They were large enough to bring enough force to cut through most armor. But their size also made them difficult to use even by trained swordsmen and as a result they were not as widely accepted as other, lighter, weapons.


Except that the sole reason claymores existed and were employed in battle was to cut the legs out from under English cavalry. That's why they're so long and heavy. Not even incredibly strong Scot warriors could wield a claymore effectively in hand-to-hand fighting, but against the horseman of their opponents they were incredibly effective. The point being there really is no comparison between war hammers and claymores, as they were intended for vastly different uses.
Except that the sole reason claymores existed and were employed in battle was to cut the legs out from under English cavalry. That's why they're so long and heavy. Not even incredibly strong Scot warriors could wield a claymore effectively in hand-to-hand fighting, but against the horseman of their opponents they were incredibly effective. The point being there really is no comparison between war hammers and claymores, as they were intended for vastly different uses.


I don't think anyone in Warcraft has a problem with excessively large weaponry.
I don't think anyone in Warcraft has a problem with excessively large weaponry.


I eat my steak at the end of Zin'rok, Destroyer of Worlds.

Fresh steak. From the Warsong Gulch.

Well, a heavy axe could smash armor.



And they did, though they really weren't that heavy (couple of pounds). A 15th-16th century battleaxe was essentially a one-flanged mace. Impact weapon with more leverage and an edge like a chisel.

Plate armor was very difficult to defeat historically. Pierce it, smash it, or avoid it altogether. No draw cutting plate (boo to the LotR for that absolutely idiotic combat scene in Osgiliath).

The mace convention came from a comment made by some clergy in one of the crusades to the effect that holy men shouldn't shed blood. So...use a mace. Might be apocryphal.
05/13/2013 11:01 AMPosted by Yshara
The only real exception would be the claymore swords used in Scotland (yes, it is real not just in Braveheart). They were large enough to bring enough force to cut through most armor. But their size also made them difficult to use even by trained swordsmen and as a result they were not as widely accepted as other, lighter, weapons.


Except that the sole reason claymores existed and were employed in battle was to cut the legs out from under English cavalry. That's why they're so long and heavy. Not even incredibly strong Scot warriors could wield a claymore effectively in hand-to-hand fighting, but against the horseman of their opponents they were incredibly effective. The point being there really is no comparison between war hammers and claymores, as they were intended for vastly different uses.

Very true.

To be honest out of all the medieval weapons that there are to choose from I would not choose a claymore. While a powerful weapon it is not a versatile one. With enough training it is possible to use a claymore as more than a sweeping weapon, but we are talking years of training to be proficient. And even then there are more effective and efficient weapons from the medieval period.

One weapon that I am surprised has not been included in the Warcraft lore is the halberd; a poleaxe that combines a spear, axe, sword, and hook in one. These were so effective that armies continued to use them even into the early gun powder era. If given the choice my character would use a halberd as his main while using a long sword as a side arm.

To link with the thread, a halberd would be unlikely to be used as a paladins weapon. Paladin's, along with most knights, are traditionally mounted warriors and the halberd is not as effective on a horse as other weapons.
I think because the maces are not normal maces but enchanted maces with holy energy
Maces are the best weapons for fighting people in plate. Swords are crap for that.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum