Do you have any class? The class discussion thread (Paladins and Warlocks and Clerics, OH MY!!
Urriak Uruk
Gaming is fun, and fun is for everyone
So in answer to the OP's question, I don't think classes have to include fluff to work, but I think some work better when you do. Paladins, warlocks, clerics all rely on an outside force for some of their powers, it can make a game more interesting when that "outside force," has an impact on the game for story reasons.
Now to the Paladin... the "white knight" trope can be very flawed, especially when you've got a more nuanced group overall. But I'd argue that how people can play paladins is no worse than how people play rogues, when they try to backstab and steal from the rest of the party. Paladins when used badly by players aren't good, but that's like blaming a wrench when a man beats his coworker to death with it.
I played a goblin paladin once, raised by human paladins because these "white knights," recognized that yeah smiting evil is bad, but leaving orphaned goblins is also bad... so the set up a goblin orphanage. Sure most those orphaned goblins eventually left and became criminals because of the cycle of poverty that exists in the real world, but not this one! Jak converted to Pelor and now travels the world with pamphlets trying to convince everybody how great a dude his god is. He gets drunk, throws up a lot, is friendly to everybody, gets depressed, but he's doing his best and IS A GOOD BOY.
Paladins can be great. It's the players that are no good.
Now to the Paladin... the "white knight" trope can be very flawed, especially when you've got a more nuanced group overall. But I'd argue that how people can play paladins is no worse than how people play rogues, when they try to backstab and steal from the rest of the party. Paladins when used badly by players aren't good, but that's like blaming a wrench when a man beats his coworker to death with it.
I played a goblin paladin once, raised by human paladins because these "white knights," recognized that yeah smiting evil is bad, but leaving orphaned goblins is also bad... so the set up a goblin orphanage. Sure most those orphaned goblins eventually left and became criminals because of the cycle of poverty that exists in the real world, but not this one! Jak converted to Pelor and now travels the world with pamphlets trying to convince everybody how great a dude his god is. He gets drunk, throws up a lot, is friendly to everybody, gets depressed, but he's doing his best and IS A GOOD BOY.
Paladins can be great. It's the players that are no good.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Laurefindel
Legend
I have no class, or at least I'm very lenient on what people consider "class". Just to be sure, we're still talking D&D right?
I like class-system RPG. Class-less games sound perfect in theory but when I make such a character, I often feel disappointed by a) having to stretch my abilities/skills to thin or b) turn into some kind of one-trick pony. Even systems like 7th sea and L5R have, at their core, choice between dedicated warrior, magic user, or "neither", and then work relatively free-form from there.
But in D&D, I like to see classes as packages of abilities with a suggested theme. At the core, the barbarian will always be a warrior with a highly focused approach to combat, regardless whether you see it as a frothing-at-the-mouth berserker, or dervish sword dancer, or kung-fu Jackie Chan brawler. The paladin will always be a warrior-magic user with a code, regardless whether you see it as the traditional D&D LG paladin, a samurai warrior, or dwarven rune-priest, and whether you see its supernatural abilities as divine gifts, occult lore, or imposing strength of character. Cleric can be used to make a good witch, wizard a pseudo-science techno-priest, warlock a magic archer, monk a nice thief-acrobat throwback, etc. Ultimately, they all can represent batman...
But by the gods, pick some sort of concept for your class. "because I want eldritch blast" is a poor justification to multiclass into warlock. "Because I'm sworn to revere the spirits of my evil ancestors" is a better start, even if you use that mostly to justify your eldritch blast.
As far as I'm concerned, you can change everything but the progression table and the exact effects of abilities/spells around any fitting concept and have fun with it.
I like class-system RPG. Class-less games sound perfect in theory but when I make such a character, I often feel disappointed by a) having to stretch my abilities/skills to thin or b) turn into some kind of one-trick pony. Even systems like 7th sea and L5R have, at their core, choice between dedicated warrior, magic user, or "neither", and then work relatively free-form from there.
But in D&D, I like to see classes as packages of abilities with a suggested theme. At the core, the barbarian will always be a warrior with a highly focused approach to combat, regardless whether you see it as a frothing-at-the-mouth berserker, or dervish sword dancer, or kung-fu Jackie Chan brawler. The paladin will always be a warrior-magic user with a code, regardless whether you see it as the traditional D&D LG paladin, a samurai warrior, or dwarven rune-priest, and whether you see its supernatural abilities as divine gifts, occult lore, or imposing strength of character. Cleric can be used to make a good witch, wizard a pseudo-science techno-priest, warlock a magic archer, monk a nice thief-acrobat throwback, etc. Ultimately, they all can represent batman...
But by the gods, pick some sort of concept for your class. "because I want eldritch blast" is a poor justification to multiclass into warlock. "Because I'm sworn to revere the spirits of my evil ancestors" is a better start, even if you use that mostly to justify your eldritch blast.
As far as I'm concerned, you can change everything but the progression table and the exact effects of abilities/spells around any fitting concept and have fun with it.
Hey, if not for the legacy draw of paladin class... I would call it champion class and kind of do the sub-classes based on which "lord" you served. Think of it as the martial equivalent of sorcerer with palading being the champion of some holy faith.
Hussar
Legend
See, that's where I strongly disagree. Paladins were never "one thing". You have a Plethora of Paladins (Dragon 106, 1986) as one concept, all the way back in the very early days of 2e. The Complete Paladin had all sorts of kits that were all sorts of different paladins, one of my favorites was the Votary Paladin - a paladin that basically feels that all other religions are false and need to be stamped out. This is very much NOT the standard "cavalier" style paladin.
So, no, the notion that the traditional paladin is only one thing hasn't been true in decades. I, for one, welcome the notion that paladins are now many things - a broad concept worthy of actually being a class.
Motörhead, No Class 
Nah of course classes. 4e in a way was classless or it did have the roles still I believe I cannot truly tell because I never analysed it in depth or played it other than in Neverwinter MMPORPG, classes were more separated by fluff.
And they should be partially separated by crunch and mechanics. It gets all to wischi waschi kuddelmuddel(that's german for all mashed up) for my taste with the base assumption that every race can play any class.
So at least you should have some distinct things left in the game. It was part of the base philosophy, you can do some things very well and others not so much, but therefore your party comrade excels at those things and is weaker at your pet peaves.
Together the party can achieve a multiple of things a single character can do. That's base of the game. No need to take that away. That also is the reason why I (and some others) do not like multiclassing in many cases. Combine skills by teaming instead.
Nah of course classes. 4e in a way was classless or it did have the roles still I believe I cannot truly tell because I never analysed it in depth or played it other than in Neverwinter MMPORPG, classes were more separated by fluff.
And they should be partially separated by crunch and mechanics. It gets all to wischi waschi kuddelmuddel(that's german for all mashed up) for my taste with the base assumption that every race can play any class.
So at least you should have some distinct things left in the game. It was part of the base philosophy, you can do some things very well and others not so much, but therefore your party comrade excels at those things and is weaker at your pet peaves.
Together the party can achieve a multiple of things a single character can do. That's base of the game. No need to take that away. That also is the reason why I (and some others) do not like multiclassing in many cases. Combine skills by teaming instead.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
LuisCarlos17f
Legend
I start to suspect somebody don't like D&D paladins because those are too cynical and these are the symbol of the old Christian chavalry ideals. A paladin isn't only a warrior with a shining armour and some divine spells but somebody who tries to defend justice, law & order, following a code of honor and good manners, behaving like the perfect example to be imitated by villagers and children. Is this maybe a tall poppy syndrome?
Similar Threads
