4th Edition made a great Paladin...

[Cor Azer]

As for the paladin...it's a bit too supernatural for my tastes. The Divine Challenge feature was what turned me off on playing the paladin and over to playing the warlord. I preferred the class when it's only blatantly magical ability to start off was Laying on Hands (as it's one thing to do extra damage when you hit something, another thing entirely to do damage when you don't take a swing at all).

To each his own and all that, but... you have an issue with a divine agent having access to divine powers? That seems... odd to me.

But I agree with your warlord sentiments... much fun to be had in my opinion.

 

[Corjay]

The Paladin needed the thunder back, and I'm glad 4e did it. In 1e, EVERYONE wanted the Paladin. My group was fond of singing the song from the old western "Paladin. He's the mighty Paladin!" Of course, back then, we kids didn't understand what the paladin really represented.

There were some severe problems with the Paladin that endured. 3e fixed the male-centric racism, but 4e completed the fix in removing the lawful good-only restriction (which was a biggy for me) and returning the distinctiveness, might, and glory of the Paladin. No longer does a Paladin represent the lawful good honky fighting for a Christian-style faith in the vain of the falsely represented Knights of the Templar as if some sort of Jedi knight. First, the Knights of the Templar, and later the Rosecutionists were anything but good. Secondly, couldn't a Paladin serve with the same zeal no matter who his god is? No matter whether his god is good or evil? I think 4e got it right. It was the serving their god, divine might, and healing ability that defined the Paladin; not their being white, not being male, not being human, not being sickeningly good, but being a holy warrior with a mission and a free ticket to ride and the might to back it up. If you're against his god or in opposition to his mission, then you're on his s---list.

An evil Dragonborn Paladin? That's awesome.

 

[Celtavian]

The Paladin needed the thunder back, and I'm glad 4e did it. In 1e, EVERYONE wanted the Paladin. My group was fond of singing the song from the old western "Paladin. He's the mighty Paladin!" Of course, back then, we kids didn't understand what the paladin really represented.

There were some severe problems with the Paladin that endured. 3e fixed the male-centric racism, but 4e completed the fix in removing the lawful good-only restriction (which was a biggy for me) and returning the distinctiveness, might, and glory of the Paladin. No longer does a Paladin represent the lawful good honky fighting for a Christian-style faith in the vain of the falsely represented Knights of the Templar as if some sort of Jedi knight. First, the Knights of the Templar, and later the Rosecutionists were anything but good. Secondly, couldn't a Paladin serve with the same zeal no matter who his god is? No matter whether his god is good or evil? I think 4e got it right. It was the serving their god, divine might, and healing ability that defined the Paladin; not their being white, not being male, not being human, not being sickeningly good, but being a holy warrior with a mission and a free ticket to ride and the might to back it up. If you're against his god or in opposition to his mission, then you're on his s---list.

An evil Dragonborn Paladin? That's awesome.

I like that you prefer this paladin. But man, you read way too much into the base concept of the previous edition paladins.

The Paladin was not based on the Knights Templar. It was based on the idealized knights of Arthurian legend such as Launcelot who healed somone with just his hands in one of the many stories based on the legends. And Sir Galahad the purest knight who ever lived.

I don't know that I liked paladins of different aligntments having the same abilibites. That lacks flavor. Why would the paladin of an evil god be so good at healing? Or a Paladin of Kord?

I like the new Paladin class as a whole. But I don't like the unaligned part. It doesn't seem right to me that Paladins of different gods would have nearly the exact same abilities.

But I understand it. It's a game. They didn't want to make six different paladins to cover each alignment. I just go with it. Maybe someday someone comes out with a book of Paladins and Clerics designed according to which god they worship. One of my favorite books of all time was the 2nd edtion Faiths and Avatars that turned the cleric from some generic priest into a very indvidual and cool priests. The number of people playing priests increased dramatically after that book came out because almost no one I know has ever thought it appropriate for priests of different gods to be too alike. It ruined the verisimilitude of playing the priest. It was really like they all worshipped the same god with diffrent names.

This version of DnD does exactly the same thing. Wizards generally releases so few books catering to people that want a defined and interesting religious system in DnD. Personally, I'd would have liked a different paladin and priest design for each deity. It's very difficult for me to imagine an evil or neutral paladin or priest having the same powers as a good paladin or priest.

 

[Stalker0]

One of the players described the paladin as "The new 3e cleric".

Basically the 4e cleric is nothing like the 3e one. The new cleric is a buffer/healing. The paladin is similar to the 3e cleric in the way he has big armor, can heal, but also brings big pain.

The paladin is one of my favorite classes so far. And btw, I've played the warlord, and I love him as well. When a warlord is going for his daily, everyone is cheering you on, because if you hit with that daily the party just became awesome!!

 

[FireLance]

I'm playing an elf paladin, and I was very pleased at the way he performed in the game yesterday. Of course, the fact that I rolled four or five natural twenties during that session (once for my daily ) and rolled maximum damage a few oher times on basic attacks helped. I'm trying to balance Str, Wis and Cha and although the conventional wisdom is that you should have at least a 16 (if not an 18) in your prime attribute, I went with 14, 15 and 15 (going to 14, 16 and 16 at 4th level). The elven accuracy racial ability helps make up for the more balanced stats by allowing me two chances to hit when I really need it.

By the way, if you're interested in converting the 3e paladin to 4e, have a look here.

 

[SSquirrel]

I don't know that I liked paladins of different aligntments having the same abilibites. That lacks flavor. Why would the paladin of an evil god be so good at healing? Or a Paladin of Kord?

Because the evil Cleric's party needs healed too?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Because the evil Cleric's party needs healed too?

That's for the Cleric to do it then ;p

Something tells me that the evil god of war and conquest or the god of lies wouldn't be bestowing their champions to heal people.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That's for the Cleric to do it then ;p

Something tells me that the evil god of war and conquest or the god of lies wouldn't be bestowing their champions to heal people.

Maybe not physical healing. But inspirational healing - sure he would. So, just reflavor your Cure Light spell, and rename Healing Word to Inspiring Word...

Lay on Hands might become "Inspiring Whip" or something like that...

 

[Corjay]

I like that you prefer this paladin. But man, you read way too much into the base concept of the previous edition paladins.

The Paladin was not based on the Knights Templar. It was based on the idealized knights of Arthurian legend such as Launcelot who healed somone with just his hands in one of the many stories based on the legends. And Sir Galahad the purest knight who ever lived.

I don't know that I liked paladins of different aligntments having the same abilibites. That lacks flavor. Why would the paladin of an evil god be so good at healing? Or a Paladin of Kord?

I like the new Paladin class as a whole. But I don't like the unaligned part. It doesn't seem right to me that Paladins of different gods would have nearly the exact same abilities.

But I understand it. It's a game. They didn't want to make six different paladins to cover each alignment. I just go with it. Maybe someday someone comes out with a book of Paladins and Clerics designed according to which god they worship. One of my favorite books of all time was the 2nd edtion Faiths and Avatars that turned the cleric from some generic priest into a very indvidual and cool priests. The number of people playing priests increased dramatically after that book came out because almost no one I know has ever thought it appropriate for priests of different gods to be too alike. It ruined the verisimilitude of playing the priest. It was really like they all worshipped the same god with diffrent names.

This version of DnD does exactly the same thing. Wizards generally releases so few books catering to people that want a defined and interesting religious system in DnD. Personally, I'd would have liked a different paladin and priest design for each deity. It's very difficult for me to imagine an evil or neutral paladin or priest having the same powers as a good paladin or priest.

Back in 1e, my play group came up with an Anti-Paladin or Dark Paladin, which was essentially Lawful Evil. However, he was pure evil in the sense that the Paladin was pure good. With the new rules, a Paladin of this type could easily be created. But the Paladin still needs to heal himself and bring his divine might to the party. His goal should still be to honor his god and see himself as a holy warrior (that is, carrying out his god's will for the good of all).

Evil is not a frame of mind. Unless they're insane, people don't just wake up and think about what they can do to be evil (contrary to much modern entertainment). They do evil things 1) under the misguided belief that they are doing right, or 2) they don't know how to be any other way.

Even if I were wrong about the Knights Templar being the source of the Paladin, they make for a good point here for the point of the evil Paladin. Many of them performed wicked atrocities under the precept that they were serving the Christian God and doing so with full pardon. Their point of view was that they were doing God's will. But under our more sensitive consciences, it is clear that they were evil through and through. This is your evil Paladin, but the class should still apply. Their god will want them to survive and to keep their fellows alive.

To others in the thread, the 3e Cleric was fashioned after the 1e Paladin, not the 4e Paladin on 3e Cleric. The 1e Cleric only had a mace, a breast plate and mage-like powers with a bit of healing tossed in.

 

[Carpe DM]

I've played a 4E paladin, and the OP is entirely correct. 4E paladins are wonderful. They are easy to learn, complex to play.

And, playing a non-good paladin (finally) is fantastic. My Odhinn-worshiping paladin with Raven Queen's Blessing is simply a ball.

Mind you, I hate 4E generally, after playing it. Simple, yet inelegant. Importing the 4E paladin into 3.5 would be best.

cheers,

Carpe