Easy Paladin Poll

[Kzach]

In my experience, people who want to play paladins tend to want to have the most powerful character in the game, without making any sacrifices to do so. In the past, a paladin was a very powerful character but that was justified by all the limitations it had to get, and keep, that power. Yet as time went on, the restrictions were relaxed more and more because players kept on complaining. IMO, it wasn't until 4e that the paladin's power was curtailed in an effort to allow every alignment to have one.

And then everyone complained about how weak the paladin was.

IMO, this is a classic case of wanting the cake and eating it too. I have no problem with the traditional paladin, as long as it's properly restricted. And if it's not, then the power has to be reduced to balance with other classes. And if it's balanced with other classes, then it's not really a paladin, and should just be called something else.

 

[fuindordm]

I agree with you, actually. I never said the paladin should be more powerful than other PCs, I'm just talking about the source of their power.

I don't think it's bad for the game for certain classes to have codes of behavior. But the proper way to reward a player for choosing a class with a difficult code is to give that class unique abilities, not more raw power.

For example Wild Shape is a keystone, unique Druid ability. Inherent, always on Protection from Evil is a unique Paladin ability (in 1st ed.). Neither is unbalancing if given suitable restrictions, but they are interesting enough to make a class attractive despite the code of conduct.

 

[fuindordm]

Surely social mobility is chaotic? A LE peasant in medieval society would stay a peasant, he'd just be a very selfish, immoral, albeit law-abiding, peasant.

I'd agree that caste mobility is chaotic, if the culture has castes. But moving up in the hierarchy of your caste is lawful.

 

[hafrogman]

Just an amusing side note on the subject of paladins . . .

I decided to go out and pick up a copy of Three Hearts and Three Lions. Still reading it, but one line straight out of chapter one fascinated me given the direction paladins took in D&D's history. When describing Holger Carlsen, the often ascribed inspiration for the paladin class:

His restless life had made him less painstakingly law-abiding than most of his countrymen.

 

[fuindordm]

With the release of the Paladin Design Goals blog, let's see if we can get a few more votes. I think consensus is beyond hope...

 

[mlund]

I want Lawful Paladins. Their moral component just needs to be in line with their code. If you are a sworn slave to the darkness of a Chaotic Evil deity that you worship mind, body, and soul then you are Lawful Evil even if the deity giving you your marching orders is an irrational lunatic.

- Marty Lund

 

[nnms]

My biggest objection is the name "paladin." I'm not opposed to other holy warriors, just as long as they're not called paladin. Unless they happen to be a gunslinger for hire.

But then Rangers also need a big iron on their hip.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGmUsJvRv7U]Marty Robbins - Big Iron - YouTube[/ame]

 

[am181d]

Maybe I'm being dim, but if about half the people who voted want Paladins to only be LG and the other half want no alignment restriction, that tells me that the class should be presented with an optional alignment restriction.

You don't build a class with a default alignment restriction if half your customers don't want it.

 

[Keldryn]

Thus because of what I feel a class should be, I want paladin to be a much, much broader concept. It should be capable of effortlessly and flawlessly emulating point two, but it should also be able to encompass vastly different character types.

A LG paladin character, dedicated to the right god (or virtue or cause) with a cavalier theme and a suitable background should feel exactly like a classical paladin did . . . but that doesn't mean that that's all a base class should be able to do. I expect more from my base classes.

Perhaps D&D Next needs to bring back the original concept of sub-classes.

I agree with you that the AD&D definition of a paladin is too narrow to make for a good base class.

But the AD&D paladin was explicitly a sub-class of fighter. All of the sub-classes were much narrower in scope than were the "base" classes.

The fighter could be a knight, a mercenary, a soldier, a primitive tribal warrior, a hunter, an archer, or any number of other martial archetypes.

The paladin was the heroic paragon of virtue -- "law and good deeds are the meat and drink of the paladin." Their job was to seek out evil and destroy it. Only humans could be paladins.

The ranger was a warrior who protected civilized lands from the giants and evil humanoids. They were not only powerful warriors, but skilled at tracking and infiltration. Their role in protecting civilized lands was why only humans and half-elves could be rangers.

Likewise, druids, illusionists, and assassins were much more narrowly-focused -- and restrictive -- than their parent classes. Other than the illusionist, the sub-classes also had a more defined role in the game world.

3rd Edition placed all classes as "base" classes, but that didn't change the fact that barbarians, rangers, and paladins are still specialized, narrowly-focused fighters. And there isn't anything wrong with that.

 

[nnms]

For those appealing to tradition to justify only Lawful Good paladins, you may find it useful to know that Gygax had a pretty strange idea about what good meant.

The old addage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before thay can backslide

Dragonsfoot • View topic - Q&A with Gary Gygax, Part II

Killing the repentant so they don't have the opportunity to backslide?

If someone did that in our world, we'd call them evil, not good.