Easy Paladin Poll

[hafrogman]

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 problem with that is that early paladins and rangers weren't sub-classes as much as sur-classes . . . above, not below. Each was a fighter plus. Fighter was a class for people that couldn't roll up the stat requirements or didn't want to follow the alignment restrictions of the otherwise strictly more powerful classes. *shrug*

But in this case, the question becomes what IS a sub-class? Depending on the edition, they didn't actually share much. In 1e they called them sub-classes but they had different hit dice, different xp tables, different abilities. They only really shared armor/weapon proficiencies and THAC0 progressions. In 2e, still called sub-classes they had a bit more, hit dice, additional attacks, xp progression and NWPs. By 3e, they were classes. Everyone had the same xp chart, but they did all share BAB progression, in 3.0 they also shared saves and hit dice (and for paladins, 2 sp/level) . . . so sub-class or not? What's in a name?

So in 5e speak, what would be warrior standard and what would be unique to each version? By far the easiest answer is to have paladin and ranger be themes . . . but they don't want to go this path. So, we're back to square one.

 

[Keldryn]

The problem with that is that early paladins and rangers weren't sub-classes as much as sur-classes . . . above, not below. Each was a fighter plus. Fighter was a class for people that couldn't roll up the stat requirements or didn't want to follow the alignment restrictions of the otherwise strictly more powerful classes. *shrug*

They were "sub-classes" in that they were organized under the major classes of fighter, magic-user, cleric, and thief. It wasn't a designation of inferior power, simply an organizational term, as in a paladin is a sub-type of fighter. And yes, in the case of the fighter sub-classes, they were very much fighter + extras.

But in this case, the question becomes what IS a sub-class? Depending on the edition, they didn't actually share much. In 1e they called them sub-classes but they had different hit dice, different xp tables, different abilities. They only really shared armor/weapon proficiencies and THAC0 progressions. In 2e, still called sub-classes they had a bit more, hit dice, additional attacks, xp progression and NWPs.

There was also the part where paladins and rangers could lose their status and special abilities (generally for violating good alignment) and would revert to being regular fighters.

The 1e sub-classes were designated as sub-classes rather than "basic" classes because they were later additions to the game and they were more specialized and narrowly-focused variations of the four core classes. They shared attack and saving throw matrices with their parent class, as well as generally sharing the same role in the party.

By 3e, they were classes. Everyone had the same xp chart, but they did all share BAB progression, in 3.0 they also shared saves and hit dice (and for paladins, 2 sp/level) . . . so sub-class or not? What's in a name?

And despite doing this, the fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue were still broader and more flexible archetypes than the barbarian, bard, druid, paladin, ranger, and sorcerer. And the monk, but the monk was always weird like that. 2nd Edition had a restriction on multi-classing within the came class group (such as fighter/ranger), and there wasn't anything in 3e to even base such a restriction on, so you got melee characters dipping into a couple levels of fighter, a couple of ranger, and a couple of barbarian to pick up desired special abilities.

So in 5e speak, what would be warrior standard and what would be unique to each version? By far the easiest answer is to have paladin and ranger be themes . . . but they don't want to go this path. So, we're back to square one.

I agree with you and I'd like to see 5e go with fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue as base classes and use themes/skills/feats/talents/whatever to create the more specialized classes.

Given that this probably won't happen, I'd like to see the classes organized as in 1e; the four core classes are the least restrictive and most open to customization, while the specialized classes are "sub-types" and by definition won't be as flexible. It may not have a big effect in terms of game mechanics, but it makes it clear and sets a precedent that some class concepts are simply more narrow in scope. And like in 2e, it neatly draws a line that designates these classes as "optional, depending on your campaign."

 

[Wiseblood]

I think the best method is a LG only approach. It would actually allow the class to be defined. Without alignment restrictions the class is adrift. It becomes a fighter/priest of "fill in the blank". With the alignment restriction, abilities can support the idea of the class, without creating a bloated melange pulling in every ethical and moral direction. It also eliminates generic and boring abilities meant to suit the majority of diverse character motivations. It would allow much deeper characterization because paladinhood would be defined by the LG alignment and abilities would tend to folloow the precepts put forth by the alignment system.

Paladins aren't for everyone. They should not be generic. Fighters, clerics and rogues do a fine job covering these bases.

 

[JasonZZ]

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.



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.

You are right, by modern morality that is entirely evil. But by the standards of the time, that's exactly how things worked.

Back on topic, I would like to see paladins of all alignments, maybe picking one or two defining virtues/values (and accompanying powers) kind of like how we've heard the clerics work. So a paladin of Justice and Sacrifice would play differently than one of, say, Community and Harmony or Tyranny and Order.

 

[Incenjucar]

Paladins aren't for everyone.

Then they're wasted ink.

 

[FireLance]

Then they're wasted ink.

By that argument, every modular option is wasted ink.

 

[Incenjucar]

By that argument, every modular option is wasted ink.

They generally are. But that's only a problem if they're a major part of the core books.

Alignment restrictions make a class niche. Niche material belongs in niche books.

 

[Kzach]

They generally are. But that's only a problem if they're a major part of the core books.

Alignment restrictions make a class niche. Niche material belongs in niche books.

Funnily enough, I agree.

I'd MUCH prefer to see the paladin become a theme/background or sub-class of the fighter. And a blackguard be the same. And that there be a CG version, etc.

 

[Serendipity]

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.

Yes but a case could be made (and has been over the years) that in worlds which follow most default assumptions of D&D over the years, the paladin "knows" that a lawful good person will go to a lawful good plane after death - or at least, that the deceased will be rewarded with an afterlife in the domain of the appropriate god.

Of course, one could also say that - in the real world - religious crusaders used much the same 'logic' to commit such atrocities. This is why I don't like alignment hard coded into the game.

 

[steeldragons]

Wow! I don't think I've EVER seen a poll on Enworld that was so perfectly, precisely, "on the fence" with a 50/50 split like this. People sho' do seem to have strong opinions about the Paladin...moreso, it would seem, than just about any other topic/class.

The question of a "sub-class" was never really a question for me. Even presenting "Paladin" as a class right up along with the "big four" never really changed that perception, for me. The paladin was still a "fighter - but more specific in this way" or "received these extra [abilities] power tidbits in exchange for certain restrictions."

To [MENTION=8858]hafrogman[/MENTION] 's observation of them being "sur-classes" as opposed to "sub's", that make quite a bit of sense to my view. You got more abilities and specialized skills...again, in exchange for accepting the limitations- paladins had to be lawful good, had to tithe X% of their treasure, could only carry/use Y number magic items. rangers had to accept an alignment restriction also, could only possess whatever items and treasure they could carry, couldn't work with more than (was it 3? 5?) other rangers for a given amount of time, illusionists were a bit more limited in their spell progression, had restrictions on the types of magic items they could use, BUT (and whether this made them "more powerful" than a standard MU is, of course, a different debate) they received their OWN/different spells that a normal/full "MU/wizard/mage" didn't have access to..and ALL of them, I believe, had [some quite severe] ability minimum restrictions to force those classes to be more rare/unachievable, etc.

There was a built in (presumably for the concept of "balance") give and take to them. You got these extra fiddly bits, IF YOU met these requirements and accepted the limitations. There was a certain...symmetry about them...a certain "fairness" that really wasn't questioned overly much.

Then we got to the land of "I want my cake and eat it too. I want all of the powers and none of the restrictions...and who are you [DM] or they [the books] to tell me what to do with my character? I will not be limited! I do not recognize the authority of this system to judge me!...OO! Natural 20! I ROCK!"

And, thence, the arguments began about "well what makes this class [paladin, specifically, for the purposes of this thread] any different than any other [a fighter/cleric...or cleric/fighter...or just a very martially adept cleric...or a devout fighter]?

The rules changed...the lines blurred...and here we are in a mish-mash quicksand trap of our own making, essentially.

The alignment restriction argument isn't an argument about alignment, though I've no doubt many believe it to be so...it's an argument against restrictions on their character...which they then justify with XYZ examples of literature and history and "how one can reason out a paladin who is Chaotic Good." Anyone, of enough intelligence, can 'reason out" any position/argument they like. Doesn't make it a "good" or a "right" choice for the system as a whole, but it/anything is defensible...and the general archetype/fictional character concept suffers as a result.

All of that said, I have very little doubt that Alignment, in general, is going to be taking a very very minor, if not completely "optional module", place in 5e. As such, it seems any and all of us will be able to apply, or not, the LG paladin into our games at will. And, let's be honest, even if it didn't make it optional, we'd make it how we want in our games anyway.

Now, they've presented, from the "Design Goal" article that a paladin (at least as far as we know/the coming playtests) "must be lawful"...which makes all kindsa sense to the concept of a devout champion who follows a stringent code. If you're not "lawful" you don't really give two rats' tails about "following rules" all that much. You wouldn't choose to be a member of an "order" of pretty much any kind that's going to tie your hands on certain things, let alone a stringent code of conduct in your personal (and potentially religious) life.

I've been allowing "lawful" paladins in my games/world setting since 1e days. It just makes flavor sense...upon which the archetype is based, with the mechanics of what that means/entails [the "extra powers"] coming along afterwards to reenforce the fluff.

It seems a compromise on the designers part to allow for LG paladins, but allow folks who want "paladins" (or, more accurately all of the paladin's powers) without the single alignment restriction. You want an "evil" paladin? Fine. Lawful Evil. Enforce your "brand of justice" or maintain the "Order of your personal rule/power" on anyone you like with impunity. You want a "paladin" who travels around dispensing out the judgements and bringing the "rule of Law" to the masses/less fortunate? Fine. Lawful Neutral is your bag...have all of the "Batman paladins" you want (who care about bringing/enforcing the Order of Law but don't really see/feel a need to adhere to the "good" all of the time to get that done. Law and Order are the "true" ideals/virtues to be upheld/enforced).

I also, in my game world, demand that all paladins are tied to gods (obviously only the LG, LN or LE ones) and are part of established orders...be they connected/beholden to the clerical temples or their own offshoot organizations. Again, this seems like a piece of fluff easily ignored/taken out of your games if you want the "ideals/virtue/only responsible for or to their own code" paladin guys.

There's just so much disagreement over things that are so easily mutable. As long as the options are there, presented as options, then everyone wins and all of this debate is pointless. "If you're going to change it anyway then give me my rules the way I want them and change yours" does not, in any way, argue against the inclusiveness of options.

For those who want to say "but I want my paladin to be Chaotic Neutral" or "have the Lurker Theme" or "every god should have a paladin [cuz I have this really cool Neutral Good god I want to use]" or whatever other special snowflake/corner case vision you want to present...just DO IT!

Put it in your games [if you're the DM]. Noone's coming to your table from the 5e Gestapo to tell you your "doing it wrong"...and players who do so can and SHOULD be easily ignored or expunged [if they're not willing to let it go/let you run your table as desired] or are welcoem to leave of their own accord if they feel so strongly about it.

But, stop telling everyone else who's playing the game with [or without, for that matter] LG paladins, they're doing it wrong or WotC is doing it wrong or D&D always got it wrong...because they're not making it a "rule" the way you think it should be. Again, just do it!

There...I think that's all I have to say on the paladin front...which, obviously, applies to just about anything else you want/don't want in the game.

--SD