Paladin Design Goals ... WotC Blog

[Mishihari Lord]

I understand this point of view (yours, that is). To me, it's just a in-game physics thing. That is, Good is a force in the multiverse. It may not be sentient, but just by adhering to the code that he does, a being can be gifted with the incredible powers that a Paladin receives. So, to me, Good does grant him the abilities he has, even if it's not a particular "entity" doing it.

Again, though, I do understand your views, and why mine don't sound appealing. And, again, I think I'm in the minority, so you're probably going to be happier about the final decisions than I am As always, play what you like

I hear ya. Personally, I like the mystery implied by the fact that the world has these divinish warriors wandering around that no known god can claim. I also like books where some things are just left unexplained or seem to break the character's expectations of how the world works.

That's what I get out of the class. But I also see the attraction of giving every god a unique paladin (Faiths & Avatars specialty priests) and of having several codes capable of inspiring mortals (Arcana Unearthed Champions).

Sure, a paladin as a servant of GOOD is a perfectly legitimate design choice and works just fine for a game. It doesn't float my boat but I can see how it would be appealing to others. Fortunately this is something that's pretty easy to modify to your own tastes at your own table, whatever the rules may say.

 

[underfoot007ct]

You are asking the wrong person. My contention is not that the paladin should be a fighter/cleric--or not be one, for that matter--but that the design should be clear about it. A "class" that is effectively a "fighter/cleric" with a code is a fighter/cleric for most purposes, and thus not very impressive.

I can agree will that assessment, and I hope that there would be other Paladin class features. Maybe not all Pallys would get the same features, like smiting, turning, spells, etc.

 

[nnms]

I don't think too many fantasy settings necessarily have a power source that is "good." Some do, but it's far, far too rare to code into the core of D&D now that there are variable campaign settings.

Gygax also 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.

 

[Keldryn]

I don't think too many fantasy settings necessarily have a power source that is "good." Some do, but it's far, far too rare to code into the core of D&D now that there are variable campaign settings.

Gygax also 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.

We're also looking at it from a modern, 21st-century point of view. I'm not saying that Gygax's perspective is a good one, but from a real-world medieval point of view (where religion touches everything), it probably wouldn't have been considered evil.

 

[nnms]

I know Gygax associated good with brutal theocracy, but perhaps we can have games where that is not the default assumption.

My point is that when paladins were first introduced as being champions of lawful good, they actually were champions of evil. Or maybe pure law. Or good if you make the Gygaxian synthesis of brutal theocracy and goodness.

In short, "Paladins should be lawful good because they always were" doesn't mean much when you have variable definitions of good that can include actions we'd declare to be reprehensible.

I think the 5E idea about them being lawful anything is probably not a bad way to go.

I don't really play with alignment as a codified part of the rules though, so either way, I'll houserule this whole issue out.

 

[JamesonCourage]

What is that content, in non-D&D terms? It's resolute courage in the face of overwhelming evil, protection of the weak even when sacrifices are required, a noble manner toward all under any circumstance, and the necessary martial skill to see these things accomplished.

Good list.

Those are all embedded in the definition of lawful goodness in editions past, which means they'd be required of any class whose members embody lawful goodness.

That's why I said that the Paladin is rewarded by Good, not by his devotion to Lawful Goodness. The strict adherence to his code, and the discipline it takes (to not fall from grace), makes him Lawful Good, even if it is Good itself from where he draws his powers. Just my take, though. Good post. As always, play what you like

I think there is a way to do divination that wouldn't be disruptive to the game. Simply have the information gained be a clue rather than the complete story. Augury and Legend Lore are great examples of divination because they create vague clues rather than just giving you the answer.

A certain level of vagueness or withholding information is along the same lines I went about it, yes.

Detect Evil not only gives away the answer, but paladins pre-3e paladins are able to do it at will. As they can do it at will, there is no reason not to do it to every new person you come across, and cause problems if they happen to ping evil. Heck, even the clerics having a detect evil spell wasn't as big a problem as the paladin's detect evil ability, because the cleric had to sacrifice another valuable spell, and could only guess once before they had to refresh the spell again.

Still, this is only ruining one type of game. You asked why not just get rid of it if it's ruining cloak and dagger games; I said because many games aren't that type of game, and it adds to the fun of the people at the table.

I like mystery, restrictions on divination magic, and morally grey areas that the players must explore through their PCs. However, I understand that many people don't enjoy that type of game, and they'll likely have fun saying "is he Evil?" with a big grin while lifting their d20. If that's the case, more power to them. While I like the mystery, I can accept that it doesn't ruin the game for everyone (or potentially even most people). As always, play what you like

 

[drothgery]

For Q2, whenever I've seen polls for class popularity the Paladin gets about 6-7% Ok that's not scientific, but regardless that's not much less than the core 4, and usually just shaded by the ranger.

Maybe, but I've seen far, far more rangers in actual play than paladins. Liking the idea of paladins, and being wililng to vote for them in an online poll, isn't the same thing as actually having one as the character you play with every week.

 

[ferratus]

However, I understand that many people don't enjoy that type of game, and they'll likely have fun saying "is he Evil?" with a big grin while lifting their d20. If that's the case, more power to them. While I like the mystery, I can accept that it doesn't ruin the game for everyone (or potentially even most people). As always, play what you like

Eh, as a player of 4e I can tell you that Paladins that just want to hack their way through things don't need "Detect Evil" to do it.

Detect Evil is an ability that is designed to root out hidden evil. No paladin bothers with detect evil on an orc horde, he uses it to find hidden enemies among NPC's (or to count the enemies behind a closed door).

 

[tuxgeo]

< snip stuff about The Code Is All>

Does a paladin need to be Lawful Good? I see it being the most popular flavor. If paladins are effective in the fight against evil, wouldn't Evil try and do the same to good? And wouldn't arbiters of laws feel the need to provide a champion for Rule as Written. The other alignments can not follow a code strictly enough to have champions like the Paladin. Chaos likes a variety. A Lawful Evil paladin may be called a Praetorian or Tyrant-errant. A Lawful Neutral paladin could be a Justicar or Regulator. They all fall under the class of Paladin.

The Champion of Law (or "Champalawt") class comes in three flavors:
- Paladins (LG)
- Regulators (LN)
- Blackguards (LE)

They don't have to all "fall under the class of Paladin." Instead, they could fall under a more general umbrella, with "Paladin" being the LG variety, "Blackguard" being the LE variety -- and maybe something a little more archetypical than "Regulator" for the LN variety. ("Doomsayer?") ("Circuit Rider?")

 

[B.T.]

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.

Gygax's ideas were influenced by medieval Christianity and (I believe) his Catholic upbringing. When you live in a world of good and evil, where the gods are proven to exist on a daily basis, things are slightly different than a secularist interpretation of contemporary morality.