Paladin Design Goals ... WotC Blog

I said it in the other thread too.

In my perfect world, the Paladin is a prestige class for those who multi-class fighter/cleric and who worship a particular lawful-good deity. For fighter/clerics who worship other deities, there should be other similar prestige classes available. In my campaign this includes Rangers for fighter/clerics of the nature deity, Blackguards and Dreadlords for some of the evil deities, and Warrior Priests of other various and sundry deities as well.

These prestige classes all have a unique and flavorful mechanic of their own but since they are only a prestige class much of the character's makeup is coming from their original fighter/cleric base. I just don't feel that there's enough unique to Paladins (or Rangers for that matter) to do the heavy lifting of creating an entirely new class. For the most part these classes are just subclasses or combination classes with only just enough unique mechanics and fluff to justify a prestige class.

Edit:

All this said, if WotC actually do come up with enough unique mechanics and fluff to justify a whole new class, I wouldn't be opposed to it. They haven't done so in previous editions of the game though imo. But there have been some interesting ideas in this thread. For example;

-Fluff wise, Paladins don't worship any one deity in particular and don't proselytize their religion as clerics do; rather they worship the 'force of good' (sort of how druids worship the 'force of nature') and their primary method of worship is by destroying evil wherever it can be found. Paladins hate evil even more than they love goodness. Of all classes, Paladins are the most likely to make a heroic self-sacrifice/suicide mission.

-Mechanically, Paladins differ from fighters in that their unique abilities are purely offensive and even self-sacrificing in the quest to destroy evil. They differ from clerics in that they do not buff party members, but only themselves. Paladins are pure offensive, avenger types rather than defender or buffing types.

-I like the idea, both fluffwise and mechanically that at really high level Paladins transcend mortality and take on angelic outsider type qualities, such as wings, a halo, etc.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Wow, Hautamaki. You've almost exactly stated my own position. My only quibble would be on this bit:

Paladins hate evil even more than they love goodness.

as I don't think that's really coherent. Also, I can take or leave the idea of 'angelic' stuff at high level.

Given that we do have a paladin class and it turns out to have sufficient stuff to distinguish it from the fighter and cleric, though, I do have a few thoughts:

* I greatly sympathize with restricting the name 'paladin' to Lawful Good champions. Perhaps the wider class name should in fact be 'Champion'.

* To the extent that the Law/Chaos axis makes sense at all (and this is debatable), I can agree that Champions should be Lawful. It makes more sense than other alignment restrictions we've had in the past, anyway. (Why on earth do bards have to be non-Lawful?! Celtic bards were part of the freaking religious hierarchy and depended on the law for their living!)

* It follows that we need names for Neutral and Evil Champions. 'Blackguard' is nicely traditional for Evil (and MUCH better than 'anti-paladin') and someone on the WotC boards suggested 'Justiciar' for Neutral, which I found suggestive.

* Honestly I wouldn't mind ripping out alignment entirely, but in any case the code is absolutely essential to the Champion class, and it should be genuinely restrictive, even if it isn't very nice. I'm rather taken by the idea of identifying a virtue (or principle, anyway) that is the guiding light for a particular champion.
 

* I greatly sympathize with restricting the name 'paladin' to Lawful Good champions. Perhaps the wider class name should in fact be 'Champion'.

The idea of having multiple names for a Paladin seems ridiculous to me. In a previous edition, they tried to have 9. Paladin is the right word regardless of the alignment:

pal·a·din [pal-uh-din]
noun
1. any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne.
2. any knightly or heroic champion.
3. any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause.
 

The idea of having multiple names for a Paladin seems ridiculous to me. In a previous edition, they tried to have 9. Paladin is the right word regardless of the alignment:

pal·a·din [pal-uh-din]
noun
1. any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne.
2. any knightly or heroic champion.
3. any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause.

How can a CE or a LE character can be heroic? Can you honestly I again a true neutral Cpt. America?

Warder
 

The idea of having multiple names for a Paladin seems ridiculous to me. In a previous edition, they tried to have 9. Paladin is the right word regardless of the alignment:

The dictionary isn't the only issue here. There are several decades worth of D&D tradition to think about. But even from the dictionary,

2. any knightly or heroic champion.

This doesn't seem that good a fit for a blackguard.
 

Wow, Hautamaki. You've almost exactly stated my own position. My only quibble would be on this bit:

Paladins hate evil more than they love good.

as I don't think that's really coherent. Also, I can take or leave the idea of 'angelic' stuff at high level.

This could be a distinguishing feature between Paladins and other good aligned characters. Given a choice between giving food and shelter to an orphan, or hunting down and killing the monster that orphaned him, you might expect most good aligned characters to emphasize the former, whereas a Paladin will emphasize the latter.

Gandhi is a straight-up good guy. Captain America is more like a Paladin. Paladins are the fighting wing of the forces of good for whom the elimination of evil aligned entities is in and of itself the main goal, whereas good aligned Clerics really only fight when they have to as part of some mission to accomplish something good.

At least that's how I'd explain it if I was designing the class/world. And of course there is nothing to prevent you from multiclassing with a cleric of a lawful or neutral good aligned deity and muddying the waters a bit. But emphasizing some difference in outlook between Paladins and ordinary clerics is important imo. It's either that or it just makes more sense to simply have Paladin be a prestige class for fighter/clerics.
 
Last edited:

Hey, if I can build a fighter with divine powers but who runs around in clothes and smites people with his kung fu fists, cool. I'd like to be able to put together pieces of what a paladin has without having to take it all.

But please, make a paladin class that puts it all together in one big package. The mounted heroic knight of honor is a popular trope. And as long as the game lets you riff on that trope instead of forcing you to play it 100% as presented, I see no problem.
 

* I greatly sympathize with restricting the name 'paladin' to Lawful Good champions. Perhaps the wider class name should in fact be 'Champion'.

* To the extent that the Law/Chaos axis makes sense at all (and this is debatable), I can agree that Champions should be Lawful. It makes more sense than other alignment restrictions we've had in the past, anyway.


The Paladin being any Lawful alignment is like the Monk in 1st/3rd Ed; the 3rd Ed Soulborn could only be one of the 4 extreme alignments (LG, CG, LE, CE) and the Incarnate had to have one of the 4 neutral axis alignments (NG, NE, LN, CN) which I have no problem with (thought it was great for flavour etc), but many detest alignment restrictions of any kind, well, alignment, period, so I will be surprised if alignment is not optional.
 

Alignment is supposed to be part of the method of making your character unique. You don't choose elf to play a dwarf, or a wizard to play a fighter.

I think some people just don't like to be told no so they use the excuse about being held back.
 

Alignment is supposed to be part of the method of making your character unique. You don't choose elf to play a dwarf, or a wizard to play a fighter.

I think some people just don't like to be told no so they use the excuse about being held back.

Some people just find alignment to be an absurd and artificial restriction that fails to encompass the complexity of sapient beings and has a tendency to turn a good character concept into a caricature.

Some people just don't like other people to be able to make different choices than they without having to put extra work into it.
 

Remove ads

Top