Paladin Design Goals ... WotC Blog

[Falling Icicle]

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.

That dictionary definition was written for our world and history. One could reasonably expect that in a polytheistic world like most DnD settings, paladins would have very different origins than the monotheistic ones from Earth.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Beyond alignment restrictions, I'm also quite against how 2e and previous edition Paladins were more powerful and "awesome" than other classes..

You know I don't think the paladin class is responsible here.

First up, after rolling your stats and getting at least one 17+, you have to go and put that score on what is basically a combat dump stat. If you stuck to plain fighter you'd have that lovely score in one of your physical three. Oh, and wisdom is going to suck up at least a 13 - and bad luck if you're forced to put your 15 there because your 3rd best score is a 12...

Then there's weapon specialization. In a game without feats and powers, the fighter gets over and above the paladin a bonus to hit, and to damage, and an extra attack every other round. Remember your 17 cha? That fighter has 17 str and so is already hitting harder.

Finally, all those cool paladin powers cost you in the XP progression chart. 20% of the time you're a level behind the fighter and this gap only grows as you level up. If that fighter plonked that 17 into con, they'll often be a HD ahead of you and then some with all that con bonus.

Leveraging the most of protection from evil, the mount and +2 saves, the paladin was still behind par.

Nope, the only way this perception came about seems to have been if the paladin rolled much better than the fighter so they could afford the dump stat. If this is the case, the culprit is not the paladin class but a yawning difference between rolled stat arrays.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'm really quite impressed with this blog post. It hits many of the unique elements that define paladins and paladinhood. Comments follow:

1. I get the desire to have paladins as more than Lawful Good. They might want to think about using different terms by alignment and bring back names like Anti-Paladin or named deities like Paladin of Zeus.

This is a great 1st point though and a good place to start. If the aesthetic lifestyles, I'm guessing a Theme here, is the default, perhaps it gives more bonuses for not being able to own or use great wealth?

2. Do abide by one's code it helps to have the divine ability to detect how everything else lines up according to it. We use at-will Detect Alignment, which is sort of like searching for secret doors as the Paladin must purposefully choose to use it (though ours works on everything). It isn't always on. It requires concentration and that takes up a certain action resource in the action economy.

3. Fear immunity is a more recent development for paladins, but I can get behind it. However, does that mean no Morale rolls for NPC paladins? What do you think? Selflessness could mean tithing or the divine powers that give aid to others. I'm not sure. Those fall more under #4 anyways.

For the other powers, the bonus to saving throws, immunity to all disease, and continuous Protection from Evil are all about being divinely chosen. The "holy avenger" is holy weapon, so it is a highly class specific magic item, which wasn't always unheard of. They definitely rated as more valuable when in the hands of a paladin.

4. "Spent stamina", what do you think of this folks?

 

[Steely_Dan]

"Spent stamina", what do you think of this folks?

He could've been speaking generally, not about a new game mechanic.

I would just like HP as core, no healing surges/wounds/vitality/"stamina" or what-have-you.

 

[Remathilis]

Interesting thought.

In BECMI/Basic D&D, 9th level fighters could become different classes based on alignment. (Law, Neutral, Chaos, there is no good/evil separate access). Lawful fighters could become Paladins or Knights, Chaotic fighters become Knights or Avengers, Neutral can only become knights.

An avenger was close to a paladin, but with some minor changes. He could detect evil still, but commanded (not turned) undead and couldn't get followers, but could recruit monsters to serve him. He wasn't "evil", but he certainly was shunned by others.

Something like this might work in Next; the traditional paladin exists in the core book as the most common archetype and later a chaotic avenger class (borrowing from BD&D and 4e's ideas) could be supplemental.

I see no problem with such ideas in supplements (WotCs got to put SOMETHING in those splatbooks) and we can keep the paladin the blazing icon of goodness and law he should be.

 

[Baron Von Mandrick]

In my ideal world -

Gods of any alignment could have holy warriors. But Paladins would have to be Lawful Good.

Bad Analogy Time -

If it's an rpg based on modern times, one person plays a class called "champion of community service": his character has abilities that help him get laws passed to help the poor, under represented, and develop poor communities with education etc.

Another type of character is "champion of mega-corporations": that character has skills that help them get laws passed that help corporations be profitable, get their products out, and protect and benefit the investors.

Both characters are champions. One helps the poor and under privileged, the other helps those that employ people, and puts out useful products.

But they aren't the same thing. It seems to me like the people who want any holy warrior to be a paladin regardless of alignment want to be a champion of mega-corporations but be able to have the same powers and skills that a champion of community service has.

They just aren't the same. They both serve a valuable role in the game, and have a place in the game, but they aren't the same thing. To me Paladins are Lawful Good, and exemplify that goodness. That's what makes them a Paladin. They are defenders of the poor, and defenseless. They have to have a strict lawful good code in order to highlight and show that goodness. To get away from that removes what makes them a paladin.

I'm fine with people having different opinions and disagreeing with me, but that's how I see it, and I would love to the game to reflect that just like others would love to have the game not have those restrictions.

 

[Incenjucar]

Interesting thought.

In BECMI/Basic D&D, 9th level fighters could become different classes based on alignment. (Law, Neutral, Chaos, there is no good/evil separate access). Lawful fighters could become Paladins or Knights, Chaotic fighters become Knights or Avengers, Neutral can only become knights.

An avenger was close to a paladin, but with some minor changes. He could detect evil still, but commanded (not turned) undead and couldn't get followers, but could recruit monsters to serve him. He wasn't "evil", but he certainly was shunned by others.

Something like this might work in Next; the traditional paladin exists in the core book as the most common archetype and later a chaotic avenger class (borrowing from BD&D and 4e's ideas) could be supplemental.

I see no problem with such ideas in supplements (WotCs got to put SOMETHING in those splatbooks) and we can keep the paladin the blazing icon of goodness and law he should be.

Such ideas can be fantastic. Planescape has a lot of fun things it can do with alignment, as well. The thing is that they need to developed in such a way as to make sure that alignment is still modular and can be ignored by people who wish to ignore it either entirely or on a case-by-case basis. As such, alignment cannot be used to determine whether something is balanced, cannot be assumed to be exclusive from diametrically-opposed options, and must be assigned a toggle in the Character Builder that allows characters to be built without alignment restrictions (or perhaps even with campaign-specific ones, like Law/Chaos only!).

Ideally, the vast majority of alignment-restricted options would exist in some sort of Book of Codes or the like, so people can pick up a nice fat collection of alignment-determined options for games where alignment is a very big deal. These should still be alignment-modular, but there can be more dependent sub-systems in there, like "Follow Code X for Y power."

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think that the best version of the Paladin I've seen was the Champion in Monte Cooks Arcana Unearthed. It wasn't merely a champion of a religion, it was someone who used his power in fighting for a cause - that cause starts as a generic one ('light', 'life', 'death') and they can then add a more specific one later ('race', 'place', 'person')

Cheers

 

[Sunseeker]

I think that the best version of the Paladin I've seen was the Champion in Monte Cooks Arcana Unearthed. It wasn't merely a champion of a religion, it was someone who used his power in fighting for a cause - that cause starts as a generic one ('light', 'life', 'death') and they can then add a more specific one later ('race', 'place', 'person')

Cheers

I too would perhaps like to see a "Champion" class exist as the "base" for Paladins, and then Paladins represent the good and holy end, Templars the lawful and knightly end, Blackguards the Evil end, and so on. Paladins can be all lawful good still, but the basic design room would be left open to heavy-armored divine champions of all causes.

 

[Remathilis]

I'd like to toss in that if we ever do go away from the name "paladin", don't replace it with champion. Its boring. I'd take crusader, cavalier, or even knight, but champion is so... blah.