Paladin Design Goals ... WotC Blog

[El Mahdi]

I've only just now caught up on this thread. So my apologies if it seems overlong. I came across a few posts I wanted to respond to and some assumptions I wanted to explore. Starting here:

From wikipedia:
The earliest recorded instance of the word paladin in the English language dates to 1592, in a poem written by Samuel Daniel.[1] It entered English through the Middle French word paladin, which itself derived from the Italian paladino.[1] All these words for Charlemagne's Twelve Peers descend ultimately from the Latin palatinus, most likely through the Old French palatin.[1] The Latin palatinus referred to an official of the Roman Emperor connected to the imperial palace on the Palatine Hill; over time this word came to refer to other high-level officials in the imperial, majestic and royal courts.[2] The word palatine, used in various European countries in the medieval and modern eras, has the same derivation.[2]
By the 13th century words referring specifically to Charlemagne's peers began appearing in European languages; the earliest is the Italian paladino.[1] Modern French has paladin, Spanish has paladín or paladino (reflecting alternate derivations from the French and Italian), while German has Paladin.[1] By extension "paladin" has come to refer to any chivalrous hero such as King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table.[1]
Paladin was also used to refer to the leaders of armies supporting the Protestant Frederick V in the Thirty Years War ending in 1648.[3]


I don't get why that has to be lawful good.

(and added by me - El Mahdi - I'm including the XP comments

@TerraDave - not at all slothfull (included because it made me laugh)
@Ahnehnois @avin @Fede @Arctic Wolf - Facts!
@curupira - Yes. Not all D&D-isms should be sacred cows.

First, to answer the question "why does that have to be Lawful Good..."

My answer would be it doesn't, but I'll get to that later. The reason why it has been that way in D&D is because of the part of the above description that talks about being "Chivalrous". Being Chivalrous means adhering to the concept of Chivalry. So the roots of this requirement are therefore grounded in sources that far predate D&D, making it not simply just a D&D sacred cow.

Since like some of those who left comments to the above post, I too like facts...so I thought I'd bring in all the facts.

also from Wikipedia
Chivalry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chivalry, or the chivalric code, is the traditional code of conduct associated with the medieval institution of knighthood. It was originally conceived of as an aristocratic warrior code — the term derives from the French term for horseman — involving individual training and service to others. Over time its meaning has been refined to emphasize more ideals such as knightly virtues, honour and courtly love, and less the martial aspects of the tradition.

The Knight's Code of Chivalry was a moral system that stated all knights should protect others who can not protect themselves such as; widows, children, and elders. All knights needed to have the strength and skills to fight wars in the Middle Ages. Knights not only had to be strong but they were also extremely disciplined and were expected to use their power to protect the weak and defenceless. Knights vowed to be loyal, generous, and "noble bearing." Knights were required to tell the truth at all times and always respect the honour of women. Knights not only vowed to protect the weak but also vowed to guard the honour of all fellow knights. They always had to obey those who were placed in authority and were never allowed to refuse a challenge from an equal. Knights lived by honor and for glory. Knights were to fear God and maintain His Church. Knights always kept their faith and never turned their back on a foe. Knights despised pecuniary reward. They persevered to the end in any enterprise begun. The main vow from the knights was that they shall fight for the welfare of all.

...snip...


When examining medieval literature, chivalry can be classified into three basic but overlapping areas:

1. Duties to countrymen and fellow Christians: this contains virtues such as mercy, courage, valor, fairness, protection of the weak and the poor, and in the servant-hood of the knight to his lord. This also brings with it the idea of being willing to give one’s life for another’s; whether he would be giving his life for a poor man or his lord.
2. Duties to God: this would contain being faithful to God, protecting the innocent, being faithful to the church, being the champion of good against evil, being generous and obeying God above the feudal lord.
3. Duties to women: this is probably the most familiar aspect of chivalry. This would contain what is often called courtly love, the idea that the knight is to serve a lady, and after her all other ladies. Most especially in this category is a general gentleness and graciousness to all women.

These three areas obviously overlap quite frequently in chivalry, and are often indistinguishable.

Different weight given to different areas produced different strands of chivalry:

1. warrior chivalry, in which a knight's chief duty is to his lord, as exemplified by Sir Gawain in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle
2. religious chivalry, in which a knight's chief duty is to protect the innocent and serve God, as exemplified by Sir Galahad or Sir Percival in the Grail legends.
3. courtly love chivalry, in which a knight's chief duty is to his own lady, and after her, all ladies, as exemplified by Sir Lancelot in his love for Queen Guinevere or Sir Tristan in his love for Iseult.

So, in short, the above concept of Chivalry defines a moral outlook best modeled in D&D alignment as Lawful Good.

However, I said I like all the facts...and the facts don't end with Chivalry.

A problem arises when one blanketly assigns the concept of Chivalry to Charlemagnes Paladins (the origin of the usage of Paladin for the class name). That problem is: not all of Charlemagne's Paladins were Chivalrous...and not all of Charlemagne's Paladins were even Knights!


Typically there are 12 Paladins of Charlemagne, though who they are varies from story to story. These stories originated in the 12th century and continued through the 15th century. Of the most common ones, along with the classic Knights like Roland (Orlando), there are also:

• Archbishop Turpin (a Priest)
• Ogier the Dane (sometimes a converted pagan Northman Warrior, sometimes a hostage of Charlemagne)
• Fierabras (a converted Saracen Warrior)
• Maugris (a Sorcerer)

Also, although Charlemagne's Paladins are a source for the D&D Paladin class (along with the Knight's of the Round Table), aspects of it also come from the Mendicant Crusading Knight (such as Templars, Hospitalers, etc.). Such things as Detecting Evil, Laying on Hands, and limited spell use are most certainly not from the Medieval stories of King Arthur's or Charlemagne's Knights. Although, the real Crusading Knights did not have these abilities either (obviously), those powers are most certainly "Priest-like", and Crusading Knights are Warrior Priests (though also don't completely fit with the D&D Warrior Priest).

A Mendicant Crusading Knight (mendicant in this context meaning forbidden to own property, like a christian monk or priest) was required to take religious vows (which were very similar to a priest or monk) including poverty, chastity, piety, and obedience. They also had to follow a very strict code of conduct in their daily and martial duties. For example, Templars originally followed a code called the Latin Rule made up of 72 rules, and that later grew to several hundred. These rules outlined things like how many horses one could have (though they still "belonged" to the order), what armor and weapons they were required to maintain (provided by the order), and even such things as how often they could eat meat, and that they should eat in silence.

For comparison, the Priest class' origins come from the aforementioned Archbishop Turpin (one of Charlemagne's Paladins...), the real-life Bishop Odo of Bayeux, and fictional sources like the undead hunting clergy of movies and literature (turning undead ability)...as well as some aspects of the Mendicant Crusading Knight. However, unlike the Crusading Knight, they were originally forbidden to use weapons that shed blood (as the shedding of blood was forbidden by the religious vows of a Priest) so instead used clubs or maces (however, we certainly know better today that such weapons most assuredly do shed blood, and can inflict wounds that sometimes are much more gruesome than sword wounds...).

And the Cleric (the non-Warrior Priest) was simply to model Priests of non-Christian based deities, and to get away from Armor and primarily fighting.


So in summation:

• Paladin
  • Origins lie in the Fictional Chivalrous Knights of King Arthur and Charlemagne, and certain aspects of the Mendicant Crusading Knights such as Templars and Hospitalers.
  • Take their name from Charlemagne's Paladins (even though Charlemagnes Paladins also include a Priest, Barbarian Norse Warrior, Islamic Saracen Knight, and a Sorcerer).
  • Was required to be Lawful Good to reflect the moral code they live by, derived from the Code of Chivalry found in Medieval Europe.
• Priest
  • Origins lie in the Fictional Archbishop of Turpin (as opposed to the real-life person), the real-life Bishop Odo of Bayeux, and the undead hunting clergy of horror movies and literature...as well as aspects of the Mendicant Crusading Knight.
• Cleric (non-Warrior Priest)
  • Modelling specific non-Christian priests of other deities.

Then you don't get what a paladin is in D&D.

One, the D&D Paladin comes from numerous sources as described above, and isn't quite as clear cut as people always state.

Second, many people don't get exactly what the D&D Paladin is (especially as the class has become it's own archetype somewhat divorced from it's roots, and D&D has become a genre unto itself)...but I don't think any of that entitles anyone to be rude to them.

Third, I doubt anyone but SLOTHmaster is qualified to say what he does or doesn't "get".

"We want to create a paladin class without everything that makes it a paladin." --WotC

As always, it's amazing to see how perceptions differ. Because I DO want to make a paladin class without everything that makes it a paladin, and feel that WotC isn't doing that.

As I said above, I don't believe that the D&D Paladin must remain the way it always has been. If there is any one constant to D&D, it's that it continuously evolves and redefines itself. So in large part, I agree here with hafrogman.

Also, having a system that allows people to play a Paladin like hafrogman wants, in no way means that B.T. can't also play a Paladin the way he wants. It can be different at each and every table, and still be D&D. Just as the next editions rules can allow for both approaches, and also still be D&D.

...drown kobold babies for profit...

That would be wrong. I drown them because they're evil.

I drown them to determine if they are Witches. If they float, they are. If they drown, they weren't.

I'm pretty sure that the WotC ninjas will not show up and kidnap your DM if he disallows LE paladins...

That may not be entirely true...

Did Hasbro send real-life goons to harass a toy gun blogger? | Technology News Blog - Yahoo! News

(just joking...)

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

As I said above, I don't believe that the D&D Paladin must remain the way it always has been. If there is any one constant to D&D, it's that it continuously evolves and redefines itself.

I agree with change when it's improving something. Story wise the open-aligned paladin has a lot of convincing to do to cast it as an improvement. That said I for one will give it a chance.

You've alluded to the conflict in loyalty of causes - monarch, god, spouse. These have been fertile roleplay hooks for paladins past. I can see grounds for a non-good paladins here, as well as in the space where a fallen paladin find themselves. Basically there could be a loyalty matrix of noble causes and where the paladin tracks on it, e.g. a Paladin loyal to a king out of personal self interest could be LE.

 

[El Mahdi]

I agree with change when it's improving something. Story wise the open-aligned paladin has a lot of convincing to do to cast it as an improvement. That said I for one will give it a chance.

I think it's an improvement when those that don't want an alignment restriction, don't need to use one...and those that do want it, can.

You've alluded to the conflict in loyalty of causes - monarch, god, spouse. These have been fertile roleplay hooks for paladins past. I can see grounds for a non-good paladins here, as well as in the space where a fallen paladin find themselves. Basically there could be a loyalty matrix of noble causes and where the paladin tracks on it, e.g. a Paladin loyal to a king out of personal self interest could be LE.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I don't recall aluding to a conflict in loyalty of causes...

Could you clarify?

 

[Sunseeker]

I agree with change when it's improving something. Story wise the open-aligned paladin has a lot of convincing to do to cast it as an improvement. That said I for one will give it a chance.

Story-wise, that is, in an adventure or campaign, a class, a race, a background or theme can have ANY limitation you deign to give it. Telling your players that "In my world, Paladin's are only found as members of the church of Helm, and are only LG." Or "In my world, the kingdoms are corrupt and evil, and only have Evil Blackguards as champions of Asmodeus."

I think that is part of the problem in a lot of alignment-related discussions. Some folks see classes, races, and other things as an embedded part of a specific setting or style. Other folks see classes as a particular part of a system that is providing them a framework to build with. IE: Some people see D&D as a playable LOTR. Some people see D&D as an erector set.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I think it's an improvement when those that don't want an alignment restriction, don't need to use one...and those that do want it, can.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I don't recall aluding to a conflict in loyalty of causes...

Could you clarify?

Can we really implement an alignment restriction when it's removed? For those who consider it a core part of the class, once it's removed the class has essentially moved on to a new definition. Trying then to rebottle this new definition into what was is probably going to be an unsatisfactory fit for all concerned. It's moved on.

Well, the onus is now on the open-aligned paladin to prove itself story-wise. If it fails to carry half the fan-base I would not call that an improvement, just like back then with the much maligned 3.0 ranger.

Where you said "When examining medieval literature, chivalry can be classified into three basic but overlapping areas". These chivalric allegiances don't always rest too harmoniously with each other. Rather I'd say that ideal is often the exception rather than the rule.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I think that is part of the problem in a lot of alignment-related discussions. Some folks see classes, races, and other things as an embedded part of a specific setting or style. Other folks see classes as a particular part of a system that is providing them a framework to build with. IE: Some people see D&D as a playable LOTR. Some people see D&D as an erector set.

I totally agree, and there needs to be a way to reconcile both these needs.

The question then becomes where's our starting point? Do we present the whole lot and people remove what they want, or just the basics and people add what they want?

Regarding the paladin, the basics laid out in the blog look pretty good really. There's some options pre-loaded and I reckon these will be able to be swapped out, and options added.

Coming back to paladin alignment, if it's not hard-coded I would really really like to see a LG alignment based code module that can be seamlessly added on.

 

[Sunseeker]

I totally agree, and there needs to be a way to reconcile both these needs.

The question then becomes where's our starting point? Do we present the whole lot and people remove what they want, or just the basics and people add what they want?

Me personally I would prefer the initial core books to present as much of the framework, and as little of the excess arbitrary personal feelings about alignments, culture, or settings as possible.

Regarding the paladin, the basics laid out in the blog look pretty good really. There's some options pre-loaded and I reckon these will be able to be swapped out, and options added.

I agree, but I'm curious how it will play out, it's very vague.

Coming back to paladin alignment, if it's not hard-coded I would really really like to see a LG alignment based code module that can be seamlessly added on.

I would love a whole book on alignments, perhaps combined with a book on deities and their various worshippers. Cover perhaps say, a dozen gods of a variety of alignments and followers who could believably have paladin-like champions.

 

[jsaving]

Well, the onus is now on the open-aligned paladin to prove itself story-wise. If it fails to carry half the fan-base I would not call that an improvement, just like back then with the much maligned 3.0 ranger.

The 5e team has said each class needs to clearly evoke the imagery of what that class has predominantly been throughout the lifetime of D&D. And while some may disagree, I just don't see how the "pick a cause, any cause" paladin championed by some is a necessary or desirable way to accomplish this goal.

To me, the key distinguishing feature of the paladin -- the element of class design that immediately lets people know paladins are different -- is chivalry. To those who don't share Gygax's love of Arthur and Charlemagne, it may seem odd or even arbitrary that a class based on such a narrow concept would exist in the core rules. But it seems to me that if there is a reason for the paladin to exist, rather than being subsumed by the fighter/cleric, it's because of this shared devotion to chivalry.

However, there's an important distinction to be made between "chivalry-based" paladins and "lawful-good-based" paladins. Do we really want paladins to favor social order over individual freedom? Respect the world's rulers and traditions? Lack creativity and judge those who fall short in their duties? Because make no mistake, if we make the leap from saying all paladins must embody chivalry to saying they must embody lawful goodness, we're pigeonholing all paladins into a much narrower personality type than was ever intended. And we're certainly going well beyond the traditional chivalric tenets of protecting the weak, showing courage against the strong, maintaining one's sense of manners and decorum, and having the skill with arms to do what is needed.

Now, in a 1e-style setup where lawful goodness is explicitly the best and most virtuous alignment, it's understandable that paladins would then be given a LG alignment requirement. But this idea of LG as the "best" alignment has been out of the game for many years and seems unlikely to make a reappearance in 5e. And if LG isn't the "best" alignment any longer, then why not simply hard-code chivalry into the paladin class writeup and then give players the creative freedom to figure out how or whether their NG, LN, etc character can fit the bill?

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Me personally I would prefer the initial core books to present as much of the framework, and as little of the excess arbitrary personal feelings about alignments, culture, or settings as possible.

The problems you'll have here is that D&D is laden with story plus all the casual gamers who expect at least enough world-building built in so they can get on with gaming.

Still, with a stripped down basic game with attachable modules, I think it must be possible to satisfy both wants without saddling people with the bits they don't want.

I'm kind of expecting your initial framework will be there with bits of options already added on. From this point you could remove components to get to the starting point you want, whereas the 1E gamer could add on the restriction modules to get a modern version of their game.

Coming back to the paladin, it needs to be able to visibly survive having the alignment module removed. Therefore it can't be hard-coded to LG. But at the same time whatever its code of conduct is and however it operates, it needs to be able to work with alignments plugged back in.

Then when it is operating under alignment, there needs to be a way that the primacy of the LG trope is maintained while simultaneously being open to more alignments. Not impossible.

Already there is the non-LG alignment space where the paladin falls from grace. Ironically this space actually reinforces the primacy of LG through the description of "fall from grace". Then you have 'Fallen' with a no way back capital "F". Again, these non-LG options support LG. Give them mechanical differences but parity in power and we've supported the LG trope while providing options, and at the same time solved the riddle of what to do with 'power-less' fallen Paladins - which were usually solved in the past by rolling up a new character (an unsatisfactory resolution story-wise at least).

Then we have the Avengers and Guardians - still within the alignment module but not LG. Well Wizards have said a flat no to the CG Avenger, whether that survives the playtest I'll watch with interest.

My thoughts here is that the Essentials Paladin is the direction to take where there is an alignment hierarchy of the chivalric virtues, building up from unaligned to the most exclusive - if they make that LG then voila, open aligned and LG coexisting without the class losing identity. If the virtues are done properly the alignment can then also be stripped away and it should still stand.

 

[Herschel]

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.

Change "Champion" to "Crusader" and you're right where I am.