Paladin Design Goals ... WotC Blog

[am181d]

Spent Stamina? I want to know more about this mechanic.

I noticed the same thing. Given that those were literally the last two words of the post, I have to imagine it was a deliberate tease.

Could this be like Pathfinder, where they give the PC a certain number of "Stamina Points" to power certain abilities? (I'm thinking of Pathfinder's Rage Points in particular, and I think they do something similar with other classes. If I'm misrepresenting how PF works, I apologize in advance!)

 

[Pickles JG]

In theory, evrything could be done with few base classes and themes, but would that be open/fun enough?

You can do everything by having a few very versatile classes or by having a huge number of very specific classes or a few rigid classes that allow multiclassing or different aspects of characters split into eg classes backgrounds & themes that you mix & match.

People get hung up on certain terms & dont allow that they mean different things in different games & different editions of games.

Paladin is one of those classes that mixes up parts that could easily be separated - combat ability with heavy armor & knightly weapons, strict adherence to a code, divinely powered support/healing powers, horse summoning. Separating off the code & powers into a theme would let any fighter or cleric or more be a paragon of his (goody goody) deity.

I am not a fan in principle of aligment derived classes but without his LG then a paladin is very hard to distinguish from a particulalry martial cleric.

 

[DMKastmaria]

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.

The quote above:

By extension "paladin" has come to refer to any chivalrous hero such as King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table.[1]

Any "holy warrior" class is going to step on the Cleric's toes. For many, the Paladin was acceptable because it was restricted to LG and thus embodied that particular, and very popular, Chivalrous archetype.

Really, the DM can let any Fighter pick up a few divine blessings/powers and be a "paladin." Preferably, very few additional abilities.

There's never been a need for a separate class, at all! Originally, the Paladin was D&D's first "Prestige Class" for Fighters (see the Greyhawk Supplement, where they first appeared.)

 

[Kinak]

Could this be like Pathfinder, where they give the PC a certain number of "Stamina Points" to power certain abilities? (I'm thinking of Pathfinder's Rage Points in particular, and I think they do something similar with other classes. If I'm misrepresenting how PF works, I apologize in advance!)

Rage points were removed in the Pathfinder Beta to, as I understand it, preserve backwards compatibility with 3rd Edition. Which is a shame. I was pretty excited about them.

I hope 5e includes some sort of mechanic like that. Although Iron Heroes had plenty of problems, the way different classes interacted with their token pools was really a home run.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Baron Von Mandrick]

I guess I'm in the minority. I like the idea of Paladins as their own class as opposed to just a fighter/Cleric but they should have aspects of both in their own character.

I would rather have this than themes of the code because I can imagine it being a lot of fun to have themes the Paladins can choose based on their race or own class, etc. Using a theme to make them a paladin takes away a slot for a theme they could choose for something else.

I also have no problem with the idea of a Lawful Good only character as a Paladin. My understanding of Paladin comes from that idea, and perhaps it's because I was first introduced to them through AD&D. I guess if there is going to be deviation from that, than at least keeping them lawful seems right.

To me the reason to choose a class is because you like the place that class can have in whatever world the campaign is in. A chaotic neutral paladin, running around doesn't really seem to fit a specific role of someone who's deeply religious, riding a specially strong steed to help them in their crusade.

It's almost like an atheist cleric who just chooses the class because they love the cool ability to heal and kill undead.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

James Bond and even Batman seem to have the same problem; they're destined to pull through bloody but victiorious, but often those around them - those whom the character cares deeply about protecting often - are sacrificed for success.

I want the design space to be able to represent this in the fact the paladin *can* provide some protection to other, but primarily he *can* augment himself into the wrathful, unstoppable vengeance of his god, and forgo being defensive. It'd also be an interesting augment if the paladin could fuel his powers aganst his foes through allies sacrifice - something like the more his allies get injured, the more dangerous he becomes.

I love that. Classic deadlands use to have an awesome flaw (before it got errated to just free points) called grim servent of death. It always made me think of those characters who push through when no one else can, and loose out on the happly ever after sometimes for it.


I have 3 major characters I want to see in every paliden.

1) Optimus prime... "megaton must be stoped, no matter the cost"
2) Michael the knight from the Dresden Novels.
3) hercules from the show legendary journeys, not real myth..

And yes all three are lawful good.

 

[Keldryn]

A paladin is only a paladin if it's lawful good, period. That IS the archetype. Don't have alignment? Don't have paladins. If you want a special arbiter of chaotic neutral virtue then make it up and give it a name that ISN'T PALADIN!

I have to spread XP around first, but you nailed it.

A holy warrior in the service of a deity is a cleric.

A paladin is a champion of Lawful Good ideals. He might belong to a church, but his primary devotion is to Lawful Good.

There is nothing wrong with having some classes represent more tightly-defined concepts. This was the whole structure behind AD&D's sub-classes: fighters, clerics, magic-users, and thieves were broad enough in scope to represent many different character concepts. Rangers, paladins, illusionists, druids, and assassins all represented very specific character concepts (and other than the illusionist, some definition of their role in the world).

I think it's a mistake to elevate the "specialized" classes to the same level as the "general" classes and open them up to the same level of customization. They don't need it, and in doing so they lose their distinctiveness. DDN "themes" might actually be a better way of implementing these classes, but that's probably not going to happen, as people are attached to these actually being classes.

The AD&D paladin was very distinct from a fighter/cleric in its abilities, restrictions, and role in the game world. When you loosen up the alignment restrictions, de-emphasize alignment-related abilities, and call him a divine champion, the distinction between a paladin and a fighter/cleric starts to disappear.

Enabling each alignment to have a holy champion reeks of the "needless symmetry" that the 4e designers went on about. The ideals of Lawful Good are difficult to uphold, so it gets a special champion. Evil gets hordes of demons and devils. Chaotic Good is frankly a much easier code to live by than Lawful Good and requires much less personal sacrifice, so it doesn't get a special champion.

What is the difference between a druid and a cleric who worships nature in some way?

A cleric is an ordained member of a church, trained as a warrior and a scholar. He is granted divine spells by the deity (or deities) whom he serves (or by the deity's servants).

A druid is a protector of the natural world, trained by other druids outside of a formal, organized religion. Her spells are granted to her by her deep connection with nature itself. The trees, sun, and moon are her deities.

A cleric who serves a deity of nature most likely belongs to a less formal and rigid church, but ultimately still serves a deity and that deity's goals. A druid might acknowledge a nature deity, but her powers are still granted through her connection with nature.

Unless you play in the Forgotten Realms, in which druids do have to worship gods of nature. In that case, the distinction is pretty muddy.

 

[odinfellhammer]

Stamina Points may be the new Healing Surge-like mechanic. I use a healing surge or stamina point and heal or buff someone.

 

[fjw70]

I like this blog about paladins and I think they got paladins right.

 

[Dausuul]

A paladin is only a paladin if it's lawful good, period. That IS the archetype. Don't have alignment? Don't have paladins. If you want a special arbiter of chaotic neutral virtue then make it up and give it a name that ISN'T PALADIN!

Right! Also, clerics are only clerics if they shave the tops of their heads and belong to a monotheistic church that regards all other gods as demons or delusions. Druids are only druids if they belong to a warrior culture in which they perform the role of judges and diviners. Necromancers are only necromancers if they know speak with dead*. And monks are only monks if they hit themselves in the face with wooden boards while chanting.

D&D has a long history of adapting its source material. In legends from the real world, clerics no less than paladins were required to espouse Christian virtues. If D&D can have non-Christian clerics who follow a radically different set of precepts, I don't see why it can't have paladins who do the same.

Anyhow, if you want only Lawful Good paladins in your game, then only allow Lawful Good paladins in your game. Personally I'm looking forward to having "dark paladin" as an option.

[size=-2]*Which means that the only way to play a necromancer is to play a cleric. Playing a necromancer doesn't cut it. But since the religion to which all clerics belong expressly forbids necromancy, one's options are rather limited.[/size]