Paladin Design Goals ... WotC Blog

[ForeverSlayer]

Well, I got my first burning itch to provide negative feedback.

Detect Evil has always been a disaster for mysteries or cloak and dagger adventures. Either it completely disrupts the solving of that mystery or figuring out any clues, or the DM cloaks everyone in alignment masking spells making the ability useless. It also prevents paladins from being tempted by evil, which is a staple of the genre.

Turn Undead is also something that makes no sense. Paladins don`t hold evil at bay for other party members to attack. That`s what the cleric does. Paladins charge forward with an aura of divine glory and chop the undead demon`s head clean off! The paladin is a holy warrior. If he also wants to be a cleric (because he is the abbot of his chapter house or something) that`s what multi-classing and dual-classing is for.

Horses are another area of concern, but as long as they are an option for campaigns where wilderness exploration and open-air battle is the norm instead of city or dungeon crawling, then my concerns would vanish.

So your Cloak and Dagger type games were very black and white where "evil alignment" is the extent of those games?

Detect Evil was not "Detect Villain" because there were lots of evil people around but you didn't know who they were.

As a DM you are supposed to take these things into account as you go along. Plan on having Cloak and Dagger while a Paladin is around, then use things like Undetectable Alignment or Rings of Mind Shielding. If you knew the Paladin had the Detect Evil ability right off the bat then why did you make the cloak and dagger types of campaigns so obvious. The bad guys are the evil aligned guys.

Good DMing is all about adjusting your encounters to better challenge the PC's. If you have a PC that flies a lot then employ monsters that can fly or have ranged abilities.

 

[Kzach]

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

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

Why the heck can't a Chaotic Good Deity have Holy Warriors? Feh.

They're welcome to have all the holy warriors they want; only, they're not paladins.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

The whole entire point of the Paladin is his code. His abilities are important yes but what really makes him stand apart from the others is his code. 4th edition failed by thinking they could identify the Paladin with special abilities. If you want to be a holy or unholy warrior then be a fighter and worship a god or goddess.

The Paladin is the epitome of good, holy, and righteousness. Sticking with the code is the main challenge of playing a Paladin and I think people are forgetting this. It's not about using your power to smite things, it's about following the code and only smiting things that essentially leave you no choice.

 

[ferratus]

So your Cloak and Dagger type games were very black and white where "evil alignment" is the extent of those games?

Detect Evil was not "Detect Villain" because there were lots of evil people around but you didn't know who they were.

Detect Evil has generally worked on individuals, so if they are going to change it to "the is a shadow of a threat growing on my mind" then it would be better, but still problematic.

As a DM you are supposed to take these things into account as you go along. Plan on having Cloak and Dagger while a Paladin is around, then use things like Undetectable Alignment or Rings of Mind Shielding. If you knew the Paladin had the Detect Evil ability right off the bat then why did you make the cloak and dagger types of campaigns so obvious. The bad guys are the evil aligned guys.

No I'm not. Why give out an ability if you are just going to nullify it in play? That's a waste of my time and the player's time. Don't give it out if you aren't going to make it relevant.

Good DMing is all about adjusting your encounters to better challenge the PC's. If you have a PC that flies a lot then employ monsters that can fly or have ranged abilities.

No, I don't like that design choice for adventurers. If someone has gained a talent, they should be allowed to utilize the advantages of that talent, not simply have the universe conspire against them in an immersion breaking way.

 

[Minigiant]

Just ask the DM to let you play a half-celestial paladin.

My point is the paladin should have celestial aspect baked in after a certain point. At the 7th or 8th level, they should be half-celestials. Then at the 14th or so level, they become full celestials or minor angels.

By the way, the monks outsider form is pretty much worthless. It's cool when you think about it but not very practical in actual play.

Yeah, I know. I love the idea but the execution was poor.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Since the "Paladin class" goes back to 1975 OD&D, why do you feel the current need to replace him with a Fighter/Cleric?

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.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Detect Evil has generally worked on individuals, so if they are going to change it to "the is a shadow of a threat growing on my mind" then it would be better, but still problematic.



No I'm not. Why give out an ability if you are just going to nullify it in play? That's a waste of my time and the player's time. Don't give it out if you aren't going to make it relevant.



No, I don't like that design choice for adventurers. If someone has gained a talent, they should be allowed to utilize the advantages of that talent, not simply have the universe conspire against them in an immersion breaking way.

Arguably, Detect Evil could only work on certain types of evil since it really puts the emphasis on "Evil Aura".

I didn't say anything about nullifying an ability but if you are going to whine about Detect Evil wrecking your games then throw in challenges that cause the Paladin to need more than just his Detect Evil sight. I mean you talk about the ability wrecking your type of game, you get tips on how to deal with that but then you shoot it down. It's like you want to refuse the help in order to try and keep your argument right.

So I need to never ever use See Invisibility because your PC might use Invisibility. Tell you what? When I run my games I won't allow PC's to take anything that could effect the abilities of my monsters because it feels like the universe is conspiring against my monsters and it breaks immersion?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Another way to approach it is to consider three broad approaches to class design in D&D:

1. You design a system with elements that work well together, single-classed, multiclassed, themes, etc. You keep in mind that when you are done, you want to be able to have good classes and other bits that will make clear warriors, priests, etc. Then you represent the classic D&D bits in whatever way makes sense inside that system.
2. You start with the assumption that the classic classes will be in the system as classes, and thus you dedicate yourself to making each class stand out--to deserve to be a separate class. Whatever it takes, you do that. You make multiclassing fit around that best you can, preferably covering a lot of the classic bits there as well, but don't worry if the cleric/rogue combo doesn't work that hot.
3. You start with the archetypes of the classic classes as your starting archetypes, making assumptions about what goes in and what doesn't to fit each archetype, and then you make classes to represent those.

Those are putting primary priority, respectively, on system, class, or archetype. If you put the priority on system, then you need to accommodate the classic characters. If you put priority on classes, then you design the multiclassing system as soon as you start on the hybrid characters--or make darn sure that you make each classic case unique. If you put priority on archetypes, you need to accept that your system is going to have gaping holes in it, both with certain classes and multiclassing, and that if people wanted that, they've already got many systems with that kind of focus--some that probably do it better than you will. So if you want to be good, you'd better nail those archetypes to the wall.

Pick one. Don't start mucking around with archetypes or classes and assume that it will all just work out.

 

[Minigiant]

Ans to the whole Chaotic Good and Neutral Good dieties and paladins thing.

A NG deity would have LG paladins. A CG deity "could" have paladins but they rarely believe in placing outside codes of life on others. So a paladin of a CG deity is destined to die or fall as they don't act according to their deity's beliefs.

The number one thing about a paladin is his or her code. Their divine powers are a gift to aid them in their mission and a reward for keeping a code that is not their own. 4E petty much removed the code and made it more like a warlock's pact. Well it is a pact, but it had a leash before.

 

[jsaving]

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 agree that paladins need to be the noble and chivalrous knights with whom we've become familiar in past editions, rather than a generic "pick a code and smite anybody who doesn't like it" class. However, I'm not convinced that imposing an alignment requirement is the right way to accomplish this.

When I look up chivalry in a dictionary, I find several definitions that revolve around courage against the strong, stalwart defense of the weak, good manners toward others, and proficiency with arms. Nowhere in the definition of chivalry do I find anything about respecting earthly authorities, following traditions, shunning creativity, judging others, or valuing order over freedom -- all staples of lawful goodness in editions past. If these aren't desired features of the paladin class, why make them so by imposing a lawful good alignment restriction? Better to simply require them to embody chivalry and let the alignment chips fall where they may.

A 3e example from the Realms: it never made sense to me that Helm, Chauntea, Selune, etc would grant special powers (paladinhood) to those who explicitly renounce the most treasured precepts of those deities and opt for lawful goodness instead. Why not just say that those deities value chivalry even though they aren't LG and are willing to elevate followers who also revere chivalry?

To sum up, the dichotomy some people see between "requiring LG" and moving to a "pick a code, any code" paladin is a false choice, because it is also possible to bring back the traditional chivalric paladin archetype without a specific alignment straitjacket of any kind. Maybe there's an LN guy like Helm who protects the weak and sees evil rather than chaos as the main threat to stability -- fine, let him be a paladin with the traditional set of abilities including smiting evil. Same for CG, NG, or maybe other alignments as well. None of these guys will be "normal" for their alignment, but hey, LG paladins aren't exactly "normal" for their alignment either. Those are my two cents, anyway.