Paladin Design Goals ... WotC Blog

[Mishihari Lord]

I'm pretty happy with their take. I'd prefer LG only paladins, but that's easy enough to modify for my table.

I think too much is being made of "they can be evil but they smite evil" in this thread. They probably smite their opposite, as expected, and it's probably just too small of a detail to be mentioned in such a short article.

If anything, I think that the paladin should remain a fundamental class and the cleric should be modified so that it doesn't encroach on the paladin's role. There's a very good basis for paladin as an archetype in fantasy literature. A combat-monster cleric? Not so much. I think the cleric should have far less melee capability and be more devoted to casting or maybe some new unique mechanic.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

If you are going to have an "all" aligned warrior who smites for their god then make it an Inquisitor or an Avenger. Don't call it a Paladin.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Just chiming in to say that I've always seen the Paladin as Lawful Good by necessity. That is, their code is so inherently tied to Good that the very fabric of Goodness itself gifts them their supernatural abilities. Yes, they may follow a god, but all of that falls short of their unwavering commitment to Good, not by any god. This is what separates them from a Cleric, in design. A Cleric is the holy warrior of a god, while a Paladin is chosen by the fabric of Good itself to champion it, as long as he follows a specific code.

But, that's always been my take, and that's why this article set off a "DO NOT WANT" alarm in my head as I read the first point. Not only are they mucking with my conception of the D&D Paladin, but they're not even starting from a good point, in my eyes. Not only does he not need to be Lawful Good (which I realize I'm in the minority on), but he first and foremost follows a god's teachings. That's what the D&D Cleric is for, not the Paladin. To me, at least.

But, the Paladin has always been my favorite class, ever since I was a kid. Love the Lawful Good Knight archetype, and always will, and I strongly dislike the idea of non-LG Paladins. And, before we go there, yes, I could make my Paladin Lawful Good, but the fact that I might run into another Evil "Paladin" sometime would bug me to no end. It devalues what the name and class means to me, personally. And, yes, before we go there, I could rule that you can only be LG if you're a Paladin if I'm running the game. But, (1) Oberoni Fallacy, (2) I will probably be playing in 5e, not running it, and (3) Contingent on thoughtful design, others could just as easily house rule that Paladins don't need to be LG or follow the same code.

Either way, one of us is house ruling, tweaking "dials", or whatever. I would rather see Paladin be my vision, obviously, but I'm in no way demanding it. I think we'd all like to see our views be prominent, accepted, and well done. That's just where I'm at, though I do note I'm probably in the minority. But hey, just voicing where I part from the current design. Even if they keep "any alignment" as an option, they really should focus on the ideals or code of the Paladin, not the god. As always, play what you like

 

[jsaving]

Just chiming in to say that I've always seen the Paladin as Lawful Good by necessity. That is, their code is so inherently tied to Good that the very fabric of Goodness itself gifts them their supernatural abilities.

I agree with virtually everything you said except for this snippet. Why would being closely tied to Good imply a Lawful Good alignment requirement?

 

[B.T.]

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

 

[hafrogman]

"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.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I agree that paladins should oppose evil, but why does this mean they need to be Lawful Good?

Because the incredibly strict adherence to their code (above and beyond nearly all clerics, druids, etc.) is very Lawful, and Good only rewards such servants. Paladins (to me, personally) should be incredibly disciplined, usually well-mannered, bastions of Goodness and Light in a world of Evil and Darkness. Their commitment and sacrifice is nearly unmatched, and it requires the correct Lawful Good mindset to achieve (which is what separates them from a Lawful Good Fighter, for example).

But that's my take. Again, I recognize I'm in the minority on this. As always, play what you like

 

[fuindordm]

I agree with the above; the game world's distinction is that paladins are agents of a mysterious force of GOOD, not a little god or a church. The good gods may try to point paladins toward their particular enemies, but they don't command them.

Personally, I like the mystic aspect of the class. The paladin is not taught but inspired. They are not commanded by mortal superiors, but driven by a fleshless voice. The paladin may be a bumpkin with no book learnin' but they know what's right and they'll fight for the White to their dying breath.

Roland is a paladin, because he followed his ka at enormous cost to himself.
Big Ears is a paladin "...so that other people don't have to [sense evil]".

Anyhoo, what I got out of the blog is that a paladin can smite anyone they please. And I can live with this version, but I'd like to see less reliance on spells and more on supernatural gifts.

 

[Baron Von Mandrick]

I agree that paladins should oppose evil, but why does this mean they need to be Lawful Good?

The way I see it is this... Any good aligned character will oppose evil.

The way that Paladins go about it, is try and be a shining star in chaos and evil that shines as an example to others. In order to do that, they have a code to live by which places certain restrictions. Their example of showing what good is, should be set above all others, and beyond reproach.

That kind of dedication (work and training) and connection with a deity they represent has granted them certain abilities to help them in their tasks.

Simply being good, but not upholding that code, doesn't set the same example. The Paladin is representing all that their deity wants from the world, and uses the paladin as their shining example.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I agree with the above; the game world's distinction is that paladins are agents of a mysterious force of GOOD, not a little god or a church. The good gods may try to point paladins toward their particular enemies, but they don't command them.

And this is a point I strongly disagree with. I've always seen paladins as a servant of a good god. The idea of GOOD being an entity or having any particular powers or capabilities just seems bizarre to me.