Paladin Design Goals ... WotC Blog

[drothgery]

There's a pretty strong flavor argument for LG only paladins, but it brings up two pretty serious questions
1) How are non-LG Holy Warriors built (and why is it that only LG ones get a core class)?
2) Is the classic LG-only paladin really played enough to justify a core class? I mean, I like paladins, but I've played in almost no campaigns where I'd play one.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

There's a pretty strong flavor argument for LG only paladins, but it brings up two pretty serious questions
1) How are non-LG Holy Warriors built (and why is it that only LG ones get a core class)?
2) Is the classic LG-only paladin really played enough to justify a core class? I mean, I like paladins, but I've played in almost no campaigns where I'd play one.

1: That's for the designers to decide but the mantle of Paladin has already been given to the Lawful Good side, everything else needs to find it's own title.

2: Yes

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.

I understand this point of view (yours, that is). To me, it's just a in-game physics thing. That is, Good is a force in the multiverse. It may not be sentient, but just by adhering to the code that he does, a being can be gifted with the incredible powers that a Paladin receives. So, to me, Good does grant him the abilities he has, even if it's not a particular "entity" doing it.

Again, though, I do understand your views, and why mine don't sound appealing. And, again, I think I'm in the minority, so you're probably going to be happier about the final decisions than I am As always, play what you like

 

[SLOTHmaster]

Don't think I've seen anyone suggest this yet

Just putting in my two bits worth, but I would personally like to see either a class somewhat like champions from Arcana Unearthed/Evolved or a theme that gives paladin-like abilities. Or both; I could see playing a Champion of Good who defends the weak just as well as I can see playing a Fighter with a Holy Avenger theme who seeks out evil to destroy it at its root. The way I see it, the first would be better suited to abilities like lay on hands, whereas the second would be perfect for smite evil. Turn undead would depend on how they implement and flavor it, I always had the mental image of a paladin riding in and disintegrating the first line of zombies, but most posters here seem to consider it a much more defensive, holy-symbol-at-vampires kind of mechanic. Only somewhat related, I am disappointed that they're keeping the alignment system, I was hoping it would be optional.

 

[fuindordm]

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.

I hear ya. Personally, I like the mystery implied by the fact that the world has these divinish warriors wandering around that no known god can claim. I also like books where some things are just left unexplained or seem to break the character's expectations of how the world works.

That's what I get out of the class. But I also see the attraction of giving every god a unique paladin (Faiths & Avatars specialty priests) and of having several codes capable of inspiring mortals (Arcana Unearthed Champions).

 

[ferratus]

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.

Well, I rejected your suggestions in my original post before you even said anything. If the solution to solving the problem that detect evil creates is to take it out of the game (via items that cloak alignment) why not just remove it from the game (via not having an ability that detects enemies).

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?

If you use those tools properly, when the story calls for it, fine. Dragons have blindsense, a cleric will have it in his prepared spell list if he is the Oracle of Poobah, a villain knows you use invisibility frequently so he is prepared with a scroll of faerie fire. All valid.

But you were talking about deliberately introducing more "see invisible" monsters than a PC would normally encounter just because a PC has gained the ability to become invisible. That's just screwing the player over.

 

[Klaus]

I remember when Eberron had to bend over backwards to work around the existence of Detect Magic (to the point where Keith Baker had to write a column on what Detect Evil did or did not detect). If the ability was so disruptive to a core D&D setting, then it should be left on the cutting room floor.

 

[CM]

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

Leave the class, alignment, and racial restrictions to the DM to decide, people.

 

[Remathilis]

This may be a case of pleasing everyone pleases no one.

A paladin ISN'T a servant of a deity, he's the embodiment of a hero. In a game where it is very convenient to lie, cheat, and drown kobold babies for profit, a paladin rejects that in place of the harder, nobler route. In return, he is granted powers beyond mortal ken; healing with a touch, a sense of justice so strong he can sense the impure; courage unrivaled, unnatural health and stamina, and even some blessing from deities of similar aims.

A paladin isn't just a fighter, even the most noble soldier does what he must to survive using his wits. A paladin puts his faith in his higher calling and is rewarded for it. Likewise, a paladin isn't a cleric; he serves ideals larger (and older) than even the gods. He strives towards Universal Truths like honesty, justice, purity, and righteousness; not merely serving the sun god.

Just as a druid isn't just a cleric of a nature deity (that can be done with domains) and a ranger isn't a fighter/druid (or fighter/cleric), a paladin isn't a fighter/cleric. There is some overlap, but a paladin needs to be in front, leading the cause with his weapons augmented by holy power while a cleric is a support character defined by his spell selection.

I could make an argument for paladins being any GOOD aligned, but I'd prefer them to be LG. They are the prototypical heroes who do always right. Captain America, Superman, and such. They play by the rules and fight fair even when they know others won't (and don't). That's what makes them who they are. They are examples of what humanity (or whatever race) can be, and they're ideals are not easy to live up to.

Evil paladins, or fighter/clerics with a theme just miss the point...

 

[mlund]

I've had a little more time to digest things and come up with a couple of ideas.

I think my problem with taking the Paladin as a class rather than a Background for a Fighter or Cleric stems from the assumption that a class like the Paladin, Bard, or Ranger has to take up the same number of pages in the book as the 4 Iconic Classes. I had to take a step back and accept that it is not a given, nor a necessity that each class has the same design flexibility.

The Iconics are Big Tent Classes - they have core examples like Fighter: Slayer or Magic-User: Wizard, but at the same time they are flexible enough to encompass divergence. Fighter: Knight and Magic-User: Sorcerer are completely viable without straying from the tent.

The Paladin, Bard, Ranger, Avenger, Gish-type don't have to be Big Tent Classes themselves just because they live outside the iconic tents. Paladins have a niche between the Cleric and the Fighter. It is a narrow niche and that's OK. It's just one class in this tent, not a ton of variant mechanical paths like the Iconic Classes need to support. Same thing goes for the Bard.

Imagine a Core fighter with a D12 hit die, a cleric with the traditional D8 and the Paladin with a D10. The Paladin has all the Fighter's Armor options, Melee Weapon options, a smaller portion of ranged 1 healing, and his unique detection, smiting, fearlessness, and defensive mechanics. You've got a unique niche class. He won't be as flexible as the Fighter or the Cleric, but he'll still be as effective as a Slayer or a Wizard.

Beyond that, I hope the Paladin doesn't need to match his deity's alignment on the Law-Chaos scale, just the morality scale. Even Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil deities can see the value in unswerving loyalty among their slaves.

- Marty Lund

P.S. - I look forward to seeing a Lawful Evil Paladin sworn to the a god of chaos and madness. "Tharizdun demands I beat you to death with this Pork Roast! Surely his wisdom is above the ken of mere mortals." *Ham Smite*