Paladin Design Goals ... WotC Blog

[JamesonCourage]

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).

For people that aren't playing cloak and dagger games where Detect Evil ruins the fun?

Don't get me wrong, I do understand the objection to divination magic ruining the fun a lot of the time. I reigned it in significantly in my RPG. But, that'd be a reason why you wouldn't need to remove it from the game (since it might be adding to someone's fun, not subtracting from it).

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.

Agreed. As always, play what you like

 

[jsaving]

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).

I again find myself agreeing with everything you're saying except for why this necessarily implies a LG alignment for the paladin. Clerics of deities antithetical to LG, like Lolth's, are required to adhere to an incredibly strict code or else be exterminated -- a far harsher penalty than anything a traditional paladin would face. It's the content of the traditional paladin's code, and not just the fact that they have a code, that makes them special.

What is that content, in non-D&D terms? It's resolute courage in the face of overwhelming evil, protection of the weak even when sacrifices are required, a noble manner toward all under any circumstance, and the necessary martial skill to see these things accomplished.

Compare these chivalric tenets to the traditional elements of lawful goodness. Should the 5e paladin respect/follow/obey earthly authorities and traditions when they conflict with his code? Should he judge people who fall short in their duties? Should he lack creativity? Should he favor social order over individual freedom? Those are all embedded in the definition of lawful goodness in editions past, which means they'd be required of any class whose members embody lawful goodness. But I find myself answering 'no' to every one of these questions, and don't see that it is necessary or even desirable to lay out specific 'issue positions' in those areas that paladins would be expected to follow -- which is essentially what would happen if 5e paladins were to exemplify Lawful Goodness rather than exemplifying chivalry. And I would argue the latter, not the former, is the truer reflection of the traditional D&D paladin.

To sum up, I agree completely that paladins should not become simply a generic champion of whatever ethos they happen to follow. I just think we should allow for the possibility that characters of other alignments, and not just LG, can also be chivalrous enough to make the cut for paladinhood.

 

[KidSnide]

I think blog entries about the class conceptions should address alignment restrictions. As this thread indicates, a lot of folks feel very strongly about either restricting paladin to lawful good or freeing paladins from that restriction. (I'm in the second camp.) I would have like to see the blog include an explicit note stating that some GMs/gameworlds might restrict paladins to a specific alignment or a specific code, while other GMs/gameworlds might allow paladins of any alignment.

But maybe they have a future blog entry dedicated specifically to alignment restrictions? After all, this issue applies equally to druids. I know I'd like to see a Princess Moanoke inspired gameworld where the druids and the paladins are all lawful neutral, and yet they hate each other because the two orders obey diametrically opposed sets of laws.

-KS

 

[Doug McCrae]

drown kobold babies for profit

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

 

[SkidAce]

Compare these chivalric tenets to the traditional elements of lawful goodness. Should the 5e paladin respect/follow/obey earthly authorities and traditions when they conflict with his code? Should he judge people who fall short in their duties? Should he lack creativity? Should he favor social order over individual freedom? Those are all embedded in the definition of lawful goodness in editions past, which means they'd be required of any class whose members embody lawful goodness. But I find myself answering 'no' to every one of these questions, and don't see that it is necessary or even desirable to lay out specific 'issue positions' in those areas that paladins would be expected to follow -- which is essentially what would happen if 5e paladins were to exemplify Lawful Goodness rather than exemplifying chivalry. And I would argue the latter, not the former, is the truer reflection of the traditional D&D paladin.

To me it appears with your questions that you think LG is more like LN.

Take the first question, and consider the fact that the paladin is also GOOD.

1. No he will not respect the oppressive earthly authorities that are hurting the people.

2. Yes, he will respect the earthly authorities that have established rules for the benefit of all.

Now if you have a morally complex game where the answers are not clear cut...say the benevolent leaders are..wrong...but don't know it? Then he can role play his decision. But since you introduced a morally gray area and he had to make a choice (assuming) you don't hammer him with the results.


Same thing for the other questions....and where did the lack of creativity thing come from? People may have played lawful stupid, but that was their choice, not the way paladins have to be across the cosmos.

(honest question...let me know what you think)

 

[ferratus]

Don't get me wrong, I do understand the objection to divination magic ruining the fun a lot of the time. I reigned it in significantly in my RPG. But, that'd be a reason why you wouldn't need to remove it from the game (since it might be adding to someone's fun, not subtracting from it).

I think there is a way to do divination that wouldn't be disruptive to the game. Simply have the information gained be a clue rather than the complete story. Augury and Legend Lore are great examples of divination because they create vague clues rather than just giving you the answer.

Detect Evil not only gives away the answer, but paladins pre-3e paladins are able to do it at will. As they can do it at will, there is no reason not to do it to every new person you come across, and cause problems if they happen to ping evil. Heck, even the clerics having a detect evil spell wasn't as big a problem as the paladin's detect evil ability, because the cleric had to sacrifice another valuable spell, and could only guess once before they had to refresh the spell again.

 

[grimslade]

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

And fit into small barrels or puddles. My mad fanatic's eye can see the evil oozing from their pores... err scales. What you can't see it? Take my word for it. I have been chosen by... well no, not a god... a voice inside me. It compels me to fight evil in all its forms, especially the weak and helpless like kobold babies. They were mewling dark paeans to dark forgotten gods, I tell you. Look, I don't know how that gnome baby got in there painted red. C'mon gnome, kobold, what's the diff. Both are stone cold Evil. Let's go drown this batch and head back to the tavern for drinks on me. Why are you shocked, it's not like I'm a priest.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

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.

For Q2, whenever I've seen polls for class popularity the Paladin gets about 6-7% Ok that's not scientific, but regardless that's not much less than the core 4, and usually just shaded by the ranger.

In short, yes, the paladin is pretty popular.

 

[MoonSong]

At least they have decided to keep the lawful bit of the alignment. That is good news on my book. Wish they'd cut out a little on the "champion from a god" thing, but anyway it makes me happy.

 

[grimslade]

The code is all. The code is what makes a paladin different from a warrior or a cleric with the same alignment. An unyielding champion with an iron spine, an embodiment of laws of conduct.
Good, neutral, or evil, a paladin does not just adhere to a code. He is the code. It is written in his being and expressed in his deeds. To violate his code would be a violation of himself, worthy of serious repercussions like losing his abilities and requiring serious repentance.

Does a paladin need to be Lawful Good? I see it being the most popular flavor. If paladins are effective in the fight against evil, wouldn't Evil try and do the same to good? And wouldn't arbiters of laws feel the need to provide a champion for Rule as Written. The other alignments can not follow a code strictly enough to have champions like the Paladin. Chaos likes a variety. A Lawful Evil paladin may be called a Praetorian or Tyrant-errant. A Lawful Neutral paladin could be a Justicar or Regulator. They all fall under the class of Paladin.