Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MadMaligor" data-source="post: 4232958" data-attributes="member: 66102">My best guess is that the redesign of the Paladin is a direct response to its lack of diversity and functional use.  It wouldn't be a stretch to also guess that a majority of DM's house ruled the hell outa the class.  I know I did, and in different ways for each campaign based on setting.  The problem with the Paladin in 1st Ed AD&D was that the class was not the Paladin, but rather a version of a type of Paladin.  It should have more correctly been defined as some sort of Cleric/Cavalier hybrid linked to a named LG diety (oh and btw...the Paladin is most definately linked to faith and the gods in 1st Ed, its just not specified...if you wish I will quote you some text).  Which is the reason this class, probably more than any other, is houseruled so much.Paladins, fighters, rogues, and mages needed changes the most, IMHO.  Paladins most of all.  The class has too long been tied to a LG requirement that makes no sense.  A code of conduct based off of faith, belief systems, and applicable societal law are what should govern the actions of a Paladin.  These codes should be defined at the beginning of each campaign for a player wishing to play a Paladin.  The player should pick the diety, and where applicable, the society/leader he/she is operating for or within.  When both DM and player are clear about the "Dont break these codes or else" rules, you have your character.  The impacts of abandoning or breaking the codes can, and should vary as well.  Each god reacting differently to a rogue Paladin.  It doesnt always have to mean instant power/ability loss.  This can be an incredibly fun scenario when roleplayed well.To be clear on the argument though, what makes 4E so sexy with regards to both my belief and yours, is that it works for both.  You and I both can set the rules up, using the 4E skeleton frame, and create a campaign that works for both of us.  If you wish the Paladin to be the restricted LG knight in shining armor only type ie...using your words "... paladins have a roll.  They're the knight in shining armor.  They're the lawful good knight errant who travels the land, righting wrongs, saving maidens in distress while alarmingly keeping them as maidens, and other general romanticism styled things.  No, not THAT type of romanticism, I did state the maidens remained maidens....well 4E works for you.  I on the other hand, am now glad I dont have to break the rules piggybank so to speak just to create varying versions.Just the opposite rather.  Your not shouting "Freedom!" your shouting "My version of Freedom is not being upheld as the rule, but rather a variation.  Please revert back to my version of Freedom so we can all conform to my ideal of what the Paladin should be."An interesting thing with regards to RPG arguments is how often the system supports the ideals of those that struggle to oppose a certain aspect of the game.  Usually it is because of something related to the arguments here, and in others like the alignment issue.  Generally boiling down to "If things are allowed outside of the rules I believe to be core, something is wrong."I would argue that RPG's rarely function well when based on any ideal that something should not be able to be changed or modified.  Any DM worth his/her salt knows that with drastic changes come drastic game repercussions, and those that dont find out soon enough.  The key to things like the Paladin class, is designing a set of rules that work and make sense for your campaign and your players.  They dont have to vary drastically, and they probably shouldnt for that matter.  But the game should not be tied to a restriction, your campaign should.  That is why this part of the 4E changes appeal to me.Mal</blockquote>

Verification