D&D 5E Thoughts on 6-7-13 Playtest Packet

[Nymrohd]

There is only one, to make Paladins of every alignment just waters them down and turns them into glorified Fighters.

What is a paladin anyway? The brand image from D&D is actually fairly limited. He is a LG warrior who casts clerical spells and can smite, lay on hands and summon a mount. This is all of it and it is very specific. A paladin should be entirely replaceable with a fighter/cleric+the feat system.
Indeed I think a better option would be to name the class something other than paladin (champion, templar, cavalier, little red riding hood) and just have the paladin be one of the subclasses, with the blackguard, the anti-paladin as other options. Names matter.

 

[Weather Report]

What is a paladin anyway?

A champion of a very specific ethos, not just a poster-boy for X alignment.

 

[Cyberen]

A champion sworn to a cause.
In a fantasy world, Oaths should go a long way...

 

[Weather Report]

A champion sworn to a cause.
In a fantasy world, Oaths should go a long way...

But in the real world oaths should not?

It's just the implication, what with the lame ellipses.

 

[Cyberen]

I was *implying* oaths could carry some *mechanical* weight in a fantasy world, because there *are* powers out there who listen, react or answers such oaths.
In the real world, people swear, comply to, or break oaths all the time, but the question of their enforcement by an*external* force is best addressed by your favourite personal beliefs system.
Is it clear enough ? I can also use caps...
By the way, I think such oaths could also be mechanically described by feats everyone could take... Which is kind of the reason behind Feats eating up PrC and PP.

 

[Weather Report]

I was *implying* oaths could carry some *mechanical* weight in a fantasy world, because there

Well this where you and I differ, and please, refrain from PMing me, it's cheap and transparent; moderators, please, make this go away from my life.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A paladin should be entirely replaceable with a fighter/cleric+the feat system.

I can't quite agree with this: going back over the material that inspired the class in the first place, no paladin I can find is actually a member of the clergy- they are all laypersons who have been chosen for a specific role by their deity. That is an important distinction.

As such, a paladin has no place in the hierarchy of the faith; they do not have the powers or responsibilities of the clergy. Their restrictions differ.

These things matter in the real world, and should in fantasy settings as well.

And across editions thus far, the spell-lists of the Cleric & Paladin classes do a decent job of doing just that. There's a reason Clerics could cast Attonement and Paladins couldn't.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

In a good party, I like to play the Lawful Evil guy. That doesn't mean I'm fighting with the good PCs or that I don't work with them. Instead, what it means is that when the party is discussing what to do with the prisoner, I'm the one saying "Let's just slit his throat." When there's a bunch of peasants in danger, I'm the one asking why we're bothering to help them.

In character, my next question would be: "Why are we associating with this guy?" And my character would likely try to distance himself from your character. It is often only the conceit of the group dynamic of D&D that keeps parties like this together. Obviously, YMMV.

 

[Dausuul]

In character, my next question would be: "Why are we associating with this guy?" And my character would likely try to distance himself from your character. It is often only the conceit of the group dynamic of D&D that keeps parties like this together. Obviously, YMMV.

Well, it would of course depend on the campaign. In a lot of cases the answer is "Because we're on a vitally important mission and he's proven to be a tough and loyal ally." Most of the time the party is not in a position to turn down reliable help like that, even if the guy providing it is a cold-blooded bastard. Of course the alignment differences create some tension in the party--they're supposed to! But as long as I show that I'm willing to obey the party leader, or go along with the consensus, it doesn't tear the party apart. (Usually.)

In some cases it even leads to important questions being asked. If we're on a mission to stop a demon prince from overrunning the world with his Abyssal horde, does it really make sense to risk our lives saving some peasants from a monster? What if some of us die and we end up not having enough firepower when it counts? Sometimes a little cold-bloodedness is just what the party needs.

I'm of the philosophy that being evil does not mean you have no friends. It just means that you see no problem with being very nasty to people who aren't your friends. Human beings are extraordinarily good at dividing the world into Us and Them, and we can be incredibly devoted to Us while being positively sociopathic to Them.

 

[steeldragons]

What is a paladin anyway? The brand image from D&D is actually fairly limited. He is a LG warrior who casts clerical spells and can smite, lay on hands and summon a mount. This is all of it and it is very specific. A paladin should be entirely replaceable with a fighter/cleric+the feat system.
Indeed I think a better option would be to name the class something other than paladin (champion, templar, cavalier, little red riding hood) and just have the paladin be one of the subclasses, with the blackguard, the anti-paladin as other options. Names matter.

Well, I agree with all of this...and, as you say, "names matter." That said, I don't think "Cavalier" as the playtest has it now really works at all. In real life, all this is is someone who fights/skilled in fighting from horseback. In D&D terms, it was a "knight" in the sense that they were from wealthy families...who fought well from horseback...and [without my 1e Unearthed Arcana before me] I believe, some standards of "chivalric code" they were expected to follow...but it involves none of the adherence or connection to religious beliefs or very strict observance of their code beyond the first few levels.

If we are looking at the Paladin, Warden and even Blackguard as examples of paragons of their respective virtues with magical "gifts" [whether flavored as divine or natural or just the result of tenacious adherence to mundane "oaths"] then "Cavelier" doesn't really strike me as the proper [i.e. most appropriate] umbrella term. "Champion" would seem to make sense.

Cavalier and Warlord would constitute a separate block of classes that is their own or "sub classes" of Fighter or neither and just become specialties.

A champion of a very specific ethos, not just a poster-boy for X alignment.

"Not just." Yes. But the "poster-boy of X alignment" is most certainly a champion of a very specific ethos. Can you be a champion of an ethos and not be a paladin? I'd agree that, yes, you can. I suppose this falls under that dictum of "All Paladins are Champions. But not all Champions are Paladins."

I don't mind the concept of "Champions of X", the Warden being the most obvious example they've presented thus far, being wrapped up with the Paladin as a "champion of X that is granted/trained/imbued with magical powers". (though the idea of the Warden as a "champion sub-class" of Druid also works for me).

...I'm not entirely sure what I'm gettign at here...or which tangent I've gone off on...but, yeah, that all seemed relevant to say...but now I'm not sure why. haha.

Anywho, back to your regularly scheduled thread.
Happy Friday all.
--SD