What does a paladin do (or should be doing)?

[Abstruse]

Yay, this is going to be a long one...

You also start with mechanics, to then finally evoque fluff. I disagree with this approach. A paladin is not one of the nine boxes in a tic tac toe game that needs to be filled.

Which is exactly my argument against the paladin. "Well, we had a paladin in the other editions so we have to put one in this one" isn't an argument, it's ticking off a checklist.

RPGs need a soul to be interesting. {snip} Paladins are like that, i.e. they have story attached to them.

Why is a paladin different from a cleric of a war-like god? Because a cleric is a priest, someone trained to head religious ceremonies, to get people to join the faith. A paladin is not that. A paladin is a warrior dedicated to the religious cause. He is not a priest. He has not received training to head religious ceremonies.

That's background and fluff. I can easily say that my warpriest cleric was chosen by Moradin at a young age and trained dutifully in the martial ways of his deity, gaining insight as well as combat training. He is the physical embodiment of ideals of Moradin, protecting the defenseless and holding the line against all the evils under the mountain even at his own sacrifice. There, that's my backstory that fulfills your idea of a paladin and leads to the exact same feel and roleplay, but uses the Moradin cleric pregen. You can't arbitrarily assign a backstory to one class or another and then point to it as proof that you're right. My cleric is suited to his deity, which is a warrior and defender. How exactly would a paladin of the same deity differ?

Flexible in what sense? Mechanically again? Well, if that is the question, I don't see why the paladin should not have its set of unique powers or abilities, such as the paladin's mount, the smite evil, the protection from evil (circle).

So we're back to the Lawful Good Holy Knight in Shining Armor with a Magic Horsie. That's what I mean about flexibility. Can you have a paladin that doesn't fit that archetype? Otherwise, the build is too rigid to need to be an independent class. You have to be able to account for different deities to be chosen and different themes to be applied. If I put the thief theme on a paladin, is it still a paladin? If not, then paladin is a build and not a class. (Note: That's only an example of one theme. Replace "thief" with any other theme that could be applied and see if it works.)

If you say that these powers could be obtained through theme, then that is true for just about anyone. You could have no class at all, and add spellcasting through theme, melee fighting through theme, anything through theme. There are RPGs like that. It's not a new idea. It's just that, in the D&D next boards lately, it seems like some people have decided that the theme concept should be applied to the four base classes instead of being applied to anything at all.

Argumentum ad reducto. You're taking my argument, reducing it to its furthest extremes, and then criticizing the result. It's a logical fallacy and won't convince anyone. That's why I make the specific point about flexibility. If paladin is a class rather than just a specific build or a theme, that means it must be able to have various themes applied to it that still hold up to the archetype of that class.

D&D starts with ideas about the game that take root in real-world history, and then that have been added as game rules to the game through the different iterations of the game. At the basis of this, is the class system. Where to draw the line? I.e. how many classes to you want, just one with only themes? Four with themes for the rest? 10? 20? Like I said earlier, I think the answer to that is not about game mechanics, it's all about story. Where does that class, such as paladin, stand with respect to the game? Is it important? Are the holy warriors simply priests with a knack for combat? The latter concept is conceivable. I just don't think it's D&D.

No, mechanics are the core of the argument. Wizards of the Coast is drawing a line between what is and is not a class. That is a decision that is based on mechanics. Any character can have flavor or feel added to it via backstory and roleplaying. But in order to be justified as a class, it needs to be able to stand alone on its own as a separate entity from the other classes. Otherwise, you're just reprinting the same material under a different chapter heading. Thief should not be a class when there's already a rogue, no matter how many times you say a thief is different because he specifically steals things and breaks into places, while a rogue is more of a charismatic treasure hunter. It's still the same class just two different builds.

And now we switch to a detailed reply to a completely different post...

Supernatural defenses against fear and disease are certainly a starting point. I think the basic asumption is a strong resilience agsinst forces of corruption and Evil, which could also be expanded to resistance against effects that drain their life force in some way.

Limiting it to forces of corruption and evil limits it to good characters only, or lawful characters only. Or worst of all, only lawful good characters. The class has to be flexible enough to allow for all the deities or you're completely breaking from the fiction. These deities are involved in the world and use proxies to do so. If one of them had divine warriors, all of them would. To stand up, the paladin class has to be able to accommodate all of those deities just as the cleric does or you've got a lot of mental gymnastics to do as to why Bahamut is the only deity that gets paladins.

With that, paladins are able to get close to beings whose mere presence is a danger and tollerate areas of imense corruption. However, since it's a party based game, you can't really have a lot of situations in which everyone stays behind while the paladin goes on alone with his magical hazmat suit. When a fighter has his big sword and a rogue his knives, they want to get close to the beast and stab it. Also, in a currupted dungeon, the party can only go where its weakest member can survive.
If a paladin is immune to horrors and corruptions, that's nice for him, but the DM has to set up situations in which the whole party can keep going deeper. If it's too dangerous for the party to stay and fight, the paladin has few options than turn around as well and follow them outside. Sharing these resistances with allies is vital. And of course, the paladin himself would need to be the most resilient, because when he is out, the rest of the party is unprotected.
"Stay close to the paladin and you can walk into the mouth of hell. His powers will shield you." would make one interesting starting point for a class. Yes, it invades the territory of bards and warlords, but in the case of bards, there's still enough major differences to make them add very different abilities to the party. After all, you can also have cleric and druid classes, or barbarians and fighter.

Again, that's a lot closer. It gives the paladin a unique feel, but it's still not unique enough from a warpriest-style cleric nor does it allow for a paladin of a chaos-themed deity.

However, passive abilities are not fun. "I hit it with my longsword once per round while keeping up my protective shield around you" is not fun to play. A paladin certainly needs to have some active powers as well.
- Smiting is a start, but instead of "I hit it" you have the ability to "I hit it really hard" is not that much of a difference.
- Detect Evil is interesting in a narrated story, but full of complications in a game with the other players participating.

The Moradin cleric gets a smite ability at 3rd level, and Detect Evil again pushes it back to that LG stereotype again. If the paladin can only be lawful good and only be a melee fighter in heavy armor and only be this or that, you're restricting the class rather than opening it up. The more restrictive you get, the less justification there is to make it a class. If every paladin is a holy knight in shining armor with a magic horsie fighting for truth, justice, and the Toril way; then every single paladin is going to look pretty much exactly the same. If that's the case, then paladins would be better served being a specific build than a class or even a theme. Take this class with this theme and this deity.

So how can a paladin class be flexible enough to take into account the various themes that could be applied to it and still be a paladin? To answer that, we first have to answer what a paladin is at its core, then try to stretch that definition as far as we can without breaking it. If it can't stretch far enough to encompass a wide variety of character concepts and builds, then the fact of the matter is the paladin isn't really a class.

 

[MoonSong]

I think the easiest way to give paladins an unique thing is by absolutely divorcing them from gods. A paladin isn't a god's servant or a gods chosen, he couldn't care less about any deity or organized religion. He may pray to a god and have a patron deity, but he isn't subject to the wims of that god.

A paladin is first and foremost about his dedication to a code and a set of virtues, he is after a cause. There is nothing divine about him, but rather he is a paragon of heroism and dedication. Again he may choose a deity and even dedicate part of his efforts to that deity's cause, but the casue and code of his order come first and fore most, ther is only much you can do serving two masters before being forced to pick one. He may pray to a god to encourage himself, but he doesn't asks or demands miracles from a God, he makes them possible by his raw will and does them with his own hands.

As such there IS NO SUCH A THING AS PALADINS OF A GIVEN GOD, some orders may serve a God, but not all of them do, not even most of them. Would a Paladin fight dirty?(lurker) Would he Shield others(Defender)? Would he smash any opossition ot his cause?(Slayer) Would he focus on how to tend and help those who suffer? (Healer) Would he dabble on arcane arts or even make a pact with a god/entity/outsider?, Yes yes and yes, he would do anything that aided his cause without compromising his code.

Was he raised on the streets? Was he a pickpocket that decided to make things better for others? Was he born on a life of luxury? was he a dirt farmer? Was raised by wolves?, It doesn't matter, causes come from many places possible. I fact his Theme could easilly be a reflexion of the nature of the paladin's cause while his Background explain why he picked it.

 

[Abstruse]

I think the easiest way to give paladins an unique thing is by absolutely divorcing them from gods. A paladin isn't a god's servant or a gods chosen, he couldn't care less about any deity or organized religion. He may pray to a god and have a patron deity, but he isn't subject to the wims of that god.

A paladin is first and foremost about his dedication to a code and a set of virtues, he is after a cause. There is nothing divine about him, but rather he is a paragon of heroism and dedication. Again he may choose a deity and even dedicate part of his efforts to that deity's cause, but the casue and code of his order come first and fore most, ther is only much you can do serving two masters before being forced to pick one. He may pray to a god to encourage himself, but he doesn't asks or demands miracles from a God, he makes them possible by his raw will and does them with his own hands.

As such there IS NO SUCH A THING AS PALADINS OF A GIVEN GOD, some orders may serve a God, but not all of them do, not even most of them. Would a Paladin fight dirty?(lurker) Would he Shield others(Defender)? Would he smash any opossition ot his cause?(Slayer) Would he focus on how to tend and help those who suffer? (Healer) Would he dabble on arcane arts or even make a pact with a god/entity/outsider?, Yes yes and yes, he would do anything that aided his cause without compromising his code.

Was he raised on the streets? Was he a pickpocket that decided to make things better for others? Was he born on a life of luxury? was he a dirt farmer? Was raised by wolves?, It doesn't matter, causes come from many places possible. I fact his Theme could easilly be a reflexion of the nature of the paladin's cause while his Background explain why he picked it.

Now we've gone full-circle and gone right back to fighter. Nothing you said there can't also be done by a fighter. The motivation for adventuring is backstory and that sort of obsessive drive to uphold something can be applied to any character depending on how you roleplay it.

 

[mlund]

A Paladin may swing his sword at you with his arm, but it isn't strength or steel that will drive you to your knees before him - it is Faith.

A Paladin keeps his faith by honoring his Code. It may be dedicated in service to one god, many, or nothing but a philosophical ideal yet it is a wellspring of supernatural power that brings his enemies to ruin.

- Marty Lund

 

[Greg K]

I think the easiest way to give paladins an unique thing is by absolutely divorcing them from gods. A paladin isn't a god's servant or a gods chosen, he couldn't care less about any deity or organized religion. He may pray to a god and have a patron deity, but he isn't subject to the wims of that god.

No thank you. Call it a Champion or something else, but as far as I am concerned that is not a Paladin.

 

[Vegepygmy]

No thank you. Call it a Champion or something else, but as far as I am concerned that is not a Paladin.

See, that's interesting. To you, a paladin is inextricably connected to a deity. To me, that is of no consequence whatsoever. Very few of my paladin characters have even been religious.

 

[jadrax]

The Cleric of Moradin does sorta feel like a Paladin... because he isn't following the rules (that we can see). Why does he use a d10 for damage and where does he get +4 to that damage? He wouldn't be such a bad-ass if he were only damaging at d8+2

Hang on! What +4 to damage? The War Cleric pre-gen does d10+2.

 

[jadrax]

The Moradin cleric gets a smite ability at 3rd level,

2nd level.

 

[Steely_Dan]

To kick the living *profanity* out of Fiends.

 

[LostSoul]

I think this is why there is a Paladin class:

• XP for GP
• Training costs
• Thief and Assassin classes
• Neutral, Evil, or Chaotic Clerics

On the first point: When you get XP for GP, you are pushing towards mercenary PCs. PCs who will do whatever it takes to get the loot.

Throw in a class that has moral restrictions on what they can and can't do in order to keep their special abilities and you put that behaviour in stark relief.

On the second point: Training costs are pretty expensive. You have to keep a decent amount of loot on you over the course of a level in order to pay for training costs.

Throw in a class that has restrictions on how much GP they can carry in order to keep their special abilities and you shine a light on how expensive training costs can be.

On the third point: When you introduce classes who fight best when deceptive and with poison, players are going to use those abilities and have their PCs fight deceptively and with poison.

Throw in a class that has restrictions on fighting deceptively and without poison and you bring those differences into stark contrast.

On the fourth point: When you have PCs who can cast divine spells at the behest of selfish-at-best gods, divine magic takes on a certain flavour.

Throw in a class that can only cast spells or use special divine gifts if it upholds a certain behaviour and you throw those other PC's magic in stark contrast.

Which is to say:

When a player decides to play a Paladin, that choice draws focus to all these elements of the game. These are basic parts of the game: how you gain levels, how you conduct combat, and how you treat divine magic. (Though that last one could use some work, I think.)

I'm not sure how the Ranger class works; I imagine it does a similar job on the Fighter class, but I don't think it has as much influence on the game as a whole.

edit: This is what I am thinking:

Imagine a table. Lying on the table are ten needles, scattered a little, pointing all different directions but all lying flat on the tabletop. There's an eleventh needle too, though. Someone's stabbed it hard into the tabletop, so it stands up instead of lying down like the rest.

The eleventh needle declares the whole space to be 3-dimensional. Without it, you have the convenient plane: you can describe all the needles and their positions in only x- and y-terms. But that eleventh needle requires the z-axis, and so gives z-positions to all the others too.​