| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
 Posted - 18 May 2012 : 23:50:13
|
D&D:Next - Paladin Design Goals
Well needless to say, I've been a fan of the Paladin class since I started playing (at the tail-end of 2E/AD&D) and I gotta say, I'm not "psyched" for this version as I have been in the past. Some things I agree with, while others.....not soo much.
quote:
Originally posted by WotC_Bruce
The paladin is a champion of a divine calling:
A paladin follows a personal code that’s a reflection of the deity, and often even more significantly, a moral alignment. Though many paladins are lawful good, they don’t have to be. In fact, the particular virtues a paladin reveres can reflect nearly any moral attitude or divine calling (though such adherence means a paladin is at least lawful). A paladin’s codes traditionally point him or her toward an ascetic lifestyle, which speaks to a paladin’s selfless nature in pursuit of a calling.
Yes, and also no. Paladins ARE holy warriors that follow their deitie's rules and so forth and I heavily believe that many deities have holy champions (or unholy champions) that serve as generals and a moral compass for their designs. That does not mean that ALL paladins are Lawful at some point. The gist of this tells me that their flavor will much be like what we saw of the Knight in v3.5 (Alignment: Any Lawful). Sorry but I generally dislike forcing fluff just because at some point, it was what was expected or the "norm". Should they make a distinction between Goody-two shoe paladins and destructive, vile paladins? Sure thing! Should that be relfected in actual rules and mechanics? No.
quote:
Originally posted by WotC_Bruce
A paladin can see and smite evil.
A paladin knows when something supernaturally adverse to the deity or calling he or she champions is nearby. For instance, although a good paladin cannot unerringly zero in on a specific threat merely by walking past a structure infested with evil, the paladin knows something is wrong. Regardless of a given creature’s actual nature, a paladin can judge it unworthy and smite it with divine power that energizes his or her sword blow.
Looks like Detect Evil is coming back in a more wholesome form. I dont mind allowing paladins to "feel" that evil is about. I have a problem with them being able to point it out with pin-point accuracy. As for smiting, I HOPE (dear Gods please!!) that it isn't a daily affair (like smite 1/day  ) but something that can be done every few turns or few encounter. If anything, to avoid situations like this:
Wizard PC: "Hey pally, get in there and smite this lich!! He's killin' us here!!"
Paladin PC: "Would if I could but my God don't feel in the granting mood to allow me to dispense Justice! We'll have to go without!"
Wizard PC: "Pffff. Remind me to slay your God when I get to Epic levels, will ya?"
quote:
Originally posted by WotC_Bruce
A paladin is a fearless and selfless warrior.
The paladin is a warrior, nearly as skilled as a fighter and typically armed with heavy armor and a sword, and utterly without fear. When a paladin fights, it is not only to impose his or her code on the unworthy and slay threats to his or her divine calling, but also to protect allies. More so than the fighter, a paladin who champions a good deity or moral alignment is willing (and able) to sacrifice his or her own safety to ensure the safety of his or her companions. To this end, a paladin aspires to find a blessed sword of unequaled power: a holy avenger.
No problems here. It's one of the aspects of this article I really enjoyed. HOPEFULLY they'll be as useful as a Fighter in protection people like they were in 4E.
quote:
Originally posted by WotC_Bruce
A paladin has divine abilities.
As a servant of a higher calling and deity, a paladin can call on a variety of divine abilities, including the ability to heal allies with a touch (lay on hands), turn undead, perhaps cast a limited number of divine spells, and have at least the option to call a mount. In each case, the paladin’s divine ability diverges from similar abilities a cleric might have, speaking to the paladin’s strengths. For example, when a paladin calls a mount, that mount might inspire the normal mounts of the paladin’s allies, granting them speed and endurance while they travel together. When a paladin turns undead, he or she can also turn demons, devils, and other unholy creatures. And when a paladin lays on hands, the healing might also relieve malign conditions and spent stamina.
I laughed out loud when I read this. I seriously thought they ran over to the Paizo office, smashed a vase over the Pathfinder Paladin's head and took him back to WotC. Most of these features are exactly what the Pathfinder Paladin does. And I'm not opposed to this, far from it, I just find it funny that they're taking a page out of their book for once  .
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2012 : 02:53:20
|
| I don't get it. This harkens back to Paladins prior to 4e, most notably 2e/3e. How are they stealing anything from Paizo? Considering nothing is publicly available yet, don't you think it would be prudent to wait? Everything in that article describes a Paladin to the letter. |
Edited by - Matt James on 19 May 2012 02:54:35 |
 |
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3745 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2012 : 03:52:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by WotC_Bruce
The paladin is a champion of a divine calling:
A paladin follows a personal code that’s a reflection of the deity, and often even more significantly, a moral alignment. Though many paladins are lawful good, they don’t have to be. In fact, the particular virtues a paladin reveres can reflect nearly any moral attitude or divine calling (though such adherence means a paladin is at least lawful). A paladin’s codes traditionally point him or her toward an ascetic lifestyle, which speaks to a paladin’s selfless nature in pursuit of a calling.
-Do not like that non-Lawful Good Paladins are even being discussed. Paladins are LG. Period. Classes that do the same exact stuff, but are different alignments, are not Paladins. Period. If they want to go this route, give the class a broader term, like 'Champion' or 'Crusader' or whatever, and define Paladin as the LG variant.
quote:
Originally posted by WotC_Bruce
A paladin can see and smite evil.
A paladin knows when something supernaturally adverse to the deity or calling he or she champions is nearby. For instance, although a good paladin cannot unerringly zero in on a specific threat merely by walking past a structure infested with evil, the paladin knows something is wrong. Regardless of a given creature’s actual nature, a paladin can judge it unworthy and smite it with divine power that energizes his or her sword blow.
-In concept, I like that Paladins get advantages versus evil characters, but I was never too big of a fan of alignment when it comes to individuals. What would work, but would probably be a big pain in the ass, would be if alignments were morphic, with DMs awarding alignment shifts based on deeds. That makes spells/powers vs. alignments much easier to handle, I think. Someone is constantly doing bad things, and his/her DM awarded him with a lot of points on the evil side of the axis? He/she is evil. Someone is just kind of immoral, and does relatively minor bad things? He/she isn't evil.
quote:
Originally posted by WotC_Bruce
A paladin is a fearless and selfless warrior.
The paladin is a warrior, nearly as skilled as a fighter and typically armed with heavy armor and a sword, and utterly without fear. When a paladin fights, it is not only to impose his or her code on the unworthy and slay threats to his or her divine calling, but also to protect allies. More so than the fighter, a paladin who champions a good deity or moral alignment is willing (and able) to sacrifice his or her own safety to ensure the safety of his or her companions. To this end, a paladin aspires to find a blessed sword of unequaled power: a holy avenger.
-Don't know if I like seemingly shoehorning them into defensive-type fighters. I know I've played a Paladin, and I've seen a bunch in literature that were so blinded by their righteousness and whatever else that they were almost the opposite, in terms of helping out others and whatever else.
quote:
Originally posted by WotC_Bruce
A paladin has divine abilities.
As a servant of a higher calling and deity, a paladin can call on a variety of divine abilities, including the ability to heal allies with a touch (lay on hands), turn undead, perhaps cast a limited number of divine spells, and have at least the option to call a mount. In each case, the paladin’s divine ability diverges from similar abilities a cleric might have, speaking to the paladin’s strengths. For example, when a paladin calls a mount, that mount might inspire the normal mounts of the paladin’s allies, granting them speed and endurance while they travel together. When a paladin turns undead, he or she can also turn demons, devils, and other unholy creatures. And when a paladin lays on hands, the healing might also relieve malign conditions and spent stamina.
-Basic Paladin stuff. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2012 : 04:31:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
I don't get it. This harkens back to Paladins prior to 4e, most notably 2e/3e. How are they stealing anything from Paizo? Considering nothing is publicly available yet, don't you think it would be prudent to wait? Everything in that article describes a Paladin to the letter.
I never said that it some how didn't describe a paladin. This part in particular: "And when a paladin lays on hands, the healing might also relieve malign conditions and spent stamina." distinctly reminds me of the Pathfinder version of a Paladin. Granted, I haven't gone through all the Archtypes of Paladins for Pathfinder but I'm sure there's a variant for them to augment their Turning for other things besides undead and probably some to make their Special Mount better (and NOT through feats).
Nor did I say any of this was somehow wrong, just an impression that I got after reading the article. There are some things that I do have concerns about when I read this article compared to the Fighter article. In the Fighter one, we're told that the Fighter should be the best darn fighter in the game. That other classes come close, but no one matches the fighter in......well fighting. I agree, but what does this mean for the Paladin? If the Paladin can fight pretty good and wear heavy armor, what's stopping him from being an awesome fighter? Or, more importantly, what makes the fighter better?
Hopefully the distinction comes in what each class bring to the battlefield. If the Paladin can fight well, heal allies with a touch, remove conditions, and lay'eth the smack'eth down against foes they deem worthy of smiting, then the Fighter should be a full on arsenal that excells at ALL weapons and locks people down that get too close to him OR does really well with ranged weapons. The Fighter should be able to knock foes flat, push them around the battlefield, shoot multiple arrows in 1 turn, and have some innate ability to know where a Monster's "weakness" is. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2012 : 04:48:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by WotC_Bruce
The paladin is a champion of a divine calling:
A paladin follows a personal code that’s a reflection of the deity, and often even more significantly, a moral alignment. Though many paladins are lawful good, they don’t have to be. In fact, the particular virtues a paladin reveres can reflect nearly any moral attitude or divine calling (though such adherence means a paladin is at least lawful). A paladin’s codes traditionally point him or her toward an ascetic lifestyle, which speaks to a paladin’s selfless nature in pursuit of a calling.
-Do not like that non-Lawful Good Paladins are even being discussed. Paladins are LG. Period. Classes that do the same exact stuff, but are different alignments, are not Paladins. Period. If they want to go this route, give the class a broader term, like 'Champion' or 'Crusader' or whatever, and define Paladin as the LG variant.
LK, I agree with you on your other ideas except this. And here's why:
quote:
posted from the Free Dictionary
1. A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion.
2. A strong supporter or defender of a cause.
quote:
posted from Merriam Webster
1: a trusted military leader (as for a medieval prince)
2: a leading champion of a cause
I think that the Lawful Good route should be promoted as a Default for a paladin. In the description, class features, and even in most of the references it should be considere that the Paladin is a lawful good paragon of virtue. BUT it's not always the case. A strong supporter or defender of a cause mantle could be adopted by anyone righteous and zealous enought regardless of what Axis that motive lays upon. For example, the priest character in Angels and Demons. A very strong case could be made for him that he was a Paladin. Willing to do everything in his power to protect something he felt was sacred, divine, and holy against infidels. Sure, he was crazy and his methods were preverse but still....
I just don't like rules telling me How or What to roleplay. The rules mitigate how I interact with the world, not why. And if, for some reason, they feel inclined to add in that ALL paladins have to at least be Lawful, I (and probably MANY others) are just going to throw it out anyways. Might as well leave it as a "Up to DM option" where it should be and "empower" the DMs to make up their own minds. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36863 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2012 : 05:23:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by WotC_Bruce
The paladin is a champion of a divine calling:
A paladin follows a personal code that’s a reflection of the deity, and often even more significantly, a moral alignment. Though many paladins are lawful good, they don’t have to be. In fact, the particular virtues a paladin reveres can reflect nearly any moral attitude or divine calling (though such adherence means a paladin is at least lawful). A paladin’s codes traditionally point him or her toward an ascetic lifestyle, which speaks to a paladin’s selfless nature in pursuit of a calling.
-Do not like that non-Lawful Good Paladins are even being discussed. Paladins are LG. Period. Classes that do the same exact stuff, but are different alignments, are not Paladins. Period. If they want to go this route, give the class a broader term, like 'Champion' or 'Crusader' or whatever, and define Paladin as the LG variant.
I agree. Paladins are LG. That's practically an immutable law of nature.
I've no problem with sword-swinging, armored divine champions who aren't LG. Just call them something else.
The strict alignment requirement was one of the things that always set the paladin apart. Waving that requirement makes the class less special, and into souped-up fighters. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2012 : 07:17:05
|
| Although it's a problem inherent in the alignment system, not the Paladin class ... I personally agree that Paladins should be exemplars of LG, and that counterparts for other alignments (LN, LE, CE?, etc) with adjusted class names and abilities should also exist ... but nine distinct "Paladin" classes which fit neatly into the 9-peg system just carry things too far. At least a lawful-only (or even a non-Chaotic) alignment requirement helps to reduce the contrived symmetry a little bit. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2012 : 13:48:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Although it's a problem inherent in the alignment system, not the Paladin class ... I personally agree that Paladins should be exemplars of LG, and that counterparts for other alignments (LN, LE, CE?, etc) with adjusted class names and abilities should also exist ... but nine distinct "Paladin" classes which fit neatly into the 9-peg system just carry things too far. At least a lawful-only (or even a non-Chaotic) alignment requirement helps to reduce the contrived symmetry a little bit.
Someone on the Blog said it far better than myself
"Don't force artificial, simplistic moral and ethical views down our throats, no one needs them. The paladin fights for their cause, whatever that might be. They follow their dogmas and codes, whatever they are. There are paladins you could describe as shining paragons of holiness and virtue and paladins who would be definded as tyrants and dictators following the will of horrible gods. "
I have no problems with DMs enforcing this line of thinking that ALL paladins are Lawful Good, but to have it be an option written in the Rules is better IMO than having it hard-wired into prerequisites of the class. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2012 : 18:29:32
|
I feeling kind of ambivalent, here.
I think 'Paladin' should be just one flavor of Divine Champion, and NOT a generic catch-all for all types of mortal divine servants.
That being said, I would also rather see them go BACK to the 1e/2e approach of just 4 (5 with psionics) classes, and everything else be a sub-class built off of that. I don't want a Paladin class - I want a fighter who takes specific feat-trees to build a Paladin.
No more extra classes, PrCs, or more sub-classes - Feat trees can accomplish all of this, and its simple and stream-lined. Make the Paladin a build, not a class.
For a system that is toting is versatility, it sure like to shoe-horn, nerf, and pigeon-hole.
The Warhorse can be something granted (for free) after taking a certain number of 'Divine Champion' feats (and it should not be available to clerics, unless they burn a Feat). Consider it a 'gift from god' for "staying on the right path".
Reward specific builds, and you don't have to have PrCs/sub-classes. You can either make it tier-based; normal warhorse after 5 DC feats, and Superior (awakened/animal companion) after taking 10. I just don't see the need for tons of redundant rules, when nearly everything can be built off of the 4(5) core classes. Backwards-engineer feats for the 2e system, and we are good to go.
And as I've stated before, certain 'builds' (5e equivalent of PrCs) should require joining an organization, which should REQUIRE rolepaly (like Red Wizards, or Paladin orders). Their can even be a generic Paladin build (for a specific alignment), and then a deity-specific 'granted power', much like the way specialty priests were bhandled in 2e.
Once you get rid of THAC0, and all those wacky (redundant) 'options', 2e wasn't a bad system - if they could merge the best parts of 2e, 3e, and even 4e together, i might actually be interested in playing again.
EDIT: Another thought - split character classes into two things - Calling, and occupation. Your calling would be your 'class' - what you are destined to be good at. Then your occupation is the build you follow. For instance, your calling might be 'Fighter', but your occupation could be Paladin. Or your calling could be 'Mage', and your occupation could be Red Wizard. This would make occupations a cross between builds, and 2e's 'Kits'. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 19 May 2012 18:33:40 |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2012 : 18:47:23
|
I have to say that the Frankish Paladins that helped the Franks become the masters of Roman Gaul were NOT paragons of virtue or even very lawful.
Having said that, I like the idea of Paladins being ONLY Lawful Good in this game. Dungeons and Dragons should USUALLY create Hero characters. I don't like Rangers who aren't Good either! I don't care for Good or Evil Druids either...the list could go on.
|
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2012 : 20:08:32
|
Markus, what you're describing is basically just 3E rules.
The main difficulty I see with your approach (which I find more or less agreeable) is that the subclass/build distinctions will sometimes become very specialized and arbitrary. Is a Paladin a subclass of Warrior or of the Cleric? Would it differ in more than name from a Templar or Crusader? Would it be the same relationship as the Ranger subclass to the Druid subclass? What I'm saying is that these distinctions might eventually boil down to (potentially disagreeable or unpopular) decisions on the part of the game designers. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2012 : 20:36:50
|
Also keep in mind that we're only seeing a few aspects of the game. There are going to be very distinict aspects of character creation besides race and class. Themes and Backgrounds are going to be very important parts to who your character is and what they did to become X-Class. So as far as the idea of making the Paladin (or Ranger, Druid, Barbarian, etc.) all alternative options for the basic 4 classes (Ftr, Clr, Rog, Wiz), there's already enough varying options being brought forth that I don't think yet another option is a good idea. Besides, with alternative class features being what they are, adding another layer of optimization often opens the door further for broken combos and character shenannigans.
Also, the Paladin has been it's own class for 3 and 1/2 editions. I think it's earned it's place at the table as having it's own distinction. Same goes for the Ranger, Druid, Monk, and Barbarian. The sorcerer....well we'll see what goes on but I'm very interested how they're going to make the distinguishing factors between them and the Wizard. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2012 : 20:46:15
|
| Ha - you and your wizards! Gimme a bastard sword in one hand and a torch in the other, I'll find some proper adventure without letting those unwholesome magic-using wimps get in my way! |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3745 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2012 : 22:09:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
LK, I agree with you on your other ideas except this. And here's why:
-The Free Dictionary, Webster's Dictionary, and other sources aren't D&D, or generic fantasy in general. Paladins, in real life, were simply a group of Charlemane's elite soldiers who battled Arab/Muslim invaders in the Pyrenees. In fantasy, from D&D to Warcraft to Final Fantasy to Fire Emblem to Hellsing, and probably hundreds of things in-between, Paladins are defined as holy knights, who are good, chivalrous, benevolent, and all other kinds of similar words.
-The ingredients of a pizza are baked dough, tomato-based sauce, cheese, spices, and possibly vegetables and meat. The ingredients of a taco are fried/baked dough, tomato-based sauce, cheese, spices, and vegetables and possibly meat. Despite being composed of basically the same exact ingredients, tacos and tacos, and pizza is pizza. Would you call a taco a pizza, or a pizza a taco? Likewise, in the general 'divine warrior' mold, Paladins are pizza, and variants with different alignments are tacos- made of the same exact stuff with a few variations, but separate.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I just don't like rules telling me How or What to roleplay.
-I agree with the notion in general, some concepts (be they spells, classes, items, powers, whatever) have built-in "history" that are imperative to what the spell/class/item/power/whatever represents. In this case, being good, specifically, is something that has been "built into" what a Paladin is over the years, in D&D, but fantasy in general. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 19 May 2012 22:12:50 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 20 May 2012 : 05:49:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
LK, I agree with you on your other ideas except this. And here's why:
-The Free Dictionary, Webster's Dictionary, and other sources aren't D&D, or generic fantasy in general. Paladins, in real life, were simply a group of Charlemane's elite soldiers who battled Arab/Muslim invaders in the Pyrenees. In fantasy, from D&D to Warcraft to Final Fantasy to Fire Emblem to Hellsing, and probably hundreds of things in-between, Paladins are defined as holy knights, who are good, chivalrous, benevolent, and all other kinds of similar words.
-I agree with the notion in general, some concepts (be they spells, classes, items, powers, whatever) have built-in "history" that are imperative to what the spell/class/item/power/whatever represents. In this case, being good, specifically, is something that has been "built into" what a Paladin is over the years, in D&D, but fantasy in general.
Just to nit-pick, when I played World of Warcraft, they started to allow Blood Elves to be Paladins (and I hear it's open to all now) so perhaps they too saw this antiquated ideal of only LG paladins as something not really wanted in current times? But going back into D&D's history, there were a LOT of things in previous editions with loads of restrictions, prerequisites, and out-right denials. No dwarven Wizards, only elves (and maybe humans?) could Dual-Class, Race/Alignment/Stat restrictions and requirements for the Paladin, Alignment restrictions for Barbarians and Monks (in 3E) and the list goes on. But in each editions, they become lax more and more open-minded because players don't like being force fed how they should pursue their fantasy games.
In earlier editions, the game devs knew exactly what sort of game they wanted you to play (fantasy with heavy elements of Tolkien) and deviation from that was severly discouraged by hard wiring fluff rules into the game. But the game has changed, the culture overall has changed, and our sources for what we deem fantasy has also changed. With 3E, we saw a HUGE shift in what was allowed and not allowed for Players. We saw the complete removal of racial restrictions on classes and dual-classes (now called Multi-classig). We saw Stat requirments being reduced to a few feats (and the numbers really aren't that big and often requiring just One Stat). This notion was further advanced upon with 4th Edition as they removed Alignment restrictions completely. They also removed all aspects of Alignment from the game's mechanics (no more Protection from Evil, detect evil, Smite evil spells/abilities). Why? Because the view had shifted further from the archaic beliefs that somehow the rules need to facilitate how a player should role-play.
So should a Paladin be required (via rules-as-written) to be Lawful Good (or even just Lawful)? I'd have to say no. No because I firmly believe that alignment should be an optional rule all together. I've started to shift far away from Alignment because no situation is so stark in contrast. If we're to have any ounce of realism, then people tend to all be shades of grey. If someone runs a stop light, that makes them unlawful, but they haven't killed anyone so that makes them Law-abiding. If they steal a candy bar from the store, that's a crime. But the next day they return a $5.00 bill they saw someone drop from their pocket, which makes them a decent person. Alignment is often about timing, opportuinity, and outlook. Being in surveillance, I've seen people steal just because they felt no one was watching or because it was conveinent. They didn't premeditate to take something, it was just there and they did it on impulse. Some of these people are active in their community and would do everything they could to help out their family or neighbor. Where does Alignment play in these real life aspects? And why should one class be required to play 'Cop' to everynoe else in the setting or their own party?
The point being that Alignment is a great indicator to judge someon's outlook and personality. It's something that helps DMs decide how a group might act in certain situations. But by no means should it be a heavy factor into the rules or mechanics of a RPG. If it's something an individual DM wants to have, then they should be allowed to do it in their own homebrew campaign but forcing it into game design is taking a big step back with how far the game has advanced.
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-The ingredients of a pizza are baked dough, tomato-based sauce, cheese, spices, and possibly vegetables and meat. The ingredients of a taco are fried/baked dough, tomato-based sauce, cheese, spices, and vegetables and possibly meat. Despite being composed of basically the same exact ingredients, tacos are tacos, and pizza is pizza. Would you call a taco a pizza, or a pizza a taco? Likewise, in the general 'divine warrior' mold, Paladins are pizza, and variants with different alignments are tacos- made of the same exact stuff with a few variations, but separate.
Why not just have pizza topped with taco ingredients? C'mon, it's pretty damn tasty!! But what if the Lawful Good Paladin is Pepperoni pizza? Sure it's the most commonly seen pizza in practically every advertisement there is about pizza. But it's hard not too see how tasty White Pizza is, or deep dish or meat-lovers, Taco topped, or bufflo chicken pizza for that matter. Just because pepperoni is the most common and the most well liked and the most publicly seen....but that shouldn't be the only pizza served at resturaunts (unless your Dominos, where they say 'No'). Variety is a good thing.
I guess my line of thinking is, I don't see demands for other prerequisites and restrictions coming back. I don't see the desire to restrict Dwarves access to arcane magic or to only allow Humans and Dwarves to be Paladins or that paladins should have a starting Ability scores of Wis 14, Cha 16. Or that only Humans and Elves can multiclass or etc..... Almost all other restrictions have been abandoned to allow creativity to flow, to nurish players to enjoy their characters. I feel this helps create unique and interesting characters. With alignment restrictions, you might as well suit up every single paladin in full plate, give them a cocky attitude to anyone who shows up on their Evil-radar, and hand them a self-righteous demeanor for every single situation. |
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 20 May 2012 : 21:03:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
In earlier editions, the game devs knew exactly what sort of game they wanted you to play (fantasy with heavy elements of Tolkien) and deviation from that was severly discouraged by hard wiring fluff rules into the game.
snipped the post for brevity.
You are correct in certain things, that the game was designed and born out of wargaming rules that became man-to-man combat and then dungeon delving. As part of that design process class, alignment, and stat restrictions where put in place to balance classes and races against each other (with a definite nod to a human-centric focus). Along with differing XP requirements, what magic items could be used by which class and lots of other rules, most of which carried through until the advent of 3E. By removing these rules from the game D&D has become a different game to what it was back then and for me it is one of the reasons why the W0TC desire to bring all players back to the new game will fail. If you have grown up with and played a certain style of D&D you get used to that and you probably have lots of supplementary material for that edition. So folks are less likely to fork out for another new edition, (the third in 12 years) if they don't recognise the basic framework as D&D. By removing certain 'foundations' on how the game was originally developed makes it into a different game. You can still call it D&D, but to some it isn't D&D, its a Fantasy Roleplaying Game.
For instance: I like alignment and I like the fact that it means something within the game world. I like Paladins to be LG, just like I like assassins to be evil. I like Magic-Users spells to be powerful and not to be level capped in terms of damage dice. I like that priests answer directly to their God and that they have specific spells for their faith. I like that encounters are (potentially) unbalanced and that if the players don't pay attention to the hints and rumours that they hear about "that dark cave up on the hill having a many eyed spherical monster in it" then they will be rolling up another set of characters if they decide to investigate with their current 1st level characters. I like stat deflation not escalation. I like to play a heroic game of normal people doing extra-ordinary things, rather than a super-hero style of play where the characters are already extra-ordinary before they even start out gaining experience.
To address your quote above, I think you will find the opposite is closer to the truth. When D&D was developing there where lots of house-rules and additions being made to game constantly, whether they were new classes, (the Ranger for instance) or monsters, (The Curst for instance), or spells (Nulathoe's Ninemen for instance). There was no hard wiring, the game encouraged this creativity. You can argue that when Gygax wrote 1E he was trying to standardise the game (and say so himself), but you could also argue that he wanted a new game of his own so he did not have to split the royalties anymore. 1E had a lot of deviation from the 'one rule to rule them all' approach and alot of that came from the pen of Ed Greenwood.
As to Tolkein - D&D is more inspired by the swords and sorcery genre than by Tolkein:
To quote Gary Gygax from appendix N:
The most immediate influences upon AD&D were probably de Camp & Pratt, R. E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, H. P. Lovecraft, and A. Merritt; but all of the above authors, as well as many not listed, certainly helped to shape the form of the game. For this reason, and for the hours of reading enjoyment, I heartily recommend the works of these fine authors to you.
- E. Gary Gygax, 1979, AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 224
Do a search for appendix N and see a fuller list of inspirational reading, (Tolkein is in there  )
Just one more point: D&D was designed from two sets of house rules by two people and AD&D was designed by one person. The modern game is developed by a team of developers and brand managers and customer focus groups and lots of other folks sticking their oars in, and for me the number of oars does not make for plain sailing.
Cheers
Damian
ps it would be interesting to see what the current developers of the game would put in their Appendix N |
So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005 |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 20 May 2012 : 21:28:35
|
I seem to remember a class called blackguard. it was essential for LE paladins.
Then there were Justicars, that seemed to be the LN equivelent. If it were me, I'd stay with this. |
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3745 Posts |
Posted - 20 May 2012 : 22:47:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Just to nit-pick, when I played World of Warcraft, they started to allow Blood Elves to be Paladins (and I hear it's open to all now) so perhaps they too saw this antiquated ideal of only LG paladins as something not really wanted in current times?
-Very well, then: From D&D to Warcraft to Final Fantasy to Fire Emblem to Hellsing, and probably hundreds of things in-between, Paladins are defined as holy knights, who are good, chivalrous, benevolent, and all other kinds of similar words.
(I haven't played Warcraft in years, and when I did, it was only for about a week [free week trial] around like 2005 or 2006. I just never got into MMOs, and nowadays, my computer is sufficiently crappy in the graphic department that I can't run the newer ones that might interest me, like Star Wars.)
-The biggest flaw in your argument is that all of those other examples, those were rules that were unique to D&D specifically. Across the entire fantasy genre, Dwarves couldn't use magic? Across the entire fantasy genre, only Humans and possibly Elves could use magic and be proficient in swordcraft at the same time? In D&D, rules can change and different concepts can come and go, no problem. Paladins as being defined as holy, good, benevolent, chivalrous, and other synonyms is not something that D&D arbitrarily decided, like Dwarves not being able to use magic, or Humans (and Elves) being the only races able to use magic and swordcraft, and whatever else. In fantasy at large, Paladins are holy, good, benevolent, chivalrous, and so on. Defining Paladins as something other than holy, good, benevolent, chivalrous and whatever else is inherently changing what Paladins are.
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
Why not just have pizza topped with taco ingredients? C'mon, it's pretty damn tasty!! But what if the Lawful Good Paladin is Pepperoni pizza? Sure it's the most commonly seen pizza in practically every advertisement there is about pizza. But it's hard not too see how tasty White Pizza is, or deep dish or meat-lovers, Taco topped, or bufflo chicken pizza for that matter. Just because pepperoni is the most common and the most well liked and the most publicly seen....but that shouldn't be the only pizza served at resturaunts (unless your Dominos, where they say 'No'). Variety is a good thing.
-A pizza with taco toppings (broken tortilla chips, ground meat, shredded cheese, lettuce, sour cream maybe) is a pizza. A taco with pizza filling (tomato sauce and cheese inside the shell) is a taco.
-A pepperoni pie is a pizza, yes. Is a white pie a pepperoni pie, though? No, it is a white pie. Whereas pepperoni pie is defined as, and has largely has been served by all pizza parlors as dough, tomato-based sauce, spices, mozzarella cheese and sliced pepperoni, a white pie is defined as, and has largely been served by all pizza parlors as dough, spices, mozzarella cheese and ricotta.
-Likewise, all the various alignments of a theoretical 'Crusader' class are divine warriors. The pepperoni pies aren't white pies, though. The Paladins aren't the Blackguards. The Paladins, defined in general fantasy as holy knights who are good, chivalrous, benevolent, and all other kinds of similar words aren't Blackguards, who are defined in general fantasy as unholy knights who are evil, blasphemous, and all kinds of other similar words.
-And, deep dish pizza isn't pizza, FYI. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 20 May 2012 22:52:00 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2012 : 01:53:03
|
| *sigh* this is just one of those things that we'll just agree to disagree on. I think it comes down to how strong alignment will make an appearance in the mechanics. If it isn't strongly tied, then ignoring the requirements for the paladin isn't a hard choice. But I still think putting such things as a rule makes it harder for new DMs to think for themselves when character options come up that might conflict with said requirements. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2012 : 02:03:50
|
| FWIW, I just happen to love "taco pizza", there's a place nearby which makes it with "cajun pollo" and plenty of cheap orange cheddar, it's awesome. I also happen to despise paladins in D&D, but really only because my experience is that the class seems to always attract the sort of players who insist on being difficult. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2012 : 03:40:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
FWIW, I just happen to love "taco pizza", there's a place nearby which makes it with "cajun pollo" and plenty of cheap orange cheddar, it's awesome. I also happen to despise paladins in D&D, but really only because my experience is that the class seems to always attract the sort of players who insist on being difficult.
I guess it matters on how literally they take their code and how strongly a DM requires a Paladin to follow that code. I've found DMs that hate paladins and intentionally put them in situations that the only result is them losing their paladin-hood (and all abilities tied therein). When I first played a paladin I was pretty literal with my code, to the point of ruining the game because we might have to work with an evil people (detected by my character) or because we might have to break the laws of some tyrant to liberate a town or city. But as I got older and started to play with more understanding DMs, I was able to broaden that Grey area. And then I didn't worry at all with 4th Editino because Alignment was something impliacted for character concepts and roleplay, not mechanics so it was all good.
Everything else in the Design goals of the Paladin I'm pretty cool with. I don't have a problem with them being labled as a "Defender" or gain the Detect Evil as a sort of paladin Spidey-sense. I like the idea of using Lay on Hands for multiple applications and that it's cool to use Turning against other creatures besides Undead. The Alignment thing, however, is a requirment that I feel stifles creativity. It should be a footnote for DMs (to make them feel empowered) but not something forced for everyone to adhere to.
What also sacres me is that the Paladin wasn't the only class with Alignment restrictions (Barbarian, Monk, Druid, Warlock, etc..) all had some sort of forced roleplay via restrictions and I don't want to see them come back as well. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36863 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2012 : 04:20:36
|
| My way of thinking is that if you don't want to deal with the alignment restriction, you don't play the class. Being forced to work within a specific set of guidelines isn't a restriction on creativity -- if anything, being forced to work within specified parameters means you find an outlet that otherwise wouldn't have been considered. And to me, that's encouraging creativity. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3745 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2012 : 05:04:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
*sigh* this is just one of those things that we'll just agree to disagree on. I think it comes down to how strong alignment will make an appearance in the mechanics. If it isn't strongly tied, then ignoring the requirements for the paladin isn't a hard choice. But I still think putting such things as a rule makes it harder for new DMs to think for themselves when character options come up that might conflict with said requirements.
-Even if alignment isn't very prominent in the new rules (Personally, I'd rather it was minimized and only mattered for the mechanical purposes of certain spells/items/powers as I mentioned a few posts ago and tracked in the way that video games track 'Dark Side Points' and whatever else), they'd still be acting blanketly good. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2012 : 05:53:34
|
Even now I'm playing a Human Paladin of Erastil in a Pathfinder game.
I don't find the alignment Lawful Good restrictive at all. Imagine a "Friar Tuck" combined with the abilities of a Paladin if you will. "Brother" Barwult is a man that believes heavily in Goodness; and would never do an evil thing. However, Lawful does not always mean that you obey every law and piss on those who break the law. To him, it isn't wrong for a man to steal to feed his children if society has failed an honest and hard-working man who is fearful for the wellbeing of his family.
Law means "Order" and "Organization" as well. He respects the laws of the nations he visits so long as those Laws are for the Good of the people and not some Tyranny in place to enslave.
Because his God is a nature oriented diety, Brother Barwult is very much into Nature as well. Most don't see nature as Lawful, but they do see a sense of order and organization in the things that happen within nature. Barwult teaches others to be prepared, to help your neighbor, respect natural boundries, take only what you need from the land...things like that.
A Paladin doesn't have to be some heavily armored Knightly figure! Sure, Barwult can break out the Cold Iron Greatsword to fight some Unseelie creature, and even can use his Smite Evil through his BOW at range...but you won't catch him parading around like a Knight EVER. He is a holy warrior...not a sycophant or dandy! |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
[D&D:Next] Paladin Design Goals
