Community

May 18, 2012 -- 10:01AM, MaimonidesVII wrote:

Here's my vote, as I assume the devs read the forums...

Issues I have with the paladin design:
1) All of the problems that others have stated that come up with alignment. "Can I work with evil to destroy evil?" "Is there ever a lesser of two evils?" "Can I sacrifice one to save a thousand?" These are all over the forums and I won't clog up space here.

These issues only arise if the players view alignment is a restriction (it's not) instead of as a guideline.  A LG good character can do all of those as long as they don't do it so frequently as to change their alignment.  A Paladin, on the other hand, has a code of conduct that covers all those situations and provides a resounding answer of No.

2) Detect spells can ruin an otherwise interesting encounter. The ability to detect evil in a world means that you can just smite anyone who is evil. People argue "Well, you can't just kill an evil baker without first seeing him commit an evil act." Nonsense. If the baker sometimes wishes ill upon another, that doesn't make him evil. To be evil, you have to commit evil deeds. If the baker is evil, he deserves the smite you are about to throw on him. And because these Paladin's can all do it, they would end up as the ultimate force ruling the land.

Simple.  Paladin detects the evil in the baker.  Paladin commits an evil act by slaying the baker.  Paladin loses paladinhood.  Now, if said baker is attempting to slaughter a customer with a rolling pin, that's different.  Detect Evil is not a license to commit murder.

3) I can no longer trick my PC's with evil NPC's. They will immediately know he is evil.

Said tricky evil NPC probably knows there's a paladin, and knows it can detect what he truly is.  Said tricky evil NPC approaches the situation differently.

4) NE gods refuse to give their holy-warriors Paladin abilities? Why is that?

Well, that depends on what paladin design you're referring to.  1st-3rd Ed would be simple, paladins don't worship NE gods.  Proposed D&D Next paladin design, NE god gives his LE paladin abilities.

5) Finally, and most importantly, WotC is putting a hard limit on player creativity. If I want to RP a character, but don't want to be lawful, I now cannot be a paladin. People try to say that I can just be a fighter who worships a god or a martial cleric, but this is a CLASS based system. That means that one of, if not the most, important decisions you will ever make for oyur character is class. And taking an entire class and saying "If you want to play this, then you MUST be like this" is handcuffing me.

Good.  I feel it adds to the game if particular options are restricted to particular types of characters in very specific situations.  Just as I feel that a druid being restricted to non-metal armor adds to the druid class's feel, I feel that alignment requirements for paladins adds to the paladin.  Especially if it's LG - but that's a battle that's already lost for D&D Next.

If you disagree with #5, then why not say that to play a wizard, you must be old, with a beard, and be slightly senile. No other wizards allowed. To play a fighter, you must be a large, dumb brute. No other options allowed.

I see it more as saying "To play a Wizard you must have a high Intelligence score."  I'm restricted from playing a dumb as dirt wizard, and I'm okay with that just as much as I'm okay with being restricted from playing a paladin of any alignment I want (not that I want to play a paladin that's not LG).

And I don't care if "That's how paladins have always been." What happened to not doing something just because "thats how its always been." INNOVATE, not REPLICATE.                  

Your wish is their command.  Paladins are already shaping up to be not what they've always been.  See LN and LE paladins.

Also, sometimes things are "how they've always been" because they worked well that way.  Innovating just for the sake of making things different is even worse than keeping something just because seasoned players like and expect it that way.