|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 9:53AM
#51
|
|
|
From reading the post and comments, I'm prepared to conclude that these design goals have fallen flat and are unsatisfactory.
Ingredients are there, but the dish doesn't look appetizing.
Instead of alignment-wars (my absolute least favorite aspect of DnD in any edition) - can we refocus our conversation on improved design goals instead?
For example: in the same vein of lay-on-hands, detect evil, and smite, I would prefer the paladin get additional "abilities" vs divine spells.
Divine spells always felt to me to be a band-aid over the rest of a rather sub-par class design.
Fleshed-out abilities along the lines of supernatural-threat-destroyer would be preferable.
On code, I think the essentials Cavalier had a good kernel of an idea. The cavalier took either sacrifice or valor and that code came with certain abilities. Perhaps the paladin could be designed with 4 codes of varying LG-CE that come with abilities built-in. A 5th code would be "open" to player-concept and cherry-picking with DM input and checks on power creep.
Then we have alignment mechanics for those who like them an freedom for those who want to get away from the L restriction.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 9:54AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Sans a dedicated alignment system, you can actually have both. You can have the Lawful Good trained from birth divine champion paladin. You can also have the idealistic fighter who garners the attention of their chosen deity, is made a champion of that deity, and is blessed with powers.
Really, it’s that easy to have both. Why are people so against that?
yeah one is a paladin the other is covered by that thing you described before. the fighter with a chosen of theme and a demon hunter background. I want both of these things to exist.
I'm still not seeing why both can't be paladins. Is this the same kind of thinking that got us Wizards and Sorcerers? People couldn't handle that someone wanted a mage that didn't spend their life studying books and instead of just going ""Yeah, it’s cool. You can have book wizard and force of will wizard. You know, whichever you feel fits you right," we got a Sorcerer?
Sleeps puts his head in the sand to avoid seeing Paladins of other alignments than lawful being possible. This despite my proving absolutely that they existed in every edition of D&D ever printed. 1e had them as NPCs. 2e had them as PCs. 3e had them as PCs. 4e had them as PCs. They were even called Paladins in 2e-4e and in 1e, though they had different actual class names, they were handed out in the Plethora of Paladins article.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 9:54AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Jan 30, 2012
|
You mis-understand me - I may have a preference, and it should be obvious given the way I knocked on the one methodology, but that doesn't mean I will not permit it. You can wake up and be a Paladin, and it's a great way to work it in as a backstory, but there is no damn way I'm going to let someone play a fighter and then suddenly change all those levels to Paladin because that's what they woke up to one day. If you wake up a Paladin, you're learning Paladin from the ground up, that means you're still a Fighter 3/Paladin 1 - one does not simply re-train their class, no matter the edition. (yes, I know this is not your intent)
Keep in mind that when we're talking about "waking up a Paladin," the understanding that I'm going off of is that one "wakes up a Paladin" as a level 1 character. Their back-story (training or divine intervention) is what lead them to this point where they became player characters.
I'm not a fan of multiclassing and I too think it would be silly to assume that because a Fighter picked up some divine guidance, that they'd just switch everything over to Paladin. It has never worked that way in this game and assuming that it would is disingenuous.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in an thread with GM_Champion" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go in against AzureShade when card design is on the line!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 9:58AM
#54
|
|
|
My revenant paladin of the raven queen woke up as a paladin as a level 1 character.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 10:01AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2001
|
You know, the rules haven't even come out yet, and already there's a debate on alignments.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 10:01AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Feb 18, 2009
|
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.
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.
3) I can no longer trick my PC's with evil NPC's. They will immediately know he is evil.
4) NE gods refuse to give their holy-warriors Paladin abilities? Why is that?
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.
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 10:03AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2012
|
First, I think part of the problems that has arisen in the past with paladins is the lack of explicit codes of conduct.
From 3.5E:
Code of ConductA paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. AssociatesWhile she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
And 2E had a code of conduct for paladins that was even more detailed, if I remember correctly.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 10:05AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
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.
Without proof, the Paladin is a murderer and should be treated as such. And not all evil acts are worth of death, so a Paladin that just walks around hacking down people with no proof is doubly guilty of murder.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 10:08AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Mar 24, 2002
|
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.
You don't see a contradiction here? On the one hand, you're saying, "I want to choose to restrict my character by choosing a class with specific traits," and on the other, "Don't tell me what to be!" Are you angry that your Wizard can't toss on a suit of plate mail, shadow-step behind an enemy, and then go into bear form to maul the enemy? "I want to be a wizard, but I don't want to cast spells." Well then, you don't want to be a wizard!
The game defines the class. If part of the definition is "This class is lawful," and you don't want that restriction, don't play that class.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 10:08AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Feb 18, 2009
|
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.
Without proof, the Paladin is a murderer and should be treated as such. And not all evil acts are worth of death, so a Paladin that just walks around hacking down people with no proof is doubly guilty of murder.
Not all evil acts are worthy of death, fair enough. Throw then in jail, interrogate them (not torture) and then kill them if need be. They are evil. Stealing bread to feed your family isn't evil, so it's not like this is a misunderstanding.
Also, What happens when the Law and what you know (or believe, since morality is subjective) is good are opposed? Which do you follow? Either one strips you of paladin powers.
|
|
|
