RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ok, so what makes a Paladin?
To me, the code is what makes the Paladin. Benton Frazier (Due South) follows the Paladin's code, even if he has levels in Ranger instead. It should be a class that needs to make the tough decisions, without the player constantly being put in the damned you do, damned you don't situation.
I think the biggest 'fix' to the Paladin is to have the code revised. I like tapping the new domain powers for the paladin, or the rules for powers plan. The later has merit in that it's easily a feat available for other characters.
In essense, if the Sorcerer is an 'easier' wizard, then the cleric's relation to his deity is the 'easier' paladin.
I think the biggest 'fix' to the Paladin is to have the code revised.
I'm curious: what's wrong with the existing code? I get the sense a lot of people find it problematic, but so far as I can see, it's rather flexible and easily followed.
Honestly, I don't think the existing code has anything to do with how paladins are perceived. I think a lot of the problem comes from earlier editions where even the designers really seemed to (at times) enjoy playing "gotcha" with the paladin.
The Paladin Code that was listed in the Class Acts column toward the end of the Dragon run was perfect, and its what I gave the player in my campaign as a guide.
Playing in a party with a beguiler and a bard that both consider truth a fluid thing makes her life interesting enough. I don't need to give her situations where she has to choose between opening the door to let widows escape a fire, but opening the door drops their babies into a pit of acid.
It should be a challenging class to play, but it also shouldn't be set up to fail. Plus, I think a lot of "gotcha" DMs that hit paladins with impossible situations tend to go way too light, by comparison, on, say, a lawful good cleric.
At any rate, I did like all of the points that the Paladin class guide hit, and a modified (for legal reasons) version of it for paladin players in Pathfinder would be great.
As to the original post in this thread. I hear your concerns about Paladins of non-LG alignments. For this to work, I feel that they would need to be specific classes. This is something we have tossed around the design pit a number of times (primarily in reference to the Hellknight). I am not sure that this solution is right for the core paladin. This may be a bigger sacred cow for me than it is for others.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
While I can deal with other "holy warrior" classes, I have two thoughts on this. In the initial Pathfinder RPG, if you really want to stick close to the "backwards compatible" design principle, leave the Paladin largely as is (well, adding some things in at later levels is ok, but you get the picture). Second, if you do other "holy warriors," preferably in supplements and not the main rulebook, make them really distinct from paladins, rather than "its like a paladin, but at this level they get X similar power instead of the paladin's Y."
given that the barbarian is required chaotic i think having a required lawfull is not only reasonable but balanced. i always liked that most of the classes had a city/wild counterpart. making the paladin a d12 and a total holy TANK with auras instead of spells would just be plain fun. haveing a "smite good/evil" entry isnt that confusing. If a paladin is of a LE deity then all Evil creatures within the area of the aura are effected. makes evil fight opposing evil kinda more fun. as far as having two spell lists just let the paladin choose of the new domains off his dieties list. no two paladins alike. two paladins in the same party could be effective in two totally different ways. sorry for any incoherence im trying to type this and run after my 2and5 yrolds.
An "across the board" Paladin code doesn't sound too good to me. It's the simplest for sure, but it just doesn't feel right.
Imagine a inherently good deity that just doesn't have a problem using deception as long as the greater good prevails. A paladin sworn to this deity shouldn't really be faulted for emulating his deity.
Then there's a conflict that arose during one of our games. I was playing a warforged Paladin and the idea was that he was extremely old and just recently "reactivated". His set of morals and virtues was ancient, from a time where murderizing your enemy wasn't really an issue, but more personal aspects like your truthfulness and virtue were more things to strive to keep pure. Also, being a magical construct that had mainly been dealing with tainted elementals rather than humanoids he didn't really see why killing all those demon possessed children would be anything but prudent. But this led to loads of arguments about how Paladins just don't do that and how I'd totally lose my paladin powers were I to attempt it.
This is just an example, but I find it supplements my point.
I see Paladins as the martial arm of their deity, their champions in the Material plane. They should exhibit and extol the prime aspects of their deity, be those truth and virtue or hedonism, pride and blood lust. I find it is this that "makes" a Paladin, his being a mirror of his deity's aspect. Most roleplaying I do revolves around the player being the hero, so the heroic and Good Paladin is the archetype, but by no means is it the only way to go.
I guess it also depends on if you prefer to DM games where good and evil are sharp black and white or if you prefer the delightful grey areas in between. I personally always loved the Rogue/Paladin idea. A sneaky and sly protector of the innocent with a pair of matched daggers ready to slit the throat of evil! Because, lets face it, they see your shiny full plate from a mile away and that warhorse is anything but subtle =D
|
One of my other thoughts on the paladin is changing the LG requirement for NG. This makes them a "holy warrior of good". It makes the character a little more flexible in play and opens the door for an opposite "warrior of evil" of NE alignment. This drops the need for paladins of freedom, tyranny and slaughter, and still makes for an interesting class.
Glad you like the aura idea. It works well in game and the player doesn't miss the spellcasting at all. Paladin casting was always kinda wimpy anyways.
As to the original post in this thread. I hear your concerns about Paladins of non-LG alignments. For this to work, I feel that they would need to be specific classes. This is something we have tossed around the design pit a number of times (primarily in reference to the Hellknight). I am not sure that this solution is right for the core paladin. This may be a bigger sacred cow for me than it is for others.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
The LG good should remain. If you start going happy with slaughtering cows were right back where we started with 4th edition. There should be one class that stands out as the embodiment of good and it is the paladin. I think when you consider new class abilities, I would start consider working with the warhorse/lance/knight in shining armor and work with it (not make it the only direction however, but one that is very viable). Keep that mid evil feel to the class which 1st edition gave me.
Imagine a inherently good deity that just doesn't have a problem using deception as long as the greater good prevails. A paladin sworn to this deity shouldn't really be faulted for emulating his deity.
Such a deity wouldn't be Lawful Good but probably Chaotic Good and thus wouldn't have paladins as followers.
The thing I'm noticing here is that people are forgetting that, in D&D, the alignment system exists separate from the gods. The gods and other extra-planar beings conform to the alignment system rather than define it. So, a god like Heironeous, to use a Greyhawk example, is deemed Lawful Good because he exhibits the qualities and espouses the virtues of that alignment rather than the other way around. Paladins are exactly the same.
There can be differing interpretations of religious doctrine between multiple LG gods, with separate holy days, liturgical practices, taboos, etc. But all LG gods and their followers will adhere to the same basic respect for truth, honor, fair play, and so on, because that's what it means to be Lawful Good.
It seems to me, as I read this thread, that a lot of people are confusing their personal preferences for a generic "holy warrior" class and/or their dislike for the alignment system with "problems" with the paladin class. The paladin class, as it exists in v.3.5, isn't "broken" conceptually. It may not be what some people want, but that's a different thing entirely.
Such a deity wouldn't be Lawful Good but probably Chaotic Good and thus wouldn't have paladins as followers.
I seperate the Paladin class from the alignment entirely and instead state that all gods have their champions (namely, Paladins) and that those champions emulate aspects of their God.
So the God of the Swamp has clerics as well as Paladins that enforce its will in the Material realm just as Heironeus has clerics and Paladins that enforce his will. Both Clerics and Paladins come in all shapes and sizes and are thematically very different, but the connection they have with their deity is the same.I don't know, I always saw it this way. I think it doesn't do it justice to say that only Lawful Good gods imbue someone as their champion (outside of giving Clerics power to channel their will). And that by making a base "Paladin" class, Paladin being someone who is a champion of a God, you can offer a huge variety of characters to a Player. To give a further example:
To only present Lawful Good Paladins is to me like only presenting Evocation wizards. Perhaps Evocation is the most iconic of the wizard schools (Not making a statement, just an example) but its by no means the only way to go and by limiting the presentation you limit the class in the minds of Players.
If the intention of the Paladin class is to cater to the exclusive Lawful Good archetype of a holy warrior (which is what the Paladin class in its current form is) then little needs to be changed thematically. The main problem with the Paladin class mechanically is how weak it is after level 6. There's little incentive to keep levelling as a Paladin except for more Remove Disease, a little extra smite and then some occasional spells. Nothing fundemental changes after level 6, no new class powers or anything "special". You'll get a much more powerful "warrior type" by levelling as a Fighter and a more powerful "holy man" by being a Cleric so it seems that the Paladin gets left behind.
The mount has never seen much use in games I've DM'ed or been a part of, sadly. In the classic dungeon crawl, taking a barded warhorse down into the catacombs with you is not a good idea. And I'd say most of the action in D&D favors those who are on foot (or flying).
----Possible Thread Hijack Below-----
And on a point seperate from the Paladin issue I'd like to add something. I tend to prefer games with plenty of grey areas, it's clear just from how I represent Heironeus in my games that being Lawful Good is mostly about on which side of the sword you are (In my games Heironeus is a racist, anti magic god that drives his followers to burn the witch and maintain racial purity. Much like the Emperor from 40K) It's great if you're a Heironean human. People are treated nicely, the lower classes are honored and womens rights are blooming. Ofcourse if you then realize you're a sorcerer, and people find out, you're promptly tied to a stake and burned =p
However, I do realize that classic D&D does not do things this way. There is a clear Good and Evil, the two do not go together. You're either one or the other, in essence. But for me this creates more problems than it solves. Imagine two neighbouring nations with a seperate LG religion woven into their societies. Can these two then never come to a point where they go to war with each other? Can the two not remain true to their faith while mercilessly slaughtering the opposition? Don't people often view their actions as good and righteous but to those that suffer because of them view them as evil?
Take a tribe of Kobolds that live near a town. They tend to forage and live off the land but supplement it with occasional raids at livestock in the town and at times they've had to kill people, but they do so to feed their young and to protect their homes. The villagers hire some adventurers to clear them out, which they do with ease. Slaughtering them all with glee and then getting their reward. But isn't this evil really? The kobolds are just doing what they need to survive, they're not being inherently evil in this case and what about the kobold children most likely not recognized as such in the slaughter. The kobolds might view themselves as the ultimate good and the adventurers as the destroying evil that threatens them.
I don't see how an alignment system fits into D&D really. Not unless you, childishly perhaps, designate stark black and whites.
It takes a special kind of loon to view himself as evil, I tend to reserve that sort of behaviour to Outsiders so they're all the more menacing. ^^
|
|
I certainly understand why people love the LG paladin and all that the class represents. The romantic ideal of the classic paladin is certainly one of the cores of the Arthurian legends, and I appreciate how this class has been a key component of DnD since its inception (and all the memories and baggage that go along with that).
My problem with the LG-only paladin is that it limits player choice. It feels like a cop out that if I want to play a paragon of evil, I have to multiclass from something to Blackguard, while the paragon of good can start from level 1. It also annoys me when I read the description of a god in a setting book, and when it lists their followers' alignment options, there's an asterisk and it mentions how LG is allowed for the god's paladins when LG is otherwise unavailable. Unless it's required for an RP reason, to me it makes more sense to go with a cleric and buff up their combat abilities than to go with a paladin.
If the paladin were to morph into a (2/3/4/9)-way alignment option, I would hope that it would be in a similar vein to how the cleric works. I would be very opposed to seeing additional core and prestige classes of "the (n)pc paragon of a deity's beliefs" unless they were substantially different from one another. Perhaps the solutions listed above would work, following the same alignment as their deity and choosing a domain power or something to individualize them a bit. Although at that point, we're back to the whole "How is this differentiated from the cleric?" argument.
Backporting non-LG paladins from PRPG to 3.x would be an issue too, and one without a clear solution. Certainly it shouldn't be too much of a problem if the player chooses to follow an LG deity. I suppose it depends on how important such a change would be viewed.
While I personally like the concept of the paladin morphing into champion of their god's beliefs and domains, I really don't know if it would be the best move for PRPG. Even amongst my small gaming group, this is one of the hot button issues that almost always devolves into a six-way shouting match before it fizzles out. Then again, you gotsta kill the cow if you wanna eat the steak.
Imagine two neighbouring nations with a seperate LG religion woven into their societies. Can these two then never come to a point where they go to war with each other? Can the two not remain true to their faith while mercilessly slaughtering the opposition? Don't people often view their actions as good and righteous but to those that suffer because of them view them as evil?
War, yes; slaughter, no. I imagine that two Lawful Good nations could easily come to blows over all manner of things, but they'd behave honorably and justly toward their enemies in battle -- a kind of fantasy version of <i>pax Dei</i> to which Christian nations were enjoined in the Middle Ages. At least, that's how I've always viewed it and I get the impression that's how it played out in settings like Greyhawk.
The Paladin as it is presented in the 3.5 system is, in my opinion, quite broken.
After lvl.6 the Paladin gains few new abilities per level. So in the end you can smite evil almost as often as a barbarian can rage and you have fewer spells than a ranger of your level. Oh, let's not forget that you can cure disease almost every day, yay. I don't know anyone who wanted to go through with a paladin until lvl.20 or even lvl.10.
Personally, I don't think there needs to be a class that specifically represents good in all its glory, mainly because "good" is so ambiguous.
The main thing that makes the Paladin so special is his lawful nature. He adheres to the laws of his deity without question.
Also, I am wondering why, as mentioned above, the non LG deities don't have any paladins. How does that make any sense? Are the LG deities the only ones influential enough? Powerful enough? Convincing enough? If I was a deity I'd want paladins following me no matter if I was asking them to burn orphanages or to rescue kittens.
Of all the base classes, the Paladin is the most boring and frustrating to play. The benefits simply do not weigh out the rewards. You end up being half-fighter and half-cleric, without the class benefits, tied up and then told to be good or be blasted with DM-lightning.
To sum it up, I think Paladins should be allowed to be LG, LN or LE, depending which deity they follow and how they interpret their deity.
I also sincerely feel that the class needs some revision along the lines of what Paizo has already done to the classes in the first Alpha release. I can't wait to see what they do to improve the paladin! ^^
I'm a lazy bastard. I just want to say that so you know why I didn't read this thread before posting. So if I repeat any suggestions, I retract my suggestion and second the original one. Either that or slapfight.
My idea is auras. He already has the Aura of Good (okay, it doesn't count), and the Aura of Courage.
Add to that other auras, which grant everyone near* the paladin some benefits.
Aura of Righteous Wrath: Allies' attacks gain the holy ability (+2 to +2d6 damage against evil, considered good)
Aura of Vigilance: Allies can Detect Evil
Aura of Steadfastness: Allies gain bonus to defend against combat manoeuvres.
Alternately, you could give him 7 auras to go with the 7 virtues:
Aura of Chastidy: Bonus to saves against Charm Effects
Aura of Faith: Could replace Aura of Courage (saves against fear). Or a bonus to saves against arcane spells and/or evil outsiders.
Aura of Fortitude: Could be another replacement for Courage, or a bonus against combat manoeuvres
Aura of Hope: Bonus against anything to do with despair. Maybe even all compulsions.
Aura of Justice: Could be a bonus against chaotic stuff (chaos spells and chaotic outsiders), could replace variable damage done to them with a (below-average) fixed amount, or alternately make their own attacks do average instead of random (or above-average).
Aura of Prudence: Could be a lot: Bonus to initiative, immunity to flat-footedness and/or flanking, no penalty for charge, immunity to attacks of opportunity (or a bonus to tumble, or AC bonus against AoO) - maybe against a specified opponent only. Something like that.
Aura of Temperence: Bonus to saves against disease and poison, or maybe all enchantments and/or mind-affecting stuff.
The auras could make the paladin himself immune to the stuff (like aura of courage) or just give him the same bonuses. Or some do the one, others the other.
*Increase the aura radius - 10 feet at first, then 20, finally 30 feet.
|
Is it just me or does everyone forget the actual concept of the paladin? Paragon of Law: Check, Paragon of Good: Check it is why not every Deity can have a Paladin. Not that those who are close to the mark shouldn't, I've played a Paladin of We Jas once, whose sole duty was the elimination of undead. I was still Lawful good. A Black Guard isn't an evil Paladin he is a Black Guard A twisted corruption of all that is true and Honorable. If we tweak the Paladin please make it a more playable character both as a 1/2 cleric and as a 1/2 fighter. Lets not make the mistake and drive it full circle away from the concept into a no mans land of whatever alignment you want is fine just follow it.
thank you for reading my ramblings
Woah. You could dump paladin spells entirely, weaving some of the common abilities (bless weapon) into class abilities (which the paladin needs after mid-level anyway). I played one up to 17th level and I only ever cast two or three different paladin spells.
I wouldn't miss paladin spells at all.
I concur wholeheartedly. I've been playing paladins since 1st edition AD&D, and I don't ever remember a paladin spell saving the day. A few swings with a holy avenger, or a well-timed lay on hands on the other hand...
The problem with paladin and ranger spell lists are very similar to the problems the original Everquest had with balancing the hybrid classes. By the time the paladin gets access to a spell, its power curve is so far behind that of full spellcasters that the spell is next to useless in conflicts with most foes of appropriate CR. Considering the amount of raw fighting power the paladin gives up in order to get those spells, (3 fighter bonus feats by 4th level alone) the result is less than impressive.
I'm crazy about the rogue talents and the spell-like ability replacements for domain spells and specialist school slots featured in the alpha. Something similar for the paladin (and to a lesser extent, the ranger) would be awesome. While it would be more work, and probably take up a lot of space, separate lists based on the domains of eligible paladin deities would be awesome, and give paladins of each deity a unique feel. Balance between them on the other hand could be a challenge.
I have never been a big fan of LG restriction for paladins and am more in line with the idea from the old Dragon article "Plethora of Paladins" hehe Eileen; let me know if you care to read it; will add it to my growing list lol. For me a Paladin had got to be a fanatic; fervourous and dedicated; they should be rare nearly insane individuals totally dedicated to their Dieties and get special benefits due to this over the top type dedication.
When I think Paladin; I think FIST OF GOD with a big booming voice.
when the chips are down; this guy is gonna lay the smack down and make sure his diety comes out on top; nothing should be more terrible than two opposing paladins going at it; champions of their dieties drawing enormous forces into play both mortal and from the planes; these guys dont walk alone and their swords should be feared.
The LG good should remain. If you start going happy with slaughtering cows were right back where we started with 4th edition. There should be one class that stands out as the embodiment of good and it is the paladin. I think when you consider new class abilities, I would start consider working with the warhorse/lance/knight in shining armor and work with it (not make it the only direction however, but one that is very viable). Keep that mid evil feel to the class which 1st edition gave me.As to the original post in this thread. I hear your concerns about Paladins of non-LG alignments. For this to work, I feel that they would need to be specific classes. This is something we have tossed around the design pit a number of times (primarily in reference to the Hellknight). I am not sure that this solution is right for the core paladin. This may be a bigger sacred cow for me than it is for others.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
My thoughts on paladin and my house rules for it:
keep LG!
other alignments should have their own class in an 'evil' book. Blackguards etc.
I give paladins(and rangers) a domain. They only get domain spells up to the 4th level slots.(I realize domains are changed, which I like btw, but this is what I use now.)
I bump up the spells to 1st level. An extra clw is not breaking the game. The spell/ day does not extend beyond current chart.
I give an option of an extra bonus feat in place of the mount selected from fighter list.
I don't give smiting stuff, as extra smite feat is available as well as items that boost this ability.
With the new turning mechanic, you could roll lay on hands into turning.
Change the front-loaded nature of paladin so it is better for long term and not dipping.
Add abilities which make the paladin more clearly defined 'martial' cleric.
Keep code of ethics/honor.
Personally, I don't think there needs to be a class that specifically represents good in all its glory, mainly because "good" is so ambiguous.
Good and evil, law and chaos are (largely) objective concepts in D&D. I'm honestly confused why so many people seem to think they're ambiguous. D&D -- and the v.3.5 SRD -- define these terms in fairly clear terms. Where exactly is the trouble?
|
We're getting closer to the answer, I think.
Also: Any paladin players out there really care about the horse?
Why not just make it so that any horse the paladin rides becomes "special"? It could become better immediately or after a period of time (24 hours, 3 days, 7 days, whatever).
Actually, it would probably be more balancing if it took a little while for the horse to become "special". Starting at Xth level, say, any horse the paladin rides would gradually bond with the paladin and become smarter and tougher. If the paladin leaves that horse and moves on to another, the original would revert to a "normal" variety horse again. Perhaps allow the paladin to instantly make a different horse special (but maybe not AS special) for a short period of time (a few rounds at most), once or twice a day just to cover situations where the paladin needs to commandeer a mount on the fly.
This way, a globe-hopping paladin could more easily have a special mount available (without having to summon one Pokemon-style which, I agree, is rather lame).
Of course, there's no reason to limit the mount to a warhorse. The paladin making the mount special instead the mount being inherently special gives the player some flexibility in what the character rides.
Personally, I like the paladin class having a special mount. The "white knight charging into battle atop a mighty steed" image is iconic and has been a part of the paladin class since at LEAST 2nd edition (I'm not familiar with older editions of the paladin, I'm too young for 1st edition but old enough to have grown up playing a paladin 2nd).
|
|
Woah. You could dump paladin spells entirely, weaving some of the common abilities (bless weapon) into class abilities (which the paladin needs after mid-level anyway). I played one up to 17th level and I only ever cast two or three different paladin spells.
I wouldn't miss paladin spells at all.
You could also safely move the paladin spell progression up so they gain their spells earlier and not terribly unbalance anything. You could expand their list a bit and not harm anything either.
The PHB paladin doesn't gain 2nd level spells until 8th level, and can't Neutralize Poison until 14th! Of course, this assumes a high enough wisdom for bonus spells, otherwise it takes even longer. In my recent home campaign, I kept the 4th level cap and low spells-per-day intact, but shifted the progression so that new spell levels came at 6th, 8th, and 10th. The paladin was still gaining access to higher level spells (from a MUCH more limited list) a minimum of three levels later than the cleric (keeping in line with the lag in turn undead), but I found that the paladin spellcasting ability came into play more often and was more rewarding for my players.
Paladins have never been (and really shouldn't be) a major spell casting class, but being able to utilize a small handful of clerical spells elevates the paladin a bit beyond a mundane knight. Having a daily spell selection to work from also gives a little versatility to the paladin, more than I believe a fixed set of special abilities would.
|
|
(Uh... OK, OK... because the nunmber seven is the number of completion -- think week. Additionally, you could have an additional property that comes to the horse after 40 days... hehe but that could be a bit too much symbolism)
HA! I didn't even think of 40 days (and nights!) as an option. Good call. Yes, I'm leaning more toward 7 days as well. A week to form the bond is long enough to keep a paladin from dumping the mount like a used-up sorority girl (or a druid's animal companion) on a whim, but short enough to keep things moving along during an adventure.
But theres all those lovely Domain power lists for alignment that could foot the bill.We're getting closer to the answer, I think.
Also: Any paladin players out there really care about the horse?
To be honest, I have a player that is playing a paladin, and she wants the whole bells and whistles mount, lay on hands, holy avenger package. Practical or not, she wants the mount for when she is out in the wild or on the road.
But, for what its worth, she doesn't like the 3.5 convention of the disappearing horse trick. If she needs to go somewhere her horse can't, she has said she would rather decide if she wants the horse to wait for her or just not use him.
|
|
Also: Any paladin players out there really care about the horse?
To be honest, the paladin's mount has been a joke with our group, in a similar (er, identical) vein to the way Order of the Stick did it, with a pokeball magic'ing up a horse. The best, or at least most logical, use of the mount I've ever seen with DnD was in the premium module Wyvern Crown of Cormyr for Neverwinter Nights (1). Granted, they just showed up out of nowhere and you didn't have choices, but it just worked.
|
|
<snip>with a few additional paladin-specific elements ("she respect[s] legitimate authority, act[s] with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help[s] those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish[es] those who harm or threaten innocents."). That's a very broadly applicable moral code, regardless of a paladin's deity.Those are the words from which sprang about a zillion fallen paladins, cast down by the whims of a catch-22 situation inflicted by a vindictive DM.
Those are the words from which sprang about a zillion fallen paladins, cast down by the whims of a catch-22 situation inflicted by a vindictive DM.
But again, that's a problem with the DM, not the paladin class.
Ok, in reading this thread I slowly discovered a fallacy in some of the ideas placed by some people. Now right on the outset I want to state that I LOVE!! Green Ronins' Book of the Righteous and their concepts of the Holy Warrior. I'm hoping that Paizo will do something similar when they move their book on gods forward towards print. The holy warrior, or maybe Champion, would be a great class, or maybe prestige class, I dunno.
Anyways, the point that I ran across that really got me thinking 'is that right?' was the discussion that Paladins are the representatives of a god, and that is not in line with what is written in the Player's Handbook. Paladins are characters that, from a young age, follow the adherents of Law and Good, not a specific god. There is no voice from on high that states that he has been chosen and must follow these rules and could you please sign on the dotted line? A paladin is one who chooses for themselves to follow a certain criteria, the ultimate alignment rule-lawyer if you will, an alignment avatar even. They represent Law and Good, and that is where they gain their power from, not from a divine being. So any talk about their gods alignment or gaining power from their diety is talking about the 'Holy Warrior' concept (I think I prefer the term champion, now) and not the Paladin.
At least not the one in the PH.
Now don't get me wrong, as I said earlier I love the concept of the Champion of a god being a class, or at least a prestige class, but the discussion is to see what we can do to improve the paladin.
Along those lines, I do have a few suggestions. In earlier posts I ran across some mention of using auras for paladins. I think this could be a great idea, and even have an example. If you go to the book Complete Psionics ( I know it's a psionics book but bare with me!) look at the Divine Mind Class; that is essentially the psionic virsion of the paladin, and it uses a neat way to use the auras. They have a general aura (attack, defence, and perception) and domain auras. Later they have a powers list similar to the paladin spell chart. Even tho they only have a 3/4 BAB progression, their aura is able to offset that to a certain degree, and their aura is target-specific (meaning the auras affect allies or enemies in the area, not 'all-within-range-of-fireball' type of area affect. Some good ideas could be taken by this class to tweak the paladin.
And on THAT note, here's my idea for the spells for paladins. Change the concept to spell-like abilities using the spell list as the choices. Starting at 4th level and every 2 or 3 levels afterwards, pick a spell as a spell-like ability usable (1+Cha mod)/day (min. 1), Wisdom based. To put a bigger spin on things, you could limit them to a magic school (Abjuration, Transmutation, etc). Granted there are some schools that are more represented than others; Illusion has NO representation. Players would also be able to switch schools when they level up in the Paladin class if they wanted to. But instead of a spell-like ability, the player could choose fighter feats instead. This could be their martial training they recieve. Another note is that they couldn't pick a spell-like ability higher then what they could cast on the regular spell table (meaning 1st level spells at 4th, 2nd at 8th, and so on)
Anyways it was not my intention to attack anyone with my words, and I hope that they realize all I was doing was pointing out a hole in the discussion. If I did, hey! have fun ripping my ideas apart! See what you make of 'em. I'm sure it's got plenty of flaws too.
Until 3rd edition, there wasn't much talk of Paladins following Law and Good instead of gods. And even in 3rd edition, while it does hedge a bit and say that paladins can be "concept" paladins, it also mentions that paladins aren't a class that can be trained for, per se, but one that a character must be "called" into. Sure, you can refuse your call, but if you never get the call, you aren't going to be a paladin, and a call seems to presume that there is, indeed, someone on the other end of the line.
Given that the cleric section of Pathfinder clearly states that clerics need to god in order to get their powers, I'm betting this is the direction that paladins will go as well.
Its interesting that while "core" D&D had the option to have a "non patron" divine caster devoted to a cause or a concept, the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk (by virtue of the only 3rd edition Greyhawk product put out) both required a divine caster to have a god as a patron, while Dragonlance hedged a bit with Mystics, even there those that don't have a patron deity still get their power from a god (Chaos) even if they don't actively worship him.
Yeah thats how I see them they have to have a god and they have to have been called . I would love to see them more closely tired into there god though auras or powers not a belief in law or good.
Sure, you can refuse your call, but if you never get the call, you aren't going to be a paladin, and a call seems to presume that there is, indeed, someone on the other end of the line
Not necessarily. Sometimes I feel like my chocolate is calling me. :) Seriously though, while I totally get what you are saying about the calling, I don't think that is the only way it could go. The 'calling' could be something else completely, like people feel they should move to a new city after losing a job instead of finding one in the city they live in. They just feel they need a change.
However, like I said I totally get what you are saying. If Paizo wants to go that direction, I have no problem with it. It would certainly work within the rules. But like I stated before, it is not within the rules now. The discussion was going like it is a foregone conclusion, and while it is certainly the popular way of doing it, I felt the need to point this hole out. Like it was calling me. ;)I would love to see them more closely tired into there god though auras or powers not a belief in law or good.{/quote]
You mean like praying for spells, but instead make it auras? That could be interesting. Maybe they can only change their aura's on ground consecrated to their god. Hmmm.Now I do get the urge to place the paladins under god's and churches. This makes them usable as PC's and would definately appeal to DM's. About the only thing you could do with Paladins' otherwise, conceptually, if they gained their power outside the church and the gods, but still received divine power, then maybe their roll in the Grand Scheme(TM) is as policeman for the various churches. Hmmmm... I'll have to think on that one.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I'd be totally fine with a "Divine Crusader" core class that has no alignment restrictions. But the actual term "paladin" has roots that are far too deep to disregard, IMO. As does the term "Anti-Paladin", which I miss.
It'd be like having a spell called "Magic Missile" but only having one missile and making the player roll to hit. Why even bother?
That's how it worked in Basic D&D. Roll to hit. One missile. 1d6+1 damage.
kickin' it OLD SKOOL...
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
As to the original post in this thread. I hear your concerns about Paladins of non-LG alignments. For this to work, I feel that they would need to be specific classes. This is something we have tossed around the design pit a number of times (primarily in reference to the Hellknight). I am not sure that this solution is right for the core paladin. This may be a bigger sacred cow for me than it is for others.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Sure. A couple of possibilities.
1. Beefed up smite evil
You may smite evil a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier. When making a smite attack, you gain a +1 bonus to attack and weapon damage rolls against any creature (or object) of evil alignment and your weapon is considered good-aligned for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. The damage bonus is increased to +1d6 if the your target is fiendish or has the evil subtype or an aura of evil (e.g., a cleric of an evil deity). If your attack misses or if the creature you smite is not evil, the smite attempt is wasted.
Every five levels, your smite evil bonus increases by +1 (or +1d6, as noted above); e.g., +2/+2d6 at 5th level, +3/+3d6 at 10th.
2. Tweaked lay on hands idea
Your healing is derived from channeled heavenly energy rather than positive energy. As a result, it does no harm to undead but can be used to burn the tainted flesh of fiendish creatures, half-fiends, and evil outsiders. (or perhaps it damages them AND undead)
3. A followup ability to detect evil
Scent of evil (Su): At 3rd level, a paladin’s sensitivity to the presence of dark powers grants the benefits of the scent special quality, but only with respect to creatures with an evil alignment.
This ability also enables a paladin to track evil creatures, substituting a Sense Motive check for the usual Survival check, with the base DC not set by the firmness of the ground but by the strength of the strongest evil aura in the group being followed (which may even be an object rather than a creature), as described under the detect evil spell:
Strength of evil Sense Motive DC
Overwhelming 5
Strong 10
Moderate 15
Faint 20
Per 5 evil creatures
in group being followed -1
Per 24 hours since
trail was made +5
Object/creature teleports or is carried in
extradimensional space +10
While tracking with the scent of evil generally works like traditional tracking (see the Track feat, Player’s Handbook, p. 101), terrain, creature size, weather, and visibility are irrelevant. However, certain magical spells can dampen the spoor of evil and make it harder to trace.
Spell Sense Motive DC
Misdirection DC = save DC
Nondetection DC 11 + caster level
Obscure object DC 11 + caster level
Antimagic field DC 16 + caster level
Mind blank DC 21 + caster level
Except as noted above, tracking with this ability follows the normal rules for frequency of tracking checks, re-finding a lost trail, etc. Note that while a paladin can track the faint residue left behind by a creature using an antimagic field, the field blocks any other use of her scent of evil ability, as it would any other supernatural ability.
I may post some others as well, but there are a few to think about.
Jason
Until 3rd edition, there wasn't much talk of Paladins following Law and Good instead of gods.
Supplement I: Greyhawk (1975): "Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for that character. If such fighters elect to they can then become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained. The paladin has a number of very powerful aids in his continual seeking for good"
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook (1977): "Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins. If they ever knowingly perform an act which is chaotic in nature, they must seek a high level (7th or above) cleric of lawful good alignment, confess their sin, and do penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform an evil act, he or she loses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably."
I no longer have my 2e books, so I can't check to see what it says on the matter.
That's how it worked in Basic D&D. Roll to hit. One missile. 1d6+1 damage.
kickin' it OLD SKOOL...
It's true that magic missile does 1d6+1 damage in OD&D, Holmes Basic, Moldvay Basic, Mentzer Basic, and the Rules Cyclopedia (and 1d4+1 in 1e and all derivatives thereof). But only in Holmes did you ever have to roll to hit with the spell. From what I have gathered, the Holmes interpretation represents an idiosyncratic interpretation of the original appearance of the spell in Supplement I, an interpretation specifically disavowed in all editions that follow it.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Well, I can understand why their won't be "8 different types" of paladins in the PHB, all unique to the god they worship. (Wouldn't mind seeing something like this in a supplement later though.)
I do think the special mount ability needs to get beefed up though. Perhaps at later levels, the paladin is able to cast a variant of the wizard spell mount that summons his mount from thin air. Or, perhaps the mount at later levels becomes an ivory statuette, akin to a figurine of wondrous power, that the Paladin's horse can be summoned from. Just a few ideas to reduce the clunkiness of "carrying" the animal with you at times when you can't use it. Perhaps some additional horse-related or cavalry related feats need to be thrown in for free as well to make taking the special mount a more attractive option, rather than the joke I think it has become.
Additionally, I would like to see a dichotomy between the special mount and a bonded sword. Perhaps, the paladin chooses one or the other (like a ranger chooses combat styles). The paladin's sword slowly gains special abilities with leveling, until at some higher level it turns into a holy avenger. If the sword is lost, the paladin could reestablish his bond with another blade after a month or so. I also like keeping holy avengers special and think only paladins should have them. I kind of like it if wizards and clerics cannot manufacture a holy avenger - they are produced only through the pious faith and devotion of an experienced paladin.
My only question is, would these changes interfere greatly with backwards compatibility? I don't think the mount changes, in making the mount "portable" and offering some additional feats to make the Paladin a better cavalry figure, are that sweeping. The bonded sword might be a problem because it's an option that simply didn't exist before.
prefer concept of Paladin as a PrC, but that's just me. I've never been enamoured by the idea that Pally's can only belong to Lawful orders. Especially when they go so far down the HOLY warrior of the GODS flavor.
That's all fine and dandy, but what it should really say is, "HOLY warrior of the LAWFUL and GOOD variety only". What about the OTHER causes that need championing? Lets see...
Paladin of Kord? nope. too chaotic
Paladin of Olidmarra? nope. again too chaotic
Paladin of Elliastree? nope
Mielekki? nope
Mystra? nope
...and these are just a couple of good deities, FR has what? 70 or 80 major and minor deities that could and should have an equal representation in protecting and spreading their views.
The class shouldn't be focused on the LAW and GOOD aspect, it should be based on the tenets of their faith. A "Paladin" of Bane would be championing his deity just as fervently as a Paladin of Tyr. Agree? Disagree? So why do we need Blackguard and anti-paladin anyway?
The laser tight focus on
A.) Martial prowess (with no bonus feats to back it up)
B.) Spellcasting-lite
C.) A semi-intelligent pet
E.) LAW and GOOD
completely buries this class IMO. As the enemies of each faith are many and varied, how's about this approach:
A.)Make them more like 3.5 rangers. The skill points and selection is superb. Combat styles should be changed to something more in line with the fighter's realm - think armor & weapon specialization/Monted combat/etc.
B.) Either eliminate spellcasting altogether in favor of 3x/day at X level mechanics, or give them a decent list with some actually useful spells at higher level. I found allowing true clerical spellcasting up to 4th to work really well, as well as a single domain.
C.) Bonus feats - it helped fix the ranger.
D.) Make mount optional in the RAW.
E.) Make them a little less front loaded, eliminating the 2 levels of Paladin power build. Seriously, it's the cheapest and easiest wa to be permanently immune to fear effects.
I'm probably just biased, I always liked the Paladin/Ranger combo. Two core martial style classes that both bring something awesome to the table.
Love Paladins, but mechanically they are so...one sided. Just an honest opinion from someone who has loved playing paladins, just not really understood the elitism of such a hyper focused class among so many others that have WAY more flexibility built into them.
Well, I can understand why their won't be "8 different types" of paladins in the PHB, all unique to the god they worship. (Wouldn't mind seeing something like this in a supplement later though.)
I do think the special mount ability needs to get beefed up though. Perhaps at later levels, the paladin is able to cast a variant of the wizard spell mount that summons his mount from thin air. Or, perhaps the mount at later levels becomes an ivory statuette, akin to a figurine of wondrous power, that the Paladin's horse can be summoned from. Just a few ideas to reduce the clunkiness of "carrying" the animal with you at times when you can't use it. Perhaps some additional horse-related or cavalry related feats need to be thrown in for free as well to make taking the special mount a more attractive option, rather than the joke I think it has become.
Additionally, I would like to see a dichotomy between the special mount and a bonded sword. Perhaps, the paladin chooses one or the other (like a ranger chooses combat styles). The paladin's sword slowly gains special abilities with leveling, until at some higher level it turns into a holy avenger. If the sword is lost, the paladin could reestablish his bond with another blade after a month or so. I also like keeping holy avengers special and think only paladins should have them. I kind of like it if wizards and clerics cannot manufacture a holy avenger - they are produced only through the pious faith and devotion of an experienced paladin.
My only question is, would these changes interfere greatly with backwards compatibility? I don't think the mount changes, in making the mount "portable" and offering some additional feats to make the Paladin a better cavalry figure, are that sweeping. The bonded sword might be a problem because it's an option that simply didn't exist before.
Apologies, I was posting while you had posted...lol. Great idea! As far as backward compatibility, better 85% of the game survive than the current 15%...i.e. compatible with work, as opposed to completely unuseable.
Supplement I: Greyhawk (1975): "Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for that character. If such fighters elect to they can then become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained. The paladin has a number of very powerful aids in his continual seeking for good"
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook (1977): "Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins. If they ever knowingly perform an act which is chaotic in nature, they must seek a high level (7th or above) cleric of lawful good alignment, confess their sin, and do penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform an evil act, he or she loses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably."
I no longer have my 2e books, so I can't check to see what it says on the matter.
After rereading what I said there, I realize I was kind of unclear. It almost sounded like I was arguing against LG paladins and just making paladins champions of gods, which is the opposite of what I intended. I fully picture paladins as being LG, and they should stay that way. I only meant that they are LG warriors dedicated to a god, not just lawful and good warriors that "worship" law and good and may or may not have a patron deity.
Sorry about that.
|
Rather than ditch the spell, I think paladins need to spells targeted specifically to them, instead of left over cleric spells.
In particular paladins need swift spells, so they don't have to chose between casting and attack. (Same for rangers).
Here's a quick example:
Searing Blade
Level: Paladin 2
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 swift action
Range: Touch
Target: Melee weapon touched
Duration: 1 round/level, until discharged
Saving Throw: Will negates (object, harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (object, harmless)
You focus your divine power into the your weapon, causing it to radiate light as bright the daylight spell until your next successful attack with that weapon.
Your next successful attack deals an additional 1d8 points of damage per two caster levels (maximum 5d8). Undead instead take 1d6 per caster level (maximum 10d6), while constructs and inanimate objects take only 1d6 per two caster levels (maximum 5d6).
Woah. You could dump paladin spells entirely, weaving some of the common abilities (bless weapon) into class abilities (which the paladin needs after mid-level anyway). I played one up to 17th level and I only ever cast two or three different paladin spells.
I wouldn't miss paladin spells at all.
I concur wholeheartedly. I've been playing paladins since 1st edition AD&D, and I don't ever remember a paladin spell saving the day. A few swings with a holy avenger, or a well-timed lay on hands on the other hand...
The problem with paladin and ranger spell lists are very similar to the problems the original Everquest had with balancing the hybrid classes. By the time the paladin gets access to a spell, its power curve is so far behind that of full spellcasters that the spell is next to useless in conflicts with most foes of appropriate CR. Considering the amount of raw fighting power the paladin gives up in order to get those spells, (3 fighter bonus feats by 4th level alone) the result is less than impressive.
I'm crazy about the rogue talents and the spell-like ability replacements for domain spells and specialist school slots featured in the alpha. Something similar for the paladin (and to a lesser extent, the ranger) would be awesome. While it would be more work, and probably take up a lot of space, separate lists based on the domains of eligible paladin deities would be awesome, and give paladins of each deity a unique feel. Balance between them on the other hand could be a challenge.
Oddly enough other online games, Vanguard, WOW, and to a dagree everquest 2, manage to balance hybrid classes quite nicely.
I'm not trying to disagree for the sake of disagreement, but I just can't see why you would give a class an ability thats odiously a spell and not call it one. I mean lay on hands is really just a spell, the bards fascinate ability is really just a spell, and psionics are really just spell.
Maybe it's because I actually like the idea of a hybrid class. It seems logical that if different classes can learn to move silently and open locks without full on multi-classing into rogue, then some classes should learn some magic without having to multi-class wizard or cleric levels.
If I read one more "lots of paladins, evil chaotic, whatever" post my head might explode ... Yes, I get where the people are coming from, and I actually agree ... except that it doesn't need to be core. All core needs to have is good, old-fashioned vanilla Paladins.
That said, my preferences for fixing the class, which is one of the ones that mos def needs fixing:
Drop the spells. I think supernatural and spell-like abilities are the way to go.
Don't drop the horsey, but make it part of a similar dynamic to the bonded item/familiar situation introduced with wizards. That, or go with the "any mount becomes special option" mentioned in earlier posts. I worry that it would be a little hard to balance, though.
I agree that spells can go, especially if they can do more with their lay on hands ability. I think you can substitute the turn undead CHA mod +3 times/day concept with lay on hands CHA mod +3/day concept and have them be abe to remove conditions (dazed, blind, cursed, poisoned, diseased, etc.) as they increase in power. Likewise you can get rid of the remove disease x/week.
Allow their smite to do more than just extra damage as they increase in power (bypass DR, stun, nauseate, etc). Make it "I lay the SMITE down on you evil doer".
Get rid of the turn undead ability (it seems it always gets traded in for divine feat abilities anyways).
I also like the idea of auras. Seems to me that this kinda ties in with the leader concept of a paladin (perhaps an aura that weakens undead/evil outsiders).
I wouldn't get rid of the mount idea all together, perhaps simply modify it so that while mounted the paladin gets bonus feats/special abilities.
Anybody see a problem with a paladin being able to gain the weapon specialization feats with their dieties favored weapon?
Immunity to fear and disease as well as the ability to detect evil should stay.
Lastly, paladins have always been LG, and in my mind should stay so. You want to make holy warriors of other alignments? Fine. Just don't call them paladins.
My two cents (minted in the early 1980s):
1. Paladins are Lawful Good to me, and this is a sacred cow as far as I am concerned. In fact, the LG paladin is what makes the anti-paladin so cool as a villain. If core rules go away from the LG paladin, the other paladins will not be as cool. The LE and LN paladins need the LG paladin to come first or else their zig and zag from the paladin will be (relatively) flavorless.
2. Paladins in 1E were differentiated from fighters in two ways. First, they had to follow this strict code of conduct. Second, you could only play one if you rolled unbelievably high on your stat rolls (especially Charisma which had to be at least a 17). If you did roll well enough, however, the paladin was way better than a fighter with the same stats. 3E went away from this model with good reason, but I have always wondered if there wasn't something to the original Gygax formulation: rare and powerful but behaviorally restricted. What about giving paladins an ability boost as a "reward" from their God for the sacrifices they are making in following the paladin's code? Perhaps +2 to Charisma at first level with additional increases in Charisma at later levels? Then make their special abilities Charisma related (many already are of course). As an oldtimer, I would even be in favor of setting minimum ability scores for the paladin (and paladin alone). I realize this would go away from 3E's flexible feel, but the paladin is the only class that I ever thought should be restricted. I think the other 3E changes in loosening up earlier restrictions were very good. Also, I wouldn't make the ability score minimums as high as they were in 1E, in fact I would make them low enough that you could build a paladin with the elite array and the 25 point build, but I still like the idea of restricting paladins in this way. It is a game mechanic way of making the player feel their character is "restricted." I know not everyone will agree or like my suggestions, but I have been mulling this over for a while and thought it worth posting for reactions.
Marnak
My biggest paladin problem is that after 6th level, they get no new class abilities. There's no reason to stick with the class after that. <sarcasm>"I can cast Remove Disease one more time per week? Whoop-de-doo!"</sarcasm>
(yes, I know that they get spells, but they're not good enough and Paladins get too few for them to really be useful.)
Given the nice slew of class abilities Paizo is throwing out here, I'm hopeful that this will be addressed. . .
Rest assured, this is a concern that I will be addressing. That said, do you have any suggestions.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Since you asked for it, here's what I started doing when I toyed with 3.75ing D&D:
PALADIN
Celestial Cavalier Talent Tree:
Celestial Charger – You gain the service of a celestial spirit that looks like an exceptionally powerful heavy warhorse. Requirement: Any two talents from the Hospitaler or Beacon talent trees.
Celestial Destrier – Your companion grow in power and motes of light around it coalesce into a beautifully forged set of plate barding. Any piece of barding removed disappears instantly. Requirement: Celestial Charger, 7th level.
Unicorn Charger – Your companion becomes a bit slimmer and motes of light on its forehead coalesce into a graceful spiralled horn. Requirement: Celestial Charger, Lay On Hands, Remove Disease.
Winged Charger – Motes of light encircle your companion and coalesce into powerful feathered wings. Requirement: Celestial Charger, 9th level.
Hospitaler Talent Tree:
Lay On Hands – You heal wounds in the thick of battle. You can only heal wounds suffered in the last 10 rounds.
Remove Disease – Ritual. Once per day you can remove a nonmagical disease from a non-evil creature. If you have the Remove Curse talent, you can also remove magical diseases. Requirement: Lay On Hands.
Remove Curse – Ritual. Once per day you can remove a curse or magical from a non-evil creature. Requirement: Lay On Hands.
Beacon Talent Tree:
Aura of Courage –
Aura of Light –
Aura of Protection –
Aura of Life –
Templar Talent Tree:
Smite –
Healing Smite –
Blinding Smite -
As for Alignment, I prefer Paladins to be *Good*. Most Paladins would be LG, and uphold just laws. But a Paladin that lives in an land ruled by Evil can instead be CG.