Would you play...

[Doc Roc]

A paladin described this way?

"Fundamentally, I've never been happy with the modern conception of the paladin. I loved the sense of justice, the emphasis on mercy. I hated the fluff and the mechanical execution, the sense of deep constraint and a loss of most of what made them a strong class in previous editions. But more than that, Paladin felt to me like it had lost its soul, lost its shine. I didn't get excited about them. In fact, as a GM, I openly dreaded having one in my group. They caused conflict. Lagged, demanded special treatment without offering special benefits to the play-group. I really promote a sense of the players as a team. I'm old fashioned. Party conflict isn't my gig. So here's this hero, and what he does, is he squabbles and casts a bit, and burns through his healing reserves like a speed-freak on a unicycle. NO (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWoobie).

I'm not really about big design goals. I'm not really into the huge endeavor of archetyping. I believe in simple role-slicing, and maximizing player freedom. So where to go with paladins? First step, is simple. These are men who are direct, clever, and subtle all at the same time. So we seek elegance in mechanics, and a slow growth of complementary features. Our paladins are men of absolutes, tempered in the black and heady fury of reality. They know that the world doesn't work the way they do, and... They. Don't. Care."

[Hyooz]

What sets this apart from any other class it could be describing? I mean, I would hope you seek elegance in mechanics with a progression of complimentary features in every class >.>

And this could still describe core paladins. So... I dunno. Hard to say.

[Doc Roc]

What sets this apart from any other class it could be describing? I mean, I would hope you seek elegance in mechanics with a progression of complimentary features in every class >.>

And this could still describe core paladins. So... I dunno. Hard to say.

I would consider core paladins one of the least elegant classes in 3.x or even 4e. Still, I did accidentally leave out half the quote. Rough day, sorry!

[Mulletmanalive]

Aside from the last line, no.

The last line yes.

To elaborate, the first bit doesn't really say anything; it's a vision statement. Too nebulous to tell if you've failed or not.

You could summarise this as:

"Pick something, anything that your character is all about. He's all about it; the rest of the world thinks he's insane, out of touch or a romantic but let's be clear; that just makes him more determined."

(talking about characters as "it" seems stupid but "they" is wrong so what you gonna do?)

Edit: this was posted before the extra first half appeared. The summary still applies.

How are these men subtle while being men of absolutes? Wouldn't that indicate that they're allowing evil to be done while avoiding being bullheaded?

[Doc Roc]

I'm not sure I follow that at all, Mullet. I'm reasonably subtle while still being considered a moral absolutist.

[Veyr]

I think the intro there sounds interesting... I'd want to see the whole thing before saying I'd play it though. Sounds like the right direction to take, though.

[absolmorph]

That's... actually pretty close to how I played my first Dungeons and Dragons character. He was, in fact, a paladin.
Kobolds defiling a temple and attacking him? He charges and takes out most of them. The survivors who don't escape? He healed them and asked them to tell the other kobolds he wants to ally his city with them.

[Milo v3]

I made my own paladin. It cause a lot less fights than the normal paladin IMHO. Here it is (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Paladin_(Keran)). So no I wouldn't play that Paladin.

[Hyooz]

I would consider core paladins one of the least elegant classes in 3.x or even 4e. Still, I did accidentally leave out half the quote. Rough day, sorry!

I mean, despite the final result, I doubt the 3.5 designers set out with anything other than elegance of design in mind.

As far as the rest of the quote is concerned, paladins only cause party conflict if they're played that way. There's nothing mechanical about them that keeps them from having the soul or shine the speaker thought paladins used to have. They just end up mechanically outclassed, but that doesn't stop them from being well-played, or any of the other things brought up in the quote. Other than the question of how mechanically elegant they are, nothing there indicates what kind of class they'll be.

I can make my paladin as subtle and morally absolute as I want him to be - I can do the same with a ranger, though. I'd need to know about the actual mechanics, because this says almost nothing about them.

[Doc Roc]

Lovely! This is about the response I was hoping for. Basically, in the next review cycle of legend, we're revealing a slight revamp to paladin that, ironically, makes it more backwards compatible, just as we're officially breaking back compatibility.

Milo, to be honest, your paladin doesn't really look that much different from the traditional version. Walk me through what's different?

[Milo v3]

Whats different?

Lay on Hands Ability
Can worship any god
Aura is slightly different
Smite Heretic & Detect Heretic
Turn Or Rebuke undead
Spell list changes
Contagion
Paladin Code
All alignments are able to work with this class
Fits the Keran Setting (Doesn't really count though)

[Lyndworm]

Whats different?
*snip*

It still seems like just a mish-mash of the Honor/Freedom/Slaughter/Tyranny classes from Unearthed Arcana. You didn't really introduce anything new, you just put all the features on one page.



For my group's Paladins we make the following changes:
Code of Conduct is greatly relaxed (I don't have an example, sorry)
Good Fort and Will Saves
Smite affects all enemies regardless of Alignment (like the Crusader)
Smite can be used (Cha mod + 1/4th Paladin level)/day
Remove/Cause Disease is an aspect of Lay on Hands/Deadly Touch, and costs a number of "HP" equal to the DC of the disease removed/caused

As for what I think of the "mission statement" up there... it seems a little too vague and insubstantial to formulate an opinion.

[Eldan]

So, back to the OP.

This is a bit of fluff, and it's fine. You want Paladins to be able to keep their idealism in a world that is not ideal. We'll have to see how that turns out.

You do, however, also speak of bad design in the rules. Of elegance, which is a nice word, for sure. However, what does this actually mean for the game? How would the paladin look? What benefits would he have? What would you actually change?

[Milo v3]

It still seems like just a mish-mash of the Honor/Freedom/Slaughter/Tyranny classes from Unearthed Arcana. You didn't really introduce anything new, you just put all the features on one page.

I actually have never read the Paladin Variants in Unearthed Arcana Until you typed that. You see I don't own and don't read material relating to paladins.

So its not just a "Mish-mash" of the Variants. I made this myself and just used material from the Player Handbook to make it.

[Roderick_BR]

(...) Our paladins are men of absolutes, tempered in the black and heady fury of reality. They know that the world doesn't work the way they do, and... They. Don't. Care."
This. This is what I'm looking for too. Paladins that are not just fighters with cleric spells, that are not just rules upholders. But practical, powerful heroes, that can make a difference in a world where everyone tell them they are meaningless. Warriors that when they approach the BBEG's lair, they go "Oh, sh.. a paladin", instead of "Oh, sh... a cleric. And wizard! hmmm... there's some fighters too... wait, I think one is a paladin. oh well."

I like the idea of using the Knight of the Player's Handbook 2 to fill in the blanks of the paladin, since their fluffy is very close together, and the knight has this ability to say "well, screw you", when someone tries to stop him.

[Shyftir]

Paladin's are near and dear to my heart. If done right, they are rigid in self-control but merciful to others, harsh and dangerous to those who serve Evil but men who know that in our hearts we all have darkness to conquer. The world is not ideal and we cannot hope to make it that way, but who says we cannot try?

They know of shades of grey and avoid them. They hate Evil acts but believe in redemption. In all honesty a Paladin ought to be everything a Hero is supposed to be. Not perfect but still a shinning example to all the world that if you really want to you CAN be a righteous man.

A paladin takes up the sword so that others may live in peace. It's a dirty job, but they are NOT dirty men. In fact it's exactly what a true Knight was supposed to be.

Paladin's as is are seen as self-righteous A-hole's that don't care about people only rules. That's a shame.

In short I want to live like a real Paladin but I'm pretty bad at it.

[SurlySeraph]

These are men who are direct, clever, and subtle all at the same time. So we seek elegance in mechanics, and a slow growth of complementary features. Our paladins are men of absolutes, tempered in the black and heady fury of reality. They know that the world doesn't work the way they do, and... They. Don't. Care."

Sounds rather like Sam Vimes to me, rather than like paladins in general. I'd play one described that way, but that description seems a bit overly specific in the worldview it allows for, and from that the kind of world it'll work in.

I agree that devotion, and to an extent putting devotion to a cause over the realities of the world, is a fundamental part of what a paladin is. Badly played paladins often put their devotion above getting along with the party, and refuse to back down or let things slide.

It's hard to play a character who's actually a paragon without being insufferable or Sue-ish. And it's often less fun than playing a flawed hero even if you can pull it off. So people play paladins with flaws, either being less zealous or too zealous/ zealous about the wrong things compared to the "ideal" paladin.

That's the issue; if a paladin needs to be direct, clever, and subtle all at the same time, a lot of players aren't cut out to play paladins. If a paladin needs to not care about the difference between his ideals and the world, that's a recipe for the player to stomp over anything that doesn't live up to his ideals. Say, the party rogue.

I'd say pare it down a bit. Emphasize the devotion to a cause, not the running roughshod. Paladins are people who care. They have a quest or goal, and they focus on it. They stand firm like mountains and fall like avalanches when fighting for what matters. In side issues like "Is it OK that the rogue is stealing things?", not so much.