Paladins and alignment

[theNater]

And paladins have a roll. They're the knight in shining armor. They're the lawful good knight errant who travels the land, righting wrongs, saving maidens in distress while alarmingly keeping them as maidens, and other general romanticism styled things. No, not THAT type of romanticism, I did state the maidens remained maidens.

Gotta jump in here. The role "righter of wrongs" is not a mechanical role. It is a social role. Note that the fighter fills this role at least as easily as the paladin. And the fighter can also grab the social role of "ruthless black knight who slaughters the weak in the name of Grummsh". Why should the fighter be allowed more flexibility in social roles than the paladin?

Keep in mind that the paladin's mechanical role is "holy-powered defender", and that in D&D, holy power includes evil holy power.

 

[MadMaligor]

...And I'm not neccisarily disagreeing. My point is, though, that the answer ISN'T just to completely alter the paladin class, but to change the ideas behind cleric or to make a new class.

The freakish thing here is that, really, I would think the 3.x version of paladin would fit wonderfully in 4e's desire for epic good vs evil fantasy.

My best guess is that the redesign of the Paladin is a direct response to its lack of diversity and functional use. It wouldn't be a stretch to also guess that a majority of DM's house ruled the hell outa the class. I know I did, and in different ways for each campaign based on setting. The problem with the Paladin in 1st Ed AD&D was that the class was not the Paladin, but rather a version of a type of Paladin. It should have more correctly been defined as some sort of Cleric/Cavalier hybrid linked to a named LG diety (oh and btw...the Paladin is most definately linked to faith and the gods in 1st Ed, its just not specified...if you wish I will quote you some text). Which is the reason this class, probably more than any other, is houseruled so much.

...Well, yeah, they are redesigning all the classes. Redesigning a class isn't always a BAD thing. Sometimes change is needed. Fighters prove this the most. My argument is, I don't think the change in paladins is needed.

Paladins, fighters, rogues, and mages needed changes the most, IMHO. Paladins most of all. The class has too long been tied to a LG requirement that makes no sense. A code of conduct based off of faith, belief systems, and applicable societal law are what should govern the actions of a Paladin. These codes should be defined at the beginning of each campaign for a player wishing to play a Paladin. The player should pick the diety, and where applicable, the society/leader he/she is operating for or within. When both DM and player are clear about the "Dont break these codes or else" rules, you have your character. The impacts of abandoning or breaking the codes can, and should vary as well. Each god reacting differently to a rogue Paladin. It doesnt always have to mean instant power/ability loss. This can be an incredibly fun scenario when roleplayed well.

To be clear on the argument though, what makes 4E so sexy with regards to both my belief and yours, is that it works for both. You and I both can set the rules up, using the 4E skeleton frame, and create a campaign that works for both of us. If you wish the Paladin to be the restricted LG knight in shining armor only type ie...using your words "... paladins have a roll. They're the knight in shining armor. They're the lawful good knight errant who travels the land, righting wrongs, saving maidens in distress while alarmingly keeping them as maidens, and other general romanticism styled things. No, not THAT type of romanticism, I did state the maidens remained maidens....well 4E works for you. I on the other hand, am now glad I dont have to break the rules piggybank so to speak just to create varying versions.

...And again, I disagree. I think the game should have freedom - lots of it. I think I'm vaguely growing infamous around here for running around the forums, ringing a bell, and shouting "FREEEDOOOOOOOOOM!" But I think classes need restrictions. Freedom should pertain to the option to choose classes, not the option to make a class into whatever you want. Because again, if classes have no restrictions, there's no reason to have those classes in the first place.

Just the opposite rather. Your not shouting "Freedom!" your shouting "My version of Freedom is not being upheld as the rule, but rather a variation. Please revert back to my version of Freedom so we can all conform to my ideal of what the Paladin should be."

An interesting thing with regards to RPG arguments is how often the system supports the ideals of those that struggle to oppose a certain aspect of the game. Usually it is because of something related to the arguments here, and in others like the alignment issue. Generally boiling down to "If things are allowed outside of the rules I believe to be core, something is wrong."

I would argue that RPG's rarely function well when based on any ideal that something should not be able to be changed or modified. Any DM worth his/her salt knows that with drastic changes come drastic game repercussions, and those that dont find out soon enough. The key to things like the Paladin class, is designing a set of rules that work and make sense for your campaign and your players. They dont have to vary drastically, and they probably shouldnt for that matter. But the game should not be tied to a restriction, your campaign should. That is why this part of the 4E changes appeal to me.

Mal

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Before I get deeper involved here, could someone please point out where I said "I think 4e should be this" or "My opinion should be the way the game is run" or anything like that?

Because from what I just finished re-reading, this entire argument came from me saying "I disagree, I think paladins should be lawful good, and not tied to a god," and then people jumping on top of me for daring to think so.

Oh, and Hong, I don't really care about defending my opinion anymore. Nobody on this thread does. Someone saw me post something they didn't like, so they leapt, positively leapt, to stop the heinous crime of me thinking wrong. Quite frankly there isn't a single argument, irregardless of how well constructed or logical, that I could make to properly defend myself against people who want to stop me from thinking differently from them.

In conclusion, this whole thread has become incredibly stupid.

 

[Counterspin]

So people arguing about things makes a thread incredibly stupid. Um... welcome to the internet?

 

[MindWanderer]

"No. But uh...you're proving my point for me. When paladin IS used, it's used with specific connotations: namely, Lawful Good (or its equivilant). Saying it isn't used often really isn't an argument against that.... [T]hat's how the class works. The class is meant to be Lawful Good, or at least it was until 4e.

And when a rule doesn't work anymore, it gets scrapped.

In 1st edition, rangers got insane damage bonuses against giants. That made no sense, so in 2nd edition they were allowed to choose a favored enemy. In 3rd, they decided that was too limiting, so they got multiple favored enemies. It's an evolution of a concept.

You can make similar statements about illusionists, druids, and assassins. And that's not even mentioning bards and psionicists.

So are you saying that the paladin deserves to stay LG because it's earned "sacred cow" status by keeping that rule through 3 editions? The same is true for vancian casting, hit dice, multiple basic attacks, elven immunity to ghoul paralysis and raise dead, and more... including alignment restrictions on other classes, like barbarians, bards, druids, and monks. Heck, rangers used to be good-only, and druids had to be True Neutral. WotC decided that there was inadequate reason to retain alignment restriction rules, so they canned them. And you can bet there would have been more outcry if they'd removed the paladin name than by just allowing paladins to be other alignments.

Things change. Sometimes for the better. Get over it.

 

[theNater]

Before I get deeper involved here, could someone please point out where I said "I think 4e should be this" or "My opinion should be the way the game is run" or anything like that?

I accept your challenge. Let's see what we can find.

I guess my issue with paladins being the champion of gods is: we already have that. They're called clerics.

As it stands, the 4e paladins look like, thematically, "Warriors...who are slightly more religious then normal!"

It looks like this is where the trouble started. Many folks took this to mean "4e paladins aren't necessary(because fighters and clerics fill the role 4e paladins have been given), so they should have been left out." While it doesn't precisely say that, the last sentence takes a bit of an adversarial tone. When people took exception to this, eventually we saw:

Being a paladin is supposed to mean upholding the paladin code. That's the entire reason the class exists, to serve as the champions of Lawful Good. You get rid of that, why bother keeping the class?

This specifically says "If paladins aren't going to be Lawful Good, they shouldn't be a class." This really got people freaking out. It's where the "they're coming to take away our multi-alignment paladins" panic set in. And when it did, well:

Classes are supposed to have restrictions. That is, in fact, the entire purpose of having a class based system. Paladins are Lawful Good, rogues have thievery-esque skills, warriors are good with weapons.

The implication that restriction on paladins has to be being Lawful Good rather than any other possible restriction did not sit well with people. And then it moved on to:

Sure there is. Because that's how the class works. The class is meant to be Lawful Good, or at least it was until 4e.

which carries an undercurrent of "WotC has broken something that worked fine." Again, something that can raise ire.

Did people misinterpret some of your statements? Yes. Oh, yes.
Did you make some statements that freaked people out? Yes again.

In an effort to do something more than just throw fuel on this fire, I'd like to propose a few statements that I think we can all agree on.

1. Some people, including ProfessorCirno, would prefer that paladins be required to be Lawful Good.
2. Some people, including MadMaligor, would prefer that paladins not be required to be Lawful Good.
3. Whether the word paladin indicates a paragon of virtue depends on which dictionary definition you use.
4. WotC is using a different dictionary defenition of paladin for 4th edition than they used in 3rd edition.
5. It is going to be very difficult to determine whether relaxing the alignment restriction for paladins makes a better game until we've seen many paladins of many alignments in play.

Can we all agree on these statements? Please?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

1. Some people, including ProfessorCirno, would prefer that paladins be required to be Lawful Good.
2. Some people, including MadMaligor, would prefer that paladins not be required to be Lawful Good.
3. Whether the word paladin indicates a paragon of virtue depends on which dictionary definition you use.
4. WotC is using a different dictionary defenition of paladin for 4th edition than they used in 3rd edition.
5. It is going to be very difficult to determine whether relaxing the alignment restriction for paladins makes a better game until we've seen many paladins of many alignments in play.

Can we all agree on these statements? Please?

I'll agree to those

 

[Oni]

This thread has reminded me why I've never wanted to play a paladin in the past. That reason being so many people have such strong feelings over how a paladin should be that it makes it difficult to play the character that *I* want to play. I've seen more than once DM's literally step in and tell players how they're playing their character wrong when it comes to paladins. For some reason that world "paladin" makes DM's forget that their players may have a different conception of what their character is and how they want to play them and take it upon themselves to punish players in game (in the past with various degrees of rules justification*) for not fighting the mold in their own minds. A players character is their part of the game and really it shouldn't be taken upon by others to alter it, otherwise you've taken away what's theirs (and I dont mean player characters are sacred and should never come to harm, but using the rules to bludgeon the character of the character is decidely uncool IMO).

*I use justification here loosely as rp elements such as "the code" are definatley up to inturpretation, except in the hands of an overzelous DM they usually only have one, theirs.

 

[Ulthwithian]

I would like to point out something regarding the 4E Paladin.

At the very least, a Paladin's player who decides to role-play cowardice in combat gimps his role. A Paladin's Divine Challenge, by its latest wording that we have, more or less does not work if the Paladin is played as a coward, of the Sir Robin variety or otherwise.

On the other hand, this thread gave me a wonderful idea for an Eladrin Paladin of the Raven Goddess. "I woke up on the wrong side of the plane one day..."

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

1. Some people, including ProfessorCirno, would prefer that paladins be required to be Lawful Good.
2. Some people, including MadMaligor, would prefer that paladins not be required to be Lawful Good.
3. Whether the word paladin indicates a paragon of virtue depends on which dictionary definition you use.
4. WotC is using a different dictionary defenition of paladin for 4th edition than they used in 3rd edition.
5. It is going to be very difficult to determine whether relaxing the alignment restriction for paladins makes a better game until we've seen many paladins of many alignments in play.

I agree with all of those except the last one. I already know that a few short months from now, the majority of the d&d community will look back on LG restricted paladins and roll their eyes.