D&D 5E Is Anyone Unhappy About Non-LG Paladins?

Ruin Explorer said:

In the example he gives, there clearly is malice involved (having fun pulling the wings off flies or the like IS malicious, I would assert, and it's that times a million and involving sentient beings). I don't see how picking someone clearly weaker than you, manipulating them into a duel that they stand little chance of winning (if any), even if you're not consciously aware you're doing it, and killing them could ever be anything but Evil, certainly if it's a routine behaviour. It's pretty much a form of Chaotic Evil (because it's all about self-gratification and will rapidly destroy the fabric of society).

Click to expand...

Ruin Explorer said:

Yeah, it's generally more fun long term to let the PCs be Big Damn Heroes rather than dealing with complex moral quandaries in D&D, but my experience is that Paladins (of any alignment) and the like tend to attract moral quandaries like flies to honey. Also sometimes these sort of things naturally emerge in play.

Click to expand...

Ruin Explorer said:

- Yeah, it's generally more fun long term to let the PCs be Big Damn Heroes rather than dealing with complex moral quandaries in D&D, but my experience is that Paladins (of any alignment) and the like tend to attract moral quandaries like flies to honey. Also sometimes these sort of things naturally emerge in play.

Click to expand...

Tequila Sunrise said:

In other words, you're looking for a level of specificity that I neither want nor impose on my players. A base class is far too big a part of the game to confine to one specific archetype, so I define paladins as I define clerics, with the obvious addendum of "But more fighty than the cleric." In other words, yes, a holy warrior. Beyond that, a paladin player is welcome to define her paladin as she wishes.


If the flexible paladin sounds like an archetype that can be arrived at via multiclassing...well, barring smite evil and a few other paladin features, yeah! Considering some of D&D's other classes, I don't see any inconsistency.

Why do we need rangers when the naturey-warrior archetype can be accomplished by a multiclassed druid/fighter? Why do we need bards when the jack-of-all-trades archetype can be accomplished via wizard/rogue/cleric multiclassing, plus a musical instrument? (Or just mage/rogue, depending on edition.) Why do we need druids when the nature-priest archetype can be accomplished by a cleric with the nature-y domains? Why do we need LG-only paladins when the Galahad archetype can be done with a LG cleric/fighter multiclass? Come to think of it, why don't we all just play the three generic classes from the 3e Unearthed Arcana, and fluff to taste? No need for all of these hybrid and specialty classes, right?

Answer these questions, and you just might discover what niche the flexible paladin fills. Hint: It's as much a chargen/gameplay niche as an in-game niche.

Click to expand...

pemerton said:

A paladin of Kord doesn't cause me any conceptual confusion at all: honourable, engaging in displays of prowess, scorning weaklings and cowards; if we don't allow that because of the alignment rules we've got a terrible case of the alignment tail wagging the archetype dog.

Click to expand...

Hussar said:

What's the difference between a Neutral cleric of Obad-Hai and a Neutral druid of Obad-Hai? How would those two characters be different. Since mechanics are off the table, what makes those two characters different?

What's the difference between a Paladin of Heironeous and a Cleric of Heironeous? Again, no references to mechanics. What can one class do that the other one can't?

The argument that allowing for non-LG paladins somehow waters down paladins doesn't really wash. The argument seems to be that if any alignment can be a paladin, then it's no different than a fighter cleric of that alignment. But, if that is true, then why isn't it true in earlier editions? What differentiates a LG Cleric/Fighter from a LG paladin? Why would a LG cleric of Heironeous be held to a lower/different/higher standard than a paladin?

When you can answer that question, then you can complain about how a CG Paladin of Kord is too much like a CG Cleric of Kord.

Click to expand...

pkt77242 said:

Also, does anyone else remember the article from Dragon Magazine, "A Plethora of Paladins". I remember turning those non-LG NPC classes into PC classes to play.

Click to expand...

evileeyore said:

Wow, the irony is juicy with this one.


You do realize the show you're 'quoting' is full of moral quandary and the specific quote was one of the few times the crew got to be purely heroic? Right?

Click to expand...

Tequila Sunrise said:

Was that the article written by that Paizo dude, with the eight alignment-specific paladins? I've only read all of twelve Dragon issues, but I've heard of that article.

Click to expand...

Tequila Sunrise said:

Wow, I gotta say I saw every episode of that show and I've been seeing 'big damn hero' for about six years now, but I never made the connection. Must have blended in with the general swashbuckly fun.

Click to expand...

Anyhow, do you have something constructive to say, or are you just here to drop snarky comments?

Click to expand...

Tequila Sunrise said:

No kidding! I do like alignment in concept, but it has traditionally stuck its nose in a lot of places it's not needed. Well said, though I suspect that diehard traditionalists will find a way to rationalize this quandary. Was that the article written by that Paizo dude, with the eight alignment-specific paladins? I've only read all of twelve Dragon issues, but I've heard of that article.

Click to expand...

Greg K said:

Regarding "Plethora of Paladins", it has been a long time since I have read it. However, if I recall correctly, it, like most 1e Dragon articles, was not official material.

Click to expand...