D&D 5E Is Anyone Unhappy About Non-LG Paladins?
I do too, thats why I view Paladins in such high esteem. They dont have the freedom to do the good thing no matter what, "the end justify the means" doesnt work for them. So they have to do the Good thing, the right way, and worry about the cost. People like you and me would get an aneurysm and maybe have a stroke if the true weight of each of our decisions weighed on us like that.
pkt77242
Explorer
I guess it depends on your mind-set. I always thought that there should be different Paladins just as this edition is doing there should be Champions of Law (LG), Champions of Good (NG), Anti-Paladin (LE), etc. Not that these name fit perfectly but I always view that their is room for multiple types of Paladins devoted to different ideals, Gods, etc.
Imaro
Legend
I think one of the issues I have with the paladin having no alignment restrictions is that (at least in the case of the 4e paladin) the epitome of good part of the archetype essentially no longer exists. Instead of Galahad (the pure and good...God's knight archetype)... we get the knights of the round table (none of which were pure enough or good enough to claim the grail) and many of which would be better classified as Fighters with a code in D&D. Nothing in the all alignment paladin... class (powers, conception, etc.) reinforce that a LG paladin or a paladin in general is the epitome of good and that is why the all alignments paladin does not encompass and is, IMO, a totally different archetype than the paladin of LG.
The Problem I have is Good/Evil are conflictive, there really isnt any middle ground between the two (other than a Neutral Person lol). Lawful/Chaotic are not combative though, a Chaotic person is just a free person, a Lawful person follows a type of code, these alignments dont really need champions.
evileeyore
Mrrrph
Sure, it was hyperbolic.
How about these then:
Your Paladins, if they stay to their nature, will never commit incest (King Arthur), commit adultery (Lancelot du Lac), be incompetent braggarts and troublemakers (Sir Kay), use dark magic to seduce (Sir Bedivere), or use deception to cover their illegal activities (Sir Tristan)?
Note only one of these "lost his place" (Sir Lancelot) at the Round Table (where only the best and most virtous can sit) because of the transgression and only one is ever really considered a 'villian' (Sir Bedivere) in the older accounts (the townsfolk often called for his hanging).
Keep in mind, Kay and Bedivere were also King Arthur's closest friends and advisors....
Is this from where your "uncorruptable" Paladins come? And a character of mine in your game should believe in their "purity" why again? Because the game rules say they are Lawful Good or else?
pkt77242
Explorer
Or they are putting a wonderful base class in that you can customize any way you want just as you can customize Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Rangers, etc. They are providing the template and you can add whatever you want to it.
I think it is funny that people are bitching about Tieflings because they were to specific with the fluff and made them look and feel a certain way that wouldn't let them play the tiefling they wanted but here people are pissed off because WoTC made a more general feel and allows people to customize as they want. Truly shows that you can't please everyone.
No they were all deeply flawed Fighters with a code. Sir Galahad is THE Iconic Paladin.
Just goes to show you that somethings are seen as flexible and some are not. Would anger not be shown if Clerics were all of a sudden NON Armor wearers like the Wizards? That was a major change that people loved IIFC.
Aenghus
Explorer
One trope associated specifically with conventional LG paladins is telling the truth and always keeping their word, even when pragmatism would suggest otherwise. This provides a contrasts with the treachery and dishonesty of villians, who may insult the paladin but know his word can be trusted unlike their own.
In stories the honesty of the paladin often turns out to ultimately benefit his goals in unexpected ways. I find this sort of event doesn't arise organically in RPGs, which default to encouraging pragmatism, and likely have to written into the game.
Encouraging player behaviour I find is best done with both (metaphorical) carrot and stick, and I far prefer the former to the latter.
IMO this trope only works in some gameworlds, and doesn't in grittier games closer to stuff like A Game of Thrones where No Good Deed Goes Unpunished and The Truth Will Get You Killed.
In stories the honesty of the paladin often turns out to ultimately benefit his goals in unexpected ways. I find this sort of event doesn't arise organically in RPGs, which default to encouraging pragmatism, and likely have to written into the game.
Encouraging player behaviour I find is best done with both (metaphorical) carrot and stick, and I far prefer the former to the latter.
IMO this trope only works in some gameworlds, and doesn't in grittier games closer to stuff like A Game of Thrones where No Good Deed Goes Unpunished and The Truth Will Get You Killed.
Last edited:
evileeyore
Mrrrph
Depending on which story you read both [-]Gawain[/-] Percival and Galahad were good enough to sit upon The Siege Perilous (it's a magic chair) and thus initiate the Grail Quest, and one or the other actually do complete the quest and recover the Grail.
Were a few of the Knights rather despicable? Yes, my above post lists some of the worst offenders (Bedivere, Kay, and Tristan stand out). But the rest were either decent to middling good with some truly breakout "Chivalric Knights".
Why? Well... see... the stories were written and told over several hundred years. The earlier Knights trended toward the flawed, the later knights stood out as "the best" since they were written after Chivalric Romance swept the arts.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
- Poll
