Paladins: Lawful Good only and other restrictions

[Tequila Sunrise]

If you ask me, the only reason why we are having this conversation in the first place is because what it means to be a paladin has been gradually watered down over the years.

I'm totally behind relabeling the core class "holy warrior" or whatever, if that makes everyone happy, but so long as we're quoting ourselves...

...that meaning probably isn't what you think it is. Real paladins were elite soldiers; they went to war for Charlemagne and Christ but...well, I'm sure you've heard of some of the horrible things that people have been known to do for god, country and king.

And the knights who influence our modern idea of what chivalry is weren't any better. Take Sir Lance and King Arthur, for example. Lance slept around with Gwen, and pulvarized anyone who dared to call him out on it. And good ol' Arthur...do you remember that prophecy about his own son killing him? Well when he heard that prophecy, he slaughtered every boy baby in England that year in an effort to kill his son in the cradle. He and his Knights o' the Round did plenty of other despicable things, but that one's a favorite of mine.

This idealized Knight in Shining Armor image that the traditional D&D paladin is based on is a pretty recent literary invention. Until the past couple hundred years, nobody accused paladin-types of protecting the weak and innocent...at least not unless it was a beautiful noble lady in distress.

If we wanted to be really true to the roots of paladinhood, we'd have a LN or LE-only alignment restriction.

Yeah that sentence got away from me. Sometimes my aphasia kicks up and I can't get out what I am trying to say. What I was trying to say is that I try not to use anecdotal things as facts on these kind of posts. Does that make better sense?

Yes, and I thought maybe that's what you were getting at. But you yourself made a pretty anecdotally factual comment or two, so I decided not to jump to conclusions.

 

[Elf Witch]

Yes, and I thought maybe that's what you were getting at. But you yourself made a pretty anecdotally factual comment or two, so I decided not to jump to conclusions.

I think we all do this which is why I said I try and not do it.

 

[Kavon]

I understand the sentiment of PALADIN = LG only, though I am personally against restrictions of this kind. If only because it would require a seperate class (or several, if they are each as restrictive) to fill in the blanks for the non-LG holy warriors (that are not the same as Clerics).

I would say, like was mentioned elsewhere, make the LG restricted Paladin a theme, not a class in and of itself.
I can see it in a similar way as, say, a Samurai.
You can make a wonderful class, with special abilities and restrictions built in based on all sorts of (maybe unfounded) clichés and the like (which is basically true for the Paladin class).
At the end of the day, a Samurai is an honorable Fighter with training in certain things (he sure know how to serve a cup of tea!) and oaths to his lord to bind him. A Fighter with the Samurai theme.
I can see a Ranger being an awesome Samurai as well (either dual wielding or archery), or the 4E Warlord, or whatever class you like (some fit better than others, naturally).

A Paladin can be an awesome theme, and could be added to several classes and still be very suitable. Add it to a Fighter to have a divine-light honorable knight, or to a Cleric to have a more divine-heavy warrior of virtue.

..But then, there will probably be people that INSIST that it should be a class ^^
Consider this: What if I INSIST that the Dwarf is a class as well?
Does it make more sense as a race that can be different classes?
Does this break what a dwarf is?
Does making Paladin a theme (or whatever you want to call these) break them?

I guess it depends on what a theme actually would do in Next.. How flexible the class features/powers/etc are to substitution, that sort of thing (the typical Paladin features need to be present, of course).

 

[MoonSong]

Straight paladins should remain a class, I would really hate them to become just a theme, It would needlessly increase the complexity of playing one.

I'm of the opinion that Paladins should be LG only (or even that they must), but I would be open to them being any Lawful. However I see some people truly dislike Alignment restrictions (I love them they make so sweet seeds for plot and drama, but that's only my opinion), and have an idea on how 5e could really make a compromise that isn't a lose-lose for everyone.

Something like:

"Paladin
Alignment: Lawful Good Only (5a, 9a) Lawful Only (3a)- But see Paladins of any alignment below
.....
Paladins of any alignment
Consult with your DM before making a Paladin of other alignments as they may or may not be allowed or your DM may declare they have a different name in the campaign/setting
CE Replace Detect Evil and smite Evile with xxxxx and xxxxx
CG Replace xxxxx with xxxxxx and xxxx with xxxx"


or maybe creating paladin speciffic themes/options/variant features/subclasses

Antipaladin.- Replace xxx with yyyyy,..... ,In addition alignment can be any evil
Grayguard .........
Champion ......... You must serve a Deity, your alignment must be within one step of it."

So more or less the core should make sure the LG Paladin is the default or the one the players should expect, then go ahead and provide balanced options out-of-the-box for those that feel alignment is such a straightjacket, but clearly labeling them as options that may or may not be allowed by the DM.

As for why the LG Paladin should be the default, simply because it has always been that way in the core -except for 4e-, with further expansions giving options for other variants and because the iconic abilities of the Paladin are alignment based. (I share the opinion of no-alignment=no-paladins).

I think that as long as those of us that want LG Paladins get what we want (the Iconic Paladin powers and the recognition that it is the default) and those that want Any alignment paladins get what they want (the rules support for their preffered playstyle and the recognition that their likes are as valid as the other side) and we both get it out of the box in the same corebooks without it needlessly increasing character complexity (although I have the feeling those that dislike alignment restrictions are more experienced and more capable of handling extra complexity but that is just my own perception, I might be wrong) we all win.

 

[Kavon]

Hmm... Upon reflection, considering an inclusive, modular approach..

The Paladin needs to be a LG-only class
and
The 'Paladin' needs to be a holy warrior class that is more of a fighter than a cleric
and
The Paladin needs to be a theme
and
Whatever else you can think of that a Paladin can/should be.

You just need to pick and choose which Paladin module you want to play with.
(also, not all of the above need to actually be called the "Paladin")

 

[Grimmjow]

In 4e paladins are defenders of their faith, so they don't have to be only lawful good. I personally think it makes them funner because i can make a paladin of Vecna for my undead game.

 

[Endur]

Sherlock Holmes isn't lawful. And neither is Moriarty. They are both individualists who make their own way when one they agree with isn't provided.

That gets into a tricky question of interpreting what is lawful behavior, and internal codes vs. external codes. The whole philosophy of does a LG paladin have to obey an LE tyrant, etc. I agree Moriarty isn't lawful. I'm less certain regarding Sherlock Holmes. Putting aside the movie depictions of Sherlock Holmes, I think the original author's version of Sherlock Holmes could be lawful.

But my real point had nothing to do with either Sherlock Holmes or Moriarty's actual alignment. The point was that Moriarty is Sherlock's long running nemesis. And that was my understanding of the Dragon article that contained the original Anti-Paladin NPC, that its meant to be a long-running nemesis for a paladin pc. The very name gives it away, "Anti". The Anti-paladin is supposed to be a behind the scenes type (similar to Arthas in Northrend WoW cut-scenes) who eventually leads up to a final battle with the PC Paladin going mano mano with the evil Anti-Paladin (Holy Avenger vs. Unholy Avenger, etc. etc.)

 

[gyor]

The Paladin should be based on the 4e essentials Paladin, cavaliers and blackguards, with few more traditional elements added like Lay on hands and divine challenge.

 

[GX.Sigma]

If the paladin is the "knight-in-shining-armor/champion-of-virtue" character (rather than the "holy warrior" character, which is the cleric), the code of conduct is a fine, classical and flavorful mechanic.

However, "thou shalt always be lawful good" really really sucks as a code, because it doesn't actually mean anything. No one can agree on what lawful or good mean, and there is talk of alignment being really more a cosmological thing and not actually something that represents someone's personality or actions.

With that in mind, I think it makes a lot of sense for the code of conduct to be an actual discrete code, with lists of rules, and penalties for breaking them. Maybe have it be tied to a god, or a virtue, and let the player pick which one.

That way, a good paladin might have a code like "no murder, donate half your earnings to charity, don't use foul language in front of a lady," and other LG things, but you could also have an anti-paladin whose code is something like "commit an act of murder daily, sacrifice some virgins every once in a while, don't associate with non-evil divine characters."

Alternately, have Paladin be a prestige class of Fighter, which it originally kind of was.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I wonder how many people in this thread are actual players of Paladin characters rather than the DMs of?

To me the players should have by far the loudest voice of what the Paladin class is all about. DM world-builders should take a back seat because at the end of the day they are not the key people that need to be pleased - if noone plays the paladin then the class basically has very limited impact in the game world.

I am absolutely 100% ok with a class that remains true to the players expectations. If players expect their Paladins to have to adhere to a morally straight and narrow outlook and behaviour, then so be it.

And this class really falls under the Anne Karenina principle - "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." All Paladins are alike because they strive to follow the straight and narrow, and LG mechanically captures that best.

Should alignment restrictions be a rarity? Yes definitely. I am sure Paladin players would agree with that.