Paladins: Lawful Good only and other restrictions

[GreyICE]

Players can run a morally straight LG paladin without the rule book endorsing that as the only possible Paladin.

As for your little note that only Paladin players should have a stake I the Paladin, I quite expected to see "except 4E paladin players."

Because that's the only edition I played a Paladin in.

 

[jonesy]

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.

People who haven't played a paladin shouldn't have an opinion on the paladin because no-one is going to play a paladin? What?

 

[MoonSong]

People who haven't played a paladin shouldn't have an opinion on the paladin because no-one is going to play a paladin? What?

I think he meant more or less "DMs should be cautious when vocing their opinions on the paladin, because in the end it doesn't matter wether the Paladin ends-up being a DM's ideal or not because if it doesn't get played it makes no difference"

 

[Sunseeker]

Players can run a morally straight LG paladin without the rule book endorsing that as the only possible Paladin.

Exactly. Let players decide if they want to be LG, and let DMs decide if those are the only kinds of paladin's they'll allow. There's absolutely no need for the system to limit everyone out the gate.

I think he meant more or less "DMs should be cautious when vocing their opinions on the paladin, because in the end it doesn't matter wether the Paladin ends-up being a DM's ideal or not because if it doesn't get played it makes no difference"

True, there's no need to build huge complex restrictions for paladins, or attempt to get rid of ones that are already there, if nobody actually plays it.

That said, one benefit to not making a paladin strictly one alignment in the system is that we don't need half a dozen paladin-clone classes to fill those non-LG spots.

 

[jonesy]

I think he meant more or less "DMs should be cautious when vocing their opinions on the paladin, because in the end it doesn't matter wether the Paladin ends-up being a DM's ideal or not because if it doesn't get played it makes no difference"

Ah. It's a bit sideways, I think. For one, it ignores people who would play a paladin if it was different, and more to their liking. For two, how are they going to play the paladin if they can't find a DM who'd like having them in his game?

 

[hamstertamer]

In my campaigns, the Paladin is not a champion of a god (that's what Clerics are). I prefer the classic D&D Paladin that is a Lawful Good virtuous Warrior with magical abilities.

I'm very sure that the confusion of what a Paladin and a Cleric is, is apart of the anti-alignment campaign that I see going through forums. It's a shame how this has worked out. The idea of the D&D Paladin has to be purposely misinterpreted and changed to allow those that hate alignment continue their arguments. The source of the Paladin's powers come from his Lawfulness and Goodness, at least it is strongly implied, because well Alignment influences the material world of D&D and Paladins tapped into that. Yet, if there is no concept of Alignment, at least one that does not affect the material world of D&D, then what is the source of a Paladin's powers? Oh they must get them from a God, and that means that Paladins are Champions of Gods, and that means that each God can have a Paladin then. See the logic behind it? The classic Paladin stands in the way of those that want to eliminate Alignment, which is why those that don't like alignment don't like the classic Paladin.

Druids, like Paladins, are also not worshipers of a specific god, but are more of a mystery religion/secret society that passes their magical training down to their initiates as they move up their in ranks. This is how I interept the Classic Druid.

I see Paladins in much the same way as the Druid in that they both do not learn their magical abilities from a God but through their special knowledge and training that they pass down to their apprentices or squires. The Order of Paladins is in fact an Order of Paladins; a society of knightly monks with magical powers. If they stop being Lawful Good they stop having powers because well the forces of Law and Good are the true magical source.

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

I am a DM and a player. Paladins are one of my favorite classes to play.

I do not agree that DMs should have to take a back seat to players any more than players should have to take a backseat to DMs.

If the DM hates the way paladins are done then they are going to house rule changes in them.

Both players and DMs have a horse in this race so I think both have an equal say.

 

[Elf Witch]

In my campaigns, the Paladin is not a champion of a god (that's what Clerics are). I prefer the classic D&D Paladin that is a Lawful Good virtuous Warrior with magical abilities.

I'm very sure that the confusion of what a Paladin and a Cleric is, is apart of the anti-alignment campaign that I see going through forums. It's a shame how this has worked out. The idea of the D&D Paladin has to be purposely misinterpreted and changed to allow those that hate alignment continue their arguments. The source of the Paladin's powers come from his Lawfulness and Goodness, at least it is strongly implied, because well Alignment influences the material world of D&D and Paladins tapped into that. Yet, if there is no concept of Alignment, at least one that does not affect the material world of D&D, then what is the source of a Paladin's powers? Oh they must get them from a God, and that means that Paladins are Champions of Gods, and that means that each God can have a Paladin then. See the logic behind it? The classic Paladin stands in the way of those that want to eliminate Alignment, which is why those that don't like alignment don't like the classic Paladin.

Druids, like Paladins, are also not worshipers of a specific god, but are more of a mystery religion/secret society that passes their magical training down to their initiates as they move up their in ranks. This is how I interept the Classic Druid.

I see Paladins in much the same way as the Druid in that they both do not learn their magical abilities from a God but through their special knowledge and training that they pass down to their apprentices or squires. The Order of Paladins is in fact an Order of Paladins; a society of knightly monks with magical powers. If they stop being Lawful Good they stop having powers because well the forces of Law and Good are the true magical source.

I have used paladins like that before in games in one game they were elite members of an order loyal to the crown. They were patterned after the knights of the round table.

I have seen them as champions of law and good and not associated with any church.

In my current game paladin is a prestige class and to become one you either have to be a cleric or a fighter type who has great faith in a god they are the champions of the church and I have one for every god their abilities are different based on their alignment. The only ones called paladins are the ones in the service of Herineous or Bahmut. The rest have different names.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Players can run a morally straight LG paladin without the rule book endorsing that as the only possible Paladin.

As for your little note that only Paladin players should have a stake I the Paladin, I quite expected to see "except 4E paladin players."

Because that's the only edition I played a Paladin in.

See I disagree strongly here. A Paladin must be a paragon of chivalry and LG backs that up 100% It's part of the appeal of the class.

Opening up the Paladin concept such as what happened in 4E was a step backwards. Story-wise there was little space between the Paladin and the Cleric. In short 4E did a really bad job on the Paladin right from go - the illustrations, the class design, and essentials came too little too late to fix the damage.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Ah. It's a bit sideways, I think. For one, it ignores people who would play a paladin if it was different, and more to their liking. For two, how are they going to play the paladin if they can't find a DM who'd like having them in his game?

It's a question of which master to serve - the group of players who expect the LG Paladin, or the other group. And I for one don't think the one class can serve both groups because the Paladin had until 4E a very narrow focus. My solution would be to have say the Paladin and the Cavalier, for example.

DMs do have a say, it's just you can't give their opinion equal weighting. Look, I have an opinion on the Ranger class too, but I'm not going to dream to say that my opinion has the same weight of argument as those players who really care about the archetype. End of the day I've never played the class but it does matter a bit to me because I've DM's Ranger PCs & NPCs, and they're part of the co-imagined fantasy world.