Paladins: Lawful Good only and other restrictions

[Greg K]

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..

For an opposite opinion, the character is part of the world. The player can choose to accept what the Paladin represents in the world and play that, play another class or find another game (table).

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I don't think that argument holds as much weight.

Classes are part of the picture as the DM & group collectively build a campaign world, but, it is when a player decides to play a class that that class gets strong representation in the campaign world.

In my experience when I've tinkered with class archetypes, my players have tended to revolt. I could be stubborn about it but actually when I think about it it is the player that is investing themselves in the character. Player investment is a really really good thing, it keeps them coming back and helps drum up enthusiasm.

I would rather WotC simply stay faithful to the class archetypes that players expect, and in the case of the Paladin they recognize that it has a narrow archetype and not attempt to stretch it and thereby ruin expectations.

 

[GreyICE]

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.

4E was a huge step forward in design. Paladins went from lousy fighters with a few spells and ridiculous restrictions to divine champions who embodied the ideals of their deity and fought and died to protect those ideals.

Story-wise there was nothing in 3e paladins. You said Paladin, and it was always the same. Woefully predictable, dreadfully regimented charicatures. You fealt like you were watching the second Star Wars movie. Somewhere there is a factory of clone Paladins, all with the same memories and personality, spat out 1 by 1.

4e you could make a Paladin of one god, I could make a Paladin of another and they might be very different! Imagine that, some variation in the clone saga!

You say Paladin fans, as if we should somehow attach some importance to this. Paladin fans were few and far between in 3E. Make the class more special? Perhaps. But a lot more people played Paladin in 4E. I guess opening it to the masses is a step backwards for the proud few, but it's a step forwards for D&D.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

Playing a troped up cliche does not appeal to me. I played a paladin once in 3.5 and that was enough to know I didn't want to ne whatever this class was trying for. You know the distinguishing difference between paladins and clerics in 3.5? Paladins sucked, clerics didn't. When 4e came out, and sine then, I have played no less than 5 paladins. That is almost half of all classes I've ever played. When essentials gave us the cavilier, all it struck me as was going back to the days when paladins were lawful stupid and great for a theme, but lacked substance or functionality. 3.5 palaladins sucked, and almost everyone I knew who played one went greyguard as soon as they could to get out from under the ridiculous restrictions so they could actually play a character with some depth and not simply a cliche.

 

[Li Shenron]

Should D&D 5e paladins be open to multiple alignments, or should they follow the ideal of chivalry?

Should D&D paladins be assigned to a specific god (similar to priests), or do they receive their powers from a heroic ideal of chivalry and valor?

For me the concept of Paladin that should be supported at any cost is the "called" divinely inspired champion of good. I usually found the LG alignment a little bit restrictive (could be also NG) but not too much.

Other concepts using different alignments or specific deities are secondary, so if they are included in the core game then good, but if left for later supplements to handle I won't cry over them.

Anyway one thing to add, is that Paladins should exist starting at level 1. Then someone who only accepts the "prestige Paladin" idea is still free to require a minimum level before becoming a Paladin, but doing the opposite is more difficult.

 

[FireLance]

So, it appears that heroism and virtue are "ridiculous restrictions" and turn characters into "troped up cliches". So be it. That is the way of the world.

I've often expressed the view that one should choose to play a paladin because one wants to play a virtuous hero. What mystifies me is why those who don't want to play virtuous heroes still want to call themselves paladins.

 

[Elf Witch]

So, it appears that heroism and virtue are "ridiculous restrictions" and turn characters into "troped up cliches". So be it. That is the way of the world.

I've often expressed the view that one should choose to play a paladin because one wants to play a virtuous hero. What mystifies me is why those who don't want to play virtuous heroes still want to call themselves paladins.

Thank you a hundred times over for this. Because it really sums up what I think when I read posts that call it a cliche.

That and claim that every paladin is played in a lawful stupid way. When I read that I think well it sucks for you that you have played with such bad role players.

I have seen some paladins played as lawful stupid but I have never seen it as a problem with the class but with the player. Usually no matter what alignment or class the players plays it ends up being played in a stupid way.


I have been lucky I guess to see paladins played in a variety of interesting and nuanced ways.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I see the argument has looped back on itself again. Maybe some people should just say "see my previous post on the subject" instead of prolonging the pain?

 

[Harlander]

I'm pretty firmly in the "no alignment restrictions" camp (and I think Dausuul's example of non-LG Paladin codes back on page 2 are amazing). You want to play a virtuous hero? Sure. Whose virtues?

I'm also finding it really hard to understand how "This class can be any combination of X,Y,Z.." is more restrictive than "this class must be X and can be nothing else".

What mystifies me is why those who don't want to play virtuous heroes still want to call themselves paladins.

On the other hand, I can somewhat see the point of the above. A "code warrior" class (except with a better name), where "paladin" is the name of the LG variant, would work for me.

(Full disclosure, I've never been a big fan of D&D's alignment mechanics anyway..)

 

[Grydan]

So, it appears that heroism and virtue are "ridiculous restrictions" and turn characters into "troped up cliches". So be it. That is the way of the world.

I've often expressed the view that one should choose to play a paladin because one wants to play a virtuous hero. What mystifies me is why those who don't want to play virtuous heroes still want to call themselves paladins.

So only Lawful Good characters can be heroic and virtuous?