Chris_Nightwing
First Post
Paladins by alignment, or ethos, or concept, or ethnic group.. not by god though, to avoid treading on Clerics.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Easy Paladin Poll
- Thread starter fuindordm
- Start date
S
Sunseeker
Guest
I don't like any alignment restrictions. But a guy whose role is "stay neutral, defend mother nature" is a little easier to handle than the guy who must be good every moment of the day and will lose his powers if he turns a blind eye to one of the party members dirty deeds. At least the "true neutral" druid has ways for party members to atone for wronging nature that don't involve death or long prison terms. And generally speaking, it's the "bad guys" who are harming nature, while even the party "good guys" still break the laws, and sometimes pretty often.
Alignment restrictions on classes cause problems, players should not be required to cause problems for the party in order to play their favorite class. This is why I houserule "lawful" into "lawfulish", more like a moral code of conduct. Breaking the rules is OK if it serves the greater good. General things like murder and theft are bad, but you don't need to haul the rogue off to prison, he can return the goods and say he's sorry and then steal them when the Paladin isn't looking and everything is hunky dory.
LG Paladin is just much more iconic, and so is discussed more. I also don't want to see any alignment restrictions on Druids either. Or Bards, or Barbarians, or Monks.
Since when is Lawful Good the "true goodness" alignment?
But really, probably best not to go there.
Mercurius
Legend
This is one of those arguments of minutiae that gets bandied around RPG forums with surprising frequency (no offense to the OP, mind you). To me it really is a non-issue: The game should provide rules for paladins of different stripes; if you want only LG paladins in your game, go for it. It doesn't take anything away from the LG archetype to have other options.
In other words, start broad, and allow customization and specialization. It doesn't take anything away from the flavor of the LG paladin to allow other options.
Also, if 5E really incorporates themes as a third core concept (along with race and class) then the problem is solved and allows for tons of customization. The only question will be where do you draw the line between class and theme; is the class "paladin" and the theme "Goody-two-shoes"? Or is the class "warrior" and the theme "paladin"?
In other words, start broad, and allow customization and specialization. It doesn't take anything away from the flavor of the LG paladin to allow other options.
Also, if 5E really incorporates themes as a third core concept (along with race and class) then the problem is solved and allows for tons of customization. The only question will be where do you draw the line between class and theme; is the class "paladin" and the theme "Goody-two-shoes"? Or is the class "warrior" and the theme "paladin"?
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
I don't really have an issue with paladins, but nobody in my gaming group ever wants to play one. The preferred recipe for a "holy warrior" character seems to be a multiclassed fighter/cleric, and I'm not sure why.
Maybe it's the alignment restriction that turns everyone off? I dunno. I'll have to ask them this weekend.
Maybe it's the alignment restriction that turns everyone off? I dunno. I'll have to ask them this weekend.
3.X Paladins are rather terrible, while Clerics are one of the very best classes. There's not much a Paladin gets, of real consequence, that Cleric with a splash of Fighter wouldn't. Or even pure Cleric.
So if you've got several approaches to building a "holy warrior", why not go with the one that's actually good?
This another place where 4E did a good job with the Paladin. It is clearly different from a Cleric, and is good at what it does.
FireLance
Legend
Reclaim the name of paladin!
Frankly, what deity you worship and what alignment you claim to be is secondary to me. In my eyes, you're not a paladin unless you've dedicated yourself to living your life according to one or more virtues. And I mean real virtues; stuff like compassion, courage, justice, sacrifice, honor. Get your virtues right, and stuff like how you behave and what god your serve (if you choose to serve one) will follow naturally.
Frankly, what deity you worship and what alignment you claim to be is secondary to me. In my eyes, you're not a paladin unless you've dedicated yourself to living your life according to one or more virtues. And I mean real virtues; stuff like compassion, courage, justice, sacrifice, honor. Get your virtues right, and stuff like how you behave and what god your serve (if you choose to serve one) will follow naturally.
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
The knightly paladin might feel like a narrow game niche, bit it is a quite well established archetype, much more so then, say, cleric who conspicuously draws power from a god...while adventuring...
I think for game terms, it is also better to emphasize the paladins noble aspects rather then being another divine warrior. It helps give the cleric space and provides an alternative to an overburdened fighter. Its also better then emphasizing "self-righteous git" or "religious fanatic", though a little bit of that can be fun role-playing.
Also, I totally reject the idea that any class and race and alignment can and should be combined with any and all others, in all circumstances. There may be parties, and campaigns, were the paladin, (or bard, or druid, or barbarian, or assassin, or even rogue) shouldn't be there.
But, I also reject the idea that all tension is a bad thing. As long as it doesn't lead to mortal combat, odd-couples can be a good thing.
I think for game terms, it is also better to emphasize the paladins noble aspects rather then being another divine warrior. It helps give the cleric space and provides an alternative to an overburdened fighter. Its also better then emphasizing "self-righteous git" or "religious fanatic", though a little bit of that can be fun role-playing.
Also, I totally reject the idea that any class and race and alignment can and should be combined with any and all others, in all circumstances. There may be parties, and campaigns, were the paladin, (or bard, or druid, or barbarian, or assassin, or even rogue) shouldn't be there.
But, I also reject the idea that all tension is a bad thing. As long as it doesn't lead to mortal combat, odd-couples can be a good thing.
hafrogman
Adventurer
I think my issue runs like this: I don't approach the question from the angle of 'what should a paladin be?' I approach the question with 'what should a class be?', and once I have my answer to that, I use the available information.
1) Because it was in earlier PHBs, paladin will be a class.
2) The paragon of virtue style paladin is what the class original was.
But because I started with 'what should a class be?', I feel that the 'must be a supernaturally LG knight who rides a horse' is a TERRIBLE idea for a class. It's way too limited in scope and execution to fit with my idea of a what a class should be. If paladin wasn't a base class, I wouldn't care how it was defined or limited. It could be LG only, it could be strictly tied to a specific image and style. But that choice isn't mine to make, because of point one above, it will be a base class.
Thus because of what I feel a class should be, I want paladin to be a much, much broader concept. It should be capable of effortlessly and flawlessly emulating point two, but it should also be able to encompass vastly different character types.
A LG paladin character, dedicated to the right god (or virtue or cause) with a cavalier theme and a suitable background should feel exactly like a classical paladin did . . . but that doesn't mean that that's all a base class should be able to do. I expect more from my base classes.
1) Because it was in earlier PHBs, paladin will be a class.
2) The paragon of virtue style paladin is what the class original was.
But because I started with 'what should a class be?', I feel that the 'must be a supernaturally LG knight who rides a horse' is a TERRIBLE idea for a class. It's way too limited in scope and execution to fit with my idea of a what a class should be. If paladin wasn't a base class, I wouldn't care how it was defined or limited. It could be LG only, it could be strictly tied to a specific image and style. But that choice isn't mine to make, because of point one above, it will be a base class.
Thus because of what I feel a class should be, I want paladin to be a much, much broader concept. It should be capable of effortlessly and flawlessly emulating point two, but it should also be able to encompass vastly different character types.
A LG paladin character, dedicated to the right god (or virtue or cause) with a cavalier theme and a suitable background should feel exactly like a classical paladin did . . . but that doesn't mean that that's all a base class should be able to do. I expect more from my base classes.
The alignment is a non-issue to me, since I ignore it anyway, but as far as Race and Class, who decides who gets to play the character they want to play, and who doesn't? I sure as hell don't want to be the DM saying that Player A can play his Paladin, but that means Player B must give up on playing an Assassin, or vice versa.
There are some design conceits that have to be in place due to the nature of the game. And all classes being designed to permit coexistence in a party should be one of them.
