D&D 5E June 27 Q&A: Modular Features, Paladin Alignment and Legendary Creatures

[Alzrius]

I'm not going down this particular rabbit hole with you. The only thing dumber than arguing about whether something with mechanical effects is a mechanic, is arguing about that argument. I'm out.

It's not a rabbit hole to try and more precisely understand what it is that's under discussion. I know you think that's a dumb thing to do, but there are some of us who find that effort worthwhile. That said, if you don't feel that you have anything to contribute in this particular area, I'm glad that you've decided to remove yourself from the discussion, since saying that you think the discussion isn't worthwhile does nothing but drag the conversation down.

That they are blessed by (the) god(s). That they are saints (eg St Edward; St Joan). That they are holy champions (Arthur, Galahad, Percival, Aragorn).

There are a range of ways to reflect the connection between paladins and divinity. Spell-casting is just one (and not my personal favourite). The AD&D abilities are another.

But this raises questions of whether that's something that is represented by the thematic elements of the class itself, or something that the player has to imbue their character with. I can say that my multiclass fighter-cleric is the chosen of a deity, and is considered a saint with a direct connection to their god. In that case, why have a paladin class at all?

In other words, there's a concern that the identity of the paladin class is being diluted. Now, you can manually go in and clean that up - heck, you can say "in my campaign, paladins may only be Lawful Good" - but that's an example of the Rule 0 fallacy; that the class isn't broken (in this regard) because you can fix it.

 

[Imaro]

But this raises questions of whether that's something that is represented by the thematic elements of the class itself, or something that the player has to imbue their character with. I can say that my multiclass fighter-cleric is the chosen of a deity, and is considered a saint with a direct connection to their god. In that case, why have a paladin class at all?

Yep, this is a major issue with the no mechanically enforced alignment/code stance... What exactly makes a paladin different from a fighter/cleric or even a martially focused cleric if there's no alignment restrictions...

 

[gyor]

I guess will find out in the next packet!

 

[Kobold Avenger]

The Paladin has been a very narrow concept, which is why I'm in favour of removing the alignment restrictions. It allows other concepts the room to grow, while I wouldn't immediately put the Warden as a subclass of Paladin (Ranger or Barbarian being a better fit) there's at least one expansion of another archetype. Restricting the alignment of the Paladin class brings up these problems:

• It makes it an unappealing class for many to play
• It removes it's reason for being a class as it would such a narrowly focused concept that should just be a prestige-class/paragon-path/advanced-specialty/whatever rather than a full class with concept
• It imposes some of the worst arguments given that losing the argument will cripple the PC which is especially problematic since many don't like alignment in the first place.

The Paladin needs to be open, and we should explore other concepts like Blackguards, Wardens, and possibly Avengers or Hexblades or whatever else as Paladin subclasses along with the traditional Cavalier Paladin.

I know in the end this whole Paladin alignment argument is very much like the same-sex marriage argument, and it's not likely going to have an end, but I've made my point.

 

[pemerton]

What exactly makes a paladin different from a fighter/cleric or even a martially focused cleric if there's no alignment restrictions

There's no archeypical difference.

Gygax in AD&D tells us that clerics are modelled on the crusading orders (Knights Templar, etc). This is exactly the same archetype as a paladin - they are all Christian warriors called by god to defend the faithful.

The 2nd ed AD&D PHB tells us that the paladin "lives for the ideals of righteousness, justice, honesty, piety, and chivalry." That is indistinguishable from the self-conception of a knight of the crusading orders.

The difference between a cleric, a fighter-cleric and a paladin has always been purely mechanical (inc the fall mechanics for paladins, which are different from the fall mechanics for clerics set out by Gygax in his DMG).

But this raises questions of whether that's something that is represented by the thematic elements of the class itself, or something that the player has to imbue their character with.

Traditionally, the class itself can heal by touch ("the hands of the king are the hands of a healer"), is resistant to magic (save bonus), and radiates an aura of protection.

In 3E, the character also smites evil.

In 4e, the power design is such that the PC will only shine when acting valiantly to bolster and defend its allies.

These strike me as thematic elements of the class that express the conception of the chivalric warrior touched by god.

 

[Warbringer]

There's no archeypical difference.

Gygax in AD&D tells us that clerics are modelled on the crusading orders (Knights Templar, etc). This is exactly the same archetype as a paladin - they are all Christian warriors called by god to defend the faithful.

The 2nd ed AD&D PHB tells us that the paladin "lives for the ideals of righteousness, justice, honesty, piety, and chivalry." That is indistinguishable from the self-conception of a knight of the crusading orders.

The difference between a cleric, a fighter-cleric and a paladin has always been purely mechanical (inc the fall mechanics for paladins, which are different from the fall mechanics for clerics set out by Gygax in his DMG).

I think the roots are "Galahad" vs the other questing Knights, a paragon so to speak.

If the Paladin had never been a spellcaster (albeit a poor "cleric") the archetype would have been stronger

 

[Warbringer]

In other words, there's a concern that the identity of the paladin class is being diluted. Now, you can manually go in and clean that up - heck, you can say "in my campaign, paladins may only be Lawful Good" - but that's an example of the Rule 0 fallacy; that the class isn't broken (in this regard) because you can fix it.

The Rule 0 fallacy is saying "Hey, I can ignore alignment restrictions and ignore that rule"... saying "Hey Paladins in my campaign are always LG" is a campaign/DM choice, not a rule 0 implementation

 

[Alzrius]

Traditionally, the class itself can heal by touch ("the hands of the king are the hands of a healer"), is resistant to magic (save bonus), and radiates an aura of protection.

In 3E, the character also smites evil.

In 4e, the power design is such that the PC will only shine when acting valiantly to bolster and defend its allies.

These strike me as thematic elements of the class that express the conception of the chivalric warrior touched by god.

It'll be interesting to see how much of those elements remain, given that most of them seem pretty well suited for the traditional paladin, but less so for, say, a Neutral (or Evil) paladin.

The Rule 0 fallacy is saying "Hey, I can ignore alignment restrictions and ignore that rule"... saying "Hey Paladins in my campaign are always LG" is a campaign/DM choice, not a rule 0 implementation

I think you misunderstood me. I'm anticipating that some will say that paladins with no alignment restrictions won't be a problem, because those restrictions can simply be manually reintroduced by individual GMs. Saying that something isn't a problem because it can be fixed is the definition of the Rule 0 Fallacy.

 

[Warbringer]

I think you misunderstood me. I'm anticipating that some will say that paladins with no alignment restrictions won't be a problem, because those restrictions can simply be manually reintroduced by individual GMs. Saying that something isn't a problem because it can be fixed is the definition of the Rule 0 Fallacy.

Then "Yes" I misunderstood your pe-emptive strike

 

[Imaro]

It'll be interesting to see how much of those elements remain, given that most of them seem pretty well suited for the traditional paladin, but less so for, say, a Neutral (or Evil) paladin.

Yeah this is a good point... I'm not even certain how an evil (or to a lesser extent neutral and/or chaotic) paladin fits with the archetypical list [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] provided. I just don't see an archetype that is represented by Galahad, Percival, Aragorn (though I think he is much more in sync with the AD&D ranger and his alignment restrictions), Arthur and saints... being evil or to a lesser extent (chaotic and/or neutral)... Once alignment is totally open... what is the defining characteristic(s) of this particular archetype since he is no longer an exemplar or held to a higher standard than anyone else?