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

[Imaro]

I guess a Knight fighter does not have to be chivalrous. It's a fighter born to warrior nobility as opposed to peasentry.

Without alignment restrictions... neither does a paladin... he's just a warrior who has sworn to fight for a god as opposed to gold.

 

[pemerton]

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

I agree completely. I just don't think that this contrasts with the idea that clerics are modelled on the crusading knights, whose self-conception is of being paragons among questing knights (the comparison in this case being all the non-order crusaders from the Frankish and Norman kingdoms).

I don't want to put too much weight on etymology, but Charlemagne's paladins were crusading knights (in this case, the crusade was in Spain rather than the Levant). And when we take this into the context of D&D - where the quest often involves a crusade against evil humanoids, or Iuz, or whatever other evil foe - then I think there is no archetypical difference between the crusader and the questing knight. They're the same chivalric, holy archetype.

Hence my view that the fighter/cleric, traditional cleric and paladin differ only in mechanical terms. (The post-Priest's Handbook cleric, and the invoker and "laser" cleric in 4e, are obviously a different case. In archetypical terms they are all species of magician.)

 

[pemerton]

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?

I don't really follow these points.

You design a class which has lay on hands, aura of protection, the material trappings of chivarly (armour, sword, horse, etc). You then invite players to play that class if they want to. It seems obvious to me, at least, that the bulk of those who choose that class are going to want to play a valiant, chivalric character - after all, that's what it's good for. I mean, what if someone wants to play a cowardly fighter? Or a rogue who shuns stealth? Or an illiterate wizard? I just don't think this is going to come up all that often.

But suppose that it does come up - if it's at your table, you negotiate around what sorts of PCs you want in your game; if it's at someone else's table, I don't see how you're affected at all.

 

[Imaro]

I don't really follow these points.

Seriously, they seem pretty straightforward to me...

You design a class which has lay on hands, aura of protection, the material trappings of chivarly (armour, sword, horse, etc). You then invite players to play that class if they want to. It seems obvious to me, at least, that the bulk of those who choose that class are going to want to play a valiant, chivalric character - after all, that's what it's good for. I mean, what if someone wants to play a cowardly fighter? Or a rogue who shuns stealth? Or an illiterate wizard? I just don't think this is going to come up all that often.

So you design a class whose abilities are based around behaving in a certain manner... but then tell players it's perfectly valid for those taking the class to choose any behavior for the character that they want? You don't think that could set up some false expectations and confusion? If paladins can now be evil, why do I basically have to play against the alignment of my character to be an effective paladin? Why not be upfront about the fact that you will be (for the most part) playing a LG character if you want to get the most out of your abilities. You know the same way the description of fighters in most/all editions tells you how you will be behaving (for the most part you will be in the thick of combat) in order to get the best out of the class.

But suppose that it does come up - if it's at your table, you negotiate around what sorts of PCs you want in your game; if it's at someone else's table, I don't see how you're affected at all.

Because it sets up false expectations and I still end up in an alignment/behavior argument without the text of the rules to fall back on. As far as someone else's table... I never commented on that affecting me so I'm not sure where that assertion came from.

 

[delericho]

If alignment is going to be completely divorced from mechanics, they should drop it from the game entirely. (And, for that matter, the Paladin too.)

If alignment is going to be part of the game, then Paladins should be LG-only.

(And, obviously, I'd be absolutely fine with alignment, and Paladins, being removed from the Core game and then reintroduced as an optional module. That's probably the best solution all around.)

All IMO, of course.

 

[Alzrius]

I don't really follow these points.

The basic idea in the points mentioned is that, if you're going to keep the trappings of a holy knight, but remove the requirement that he be good, then you're diluting the theme of the class with counterintuitive designs.

You design a class which has lay on hands, aura of protection, the material trappings of chivarly (armour, sword, horse, etc). You then invite players to play that class if they want to. It seems obvious to me, at least, that the bulk of those who choose that class are going to want to play a valiant, chivalric character - after all, that's what it's good for. I mean, what if someone wants to play a cowardly fighter? Or a rogue who shuns stealth? Or an illiterate wizard? I just don't think this is going to come up all that often.

If that's the case, then why not keep the Lawful Good restriction? Slanting a class heavily towards a particular thematic ethos while now touting that it can be any alignment you want is, at best, a confusing message.

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.

But suppose that it does come up - if it's at your table, you negotiate around what sorts of PCs you want in your game; if it's at someone else's table, I don't see how you're affected at all.

Well, it didn't take very long for that to come true.

 

[Imaro]

If alignment is going to be completely divorced from mechanics, they should drop it from the game entirely. (And, for that matter, the Paladin too.)

If alignment is going to be part of the game, then Paladins should be LG-only.

(And, obviously, I'd be absolutely fine with alignment, and Paladins, being removed from the Core game and then reintroduced as an optional module. That's probably the best solution all around.)

All IMO, of course.

I'd almost go so far as to say that if alignment is going to be divorced from mechanics... then just leave the paladin out and let battle-focused clerics and fighter/clercis be the generic "holy warrior". Use the paladin later with the alignment module to demonstrate how alignment can be used to create specific thematic archetypes.

 

[Iosue]

Here's the thing. There's nothing stopping a paladin from being pure, or following a code, or being required to behave a certain way. The issue is that alignment has historically been a clunky way to do that. Much better for the paladin players and their DMs to agree on what code the particular characters hold to, and with what conditions they may lose their special powers, if desired, than to just restrict it to a nebulous catch-all of moral and ethical worldviews.

 

[pemerton]

So you design a class whose abilities are based around behaving in a certain manner... but then tell players it's perfectly valid for those taking the class to choose any behavior for the character that they want? You don't think that could set up some false expectations and confusion?

No more than the rules permitting cowardly fighters, non-subtle rogues and illiterate magicians.

Ie I don't see the big deal. Who's actually going to be confused?

 

[gyor]

I don't see clerics as knights at all, i see Clerics as just priests with different specialities dependingnon deity and domain. Some can fight, others focus on orisions(cantrips), some more on skills and so on.

The clerics are seen by most as just priests, what ever knightly connection they had in the past has drifted away.

Paladins do knightly better, with mounts and stuff.

I support the desicion to dump alignment prequistes million percent.