D&D 5E Is Anyone Unhappy About Non-LG Paladins?

[the Jester]

2) Psycho balance enforcer. Too much happiness in the world? Kill some kittens! Too much misery? Push an evil-doer off a bridge! Too many laws? Burn down a city! Not enough laws? Burn down a forest! Has this person ever existed outside of D&D or D&D-derived fiction? I very much doubt it.

EDIT - Though I am kind of narrowing my eyes at Michael Moorcock here, as I seem to recall one of his characters being along these lines.

And don't forget the dwarves of Narnia in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

 

[M.L. Martin]

The thing that sort of throws me about the LG-only Paladin is that they don't really fit into most any of the D&D worlds. Like, LG fits, but why are Paladins limited to LG? The world's mythology isn't one where there's God who made everything and cast down Satan for rebellion and people who are bad go to hell. The gods of D&D are broadly all on the same power level, and there's tons of them, each incrementally different from the next. Evil in D&D is a defensible ideological tenet with its own gods and saints and champions and patrons just as much as Good.

Hell isn't so much your punishment for failing to be good as it is your employer for choosing to be evil.

Well, the problem is the original paladin & cleric come from a different, quasi-Christian background of mythology and folklore--the former from Arthurian legends, the tales of Charlemagne, and Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, and the latter from the Templars and Hospitalers, a couple of fighting archbishops, and Hammer horror films--than the vague polytheism of Leiber, Howard, and Moorcock. As the game's changed, the cleric's kept up with the drift into Balance-Centered Symbiotic Henotheism, but the paladin's lagged behind a bit.

As someone who believes in supporting a broad range of game styles under the D&D umbrella, I favor allowing paladins of any alignment as the baseline, but with Good, non-Chaotic Good, and/or LG-only paladins as a specifically called out option. There are some flavors of fantasy--Arthurian/Chivalric fantasy, certain forms of JRPG Fantasy, a large segment of the "Paladins & Princesses" flavor of D&D, and even Ravenloftian Gothic Fantasy--where the narrower archetype fits better.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As someone who believes in supporting a broad range of game styles under the D&D umbrella, I favor allowing paladins of any alignment as the baseline, but with Good, non-Chaotic Good, and/or LG-only paladins as a specifically called out option. There are some flavors of fantasy--Arthurian/Chivalric fantasy, certain forms of JRPG Fantasy, a large segment of the "Paladins & Princesses" flavor of D&D, and even Ravenloftian Gothic Fantasy--where the narrower archetype fits better.

I agree that the narrow archetype fits those genres better, but the problem is that LG-only does not. I mean, for Paladins & Princesses D&D, Romantic Fantasy, JRPG Fantasy, and Arthurian Fantasy, they should probably be NG or "Any Good" (I see to recall Dragonlance's Solamnic Knights allowing non-LG alignments).

I know this may seem like a minor quibble, but it was a huge deal to me when I first came to D&D. I'd read books about knights and so on, and the ones I wanted to be, those truly righteous, were clearly not lawful by the then definition in D&D - they would certainly break and bend unjust laws in order to do what was truly right. Nor did following the spirit of the Paladin code seem to require being lawful.

But Chivalric Fantasy, where you have the character torn between the demands of duty and what he actually wants to do? That's where LG-only works well for this archetype, but for the others? Not so much.

(That's ignoring all the other issues LG can cause for some players and DMs.)

 

[M.L. Martin]

I know this may seem like a minor quibble, but it was a huge deal to me when I first came to D&D. I'd read books about knights and so on, and the ones I wanted to be, those truly righteous, were clearly not lawful by the then definition in D&D - they would certainly break and bend unjust laws in order to do what was truly right. Nor did following the spirit of the Paladin code seem to require being lawful.

That's arguably a problem with the equivocal use of the terms "Law" and "Chaos" in D&D, which can range from anything to "Supporter/Opponent of Cosmic Order" to "Believer in/Opponent of Strong Government" to "Logical, Honorable and Somewhat Rigid/Impulsive, Free-Wheeling and Unpredictable".

But then, for Lawful Good, my favorite definitions are generally 4E's or the "Heroic Hero" archetype from Castle Falkenstein.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

2) Psycho balance enforcer. Too much happiness in the world? Kill some kittens! Too much misery? Push an evil-doer off a bridge! Too many laws? Burn down a city! Not enough laws? Burn down a forest! Has this person ever existed outside of D&D or D&D-derived fiction? I very much doubt it.

Oh 2e, and your bizarre alignments! I love Planescape, but the Rilmani and the Outlands petitioners with their little alignment tally-books are one of those details I don't miss.

 

[LFK]

4E had a go at fixing it with Unaligned, which was like 1) but without the implied apathy, and that was decent, but it still doesn't really account for people who are loyal to a concept, when that concept doesn't match an alignment (and very few do).

What they really need to do is just write Neutral as it should be, as it kind of is in the real world - "I've got bigger fish to fry!". For a peasant, that's keeping his family alive, probably, eff your war between good and evil, he just needs to eat and stay warm - nothing apathetic about that. For James Bond it's "I have to take down this supervillain and save Britain and the world!", and if he has to do some really morally sketchy stuff doing it, well, that's how these things happen.

5e is having a go at this with their Flaws, Bonds, and Ideals system. Also I wish Unaligned had carried over from 4e, though at this point, with a THAC0 sidebar added in, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a sidebar with variant alignment systems in either the PHB or the DMG.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

After seven pages it's kind of late to weigh in, but I voted this way: "No; in fact, it's a minor selling point."

The paladin has been one of the most divisive classes since it first appeared. Time to put a stop to the negativity around it. (Actually that was done in 4e too, but nice to see WotC isn't going backward on this.)

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I gotta go with the headless one on this. Paladins, as described in AD&D, have been one of the most divisive elements at game tables since their introduction. Nothing causes more headaches and problems for groups than paladins. So, backing off from the divisive elements is only a good thing IMO. Nothing stops people from playing the Dudley Do Right LG paladin. That's your choice. And, that's the key. It's a choice. The game should not force people to play something as big as a class in such a restrictive manner.

 

[Rygar]

I find them to be a problem. A Chaotic X Paladin can never exist. If you're Chaotic then you don't like being restricted by laws, but if you're a paladin you've dedicated yourself to following your gods laws, so you can't be Chaotic. I'm fine with Lawful X, or even Neutral X for Paladins, but Chaotic X Paladin is a Oxymoron.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I've always thought that paladins would be better if NG was allowed along with LG. A NG character could easily subscribe to a LG code. He's just be a bit more flexible in interpretation, and wouldn't struggle so much about what to do when the lawful authorities were clearly in the wrong.

I'm probably going to run the Oath of Devotion (traditional paladin) similar to that. Their oath is generally LG, but there are plenty of NG paladins who follow it, and even a small number of LN. While it might appear to be a monolithic philosophy that all paladins (again, I'm only referring to the specific LG-themed Devotion subclass) are on-board with to an outsider, within the ranks of experienced paladins disagreements and variant interpretations start becoming evident.

As an imperfect analogy, take the Jedi order. They are an order of warriors with a strong traditional code (not the same as paladin's code, but the same level of importance to them). At first they come across as monolithic and absolutely devoted to their code, hook, line, and sinker. But I've been watching the Clone Wars lately, and it's really interesting seeing more of the reality. They aren't all in agreement about it! Sure, it's written down pretty strictly, and there is only a bit of wiggle room, but there are definitely disagreements, and pretty much all of the Jedi struggle with it. That whole thing about keeping your passions in check? Even Yoda gets pissed on occasion! It's something they all struggle with. Then there are the much less popular aspects of the order. I was (pleasantly) shocked to learn that Obi-wan used to have a love interest and would have left the order to be with her if she had asked. And of course, we've got Anakin with his secret marriage to Padme. Despite flagrantly disregarding that part of the code, and occasionally bending things dark side when it was really important to him, and despite not appearing to care much at all about the "don't be attached and don't have passions" major component of Jedi philosophy, he still was a sincerely devoted member of the order, and a good guy (I'd say NG) right up until his fall. Even on the council, there were probably a couple of different alignments or philosophies.

So I think that's how I'm going to spin a paladin Oath. It has a traditional interpretation (LG for Devotion, others for other codes), and the majority of the followers attempt to follow it in that way, regardless of alignment. But there are various interpretations, and some paladins just outright disagree with it...but they keep getting their powers nevertheless. (If they completely "went darkside" I'd probably have them swap out subclasses to one more fitting, but I wouldn't penalize them statistically).