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

[Sword of Spirit]

Gygax, in his PHB, explains clerics as inspired by the military orders of the Crusades.

As is shown by my post upthread from St Bernard of Clairvaux - who was one of the authors of the Templar rule - the self-conception of these military orders was as paragons of Christian knighthood.

The paladin is a mechanical interpretation of those ideals of Christain knighthood one finds in the Arthurian and Carolingian romances.

In other words, they are the same archetype: heavy armour; heavy weapons; able to work miracles, including healing with a touch; servants of the divinity, who give expression to the divine providence.

The differences are mechanical, not archetypical. For instance, LoH is a different mechanic from Cure Light Wounds; and casting a Protection from Evil spell is a different mechanic from the paladin's aura of protection; but they are not different in underlying thematic or story terms. Even up to the late 70s, it is quite common to see an evil cleric in an adventure or magazine article described as an "anti-cleric" (just as evil "paladins" are called anti-paladins).

@Matthew L. Martin has (correctly, in my view) noted a tension between the D&D cleric, and D&D polytheism. The AD&D 2nd ed idea of the specialty priest - who does not necessarily turn undead, nor heal with a touch, nor bear the arms and armour of a knight - was one attempt to resolve the issue but - as @LFK has noted upthread - this doesn't really leave much conceptual space for the paladin.

I think this is one of those spaces where ignoring Gary's original intent makes a better game. I mean, even Gary stuck paladins in the first PHB, even though, as you rightly point out, the cleric was designed to be basically the same archetype (sans sword--a not insignificant distinction).

 

[JRRNeiklot]

This is where your logic falls apart. Paladins haven't been 'Fighters, plus Divine Powers' in a long time. Paladins are a core separate class and have been since 3rd edition.

Last time I checked - last Tuesday, in fact - my 1E books still work. Not everyone plays 3e, nor want it as the inspiration for 5E.

 

[Chaltab]

Last time I checked - last Tuesday, in fact - my 1E books still work. Not everyone plays 3e, nor want it as the inspiration for 5E.

If you're happy with 1e then by all means play that. My point was that unless a Paladin is actually a trade off--extra power for a stricter code of conduct--then the game mechanics shouldn't be gimping a character for breaking that oath. Especially when alignment is something so often up to individual interpretation. This was one of the problems that led to 4th Edition's choice to ditch alignment restrictions and make Paladins keep their powers. Paladins as a class need a carrot for following their oath before you can use a carrot and stick routine to enforce it.

 

[Rygar]

If you're happy with 1e then by all means play that. My point was that unless a Paladin is actually a trade off--extra power for a stricter code of conduct--then the game mechanics shouldn't be gimping a character for breaking that oath. Especially when alignment is something so often up to individual interpretation. This was one of the problems that led to 4th Edition's choice to ditch alignment restrictions and make Paladins keep their powers. Paladins as a class need a carrot for following their oath before you can use a carrot and stick routine to enforce it.

Is it? Because IIRC the term Heinsoo used was "Rebranding"...

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?353370-Heinsoo-on-Alignment-amp-Rebranding

Doesn't look like Heinsoo's statement indicates in any way that it was solving a problem.

 

[pemerton]

I think this is one of those spaces where ignoring Gary's original intent makes a better game.

I think that's one legitimate way to go, yes. It requires rethinking "clerics" pretty heavily. 2nd ed AD&D did a bit of this. I personally think it puts a lot of pressure on the coherence of the paladin class, though, because once you go polytheist and, from the point of view of the game system, abandon the view that LG is the objectively best alignment, it becomes rather mysterious why only one set of gods has special champions.

The other way of going is the 4e way, which embraces the distinction between clerics and paladins as primarily mechanical (and adds invokers into the mix) - so you get STR clerics and paladins, WIS melee clerics, CHA paladins who are mostly melee but with a bit of spell-casting, then WIS caster clerics and invokers filling the role of "white wizards".

I think it's a bit of an unstable combo to try and go both ways at once.

 

[Elf Witch]

Those are basically the same thing, though - "special warrior with a higher calling to defend, smite evil, uphold justice" is the self-conception of the knight in shining armour a la King Arthur.

Nothing. They are the same concept - paragons of religious and chivalric virtue.

.

I view the knights of King Arthur as fighters who live by a code they don't channel supernatural powers. At least if you are looking to the more historical versions as opposed to the more mythical.

I would love to see a fighter knight class that emulated this as opposed to sticking on the label paladin.

I love paladins they are one of my favorite classes to play and when I play them I rarely have them affiliated with a single god but more to the ideal of of being lawful good. And by law I mean a code of conduct not following the laws odf the rulers of the land have made unless of course that is part of the code.

I realize that DnD to simplify things has made cookie cutter clerics but I never understood say why a god of healing would have paladins or holy warriors or a cleric of a nature goddess runs around in plate armor with a mace.

It is not a dealbreaker for them to offer paladins of different alignments as others have said they have been offered before. It will be rare to see them at a table I DM though.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

If you're happy with 1e then by all means play that. My point was that unless a Paladin is actually a trade off--extra power for a stricter code of conduct--then the game mechanics shouldn't be gimping a character for breaking that oath. Especially when alignment is something so often up to individual interpretation. This was one of the problems that led to 4th Edition's choice to ditch alignment restrictions and make Paladins keep their powers. Paladins as a class need a carrot for following their oath before you can use a carrot and stick routine to enforce it.

The powers a paladin gets IS the carrot.

 

[Chaltab]

The powers a paladin gets IS the carrot.

Only if the game is designed that way. In 3rd and 4th Editions, Paladin is a separate class and that's tied into the core level progression. If you take away their Paladin powers, you take away their ability to contribute to the game in any meaningful way because the powers aren't a bonus to their basic skillset, but their actual skillset.

TBQH I haven't read any of the playtest material on the D&DN Paladin, but if it's a seperate class on its own as it was in the two previous editions, then I suspect the lack of alignment restrictions is to prevent a situation in which a Paladin loses their powers and becomes useless. That's what I mean by all stick and no carrot. If a character is roleplaying their Paladin in a way that's clearly against their alignment/deity then address it like an adult instead of hiding behind the rulebook.

Is it? Because IIRC the term Heinsoo used was "Rebranding"...

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?353370-Heinsoo-on-Alignment-amp-Rebranding

Doesn't look like Heinsoo's statement indicates in any way that it was solving a problem.

There's not really much there though, twitter and all. It's not even clear if he's answering about the alignment names being changed and culled or the removal of alignment having mechanical effects on Paladins (etc). Because honestly the former is something that isn't really pertinent to this discussion, since even if you really care about the traditional nine alignments, Lawful Good wasn't one of those removed.

 

[jbear]

The approach to paladins is a big selling point to me, paladins themselves ... not so much.

I much prefer there are no hard and rigid rule restrictions laid out from the outset, but instead it is left in the hands of DMs and players to decide how they want a class like a paladin to integrate with the world/campaign, and whether or not there are alignment restrictions (or not) because that is what makes sense or is the most fun.

In any case alignment is something I find unrealistic. I have never met ANYONE who is one way or another, completely defined and constant. I know I am far from constant. I don't like my characters to be defined or limited by something so simplistic. I wouldn't want rules in the game to box me in (or box me ot of creative options).

I far prefer an approach that lets me do it my way and that lets others do it their way.

 

[Falling Icicle]

The powers a paladin gets IS the carrot.

If paladins were more powerful than other classes, you might have a case. The thing is, they're not any more powerful than other classes.