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

[Greg K]

It sounds like there are some people saying "Paladins need special rules to cover their allegiance to their god/faith/order." Do these people feel the same way about Clerics? I'd be interested to know why or why not.

I do. As far back as 1e, I have ruled that clerics are a devoted agent of their deity. As such, they are expected to follow the tenets of their deity (which are laid out for players prior to character generation)acts and further its causes and beliefs. For doing so, the cleric is awarded special abilities (e.g., spells). Transgress and there are consequences depending upon the nature and severity of the transgression.

 

[DDNFan]

Fair enough. And no one is saying there should be no consequences to oath breaking. That's never been true in any edition of D&D. The issue I have is with the idea that the only reason people would play within the bounds of the character they chose is if the game hangs this big axe over their head to drop if they step out of line.

What's wrong with in-game consequences for in-game actions? If your paladin breaks his oath, surely he would have something of a crisis of faith. So, that becomes the focus of play. And, there are also the issues of consequences for other NPC's as well should the fact that the character broke faith come to light.

A paladin losing his powers from committing an evil act IS an in-game consequence for an in-game action. He enters into a contract with his god, not with the DM. The DM roleplays the god to the best of the description and alignment of that god, and judges his followers accordingly. As the giver and taker, he should have the power to giveth and taketh away.

Don't mistake metagame player punishment for in-game roleplaying. It's quite possible that a paladin starts out honorable and idealistic and over time, gets corrupted and loses his way. This is terrific roleplaying opportunity, since he can seek the help of a mentor, or ask his god himself, whether his acts are noble or malign, and if he alters his behavior accordingly after doing so, either atones or even avoids censure entirely. A story arc where there is a fall from grace and then atonement and rebirth is as old as dirt. Batman the Dark Knight, to the Dark Knight Rises, is just one recent example. You can't have an atonement story without a fall, and only varying the rate of rising is a boring straightjacket, it's monotonous and undramatic to only ever improve and never stumble along the way. Heroes stumble on the way to greatness. I've seen many terrific atonement stories play out as players learn to navigate their characters better.

It's a roleplaying game, there should be rules for roleplaying. This is more a hard rule than a soft one, but it's the only class that's predicated on that, and not even in the basic rules any more due to the incessant complaining to take out this iconic thing. It's limiting to have only champions of one type of ethos or alignment or Oath, but that's not what we have. We have many to chose from, and even rules to define your own subclass, so it should be easy any pitfalls of playing the group's police officer or morality police, or be "lawful stupid". Pick what subclass you want to play, and live and die by its code.

It is simply not a serious proposition or idea to have a sworn Oath to boundless metaphysical beings that have extreme intellect and knowledge and who wouldn't take interest in their champion's activities. These aren't squires or altar boys, these are the best of the best, out there spreading his will. It would be totally ridiculous if gods didn't scrutinize them closely.

 

[DDNFan]

I do. As far back as 1e, I have ruled that a devoted agent of their deity. As such, they are expected to follow the tenets of their deity (which are laid out for players prior to character generation)acts and further its causes and beliefs. For doing so, the cleric is awarded special abilities (e.g., spells). Transgress and there are consequences depending upon the nature and severity of the transgression.

So do I.

Paladins and clerics are two sides of the same coin, one is merely more melee focused and the other more magic focused. They can both, given the same background, have the same exact role. They should both be held to the same standards of their gods. Makes no sense otherwise. If the god can't watch and answer every prayer of every earthly representative, then it's impossible to even consider how any spells work or are granted, given they are divine in source and when gods die, all their followers cease having any magical abilities of their own.

It makes no sense that a god could chose to allow a champion to join his cause and grant him or her abilities to carry out that cause, but not take it away. It also makes no sense that a cleric would receive less scrutiny than a paladin. For what reason? Clerics are often far more powerful overall, so if anything the scrutiny should be more severe.

The main problem of paladins is the lawful good part. If people can't roleplay lawful good because they find themselves losing their powers again and again (probably by acting like murder hobos one too many times for the patience of the DM, who was probably already bending over backwards to not roleplay a wrathful god faithfully), they should pick a different Oath or alignment to follow, one which actually suits how they play. Probably chaotic good or chaotic neutral, which would be an Agent of Chaos. Kind of like the Joker or the assassin in Fargo. Many of the paladins I've seen over the years are actually probably closer in temperament to the Fargo idiot twins (the sons of the bully guy). Lawful stupid would be an improvement, I'm talking chaotic stupid, pretending or trying to ascend towards lawful stupid.

 

[pemerton]

I'm talking about D&D here

So am I (as well as Rolemaster, which is D&D with a slightly different mechanical chassis). I haven't used alignment in D&D or other fantasy adventure RPGing since 1985, when I read the article "For King and Country" in Dragon 101.

We have John, the Paladin. If he truthfully lives by his paladin code, his deep connection to his god will reward him with powerful abilities, like the power to detect the presence of demons, cast divine spells and smite his opponents in combat. The problem is: beginning with 4E, if he fails to truthfully live by his paladin code, this won't be a real problem, because he'll be able to detect demons, cast spells and smite opponents just the same.

Everything turns on the second sentence, which is a counterfactual claim about the gameworld. And how do you know that it is true?

Here's a parallel. A player writes up Joan, the magic-user, with all this backstory about a mentor, a wizard's guild, stealing her master's spellbook the night that she ran away, blah blah blah. Is it true that, if Joan hadn't stolen the spellbook s/he would have had a spellbook anyway?

Well, it's true that if Joan's player had written a different backstory, or even no backstory at all, s/he would still be allowed to play a PC with a spellbook. But that's a counterfactual truth about the real world. The fact that it is true doesn't mean that, in the gameworld, but for her theft Joan wouldn't have had a spellbook.

Likewise for the paladin. It may be true that, if John's player played John differently, s/he would still be allowed to play that PC as a paladin. But it doesn't follow that, in the gameworld, the diligence and honour displayed by John aren't necessary conditions of John enjoying divine blessings.

If those powers are truly a gift from the gods, a moment should come where those gods decide to take them away because John is not living up to his responsibilities as someone bound by a sacred oath.

This takes as a premise that John is not living up to his responsibilities.

If John's player thinks that John is living up to his responsibilities, but the GM disagrees, I don't see why the GM's view should trump.

If John's player concedes that John is failing in his responsibilities, and therefore needs to atone, then there is no need for special GM-side rules because it can be handled via GM-player mutuality.

Now if John's player concedes that John is neither responsible nor diligent nor honourable, yet nevertheless insists that John is still a paladin who enjoys divine blessings, you have a different issue. But in my view that is not an issue that you can easily solve via rules for enforcing alignment. It's a deeper problem about a lack of sincerity on the part of the player.

 

[pemerton]

Why Flexibility Advocates Like the Flexible Paladin

Read my ramble if you like, and take it for what you will.

Good ramble. I don't agree with all of it - for instance, I prefer that the player of a paladin be free to contend that his/her outlook is specially divinely sanctioned in a way that other outlooks are not, and therefore don't use alignment rules (which, if in use, would provide mechanical proof that the paladin is wrong for exactly the reasons that you give).

But you definitely hit all the main points!

 

[pemerton]

What I find interesting is that you and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] have this concept of a paladin (chivalrous, honorable, etc.)... but without alignment restrictions and/or a code... your concept doesn't necessarily apply.

where are you getting this concept from? And why do you get to define what a paladin is?

I'm relying on the ordinary meaning of the word - "any knightly or heroic champion" is one definition that comes up, and "knightly" in turn means "characteristic of a knight; noble, courageous, and generous".

If I am a paladin of a chaotic or evil god, why would I be chivalrous, keep my word or anything else?

If, in 4e, you are playing a PC paladin of a chaotic evil or chaotic god, you are already departing from the game's default assumptions, and so to a significant extent the onus is on you to make sense of the situation that you have created.

For instance, the 4e PHB describes paladins (pp 89-90) as:

indomitable warriors who’ve pledged their prowess to something greater than themselves. . . [and who] bolster the courage of nearby companions, and radiate as if a
beacon of inextinguishable hope. . .

Where others waver and wonder, your motivation is pure and simple, and your devotion is your strength. Where others scheme and steal, you take the high road, refusing to allow the illusions of temptation to dissuade you from your obligations. . .

As fervent crusaders in their chosen cause, paladins must choose a deity. Paladins choose a specific faith to serve, as well as an alignment. You must choose an alignment identical to the alignment of your patron deity; a paladin of a good deity must be good, a paladin of a lawful good deity must be lawful good, and a paladin of an unaligned deity must be unaligned. Evil and chaotic evil paladins do exist in the world, but they are almost always villains, not player characters.​

The descriptions of evil and chaotic evil make it pretty clear - if it wasn't already - that "paladins" having those alignments will not be beacons of inextinguishable hope who take the high road rather than scheming and stealing (PHB p 20):

Evil characters don’t necessarily go out of their way to hurt people, but they’re perfectly willing to take advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what they want. . .

Chaotic evil characters have a complete disregard for others. Each believes he or she is the only being that matters and kills, steals, and betrays others to gain power.​

Clearly evil and chaotic evil paladins are not going to be paladins in the ordinary sense of the term. (Paladins of Bane would be plausible exceptions within the D&D cosmology; they aren't necessarily schemers, and the only weaknesses they set out to exploit are military weaknesses or personal weaknesses such as cowardice.)

The 4e DMG even has a brief discussion (p 163) of how to handle "anti-clerics" and "anti-paladins":

Evil and chaotic evil deities have clerics and paladins just as other gods do. However, the powers of those classes, as presented in the Player’s Handbook, are strongly slanted toward good and lawful good characters. . .

You can alter the nature of powers without changing their basic effects, making them feel more appropriate for the servants of evil gods: changing the damage type of a prayer, for instance, so that evil clerics and paladins deal necrotic damage instead of radiant damage. When a prayer would blind its target with holy light, it might instead shroud a character’s eyes with clinging darkness. Holy fire consuming a foe with ongoing fire damage might become a coating of acidic slime that eats away at the flesh, or a purple hellfire with identical effects.​

For someone playing with the full suite of 4e rules, the best way to play a paladin of a god like Gruumsh or Asmodeus or Torog or Tiamat or Zehir is as a blackguard. (Who, apart from anything else, will play as a somewhat selfish striker rather than an other-regarding defender.)

Or are you saying that paladins, no matter what the ethos is they follow, are always honorable, always chivalrous?

That would be a contradiction, given that honour and chivary are particular ethoses.

so where are you and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] getting this concept and why should it apply to my paladin?

If you don't want it to apply to your paladin then go to town. But in that case you won't need rules for stripping your paladin of powers if s/he is dishonourable or cowardly or selfish. I thought you were the one who was saying that you don't want the game to permit selfish, dishonourable, cowardly paladins.

As for it being hard, I've seen players flip out, cry, get mad, etc. when their character is killed so no... I don't believe every action declaration is equal and thus the choices are all equal. that action declaration can matter very much at times.

This is as close as you get to answering my question "What sort of game do you and [MENTION=6776483]DDNFan[/MENTION] have in mind". Namely, one in which if the player choose to have his/her PC stick to the code then his/her PC will die (or, at least, have a real chance of dying).

Do you think that a character who flips out or cries when his/her PC is killed is going to calmly accept that the price of having the PC live is letting the GM strip away the character's mechanical abilities? My gut feeling is that such a player will be angry at the GM for having framed him/her into a no-win situation. And frankly, my sympathies would be with the player at that point.

EDIT: Elf Witch makes a similar point to mine about player personalities (although I think her sympathies lie a bit differently):

I have had the displeasure of playing with players who want all the goodies of a cleric of paladin and then act totally immoral and my experience is that with those type of players you can't reign them in they will throw the biggest tantrum if you try. My solution is to simply not play with them because I am not interested in playing a role playing light style of DnD.

Not playing with insincere or immature players is certainly a solution that works for me, though I seem to have arrived at it by luck rather than deliberate management.

EDIT 2: On the definition of paladin in D&Dnext, the playtest rules give us two oaths. One is described as a paragon of virtue. The other is an avenger. It seems to me that if you don't want to play that sort of character then you wouldn't build your PC as a member of that class.

 

[Elf Witch]

This takes as a premise that John is not living up to his responsibilities.

If John's player thinks that John is living up to his responsibilities, but the GM disagrees, I don't see why the GM's view should trump.

If John's player concedes that John is failing in his responsibilities, and therefore needs to atone, then there is no need for special GM-side rules because it can be handled via GM-player mutuality.

Now if John's player concedes that John is neither responsible nor diligent nor honourable, yet nevertheless insists that John is still a paladin who enjoys divine blessings, you have a different issue. But in my view that is not an issue that you can easily solve via rules for enforcing alignment. It's a deeper problem about a lack of sincerity on the part of the player.

The reason I believe that the DM should have the final say is simple they are the arbitrators, they run the world, they decide how the world views the PCs. Now I am not saying they should totally ignore the players opinions but if the players are not willing to abide by the DMs decisions then you have chaos at the table.

Though two adults should be able to have a reasonable discussion about it.

I am of the school that DMs do have the power to strip away PC abilities saying they don't is saying that a wizard can never lose their spellbook or that a DM can't build a world with wild or null magic areas because that can cause a player to lose some of their abilities.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

It sounds like there are some people saying "Paladins need special rules to cover their allegiance to their god/faith/order." Do these people feel the same way about Clerics? I'd be interested to know why or why not.

Absolutely. And any other class which gets their powers from a divine source. Especially those of a lawful good bent. Theirs' is the strictest path to follow.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I would prefer it if the base class had been called Champion, and the specific LG variant named Paladin.

Paladins are LG in my books, but there's room for Paladin-like classes of different alignments. They're just not Paladins.

GS beat me to it. I like to have champions of all alignments, but reserve the term "paladin" for LG. I think each type of champion should have different abilities too.

 

[Hussar]

I started this thread to see whether, as I suspected, there are still D&D gamers who associate the paladin with a very narrow archetype. My curiosity is satiated, but now the thread is turning into that unique kind of ENworld back-and-forth, so I'm just going to leave this here:

Why Flexibility Advocates Like the Flexible Paladin

Read my ramble if you like, and take it for what you will.

Finally read your ramble and I agree with virtually all of it. Nail meet hammer.