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

[Blackwarder]

I'm unhappy but I don't think it's a strike against 5e, even though that was the only option on the poll.

Warder

 

[Valetudo]

I dont use alignment anymore except for simple monsters. I feel alignment gets in the way of character concept. Ive seen too much grey in real life to run worlds of black and white.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I believe you're not addressing what people around here believe is the real issue. It's a mechanical issue that connects to world-building in some way. Different from Joan, the wizard, it seems that the powers of John, the paladin are directly bestowed at him by a powerful entity, one that only give him powers as long as he live by certain standards, and one that is ultimately controlled by the DM*.

That said, people want an answer to the question "what happens when John fails to live by those standards?", and it seems that they don't believe "nothing" is a valid answer, much like they don't believe that it should be a valid answer to the question "what happens to Joan when she loses her spellbook?". Honestly, outside the realms of the "evil DM", I believe more wizards have lost access to their powers than paladins in the last 35 years.

*From other posts, I know you enjoy a playing style that puts a lot of control over what happens in the world in the hands of the players. While I do enjoy some games that do that, I don't think it suits D&D very well.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

[MENTION=42582]That said, people want an answer to the question "what happens when John fails to live by those standards?", and it seems that they don't believe "nothing" is a valid answer, much like they don't believe that it should be a valid answer to the question "what happens to Joan when she loses her spellbook?". Honestly, outside the realms of the "evil DM", I believe more wizards have lost access to their powers than paladins in the last 35 years.

The tight focus on the specific "loss of powers" approach, with nothing else being acceptable (or really even suggested, save I think by me), though, suggests you're wrong that it's merely that "nothing" is the problem, rather "anything but the traditional answer" seems to be the problem.

 

[am181d]

So it definitely sounds like the current argument is:

Should classes with divine power sources (not just Paladins, but Clerics, Druids, etc.) be at risk of losing their special powers if they violate the dictates of their oath/religion/god?

The possible positions on this issue are: Player(s) say no and DM says yes, DM says no and Player(s) say yes, both say no, or both say yes.

If everybody agrees, who cares what some folks on the internet think? If there's a disagreement, then the player knows to find a different class or a different DM. Again, why do we care?

 

[Imaro]

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".

So then with this definition as a basis how do you have evil, chaotic or even neutral/unaligned/selfish paladins... it doesn't make sense... since those alignments are not in and of themselves courageous, generous or noble... and some are actively opposed to said characteristics.

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.

If there are no restrictions to alignment for the class then the default is whatever you want to play...

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.​

All these quotes do is show me that 4e, in stating paladins can be any alignment and under any god, in turn contradicts the very definition it gives the paladin class... serving only to further obfuscate what being a paladin is and means outside of a deity powered fighter...​

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.)

Unless of course I want to be a defender... then were back to the original paladin... also the blackguard came out literally years after 4e was released so there was a large stretch of time where this was not an option.

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

So then shouldn't paladins be required to be of an alignment (and worship a deity) that would espouse these ethos (or at least not outright contradict them)?

This is as close as you get to answering my question "What sort of game do you and @DDNFan 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).

All PC's in my game have a "real" chance of dying... not sure how the paladin is any different in this respect... it's the default way the game is played.

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.

I think they are less likely to have a problem with it if it is stated in the description of the class because they knew what the consequences were when choosing the class... I think, if anything, they'd have a much harder time dealing with the whole... DM fiat a platoon of epic level avengers to deal with the offending paladin... that the DM decides will be the consequences out of nowhere.

I'm also unclear on why we are assuming a DM who presents... "no-win" situations... as the default? Or are you going down the... must be a bad DM line of reasoning since nowhere was this assumption stated except in your own interpretation of the issue.

 

[Imaro]

The tight focus on the specific "loss of powers" approach, with nothing else being acceptable (or really even suggested, save I think by me), though, suggests you're wrong that it's merely that "nothing" is the problem, rather "anything but the traditional answer" seems to be the problem.

I disagree... I think some people want an answer beyond your suggested answer of DM fiat.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I disagree... I think some people want an answer beyond your suggested answer of DM fiat.

Disagree with what? I've seen no suggestions but mine and the trad way. What are some other ways?

 

[Imaro]

Disagree with what? I've seen no suggestions but mine and the trad way. What are some other ways?

Well there has also been [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s ... let your player police their own behaviors and punishments suggestion. But I was moreso disagreeing with your framing of the argument as traditional or nothing simply because some/many didn't take to your particular suggestion... I think it's an overly simplistic framing of the argument since it may just be that a good alternative has yet to be suggested.

 

[Kobold Stew]

The tight focus on the specific "loss of powers" approach, with nothing else being acceptable (or really even suggested, save I think by me), ...

To be fair, various other solutions have been suggested by others.

In addition to those mentioned by Imaro above, my own proposals included limiting access to spells, not allowing the paladin to continue to advance in levels (both of which should be negotiable between reasonable individuals at a gaming table) and changing the nature of the aura of protection to a LG-only feature (which would require a house rule, and alternatives for other oaths within the 5e context).