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

[Mallus]

To answer the original question: no, I'm not unhappy about non-LG paladins. Paladins for every moral stripe, I say!

My overriding interest is in having interesting fictional characters in my campaigns. Any tools used to get there are fine by me, which includes traditional takes on alignment & alignment-restricted PCs, but by no means are limited to them.

As a player, I like making up my own paladin codes. I did that to great (comedic) effect in our 4e campaign. While it's true I was also setting co-author and part-time DM, I don't think that matters much. If anything it reinforced my beliefs that a) making sh*t up is fun, and b) why should said fun be denied to the players?

While I do believe there are a few necessary distinctions between players and DM, many are arbitrary.

As a DM, I'm not heavily invested in creating & handing out paladin codes and then judging players against them. I will, if that's the experience a specific player is after, but it's their choice. Of all the judgments a DM/GM has to make, it's the least interesting to me.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

[MAP][/MAP]

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.

Which was characterized specifically as "nothing", so yeah... no.

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 did not imply that, nor state it.

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.

All the alternatives suggested have been either dismissed as "nothing", or have been my suggestion. Have you got any suggestions?

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).

The ones Imaro mentions were dismissed as "nothing" by the poster I was responding to.

I have to admit I missed yours, but spell loss is basically a lesser variant of "powers taken away". Changing Oath and/or Aura Effect are different, though, but I suspect lack the "penalty" component some people want.

 

[Aenghus]

The scorched earth of the paladin battleground exists because of the dichotomy between the black and white absolutes of the theoretical LG paladin code and the messy human subjectivities of actual players, actual DMs and actual games.

The extreme penalties for disagreements yanks the middle ground out from under the debate all too often. And disagreements are in my experience as often genuine as they are due to misbehavior from the involved parties. I think making the punishment "all or nothing" is a recipe for disaster, and the many, many tales of disaster seem to back this up.

I actually like the shiny paladin concept, but it is viable in suprisingly few campaigns, as it's so easy to sabotage by a combination of campaign tone, rejection by the other players and mishandling by the DM.

Conventional LG paladins don't belong in grimdark worlds except as victims or objects of derision. They aren't a good fit for old-school loot-everything gaming unless played in a jokey "see no PC evil, hear no PC evil" style (which is reasonably common AFAIK).

 

[Elf Witch]

I noticed that someone brought up putting the paladin in a no win situation. I read this in almost every conversation about paladins. I guess I have been lucky I have never seen this. What would be considered a no win situation and why would DMs do other then wanting to mess with the paladin?


There are a lot of ways to deal with a cleric or paladin who are breaking their codes other then completely stripping powers away. One thing I like to do if they are slipping is have their spells not work on them so no healing or buff spells for themselves as a sign their god is displeased with them.Another is to send dreams or visions. Another way to let them know is have another god court them. I did this with a cleric of Heironeous who was becoming more and more blood thirsty and tyrannical so an avatar of Hextor paid him a visit.

I can understand why some DMs want a hard fast rule on how to deal with this because they don't want to deal with the cry of DM fiat. They want to feel as if someone has their backs.

I personally think this is a major problem with some players the idea that everything has to have a rule and the DM is honor bound to observe and follow every rule by the RAW. It shows a lack of trust on the players part and I think stems from bad experiences with a bad DM.

 

[Imaro]

All the alternatives suggested have been either dismissed as "nothing", or have been my suggestion. Have you got any suggestions?

Here are two ideas I was thinking about... they need alot of fleshing out though.

-Atonement Quest... assigned by deity or head of church where all of the paladins monetary gains must be donated to a worthy cause (as considered by the god or organization).

-Curses... The paladin is subject to a divine curse with a visible mark (length, severity, etc. determined by the infraction)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I noticed that someone brought up putting the paladin in a no win situation. I read this in almost every conversation about paladins. I guess I have been lucky I have never seen this. What would be considered a no win situation and why would DMs do other then wanting to mess with the paladin?

Not sure if it's what you mean, but, real game example: DM: "Now that you have killed the orcs, you find some orc babies in their camp." PCs (including Paladin): "Er, okay, I guess we take care of them and take them to a church?" DM: "Paladin, you can't do that, as orcs are evil, you have to kill them!" Paladin: "Doesn't seem like killing babies is good or lawful to me, nor 'protecting the weak', in fact it seems messed-up..." DM: "Kill 'em or lose your LG status and thus fall".

*Massive argument ensues for like hours*

DM did this not, amazingly, to mess with us, but because he genuinely believed this was how LG PCs should treat orc babies. In his defense, he was 13, as were we all.

 

[Elf Witch]

The scorched earth of the paladin battleground exists because of the dichotomy between the black and white absolutes of the theoretical LG paladin code and the messy human subjectivities of actual players, actual DMs and actual games.

The extreme penalties for disagreements yanks the middle ground out from under the debate all too often. And disagreements are in my experience as often genuine as they are due to misbehavior from the involved parties. I think making the punishment "all or nothing" is a recipe for disaster, and the many, many tales of disaster seem to back this up.

I actually like the shiny paladin concept, but it is viable in suprisingly few campaigns, as it's so easy to sabotage by a combination of campaign tone, rejection by the other players and mishandling by the DM.

Conventional LG paladins don't belong in grimdark worlds except as victims or objects of derision. They aren't a good fit for old-school loot-everything gaming unless played in a jokey "see no PC evil, hear no PC evil" style (which is reasonably common AFAIK).

I think it exists because people are limited in thinking lawful good can only be played in a black and white way. First of all law can have many meanings is the la the law of the land, a code, a law of a god? That is the first step deciding what law the lawful good character follows. Secondly in I believe the Book of Exalted Deeds says when faced between choosing good over law in a situation that LG alignment choose good.

Now I can agree that a PC with a code regardless of what it is can cause conflict with the party if not handled in a mature way. DMs and players need to be on the same page and to communicate and other players need to act like team players and not be jerky about it.

I totally disagree that a paladin can't be played effectively in a grimdark world as a role player I love the challenge of playing a good character in a world where good is in short supply. I played a paladin type character in a Midnight campaign yes in the end I knew I was fighting a losing battle and anyone who plays Midnight knows this you can't win unless you go evil.

In old school style hack and slash all the classes are played in a kind of role playing light way.

 

[Elf Witch]

Not sure if it's what you mean, but, real game example: DM: "Now that you have killed the orcs, you find some orc babies in their camp." PCs (including Paladin): "Er, okay, I guess we take care of them and take them to a church?" DM: "Paladin, you can't do that, as orcs are evil, you have to kill them!" Paladin: "Doesn't seem like killing babies is good or lawful to me, nor 'protecting the weak', in fact it seems messed-up..." DM: "Kill 'em or lose your LG status and thus fall".

*Massive argument ensues for like hours*

DM did this not, amazingly, to mess with us, but because he genuinely believed this was how LG PCs should treat orc babies. In his defense, he was 13, as were we all.

That argument is an old one and I have seen it fought over even without a paladin in the party. In our game it was kobold babies and half the party wanted to kill them and half didn't.


Though a DM acting like that is being a jerk. A paladin does not fall over something like that. He is turning them over to a higher authority the church that in no ways violates his alignment.


Though I would say it depends on how ORCs are played in the campaign world. Are they always evil and they don't have any choice and no matter how kind you are to them they will turn and act evil when older then yeah I can see to a point the DM questioning why the paladin would allow them to live regardless of how helpless they are as babies. Now if they are usually evil that is not the same and I could see a paladin choosing to give them a chance depending on the paladin. In either case I would as DM have no problem with the paladin choosing to kill the babies or not if they were usually evil.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Not sure if it's what you mean, but, real game example: DM: "Now that you have killed the orcs, you find some orc babies in their camp." PCs (including Paladin): "Er, okay, I guess we take care of them and take them to a church?" DM: "Paladin, you can't do that, as orcs are evil, you have to kill them!" Paladin: "Doesn't seem like killing babies is good or lawful to me, nor 'protecting the weak', in fact it seems messed-up..." DM: "Kill 'em or lose your LG status and thus fall".

*Massive argument ensues for like hours*

DM did this not, amazingly, to mess with us, but because he genuinely believed this was how LG PCs should treat orc babies. In his defense, he was 13, as were we all.

That's not a no-win situation. That's the DM saying that all orcs are irredeemably evil, and that the duty of the paladin in his milieu is to destroy all orcs. In that situation there is a win - kill the orcs. To make that situation a no-win one would be more along the lines of the following:

DM: You just finished off the remains of the Great Horde of the Steppe when you come across a tent with their young. What do you do?
Paladin: We take them to my nearest church to be raised and cared for.
DM: You get a vision from your deity showing you that one of these orcs will grow up to become a great chieftain and reconquer the steppes, killing and enslaving all those in his path. You know that letting this orc live is a great evil.
Paladin: Okay, we kill the orcs.
DM: Many of these orcs are innocents. Killing innocents is a great evil.
Paladin: So, both choices result in a great evil?
​

In this case the DM has set up the scenario so that no matter what decision the paladin makes he is committing a "great evil." Thus, for the paladin, there is no-win.

 

[Aenghus]

I totally disagree that a paladin can't be played effectively in a grimdark world as a role player I love the challenge of playing a good character in a world where good is in short supply. I played a paladin type character in a Midnight campaign yes in the end I knew I was fighting a losing battle and anyone who plays Midnight knows this you can't win unless you go evil.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying that a grimdark world generally lacks the backstory to justify a conventional LG paladin, and such a paladin could be a detriment to his party as his or her instincts are all wrong for the setting, one that advocates for direct and open tactics even when such tactics are suboptimal.

Now if you change the paladin concept to something more flexible, it's easier, but then it's not a conventional LG paladin.

But my main issue, was you end up either limiting the character concepts of the rest of the party, or in conflict with the party a lot over accepable tactics like stealth and treachery, showing mercy to enemies, that sort of thing.

With potentially problematic characters who induce in party conflict by their nature, I think it's best to talk some of it out beforehand to try and prevent the worst trainwrecks I have seen occur in actual play. Few players or DMs can arrange to be mature and reasonable all the time, and it's the glitches that cause the blowups.