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

[Manbearcat]

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.

Well. Its not a "no-win situation" if your agenda is to play skillfully as a player by internalizing the GM's conception of your character's ethos requirements and abiding by them despite any conscientious objections you may personally have (either as a player or vis a vis your own conception of your paladin's sense of honor, sacrifice, duty, etc).

If your agenda is to play out your own conception of your paladin (be it classically Romantic virtues or another specified code of virtues) by being thrust into and tested by thematic conflict, to find out in play how your conceived paladin prioritizes the tenets of this ethos system when its under fire, then it is 100 % a no-win situation for your (sincere) conception of your paladin to be overturned by the veto power of a GM. This, of course, presumes sincerity on behalf of the player.

I've never been a player and I've never had anything like the above arise at one of my tables. But I cannot imagine being a player of a Paladin and being told by a GM "yeah you must kill these defenseless, but rotten to the core (!), monstrous humanoid infants...or your God hates you...I was just talking to him and he said he would really, really, really hate you if you didn't kill them...nothing earns his ire more than his holy warriors ignoring their duty to eviscerate the babies of evil monstrous humanoids...so do you kill them or are you a chump of a fail-player and cast out of your God's good graces?"

"Well, I used to think that my Paladin was a defender of the meek, the innocent, and those who cannot defend themselves. I used to think that he would scream "DEATH FIRST" with divine power when facing a group of depraved townsfolk with torches and pitchforks who demand he stand down so they can put the orc baby he carries in his arms to the sword. But I guess that is just rubbish. Yeah, ok, I kill the orc baby and win. Bro-fist to my God."

I can't believe this sort of (comedic silliness removed) stuff actually happens. But if it does, it is indeed a no-win situation for a sincere player whose conception of their PC is utterly subordinated by their GM.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I've seen the situation arise in play, though it's always been "you can't kill the orc babies, that wouldn't be LG".

It comes from a DM attempting to be "realistic", assuming that since this is an orc cave there will be orc children. And it's only after the fight is over do the players start wondering what they should do with the non-combatants. There are lots of these problems that arise solely through the DM not having heard of this particular dilemma before.

I personally intend to have orcs appear fully grown in dark caverns through spontaneous generation. No children, no problem. Kill all you need to.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Good ramble.

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

Thanks!

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).

Did I deny that some of us enjoy the 'paladins with an ambiguous power source' concept somewhere, or just omit it? Either way, it was not intentional.

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

Paladins can be stealthy and sneaky though they can't be treacherous and paladins do not have to show mercy to enemies if those enemies are dangerous and there is no way to turn them into legitimate authorities. Also while rare I can see am individual over coming the evil of the world to what to be a champion of light. To me it is an excellent character to role play.



As with any character a player should make sure they fit into the party I have had issues with a player playing a chaotic neutral rogue in a party of good PCs. Any lawful good character in a party that does not want to be good is going to cause issues.

 

[Elf Witch]

I've seen the situation arise in play, though it's always been "you can't kill the orc babies, that wouldn't be LG".

It comes from a DM attempting to be "realistic", assuming that since this is an orc cave there will be orc children. And it's only after the fight is over do the players start wondering what they should do with the non-combatants. There are lots of these problems that arise solely through the DM not having heard of this particular dilemma before.

I personally intend to have orcs appear fully grown in dark caverns through spontaneous generation. No children, no problem. Kill all you need to.

How boring at least it would be for me to play a game with no moral dilemmas. Again why is it against lawful good to kill monster babies? I would think any good alignment should have a problem with killing helpless babies especially if they are not born evil.

There are so many ways for the group to handle it they can kill the babies or non combatants because they will just rejoin another Orc tribe and become a danger. They can kill the babies because they have no way to care for them and that is more merciful than allowing them to starve slowly to death or they can try and save them and find a home for them.

A DM should do what he knows his players enjoy if they don't enjoy moral dilemma then don't have monster babies and make sure all the NPCs die on the field so you don't have the prisoner dilemma.

 

[pemerton]

Conventional LG paladins don't belong in grimdark worlds except as victims or objects of derision.

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.

My own view is that, for the paladin to work in this sort of situation, it has to be open to the player of the paladin to prove, in play, that the world is not a "grimdark" one, and hence that the paladin's direct and open tactics are not suboptimal.

This requires the GM to be open to and receptive of player contributions to the campaign. And where there are multiple agendas among the players, they have to be willing to compromise, or perhaps to lose out in the contest to impress the players' wills upon the campaign world.

Did I deny that some of us enjoy the 'paladins with an ambiguous power source' concept somewhere, or just omit it?

I was referring to the bits where you say that you don't mind alignment rules, and that part of your reason for liking flexible paladins is that the D&D alignment framework doesn't make it feasible to proclaim LG as a uniquely superior alignment.

I completely agree with your reasoning here, but I push it the other way: because I want it to be viable for the player of the paladin to push the line that his/her god and outlook are uniquely superior, I prefer to drop the alignment framework which (if it is in place) makes that unfeasible.

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.

<snip>

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

Who said that "nothing" is the answer?

But some relevant questions include: (i) why are paladins any different in this respect from clerics? (ii) why are paladins and/or clerics any different in this respect from a fighter or a rogue who has sworn an oath? And, most importantly, if the player believes that his/her PC is not failing to live by those standards, why does the GM need the power of override?

 

[Hussar]

I tend to look at this a bit more from a practical standpoint.

In the past twenty years, I can count the number of paladins I've seen played on one hand. IME, virtually no one plays paladins because no one wants to deal with the hassle. In a traditional D&D game, you are basically handing the DM a character where the DM has giant claws embedded into your character which he or she can use to strip away your character at any time that the DM feels that you are not playing the character right.

It's no wonder so few players want to play paladins.

I mean, seriously, how many paladin characters have you seen in the last three campaigns you played in? Other than the ones you personally played. Anyone in this thread has likely played a paladin, or likes playing paladins, which explains why we all have pretty strong opinions on the fact. I'm willing to bet that my experience is hardly strange here, with few, if any, players taking up paladin characters.

In almost every group I see, there's a cleric, a handful of fighter types (whether fighter, barbarian or ranger), a rogue, and a wizard. But a paladin? It's a mythical beast.

So, either make paladins easier to play or get them the heck out of the PHB so we can make room for classes that people DO want to play.

 

[pemerton]

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

I don't see why. For instance, the playtest paladin has no alignment restrictions stated, but clearly the oath which talks about paragons of virtue is not going to default to worshippers of Demogorgon!

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)?

I don't see why.

The paladin is, mechanically, a suite of abilities. The paladin is a mechanical success if that suite of abilities supports the paladin archetype - the holy warrior of knightly virtue. The upshot of a well-designed paladin is that it will appeal to players who want to play such a character, and will, in play, lend itself to that approach to the character.

If some players want to push the class in different directions, good luck to them. If some players find that the class doesn't work for them, commiserations - they can try and house rule things, or hope for a better variant down the track.

But if the class is well-designed, alignment restrictions are redundant because the class will lend itself to being played as a paladin.

 

[GSHamster]

But some relevant questions include: (i) why are paladins any different in this respect from clerics? (ii) why are paladins and/or clerics any different in this respect from a fighter or a rogue who has sworn an oath? And, most importantly, if the player believes that his/her PC is not failing to live by those standards, why does the GM need the power of override?

I would say that it comes down to archetypes.

By and large, D&D classes are based on archetypes from literature/movies/culture. Now most archetypes are defined by what they do, your "suite of abilities". Wizards cast spells, Fights hit things with swords, etc. But a few archetypes are defined by the way they behave.

Paladins are the strongest of these behavioral archetypes. What makes Paksennarion and Michael Carpenter similar is not really the way they fight or the powers they command. It is the way they behave: their faith and their willingness to sacrifice. Their behaviour is what creates the archetype and so any class based on the archetype should try and emulate the same behaviour.

But clerics and druids are also similar, and maybe warlocks. So if you have an archetype which depends on behavior, and then the player chooses not to emulate that behavior, what happens?

There is an expectation that if a player chooses an behavioral archetype, she will live up to that behavior. For example, if you are a warlock, you will bargain for power with otherworldly entities. If you are a berserker, you will either go berserk every so often or maybe you will worry about going berserk. If you play a druid, you will venerate nature and not strip mine and pollute it.

Now there's lots of room for variation with the archetypes. If you play a cleric of war, you could be a warrior-ish type on the frontlines. Or you could be a strategist and direct armies. Or you could even be a scholar and historian who undertakes pilgrimages to famous battlefields. But it is expected that your behavior is in some way connected to war.

 

[pemerton]

IME, virtually no one plays paladins because no one wants to deal with the hassle. In a traditional D&D game, you are basically handing the DM a character where the DM has giant claws embedded into your character which he or she can use to strip away your character at any time that the DM feels that you are not playing the character right.

Sounds right to me.

how many paladin characters have you seen in the last three campaigns you played in? Other than the ones you personally played.

I tend to play long campaigns with a fairly stable player group. Of the last 3 campaigns I've GMed, the first had 2 paladins over its course, the second had one paladin as a key character plus a couple of monks, and the current one has two paladins (one, mechanically, is a cleric-fighter).

The last two times I was a player I played a paladin (although, mechanically, one was a cleric with fighter trappings via Skills & Powers shenanigans).

I think it's a natural archetype for heroic fantasy RPGing, and that if players want to play a heroic warrior then provided the GM gets out of their way and lets them get on with the job, they will. The notion that the paladin needs special policing by the GM is completely foreign to me, both in theory and in practice.