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

[CSwizzy]

Wow! Quite a lot of different points of view to sift through. Here's my take on Non LG Paladins. I'm all for it, but the alignment of the Paladin needs to follow the alignment of their god. I even think evil Paladins should be allowed, it's just up to the DM if that character will still be called a Paladin or Blackguard.

This is my experience with playing outside of your characters alignment. Waaay back in the 2nd Ed Dragonlance days I had a Chaotic Good Ninja. My friend had a Neutral Good Ranger who happened to be a chosen of Habakuk (he did some amazing things during the War of the Lance) which basically turned him into a Ranger/Paladin. My Ninja's deity was the Platinum Sky Serpent (basically an oriental aspect of Paladine). My friend had some type of magical weapon (can't remember the name of it) that was multiple magic weapons that combined. So 1 piece was a dagger, you can combine 2 daggers for a short short, 3 for long sword, 4 for bastard and 5 for greatsword. My friend had 4 of the pieces and we came across a LG Ranger and N Bard. One of them had the 5th magical dagger which would have given my friend the complete set. We tried bartering, pulling favors, you name it to try to get the 5th piece but we had no luck. We then had the crazy idea of breaking into their room at the inn in the middle of the night to steal the dagger from these 2 guys. Well long story short, things went wrong and I assassinated both of them. Our DM knocked my alignment to Chaotic Neutral and my friend's to True Neutral, docked us half of our current levels worth of exp and our DM said if we go down another step in alignment then he would take our character sheets away and they would become NPCs. We both had to do about 3 solo sessions each with our DM to atone and make up for our wrong doings and go back to our default alignment (and yes we got the exp back). Not only that but when my friend took the 5th dagger and combined it with the other 4, turned out the items were cursed and my friend ended up summoning demons from the abyss. So yea, our DM really screwed with us for playing out of our alignment.

Some might call it harsh but I'm glad he did it. It really put things into perspective and showed that there are real consequences for screwing around like that, especially considering we were both war heroes during the War of the Lance and my friend was a chosen of Habakuk.

So TLDR I'm cool with non LG Paladins, but please, even if it's not in the book, make sure there are real consequences for doing something morally wrong against your deity's alignment.

 

[Sadras]

Greg K being right does not automatically make Permerton or myself wrong.

Not at all, I do not believe people here see it that way. Honestly I'm a fan of both play styles if that makes any sense. Generally as a player I'm pretty easy, I bend to the style of the DM. I'm usually just happy to be playing and have faith in the DM. Sure when I was a younger I admit I was pretty blinkered in my approach - its a learning curve and I'm still learning.

 

[pemerton]

Players can exploit rules easily when DMs have no say in the matter. Certain classes have divine components, who give them powers.

I don't follow this. Paladins, at least in 3E and 4e, are not particularly powerful characters. They are not particularly prone to rules exploits. And if there are issues with rules interpretation and application why not tackle that head on, rather than mediating via the ingame question of PC faith? I mean, if the player of a wizard or rogue is being rules-abusive, it gets sorted out via a real-world, metagame-level discussion. Doesn't it?

Most of the rag tag groups I've seen in pick up games at Encounters have lack of tactical cohesion (focus fire!) as their primary problem, since roleplaying is basically nil in those games, or very cookie cutter.

I don't really follow this either. What is the connection between tactical cohesion, focus fire, and roleplaying? My 4e group has plenty of roleplaying, and plenty of tactical cohesion, but doesn't generally focus fire - they play a bit more like the X-Men or the Justice League, with each PC (or mini-squad of PCs) handling its bit of the fight while the others do their bit. For instance, when they invaded Torog's Soul Abattoir the fighter solo-ed the Death Giant, stopping it from entering, while the other PCs handled the interior, with the sorcerer picking off targets at range while the paladin tried to gain control of the catwalk.

Advocating for focus fire seems pretty cookie-cutter to me.

The wizard channels arcane energy without ever asking a deity with an independent will for that energy, for starters. One with whom he swore an oath to gain.

That deity is roleplayed by the DM

Well that's up for grabs, isn't it? My view is that when a player plays a cleric or a paladin or a similar sort of character, s/he has at least as big a stake in the god as the GM does.

When the DM's hands are tied behind their back, namely when there is no actual rule anywhere that states that a god can let alone should, turn off their abilities for a while as punishment for a gross violation of code, then you get the situation where players are running the show.

Outrageous!

 

[Sadras]

But my response to this is that when I play a paladin (or traditional "mace and armour" cleric - I personally don't see any non-mechanical difference between the two) I am signing on to play a game in which I advocate for and give voice to my god. I am not signing on to play a game in which my god's desires are an obstacle that I, as a player, must overcome.

I understand what you are saying, but I also find that to be restrictive.
For instance, I as a player provide the DM with a backstory, family, alliances, enemies, who I worship...etc and during play my relationship with all these things grows and evolves as does my character - and so I expect the DM to use the above to challenge the character/player. I don't eliminate the story option of using the deity I serve, as a possible obstacle in my path for character development even if the choice I make costs me resources.

That could be problematic for some, but I find it no more problematic than when one character is rewarded a magical item from treasure found in a dungeon and the other PCs find nothing of value for themselves. Sure that character has benefited mechanically while no one else has within the party, but I expect the DM to be fair over the course of the adventure/campaign and ensure everyone will have their chance to shine, find a magical item of worth...etc
And unequal distribution of magical items, balancing character time in the limelight with others...etc come up much more often than the alignment issue-power-stripping scenarios.

 

[jsaving]

I don't eliminate the story option of using the deity I serve, as a possible obstacle in my path for character development even if the choice I make costs me resources.

Whenever people design characters, they have a backstory in mind with ongoing attachments that provide a mix of costs and benefits to the character. If my character served in Cormyr's army, for example, he may have contacts within it that can provide useful information or equipment from time to time but with the offsetting cost that enemy nations may view him more negatively because of his service. Or if my character pledges allegiance to a king, the king provides many in-game benefits including resources and access but those resources can be turned the other way, and my character hunted, if he breaks his allegiance.

But what we're talking about here is something different. Rather than providing something above and beyond the power listed on a character sheet, the benefit being provided by a deity in D&D is his basic class features, and the threat is that some or all of those class features will be taken away if he doesn't do what the DM claims his deity would want. Losing "extras" like access to free healing at temples is one thing, and is comparable to what other characters face when they form and then break allegiances or affiliations. Losing your class features is something else.

I think part of this comes from a belief that if RL deities hear all and see all, the same must be true in a campaign, so that a deity would automatically know what each follower is doing/thinking and would "obviously" take away the class features of somebody who's falling down on the job. But this isn't at all obvious in most campaigns. And even if it were, do you really want to get in a situation where the DM is constantly telling the player what his deity would want him to do, with the implied threat that he'll fall if he goes a different way?

Which is not to say that completely "eliminating" the possibility of a conflict with one's deity or earthly hierarchy is a good idea -- there's plenty of opportunity for good role-playing there. But I agree with those who are saying it isn't reasonable to have a special class-feature-removing hammer floating above the heads of divinely powered characters alone.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Which is not to say that completely "eliminating" the possibility of a conflict with one's deity or earthly hierarchy is a good idea -- there's plenty of opportunity for good role-playing there. But I agree with those who are saying it isn't reasonable to have a special class-feature-removing hammer floating above the heads of divinely powered characters alone.

This brings up the separate but related issue of healing magic being tied to divine classes outside of 4e. (The 3.x bard being an odd exception.) I suspect that if any caster could throw out a cure spell or whip out a wand of cure wounds, fewer gamers would mind that nerfhammer floating above every divine character's head -- because more gamers would play divine-types because they wanted to, rather than because "Well, somebody has to..."

 

[pemerton]

This brings up the separate but related issue of healing magic being tied to divine classes outside of 4e. (The 3.x bard being an odd exception.) I suspect that if any caster could throw out a cure spell or whip out a wand of cure wounds, fewer gamers would mind that nerfhammer floating above every divine character's head -- because more gamers would play divine-types because they wanted to, rather than because "Well, somebody has to..."

This may be true in some cases. But I think there are plenty of players (I'm one, and I GM at least a couple of others) who like playing divine characters not because it's a means to the end of healing, but because they like the archetype.

So I am one of the few that you refer to who still wouldn't want the nerfhammer floating over these PCs' heads!

 

[evileeyore]

I always hated the way Paladins were champions of a deity to begin with, I'd be much happier with them if they were more closely associated with their actual roots and were champions of a King or Kingdom (or Empire/Emperor).

 

[Greg K]

Which is not to say that completely "eliminating" the possibility of a conflict with one's deity or earthly hierarchy is a good idea -- there's plenty of opportunity for good role-playing there. But I agree with those who are saying it isn't reasonable to have a special class-feature-removing hammer floating above the heads of divinely powered characters alone.

My gaming circle tends to be different. Part of the challenge of rping a cleric or paladin is following the tenets and stuff, because your cleric and paladin are in service to that deity. As a representative of that deity and for your devotion, the character receives powers for acting in accordance with their teachings and furthering their goals. If the character does not, we feel that you should pay the price depending upon the seriousness of the transgression.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

This may be true in some cases. But I think there are plenty of players (I'm one, and I GM at least a couple of others) who like playing divine characters not because it's a means to the end of healing, but because they like the archetype.

So I am one of the few that you refer to who still wouldn't want the nerfhammer floating over these PCs' heads!

Fair enough.