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

[Imaro]

You seem to be equating the Code with all paladins, but that's an important point of difference between gamers. For many of us, a code does not a paladin make.

I'm starting to get a little confused here... Alignment does not make a paladin... A code does not make a paladin... so then what exactly for the many you speak of "makes" a paladin?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm starting to get a little confused here... Alignment does not make a paladin... A code does not make a paladin... so then what exactly for the many you speak of "makes" a paladin?

Well, that they're the Paladin CLASS would seem the logical starting point.

 

[Imaro]

Well, that they're the Paladin CLASS would seem the logical starting point.

I'm asking what defines that class for the people [MENTION=40398]Tequila Sunrise[/MENTION] is speaking of... That's like me asking what's a dog and you going... something called a dog...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm asking what defines that class for the people [MENTION=40398]Tequila Sunrise[/MENTION] is speaking of... That's like me asking what's a dog and you going... something called a dog...

No, it's like you asking "What's defines a dog", and me going "An animal of the genus Canis" or "Canis Canis". Which is I think a reasonable response.

 

[Xodis]

No, it's like you asking "What's defines a dog", and me going "An animal of the genus Canis" or "Canis Canis". Which is I think a reasonable response.

Have to disagree, because by your response anything put down under the Paladin class is what you would consider a Paladin, even if some misprint had True Neutral Monkeys from planet Zebula who flung evil poo.

 

[Imaro]

No, it's like you asking "What's defines a dog", and me going "An animal of the genus Canis" or "Canis Canis". Which is I think a reasonable response.

Again... No. @Tequila Sunrise has already specified certain things are not a part of his paladin... thus eliminating a general definition of paladin (aka... genus Canis) as useful. In other words if you go an animal of the genus Canis defines a dog and I've already stated my definition of a dog doesn't include prominent canine teeth... clarification on what I mean when I say a dog is still needed. A list of what defines it as opposed to what it isn't.

OAN... how about we let @Tequila Sunrise actually answer the question I asked him...huh??

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Have to disagree, because by your response anything put down under the Paladin class is what you would consider a Paladin, even if some misprint had True Neutral Monkeys from planet Zebula who flung evil poo.

No, because that's a misprint, which is obviously an error. However, if an official sourcebook calls it a Paladin, and it isn't an error/typo, it is a Paladin.

The only really consistent thing through all editions is that they are a Holy Warrior (Unholy is a stupid word for Evil gods - it should apply only to demon-worshippers and the like).

Again... No. @Tequila Sunrise has already specified certain things are not a part of his paladin... thus eliminating a general definition of paladin (aka... genus Canis) as useful. In other words if you go an animal of the genus Canis defines a dog and I've already stated my definition of a dog doesn't include prominent canine teeth... clarification on what I mean when I say a dog is still needed. A list of what defines it as opposed to what it isn't.

No, all he's said is that specific colour and size (i.e. specific alignment and code) don't define what a dog is. You appear to insist that they do. I'm sure he'll answer in due course.

 

[Imaro]

No, all he's said is that specific colour and size (i.e. specific alignment and code) don't define what a dog is. You appear to insist that they do. I'm sure he'll answer in due course.

I would say alignment has defined a paladin for every edition (including BECMI) except 4e... so that would be more than size or color... if anything no alignment restrictions would be a mutation or anomaly in our dog examples. I haven't insisted anything defines @Tequila Sunrise 's paladins at all... I have asked him to define what they are...

 

[Xodis]

No, because that's a misprint, which is obviously an error. However, if an official sourcebook calls it a Paladin, and it isn't an error/typo, it is a Paladin.

The only really consistent thing through all editions is that they are a Holy Warrior (Unholy is a stupid word for Evil gods - it should apply only to demon-worshippers and the like).

By your first logic, then anything that D&D stamps as a Paladin is a D&D Paladin, that works somewhat but kind of defeats the purpose of the entire thread.

Divine Warrior seems to be appropriate to cater to both Good and Evil Warriors/gods. Even still thru out all editions and different games that have Paladins, they have been portrayed as a Hero to the people, a Holy Warrior against Evil, and Protector of the innocent.
On point though, the only exception to them being non LG was 4e (besides countless supplements with small changes that can be considered either pandering or marketing), which despite individual opinions was a movement to turn them from a specialist class into just a more defensive character with holy charged abilities, AKA the Paladin from WoW.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

By your first logic, then anything that D&D stamps as a Paladin is a D&D Paladin, that works somewhat but kind of defeats the purpose of the entire thread.

The purpose of this thread is to ask if people are unhappy about non-LG Paladins, so no, it doesn't in any way "defeat" that. I'm not saying they can't be unhappy. We're discussing what defines Paladins in D&D.

Divine Warrior seems to be appropriate to cater to both Good and Evil Warriors/gods. Even still thru out all editions and different games that have Paladins, they have been portrayed as a Hero to the people, a Holy Warrior against Evil, and Protector of the innocent. On point though, the only exception to them being non LG was 4e (besides countless supplements with small changes that can be considered either pandering or marketing), which despite individual opinions was a movement to turn them from a specialist class into just a more defensive character with holy charged abilities, AKA the Paladin from WoW.

No, you are completely wrong here, Xodis, and re-writing D&D's history really severely. Every edition has had rules for non-LG Paladins. No exceptions.

4E was merely the first to put them in the PHB, but every edition has had TSR or WotC-printed rules for non-LG Paladins of some kind, whether it's the Anti-Paladin, or merely CG or NG Paladins, or Paladins for all alignments with different names, or whatever.

As for "AKA the Paladin from WoW." oh my god, really? I take it you've never played WoW, right? Or any Warcraft game? The Warcraft Paladins are solidly LG, as a group, and follow a strict code. So please explain, why you call 4E's Paladin, who is not necessarily LG, nor follows a strict LG code, "AKA the Paladin from WoW"?