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

[Lalato]

I agree that it's campaign specific. But I'll also be the first to admit that if the campaign followed the more strict meddling gods model, I would be playing the least religious character that ever graced the universe.

 

[Hussar]

I agree that it's campaign specific. But I'll also be the first to admit that if the campaign followed the more strict meddling gods model, I would be playing the least religious character that ever graced the universe.

This.

IME, players would rather eat their own shorts than let the DM have that much control over their characters.

 

[Grazzt]

Because when people questioned certain articles, it had been stated in letter and opinion columns that they (the articles in question) were not official.

Yep. And up to a certain point way way back, only articles written by Gygax were considered official. I believe this was even stated once in the magazine way back in the early 80s (obviously before he left).

 

[Greg K]

Yep. And up to a certain point way way back, only articles written by Gygax were considered official. I believe this was even stated once in the magazine way back in the early 80s (obviously before he left).

Certain articles. For example, in a Top Secret article that he wrote, he stated that the material was not official.

 

[Hussar]

What I don't understand in all this is how someone who prefers traditional paladins is prevented from doing so in an open paladin system.

If you like trad paladins, by all means play one. But if I want to play a CG paladin, how are you being impacted?

 

[Savage Wombat]

What I don't understand in all this is how someone who prefers traditional paladins is prevented from doing so in an open paladin system.

If you like trad paladins, by all means play one. But if I want to play a CG paladin, how are you being impacted?

Well, it changes the definition of what a paladin is in the first place. It's like (to use gross hyperbole) if I play an elf character, and you make up a character who draws magical power from the demonic forces that elves have instead of souls - your character concept alters mine drastically.

D&D has never been a completely free-form, play whatever you can think of game. Things in the game have definitions. And a "Paladins are LG" paladin class is not the same as a "Paladins are whatever alignment their god is" class. So it's just a matter of who prefers which definition.

I don't see why this surprises you.

 

[pemerton]

When fighters are dealing a flat 1d6 damage a hit (if I'm remembering the right conversation), and all HD are of the d8 variety? That's the understatement of the week, at least!

HD were 1d8.

Damage in AD&D is better than 1d6, though, for fighters, thieves and clerics: maces are 1d6+1, longswords are 1d8. But oil is the best ranged weapon (bows are 1d6, slings and crossbows 1d4+1, axes and spears 1d6). And magic-users can use it when they run out of spell(s), too. It's good stuff!

 

[pemerton]

Well, it changes the definition of what a paladin is in the first place.

<snip>

"Paladins are LG" paladin class is not the same as a "Paladins are whatever alignment their god is" class. So it's just a matter of who prefers which definition.

I think this identifies at least part of the issue.

There are some FRPG players (I would regard myself as one) for whom the core concept of a paladin is "honourable, knightly warrior in service to the divine." The alignment mechanics are just one way, for those who use them, of giving mechanical expression to this archetype. 4e shows another way (ie through the way the class abilities are built up). And I've played games where the archetype did not have any particular mechanical expression at all, but was realised purely through roleplaying (ie there was no mechanical reason for the player to play his/her PC as honourable rather than sneaky, but the player just chose to do it that way).

But it seems clear to me that there is a group of D&D players, non-negligible in size at least on these boards, for whom alignment (LG) is at the core of the concept of the paladin.

 

[Hussar]

Well, it changes the definition of what a paladin is in the first place. It's like (to use gross hyperbole) if I play an elf character, and you make up a character who draws magical power from the demonic forces that elves have instead of souls - your character concept alters mine drastically.

D&D has never been a completely free-form, play whatever you can think of game. Things in the game have definitions. And a "Paladins are LG" paladin class is not the same as a "Paladins are whatever alignment their god is" class. So it's just a matter of who prefers which definition.

I don't see why this surprises you.

Why do you care what definition I use for my character? It impacts you in no way. Even if we both play paladins in the same campaign, how is it remotely your business how I play my character?

If I choose to play a fighter and call it a samurai, how does this affect your samurai classed character? If I choose to call my rogue a priest of Kord, again, how is that any of your business?

I am surprised by how many people seem to want to tell other people they are playing wrong. I think the game would be much better served if people could worry about their own characters and stop trying to play someone else's character for them.

 

[billd91]

Why do you care what definition I use for my character? It impacts you in no way. Even if we both play paladins in the same campaign, how is it remotely your business how I play my character?

If it's a question of what you use at your own table, that has no affect on me or the game at large. But, by removing the LG requirement, the publishers are redefining the paladin's essential character. Certainly they have the power to put lipstick on a pig and call it whatever they want, but a little bit of what makes D&D distinct erodes with that change.