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

[Hussar]

But is it essential to D&D's specific interpretation of the archetype? I would argue it is. Other games may interpret the archetype in other ways, but for D&D, the classic version is Lawful Good and strict behavioral code. I'd prefer it remain that way and leave alternative formulations as sidebar or DMG options which would give us both what we want out of D&D paladins.

But, again, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from playing a paladin as you see fit. If you want to play a classic paladin, how are you being prevented? In what way are you being stopped from achieving your character concept.

Or, is it that you want to play the classic paladin, and also, you want to make sure that anyone else who plays a character that writes paladin in the class line plays it in the way that you personally approve of?

After all, which "strict behavioural code" are you referring to? There are several. There's the 1e PHB restrictions. There's a series of Dragon magazine articles outlining various paladin codes. THere's the 2e paladin and the Dragonlance version as well. There's the Complete Paladin which includes a dozen or more different paladin kits which are all very, very different and focus on all sorts of different elements. There's the 3e paladin which doesn't really have much of a code at all and doesn't even have to follow a church of any kind, nor do you actually need to follow a diety at all in order to be a paladin (just who is stripping your powers away then?). Or perhaps the 4e paladin which is different still and more of a holy warrior dedicated to a specific series of player chosen concepts?

What "essential paladin" are you talking about?

And, again, even if you do choose to play your paladin in a particular way, what gives you the right to tell me how to play my character? How about you keep your hands on your own character and I'll worry about playing mine. There's an awful lot of wrongbadfun being tossed around here. If you have open ended paladins right in the PHB, everyone gets exactly what they want. If you want to play a highly restricted paladin, go right ahead. Absolutely nothing is stopping you. In fact, the rules will probably go out of their way to help you to do so by being very up front that you, the player, are responsible for your own character.

However, what you are not responsible for is how anyone else at the table chooses to play their character. That's their business and quite frankly none of yours. To me, this, more than anything else is why paladins are problematic at the table. Not because of players who want to ignore restrictions but because of busybody players who feel it incumbent upon themselves to protect the sanctity of their own version of something in D&D and cannot stand to let someone else interpret things differently.

 

[Hussar]

I know you don't agree with the argument, I just find it ridiculous after all this time when you act like you don't know what the opposing argument IS.

No one plays D&D in a vacuum. What one person plays affects the game world, which affects everyone else's characters. To claim otherwise borders on solipsism.

If my character concept is "Last Son of Krypton", and you come along and write up a Kryptonian warlord and his band of Kryptonese followers, do you claim your character choice does not impact mine?

So, basically, because you choose concept X for your character, I am in no way allowed to create anything which contradicts that? Ok, fair enough.

What if i made my character first? What if I'm the one with the Kryptonian warlord but, I made my character first? Does that mean that you cannot make your character? After all, now you're impacting my choice. Is that the only determining factor? Whoever gets that character made first gets to tell everyone else at the table what they can and cannot do?

I don't think so.

In your example, using your example, obviously there is something more going on here. So, now it's up to us, as players, during play to determine just what's going on. How can these two concepts both be true? What's happened? Am I pretender or were you just mistaken? I don't know, let's find out in play. Isn't that why we're sitting down at the table? I don't know about you, but that example to me just drips with adventure hooks and all sorts of cool stuff that's going to happen at the table.

So, make your classic paladin and I'll make my Tempus Thales (which is a totally cool character and pretty much a picture perfect Anti-Paladin) and we'll both write Paladin in the Class line on our character sheets and let's see what happens. Seems like good role-play to me.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

(just who is stripping your powers away then?).

Good question. Pretty sure Freud might have some ideas though!

 

[Kobold Stew]

I agree with you, Hussar, but I'd like to push you a bit if I might, given the quote i your sig file.

To me, this, more than anything else is why paladins are problematic at the table. Not because of players who want to ignore restrictions but because of busybody players who feel it incumbent upon themselves to protect the sanctity of their own version of something in D&D and cannot stand to let someone else interpret things differently.

Would you extend this to busybody DMs? i.e. should the paladin's player get to define (or at least contribute to) the ritual expectations of worship, and the expression of legitimate worship practices for that character? For me this is a no-brainer (yes!), but many disagree.

 

[Savage Wombat]

A game in which each person is completely independent of the others is not a shared game. It is two games played in parallel.

Regardless of how you choose to play D&D, you are still creating the game world jointly, not independently. Everyone must, to some degree, conform their expectations to that of the others in the group. If I join a D&D game with you, and insist on playing Galactus, are you just going to say that's my right as a player? Or are you going to point out that my character doesn't fit the paradigm in question?

It's one thing to argue for one version of the paladin or the other. But you can't claim that one player in a game (and this includes the DM) has no right to ANY say about what other players add to the game world.

 

[Halivar]

However, what you are not responsible for is how anyone else at the table chooses to play their character. That's their business and quite frankly none of yours. To me, this, more than anything else is why paladins are problematic at the table. Not because of players who want to ignore restrictions but because of busybody players who feel it incumbent upon themselves to protect the sanctity of their own version of something in D&D and cannot stand to let someone else interpret things differently.

That's pretty hyperbolic. There are no game-nazi's (in the grammar-nazi sense, not the Godwin sense) coming to enforce The One True Game Lore(tm) at your table. We're talking about what the default base assumptions of the published game should be; the version no one actually plays because once we get our gaming chops, we all tinker. We're arguing about who should be the house-ruling; me or you. And heretofore, the base assumption of the paladin is that he's LG and his powers come from his own innate goodness, and his code is based on the chivalry of old. Everything beyond that has been a non-core variant to provide variety for those that like it.

But now that the base assumption has changed, I'll be the one house-ruling for this edition: paladins are LG only.

 

[Savage Wombat]

So, basically, because you choose concept X for your character, I am in no way allowed to create anything which contradicts that? Ok, fair enough.

What if i made my character first? What if I'm the one with the Kryptonian warlord but, I made my character first? Does that mean that you cannot make your character? After all, now you're impacting my choice. Is that the only determining factor? Whoever gets that character made first gets to tell everyone else at the table what they can and cannot do?

I don't think so.

In your example, using your example, obviously there is something more going on here. So, now it's up to us, as players, during play to determine just what's going on. How can these two concepts both be true? What's happened? Am I pretender or were you just mistaken? I don't know, let's find out in play. Isn't that why we're sitting down at the table? I don't know about you, but that example to me just drips with adventure hooks and all sorts of cool stuff that's going to happen at the table.

So, make your classic paladin and I'll make my Tempus Thales (which is a totally cool character and pretty much a picture perfect Anti-Paladin) and we'll both write Paladin in the Class line on our character sheets and let's see what happens. Seems like good role-play to me.

1) My example establishes that one characters existence affects the concept of another, which is a point you seemed to dispute. In your example, my classic paladin's concept is now impacted by the existence of your pretender to his title. What if that's not something I wanted to role-play? Aren't you forcing me to play my character in your story?

2) Why do you give a fellow player the authority to "prove" through role-play whether your character is "right" (I know that's not really the point) - but would deny the DM the ability to do so?

In a world where any alignment has paladins, you exclude the character whose concept is "only the epitome of LG can be a paladin." The first concept does not actually include the second. That's what I find facetious about the whole thing - not that I staunchly defend LG paladins, but that those who prefer the broad concept do not understand that their model does not actually include the other model. This isn't really a matter of "you play your way and I'll play mine".

 

[Hussar]

I agree with you, Hussar, but I'd like to push you a bit if I might, given the quote i your sig file.



Would you extend this to busybody DMs? i.e. should the paladin's player get to define (or at least contribute to) the ritual expectations of worship, and the expression of legitimate worship practices for that character? For me this is a no-brainer (yes!), but many disagree.

Yes, I would. The number of players that I see who create "Man with No Name" characters because they are completely not interested in letting the DM have any hooks over their character speaks to this being a pretty common thing. "My character is an orphan, my hometown is destroyed/I'm from far away, I'm Neutral (or Chaotic Neutral) and have just recently arrived in the town and have met no one yet." Hardly a rare occurrence IMO.

Which tends to be the big problem with Paladins. The player has one vision of his paladin, the DM has another and the DM has the authority over the paladin character to a degree that isn't seen in any other class. So, I've certainly seen DM's telling players, "Sorry, you're playing your character wrong, do it right, or I'll take it away."

1) My example establishes that one characters existence affects the concept of another, which is a point you seemed to dispute. In your example, my classic paladin's concept is now impacted by the existence of your pretender to his title. What if that's not something I wanted to role-play? Aren't you forcing me to play my character in your story?

2) Why do you give a fellow player the authority to "prove" through role-play whether your character is "right" (I know that's not really the point) - but would deny the DM the ability to do so?

In a world where any alignment has paladins, you exclude the character whose concept is "only the epitome of LG can be a paladin." The first concept does not actually include the second. That's what I find facetious about the whole thing - not that I staunchly defend LG paladins, but that those who prefer the broad concept do not understand that their model does not actually include the other model. This isn't really a matter of "you play your way and I'll play mine".

Why is my character a pretender? Maybe I'm right. Why wouldn't I, as the DM, stand back and let you players work things out for yourselves? Good grief that sounds like a huge amount of fun. You guys sort it out and I'll stand back and occasionally giggle. Heck, you guys are writing my setting for me. Fantastic.

If you couldn't tell, I'm far, far more willing to let players take the reins than perhaps other DM's. You can certainly play a character whose concept is that "Only the epitome of LG can be a paladin". That's a fantastic character. What you cannot do is proclaim that you are absolutely 100% right and no one can ever have any other interpretations.

Again, you play your character and I'll play mine.

 

[evileeyore]

1) My example establishes that one characters existence affects the concept of another, which is a point you seemed to dispute.

Your original "example" - Superman, has never been reduced from the "Last Son of Krypton" concept by the addition of other Kryptonians. Not since the title was slapped on him in 1978 has he been 'reduced' by the backstories of others.

What if that's not something I wanted to role-play? Aren't you forcing me to play my character in your story?

So... what you're saying is you don't want to have to negotiate with your fellow players?

I know that's Hussar's hardline (which I disagree with so strongly I have no words), but is it also yours?

 

[Hussar]

Your original "example" - Superman, has never been reduced from the "Last Son of Krypton" concept by the addition of other Kryptonians. Not since the title was slapped on him in 1978 has he been 'reduced' by the backstories of others.


So... what you're saying is you don't want to have to negotiate with your fellow players?

I know that's Hussar's hardline (which I disagree with so strongly I have no words), but is it also yours?

Hang on. What hardline? I'm saying that you don't have the right to tell others what they can and cannot play. That you can play whatever you want to play, but, you really can't tell other people that they can't play something. Is that a hardline?

None of that precludes any sort of negotiation either. Savage Wombat is telling me that I cannot play my character because he has decided that his character is the only true version of Paladin. I'm saying that he can play his Paladin, and I can play mine, and we will resolve any issues in play.

What part of this are you disagreeing with?