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

[pemerton]

IIRC, they worship gods, but derive their power from their own innate goodness. They are not Clerics. They are Fighter+'s. They channel positive energy directly and not from their chosen deity. This was changed in 4th Edition and it was a substantial change, and an unneeded one, too, for the very reason you lay out.

You have it backwards. Non-god powered was 1st-3rd Edition. 4E made them god-powered.

From Gygax's AD&D PHB, p 22:

[A]ll paladind must begin as lawful good in alignment and alway remain lawful good or absolutely lose all of the special powers which are given to them. . . . Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins. If they ever knowinlg perform an act which is chaotic in nature, they must seek a high level (7th or above) cleric of lawful good alignment, confess their sin, and do penance as prescribed by the cleric. . . . An immediate tithe (10%) of all income . . . must be given to whatever charitable religious institution (not a clerical player character) of lawful good alignment the paladin selects. . . . If possible, paladins will take service or form an alliance with lawfl good characters, whether players or not, who are clerics or fighters (of noble status).​

From Gygax's AD&D DMG, p 39:

Note that the above [ie a lengthy discussion of how clerics obtain their spells from the gods] applies to paladins with respect to their clerical spell powers . . .​

In other words, 1st ed AD&D treats paladins as religiously-aligned characters who are closely related to, and in many ways resemble, clerics. There is no contrast drawn between paladins as powered by "innate goodness" and clerics as powered by the gods. Which is no surprise - both paladins and AD&D clerics are variant mechanical realisations of the same archetype, and within the outlook of that archetype there is no difference between being powered by goodness and being powered by the divine. This is a distnction that is introduced into D&D later on, by attempts to meld mechanical alignment with a widly polytheistic gameworld

 

[pemerton]

Is there a large amount of crossover between people who like LG-only paladins and people who have classes as recognized entities in the game world? There seems to be a similar thought process there.

I made a version of this point upthread, and am going to repeat it in this post, as to me it seems pretty fundamental to the discussion.

You think that saying "paladins can be any alignment should make everyone happy" is true - which I've shown actually isn't.

I'm not trying to persuade you to accept the other position - I'm trying to get you to understand what the other position is.

I understand the other position. As I explained 100 or so posts upthread, I think it rests on an unstated premise, that equates "The rules do not preclude a player from writing any alignment on that part of the sheet after writing "paladin" on the class part of the sheet" with "In the gameworld, paladins are not held to any particular (perhaps narrow) calling."

I think it is helpful to articulate that premise, as I think it brings out more clearly what the real substance of the disagreement is. For instance: I read the rules as a set of instructions to (prospective) players. Further steps are needed to establish what is, and what is possible, in the gameworld. From the fact that the rules don't instruct all players of paladins to play LG characters, nothing follows about what is, and is possible, in any particular gameworld.

My position is that a paladin class defined as allowing any alignment is not inclusive of a paladin archetype that requires LG alignment - and that you are mistaken in thinking that this solution should satisfy everyone.

A rulebook that does not direct players who build paladin PCs to also build LG PCs is quite inclusive of a paladin archetype that requires LG alignment. It just requires an additional step to be interpolated, along the lines of a GM saying "Because in my gameworld paladins examplify a LG archetype, if you are building a paladin PC that PC must also be LG".

It is only if that step is somehow problematic - eg because the GM in question wants to treat the rulebook not just as a series of instructions to players but also as an exhaustive account of the gameworld - that I can see how any lack of inclusion might arise. (Though I can't say that I really understand why that step would be problematic.)

What sets the LG paladin apart is that the mechanical restriction is the single greatest guarantor to the people of the world he inhabits that he will act justly and goodly. If we remove the alignment restriction, then you live in a world where displaying the power of a paladin is no indication of your moral bent.

I find this very hard to follow. If you ride into town wearing bright armour, heal wounds and disease with a touch, and throw the town bully into the watering trough, isn't that some indication of your moral bent? Perhaps you're a villlain masquerading as good, but then that is possible even if all paladins must be LG (evil clerics can wear any armour and cast healing spells, after all).

I think one of the issues I have with the paladin having no alignment restrictions is that (at least in the case of the 4e paladin) the epitome of good part of the archetype essentially no longer exists. Instead of Galahad (the pure and good...God's knight archetype)... we get the knights of the round table (none of which were pure enough or good enough to claim the grail) and many of which would be better classified as Fighters with a code in D&D.

You don't think the fact that the 4e paladin heals others by giving of him-/herself, or is at his/her best when valiantly defending his/her friends from harm, speaks to being the epitome of goodness?

Also, given that 2nd ed AD&D calls out such Knights of the Round Table as Gawain and Lancelot as paladin exemplars, I'm not sure on what basis you say that in D&D they would not be paladins. (In DDG Gawain was a fighter but Lancelot, Galahad and Arthur were all paladins.)

I'm not understanding the point of this post? Those "knights" you are speaking of outside Galahad (and possibly Percival) are not paladins to those who advocate for the LG paladin... they are cavaliers, or fighters with a code/kit/noble background/etc.

FWIW, Arthurian knights are not my epitome of LG.

Again, just for the sake of clarity - various pronouncements from canonical D&D rulebooks concerning exemplars of LG paladinhood don't count?

So where, then, is the concpetion of the LG paladin to be found, if not in those rulebooks?

the archetype of a "knight in shining armor" (and by that I don't mean just an evil knight with a good buff on his metalware) is widely known in general culture, not just in D&D. That makes the paladin, on its surface, a pretty easy class for the uninitiated to put into the context of heroic play.

But are you saying that new players will have trouble doing this if the rulebook doesn't tell them what alignment they should make their paladin character? You don't think they'll work out that if they want to play a knight in shining armour, they're probably looking at a character more good than evil?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I don't understand why I keep having to repeat myself. My position is that the definition of Paladin as a class with no alignment restrictions is not inclusive of the definition of Paladins as always LG. And that some people continue to propose that their definition IS inclusive. That there is no reasonable disagreement on this point. My position is that this is an error.

Okay, this I can work with. And in fact, I agreed with you a few posts ago; don't hold your breath for others to agree though.

No, you are still trying to twist my point into another strawman.

Wrong again, and I'm getting tired of being accused of strawmanning, so I'm ending this conversation. Enjoy your "law of physics" alignment requirements and codes of conduct.

 

[pemerton]

How are those questions answered through play (via the DM) without offending one of the players/characters?
I doubt these answers will come from play via the players through their characters, which would leave the DM having to sort this mess out as to which character (player's concept) is right or am I not interpreting your post correctly.

"Answering questions through play" is somewhat metaphorical.

What I mean is: there are two PCs, different in outlook and perhaps religions, but each of which presents him-/herself, both within the gameworld fiction and as played at the table among the real-world participants, as a paladin, a holy and honourable warrior. (This situation is part of my 4e game: there is a paladin/questing knight/marshall of Letherna who serves the Raven Queen; and a fighter-cleric/warpriest/eternal defender who serves Moradin. Each presents as a holy and honourable warrior who is realsing the divine will.)

It probably can't be true, in the fiction, that both are equally honourable and holy. (Because they are different, and come into conflict as a result of those differences.) Hence, both within the fiction and to the game participants as audience, a question arises - who is the real paladin?

This question is unlikely to receive a literal answer - just as the question "Who is the real villian, Macbeth or Lady Macbeth" does not receive a literal answer in Shakespeare's play. It is a matter of audience interpretation. But there is no disputing that the play provides material which is relevant to that question, and which bears upon the villainy of each of those characters. Likewise, in the sort of play that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I are describing, there is an expectation that the actual play of the game will generate material that will be relevant to the question "who is the real paladin?".

For instance, the GM might frame and adjudicate situations which force choices to be made between honour and justice. Or which force the PCs (and hence the players) to decide their attitude towards devil-worshipping but honourable duergar. Etc. As these episodes of play are resolved, the nature of the two characters emerges more clearly, and more refined judgements about them become possible.

This requires certain GMing techniques - eg flexible backstory and gameworld development, so that the GM is going where the players take him/her. World exploration becomes secondary. It also requires the players to be willing to take a chance, to put themselves out there a little bit, and perhaps to find that not all the other players share one's own conception of one's PC. In that way it has something in common with authorship! (That's why the Forge calls it "Story Now".)

One trope associated specifically with conventional LG paladins is telling the truth and always keeping their word, even when pragmatism would suggest otherwise. This provides a contrasts with the treachery and dishonesty of villians, who may insult the paladin but know his word can be trusted unlike their own.

In stories the honesty of the paladin often turns out to ultimately benefit his goals in unexpected ways. I find this sort of event doesn't arise organically in RPGs, which default to encouraging pragmatism

In this and other threads on paladins I have described this phenomen - that, for a paladin, being virtuous is not a burden but a benefit - as "providential morality". I agree that it is hard to realise this phenomenon in traditional D&D play. But I don't think it is hard to realise it in RPGs in general: all the GM has to do is to stop framing and adjudicating situations such that pragmatism is the best path!

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Yep. The names we give things are important. Look at the mess WotC made of tieflings and eladrin; they aren't want they were for the 30 years before 4E, and there was no good reason for it. When you introduce something new, use a new name. Don't fundamentally change something else and slap the old name onto it.

I don't care for all of the changes that 4e made either -- tieflings, the 'divine empowerment ritual,' and most notably the wizard -- but I think you're overestimating the number of people who get hung up on names. A car used to be an unreliable horseless carriage that required manual cranking to start up; post-its and kleenexes used to be specific brand names, before being adopted as improper nouns; Coke used to be a medicinal tonic; history is filled with changes in definition and naming. And mind you, these are all real things, and far older than the D&D paladin.

I'm going to agree again with Hussar here -- sure, changing the class name to champion or holy warrior would have solved the problem for many of us. But for whatever reason, the 4e team and now the 5e team has decided that an inclusive paladin class is more valuable than both a champion/whatever class and the traditionally restrictive definition for 'paladin.' And who's to say they're wrong? Like I said earlier, any decision is going provoke griping, and there's no guarantee that a different decision would result in fewer disappointed fans.

I think this is an inappropriate analogy on many levels. Characters on a piece of paper don't have feelings, and being told by your DM you can't play a certain character is not a civil rights violation. I could make an equally inappropriate analogy by saying that you're trying to bring borscht to my thanksgiving dinner (someone did this; don't do that).

Well I can't imagine why I would bring borscht to any meal.

Anyhow, I'm not arguing that paladins and civil rights are equivalent issues -- that would be patently absurd. Civil rights are vastly more important than paladins. However, paladins are much easier to redefine than laws. D&D has only existed for about 40 years, so there's less traditionalist inertia; there's no bureaucracy that must be navigated to change the definition, whether it's an official change or a house rule; and there's no risk that some minority of violent extremists will start killing people over the change. (Particularly petty nerdrage might result in a broken nose or two, though.)

What I'm saying is that this paladin issue is strikingly similar to some real life issues in concept, if not in importance. And the point of bringing real life issues into the conversation is to demonstrate that...

The argument of "should paladins be restricted to LG" is between "people who prefer the option of any alignment for paladins" and "people who think that what it means to be a paladin includes being LG". It is NOT between "inclusive people who want everyone to have fun" and "butthurt whiners who only want their own way". And I've seen a lot of posters who seem to be arguing exclusively against the second group.

...Debates can and sometimes are both of these things. I wouldn't use the phrase "butthurt whiners who only want their own way," but history is full of struggles between those who want consistency, equity, and freedom, and those unwilling to accept change even in the face of an arbitrarily problematic tradition.

And of course the sizable middle-ground of fence-sitters, uninformed, and uninterested, who eventually just start rolling their eyes at the old guard who have defined themselves into exclusion.

 

[Xodis]

Not to my knowledge, they don't, but then I don't know every detail about those settings.

But more importantly, I believe we went over this a few pages back, which resulted in me realizing that you don't actually want to discuss this -- you just want to argue. So you'll forgive me for not explaining again why any given god might want a variety of faithfuls.

Thank you so much for knowing my intentions better than anyone, I can see there is no fooling you /endsarcasm

My point was that if Gods in established settings already have their special snowflakes class/follower then again there is no reason to have yet another "Divine Warrior" as then it starts getting redundant when there is a already a sect specifically designed to carry out their gods will other than priests.

You didn't explain anything except your opinion, which is cool as that is what these forums are I believe, as I have stated mine. Your comment is what I considered mindless aggression and useless drivel though, as more friendly posters have already answered the question that was a "legitimate" question, contrary to your snark reply and/or beliefs. It's cool if you want to develop an attitude, but feel free to keep it to yourself, I have done or said nothing to you. Unless I call you out specifically consider my posts not directed towards you in any fashion.

 

[Greg K]

Also, given that 2nd ed AD&D calls out such Knights of the Round Table as Gawain and Lancelot as paladin exemplars, I'm not sure on what basis you say that in D&D they would not be paladins. (In DDG Gawain was a fighter but Lancelot, Galahad and Arthur were all paladins.)

Well with regards to DDG, Gygax has stated that it was a mistake to allow Kuntz and Ward to use the paladin class for Lancelot and Arthur as they don't qualify to be Paladins. So, if the designer of AD&D says they should not be paladins, to me that is unofficial errata for 1e.

 

[billd91]

But are you saying that new players will have trouble doing this if the rulebook doesn't tell them what alignment they should make their paladin character? You don't think they'll work out that if they want to play a knight in shining armour, they're probably looking at a character more good than evil?

I'd be more inclined to say it creates an utterly unnecessary tension between the common understanding of the inexperienced and the rules of the game. And, from a usability perspective, that is inadvisable. It may not be quite as inadvisable as having ACs start at 10 and go down as they get better, but then the designers had the wisdom to remove that particular artifact in 3e and the game is all the more understandable for doing so.

I would also so that retaining a focus on LG paladins (with others options at table's discretion) makes a statement that 5e isn't making sacred hamburger out of long-held D&D tropes and character--something WotC clearly values this time around.

 

[billd91]

Well with regards to DDG, Gygax has stated that it was a mistake to allow Kuntz and Ward to use the paladin class for Lancelot and Arthur as they don't qualify to be Paladins. So, if the designer of AD&D says they should not be paladins, to me that is unofficial errata for 1e.

Wasn't Lancelot specifically a failed paladin? I may have to dig my copy out.

EDIT: In the 1e DDG, yes. He's a 20th level paladin... with no paladin powers. And that ultimately means he's a fighter with a bad XP chart.

EDIT2: In the 2e Legends and Lore, Lancelot's a fighter because he's a failed paladin.

 

[Greg K]

Wasn't Lancelot specifically a failed paladin? I may have to dig my copy out.

Possibly. It has been a while since I looked at my copy.