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

[evileeyore]

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.

Established setting is being reset. As happens when rules are changed. Likely many of those Gods that had individual "holy warriors" will now have Oath Bound Paladins serving them.

 

[Scarbonac]

Neither did Gary. He didn't think they were Paladins.

IIRC, Gary did not care for the whole Arthurian shebang.

 

[Voadam]

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.

Remind me what those special divine powered non-cleric, non-paladin classes are for other gods that paladin religions don't get?

Druid and Ranger?

I believe 2e FR had clerics and also specialty priest specific classes for every god including the ones that sponsored paladins.

I believe 2e Greyhawk did as well.

3e had prestige classes for lots of gods but I don't remember a lot of new divine deity-specific classes.

 

[evileeyore]

IIRC, Gary did not care for the whole Arthurian shebang.

Bah, he doesn't matter anymore.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Okay. I can accept that this is your position on the issue. I don't see it as reasonable. Your position is an error in logic, being based in emotion.

And this is why I engage in arguments like this - people who don't actually address the arguments of the other side annoy me.

Character flaw - I get an Inspiration point.

 

[Voadam]

I think of paladins as powered warriors and I like removing the LG restriction from the core class.

Reading about Tempus in the 80s he struck me as being a paladin for a different divine force than the LG AD&D assumption, one for Thieve's World that would be cool in D&D. Same thing with Chaos Warriors in WFRP. With the big emphasis on different AD&D pantheons and AD&D campaign settings I always thought variants from the LG original restrictions made sense and would enrich D&D games. Having the code and LG restrictions hardcoded into the rules made for some weirdness when you set up settings using stuff like the Greek pantheon in your D&D games. In a Norse pantheon using D&D game divine powered champions next to clerics should not be Baldur and possibly Odin and Tyr based only.

 

[Hussar]

If Lancelot is statted as a failed paladin, doesn't that mean that up until the time he cuckolded Arthur, he actually was a paladin? That, if you do everything Lancelot does except schtup the king's wife, you're a paladin?

So how is Lancelot not a good archetype for paladin again?

 

[evileeyore]

And this is why I engage in arguments like this - people who don't actually address the arguments of the other side annoy me.

Fun ain't it?

You say my position is an error, I say your's is illogical (and an error). Round and round.



You'll not convince me that Paladins have to be anything other than what they were originally, 12 peerless warriors and the boon companions of Roland. Seriously, anyone claiming "tradition" says otherwise is whistling dixie as my idea of what makes a traditional Paladin predates it by centuries.

Now, I'll accept the idea that Virtuous Warriors and some of the Mythology of the Grail Quest makes for some nice fluffing of the class (Romantic Chivalry even), but that doesn't require alignment restrictions.

Guidelines? Yes. DM's houseruling? Sure, have it boyos. But the base 5e playtest Paladin fits my "Virtuous Warrior" ideal just fine.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Fun ain't it?

You say my position is an error, I say your's is illogical (and an error). Round and round.

Except I defended my position, and you haven't.

You'll not convince me that Paladins have to be anything other than what they were originally, 12 peerless warriors and the boon companions of Roland. Seriously, anyone claiming "tradition" says otherwise is whistling dixie as my idea of what makes a traditional Paladin predates it by centuries.

And I never tried to convince you of that. Which supports my point that you haven't tried to understand my argument at all.

 

[evileeyore]

If Lancelot is statted as a failed paladin, doesn't that mean that up until the time he cuckolded Arthur, he actually was a paladin? That, if you do everything Lancelot does except schtup the king's wife, you're a paladin?

So how is Lancelot not a good archetype for paladin again?

He's an excellent example in all ways aside from that one time he shtupped the Queen.

Technically by any D&D standards* all he needs to do is atone and seek penance with the proper Clerical benefactor and "poof" he's a Paladin again. Don't know why he was ever stated as anything other... oh right. He never sought penance with Arthur, the Right and True King as Ordained By God.




* 2e and 3e. I don't have access to 1e books and 4e don't rightly care.