D&D 5E The Paladin excerpt

[Remathilis]

I'm digging the backgrounds on these things. The spoooky vibe of the warlock, the bustling town of the bard, the coast-at-sunset here with the paladin. I mean, I don't know what that dude's screaming about, but that place he's standing in front of looks cool to go visit!

 

[Savage Wombat]

From the last paragraph before "Quick Build", we see that paladins are "rarely evil" and that their alignments "might be in harmony" with their oaths or might not. It seems there are not alignment restrictions, but there are alignment guidelines.

So you can be a non-LG paladin, but it means you're bad at your job? I don't think that really fits what the "any alignment" supporters were wanting. I hope this isn't one of those "compromises that makes nobody happy".

 

[Eirikrautha]

Are we sure that Paladins dont have to be Lawful in this edition? The entire intro to them, Oaths, and their whole vibe from this teaser says Lawful Good. Looking for facts, not to rehash the whole Paladin discussion from earlier.

Yeah. Unless dedication to an oath (as your defining characteristic) somehow doesn't qualify as Lawful, it seems like Paladins would have to be. And the last paragraph in the intro text clearly states that they are sworn to battle "evil"... which would pretty much make them Good. So yours is a very good question...

 

[Thaumaturge]

I actually REALLY love the idea of role playing a Paladin whose alignment doesn't quite match his/her oath. One that is trying to walk a good, holy path but it's a very hard road for him/her. It's not something I thought of before this preview.

So you can be a non-LG paladin, but it means you're bad at your job?

I find it interesting how the same material strikes some positively and some negatively.

"Struggle to live up to your employer's standards" and "bad at your job" are different things.

Thaumaturge.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I actually REALLY love the idea of role playing a Paladin whose alignment doesn't quite match his/her oath. One that is trying to walk a good, holy path but it's a very hard road for him/her. It's not something I thought of before this preview.

I can't wait to play my paladin who keeps struggling to be good but just can't help burning down orphanages and eating babies and kicking puppies and attempting genocide. "I want to achieve these high ideals, but that puppy was just beggingto be kicked, you guys, you don't understand! It was a lot of fun, but I feel real bad."

Joking aside this does make my idea of a warlock/paladin multiclass a little more interesting. Bound to Hell, but trying for Heaven....

 

[Remathilis]

So you can be a non-LG paladin, but it means you're bad at your job? I don't think that really fits what the "any alignment" supporters were wanting. I hope this isn't one of those "compromises that makes nobody happy".

I think we just found our answer as to why the Blackguard is going to be in the DMG and not the PHB...

 

[Wormwood]

"Struggle to live up to your employer's standards" and "bad at your job" are different things.

One is a tragic hero, the other is me.

 

[Eirikrautha]

From the last paragraph before "Quick Build", we see that paladins are "rarely evil" and that their alignments "might be in harmony" with their oaths or might not. It seems there are not alignment restrictions, but there are alignment guidelines.

Thaumaturge.

Hmmm. That's even more puzzling (I missed it on my quick read-through... who ever looks at "quick-build" ). So if there are "guidelines," I wonder if there are any penalties to violating them? What good would a Chaotic Neutral Paladin be if he lost his powers every time he played his alignment rather than Lawful Good? That's like saying, "You can pick any fruit you like... but if you pick anything other than an apple I'm going to punch you in the neck."

 

[Sacrosanct]

So you can be a non-LG paladin, but it means you're bad at your job? .

Where does it remotely hint that if you're not LG, you're not as effective as a paladin?

 

[Snapdragyn]

Yeah. Unless dedication to an oath (as your defining characteristic) somehow doesn't qualify as Lawful, it seems like Paladins would have to be. And the last paragraph in the intro text clearly states that they are sworn to battle "evil"... which would pretty much make them Good. So yours is a very good question...

If That Document Which Shall Not Be Named is any guide, then one of the oaths favors freedom (so Chaotic Good would surely fit), and another favors defeating evil at any cost (so Lawful Neutral would fit - the holy warrior unwilling to place her own purity above getting the job done).

That's without even getting into the easy(ish) '1-step off' paladins trying to live up to an ideal (I do think diametrically opposed would be pushing it for a concept).