Easy Paladin Poll

[Ellington]

I'd be cool with either option to be honest.

I like the idea of the archetypical Lawful Good paladin and that it's somewhat of a challenge to play. To me it's a part of classic D&D.

I also like the idea of a class that serves as a champion of various gods and ideals, good or evil. I think not having one leaves a pretty big gap in the roster of needed characters.
I'm a bit iffy about neutral paladins though, so requiring them to be of alignment extremes (LG, CG, LE or CE) would be pretty cool. We could even give them different names:

Paladin = Lawful Good
Avenger = Chaotic Good
Blackguard = Lawful Evil
Antipaladin = Chaotic Evil

Just a thought. Either way they go, I'd like their ingame mechanics to be less based on alignment, so no more detect evil or smite evil.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You really need to get out more...

To be fair, I'm currently taking a small elective graduate course in oncology and another in narratives in medicine and I spend a fair amount of time thinking about these kinds of things.

That was funny. I don't get the hatred for the class. I run a 3.5 campaign for 2 years now, and we have never had problems with Paladins

I played a rogue (thief, really) in a game where there was a paladin that the DM made a higher level than everyone else and gave him ridiculous artifacts in order to make him the leader. That kind of sucked. I played a chaotic neutral psychic warrior in another game where the paladin was a dick who tried to skewer me because I wasn't good enough. So I ban paladins in my games.

But as to alignment in general, I did have a campaign where a debate about what a certain character's alignment should be really detracted from the game. I can also imagine where detect alignment spells could really screw up a game, so I never use them.

To be fair, I have no doubt that if everyone is on the same page it's possible for the D&D alignment rules and their champion to play well, but I thrive in a creative atmosphere where everyone has a different perspective. In that context, alignment does not work. These days, I play it more likie the d20 Modern allegiance system (optionally declare an allegiance to whatever you value) and I ignore the alignment-based mechanics.

 

[tlantl]

In many years of playing D&D I've only had two people even try to play a paladin. Both sucked at it. My very first character was a paladin. I hated the character immediately. He didn't last very long. I seem to remember suiciding when we were fighting orcs.

My second was a druid, much better for me.

I really think paladins are a waste of space, but up until 3e was released it was the only viable holy warrior. 1st edition clerics can't do what a paladin can. When specialty priests were introduced this changed somewhat but the paladin as cavalier had come into being and the class fit much better.

Even though I don't have much use for paladins I think they fit the game better than warlocks or warlords ( what a dumb name ).

As for their alignment, well I think the paladin is the embodiment of lawful good. It's kind of hard to have paladins in a game where there are no alignments.

 

[fuindordm]

Wow, really even result so far! I'm surprised.

There's lots of paladin dislike, mainly because LG doesn't always play well with others. I understand the problem. But D&D has never been a game that works well when every player makes a character without considering the rest of the party. I've seen many campaigns fail just because the players make ambitious, motivated, 3d PCs that cannot get along with each other because they have incompatible goals.

The game works best when the players decide what kind of party the want to play (heroes? Mercenaries? Avengers? Agents?) and only then make characters. Inevitably, the campaign style will favor some classes and discourage others.

But it took many years of experience for me to understand this. It would be helpful if the PH emphasised that playing well with others should trump "play whatever you feel like".

 

[Mouseferatu]

The solution to almost every problem people have had with (classic LG) paladins is not to ban paladins, but to ban players who take any character concept as an excuse to be a dick.

 

[Arlough]

I don't like the LG Paladin because the two-axis alignment system is, IMHO, boring.
Then again, that's why I like settings like Eberron where you can't tell someone's motives by looking at their race or profession.

I've worked out a houserule with a pair of players where we come up with a list of commandments of their chosen god, and they are compelled to act in accordance to those.

If WotC had a list of commandments tied to gods, and each paladin was required to pick X number of them, I would find that a very pleasing replacement for alignment and an acceptable restriction on paladins.

Same system could be used for pact-bound classes too. A warlock that is required to further his/her patron's goals will always have a in-character motivation.

 

[Gargoyle]

I voted LG only, somewhat to my own surprise. My change of heart being that I think in hindsight I enjoyed the social challenges of having LG only paladins in my groups more than we enjoyed having the option of a paladin of any alignment. The interaction of the do gooder paladins with the rest of the party was simply more fun.

My opinion was influenced by the fact that alignment will definitely be in 5e. I could do without it, but since it's going to be in D&D, we might as well use it to create some (fun) drama.

 

[hafrogman]

It's great that so many of you have had fun exploring the moral conflicts that can arise from playing a lawful good character in a shades of grey world . . . but why does that mean that other kinds of paladins can't exist?

Why does the fact that you enjoy one thing imply that having options would somehow remove your enjoyment?

 

[Gargoyle]

It's great that so many of you have had fun exploring the moral conflicts that can arise from playing a lawful good character in a shades of grey world . . . but why does that mean that other kinds of paladins can't exist?

Why does the fact that you enjoy one thing imply that having options would somehow remove your enjoyment?

My explanation was in my post above...I felt like it was more fun that way, so that's how I'd like to see LG paladins in the core rules. Sure I could house rule it and say "LG paladins only", but you could do the same and say "Your paladin can be of any alignment". As a DM, I want as few house rules as possible, so I'd prefer it to be my way.

Another reason I think LG only is the way to go in a unifying edition of D&D is that was the central design point of the original paladin for many editions of D&D. Detect Evil. Smite Evil. Code of Conduct. These were the things that made paladins unique and fun and challenging to play. It was all alignment based. They really weren't that much different otherwise from fighters until 4E.

Really it's not about ruining someone else's fun just because they wanted to play a chaotic neutral paladin. It's just that's not an option I think I'd want in my game, or that belongs in 5e except as an optional or house rule.

Personally, if I had it my way, alignment would go away completely, and there would be a system of allegiances. But that's not going to happen, so my thinking is that if you're going to keep that sacred cow, keep this one too.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I don't think Paladin's should be restricted to any specific alignment. I'm good with them just holding to a creed. But then again, I don't use the 9 Alignments in my games.

Paladins by alignment, or ethos, or concept, or ethnic group.. not by god though, to avoid treading on Clerics.

I liked these two comments and they address how I feel about holy knights.
I couldn't answer the poll as none of the answers quite fit my answer.


I think a creed is much more valuable than an alignment. Beyond that, I wonder if the creed is one of a god or one of a sect. Are there paladins of justice, or paladins of Torm? I'd like there to be one or the other, but not both.


It'd be an interesting division if paladins were outside the church and served specific ideals, whereas clerics served specific gods (perhaps with different understandings/foci on those gods different spheres/ideals).



I do think evil gods should have (un)holy warriors (or the tenets of evil should have dedicated warriors).


Lastly, I think the name "Paladin" should remain LG only (or the archetype of Charlemagne's paladins whatever their creed) while other names or a generic name would apply to warriors of a god ("templars"?).

It bugged me when they made Angels "servants of gods, including evil gods" in 4e. I'd have prefered a new term "Deists?" with Angels only serving good gods.