Easy Paladin Poll

[Lwaxy]

I don't want CE, LN, NE or CN paladins in my world. The idea of those alignments following some sort of paladin-like code is alien to me.

LE is the antipaladin although they are calling themselves paladin, TN is only done with some logical ties to druids and a druid friendly god. NG and CG are fine as a subclass of chaos paladin we use (CG as the chaotic crazy to the lawful stupid).

However if a player had a super cool idea for the left out alignments and it would fit in the world I'd do it.

 

[Mallus]

I think the best method is a LG only approach. It would actually allow the class to be defined. Without alignment restrictions the class is adrift.

"You are a warrior for your belief system."

It becomes a fighter/priest of "fill in the blank".

"Unlike fighter/priests, you fight with armor, weapons, and a few manifest signs of your god's --or belief system's-- grace. Not spells."

It's not *too* hard to define paladins without requiring them to be LG....

 

[stoloc]

I love the idea that any god can have paladins, I thought this was one of the great innovations of 4E but after I while I forget which edition spawned what lol. After all its about more choices you can still play your hard core strict LG Pally or play something completely diff like a paladin of neutral god of merchants if thats your cup of tea.

Just what we need a bunch of radical Teaparty Paladins

 

[Invisible Stalker]

If it's not Lawful Good it's not a Paladin.

The closer WOTC gets the Paladin (and the Ranger for that matter) back to its 1E version, the happier I'll be.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

Just what we need a bunch of radical Teaparty Paladins

Tithed
Enough
Already!

 

[Invisible Stalker]

Then they're wasted ink.

I call that class the Rogue.

 

[Arlough]

My guff with an LG paladin has nothing to do with wanting power without restrictions. I want the class to be both more powerful and heavily restricted.
My issue is the alignment system itself. It isn't nuanced enough. The BBEG rarely actually thinks of himself as evil. Someone can technically follow the letter of the law while violating all it stands for, and commitment to staying completely neutral is a strict code one adheres to.
I would like, instead, that each deity has a set of commandments that must be followed, and a set of powers this then imbues. The more restrictions, the more powers (but inherently less flaunting of said power.) That seems, to me, a much more interesting balance.
Then again, in my campaigns goblins are not necessarily evil, elves aren't always good, and halflings aren't always thrives.

Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm not sure...

The traditional LG paladin has its issues, but they can be both tedious and irritating or challenging and rewarding, depending on the player. I think the LG version of the paladin is the best starting point for the concept, just like the scholar is the best starting point for designing a wizard class, and the urban-savvy thief the best starting point for designing a rogue class, but I definitely don't like the game to tell me I should not try to stray away from the most common archetype...

In the case of a paladin, straying away in alignment can make it either easier to play or more challenging, again depending on the player. IMXP the player who ends up with a "lawful stupid" paladin should better have been allowed to play a NG or even CG paladin, because this would have avoided most problems when choosing law over good or viceversa; on the contrary, a player who is already good at interpreting the tension of these two "sides" of a LG paladin, can find new interesting challenges in a variant paladin.

But the flip of the coin about allowing too much freedom of alignment (or freedom of concept, for other classes) is that you may end up with a shortage of classic archetypes. Not a bad thing for a single group, but considering the whole D&D community, I would certainly like there to be creativity on character concepts but at the same time I also need to see some "kernel" of classic archetypes being the most common characters.

I'm mostly rambling here, I have no solution But perhaps it would be good if the D&D designers would give different design weights to classic archetypes vs variants and oddballs, and then trust the gamers themselves to be able to come up with their own material for the not-so-classics. In case of the paladin, focus on the abilities of the LG version (I don't know, maybe make it so that 50% of the PHB material for paladin is mostly meant for the LG, and the remaining 50% for everybody else), but don't write "requirement: MUST BE LG! anything else illegal!", just explain that most or maybe nearly all paladins are supposed to be LG, vary at your own risk.

 

[Sunseeker]

My guff with an LG paladin has nothing to do with wanting power without restrictions. I want the class to be both more powerful and heavily restricted.
My issue is the alignment system itself. It isn't nuanced enough. The BBEG rarely actually thinks of himself as evil. Someone can technically follow the letter of the law while violating all it stands for, and commitment to staying completely neutral is a strict code one adheres to.
I would like, instead, that each deity has a set of commandments that must be followed, and a set of powers this then imbues. The more restrictions, the more powers (but inherently less flaunting of said power.) That seems, to me, a much more interesting balance.
Then again, in my campaigns goblins are not necessarily evil, elves aren't always good, and halflings aren't always thrives.

Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 2

While likely a difficult design to balance, as adherence to such codes would either end up highly rulesy or entirely at DM discretion. I think the former would make it boring and the latter would allow DM fingers too deep into PC cookie jars.

Still it would be cool.

 

[Arlough]

While likely a difficult design to balance, as adherence to such codes would either end up highly rulesy or entirely at DM discretion. I think the former would make it boring and the latter would allow DM fingers too deep into PC cookie jars.

Still it would be cool.

What about something along the lines of this...
You have a number of selections of power+restriction. Let's call the aspects for now.
Classes like the paladin can/must take a certain number of these.
You could even break it into power sources, so a warlock may have to choose some Arcane Aspects tied to his/her patron and a cleric is selecting Divine Aspects relating to his/her god.
Heck maybe even have Martial Aspects.
An ancient sword style that requires a certain type of blade and prohibits you from attacking unarmed or unaware foes (no flanking) or requires the attack be done against an unaware foe (sneak attack.)
Mechanically, these will restrict you in action rather than purpose, but you can have flavor tied to them as well.

Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 2