Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5914980" data-attributes="member: 92511">Wow! I don't think I've EVER seen a poll on Enworld that was so perfectly, precisely, "on the fence" with a 50/50 split like this. People sho' do seem to have strong opinions about the Paladin...moreso, it would seem, than just about any other topic/class. The question of a "sub-class" was never really a question for me. Even presenting "Paladin" as a class right up along with the "big four" never really changed that perception, for me. The paladin was still a "fighter - but more specific in this way" or "received these extra [abilities] power tidbits in exchange for certain restrictions." To [MENTION=8858]hafrogman[/MENTION] 's observation of them being "sur-classes" as opposed to "sub's", that make quite a bit of sense to my view. You got more abilities and specialized skills...again, in exchange for accepting the limitations- paladins had to be lawful good, had to tithe X% of their treasure, could only carry/use Y number magic items. rangers had to accept an alignment restriction also, could only possess whatever items and treasure they could carry, couldn't work with more than (was it 3? 5?) other rangers for a given amount of time, illusionists were a bit more limited in their spell progression, had restrictions on the types of magic items they could use, BUT (and whether this made them "more powerful" than a standard MU is, of course, a different debate) they received their OWN/different spells that a normal/full "MU/wizard/mage" didn't have access to..and ALL of them, I believe, had [some quite severe] ability minimum restrictions to force those classes to be more rare/unachievable, etc.There was a built in (presumably for the concept of "balance") give and take to them. You got these extra fiddly bits, IF YOU met these requirements and accepted the limitations. There was a certain...symmetry about them...a certain "fairness" that really wasn't questioned overly much.Then we got to the land of "I want my cake and eat it too. I want all of the powers and none of the restrictions...and who are you [DM] or they [the books] to tell me what to do with my character? I will not be limited! I do not recognize the authority of this system to judge me!...OO! Natural 20! I ROCK!"And, thence, the arguments began about "well what makes this class [paladin, specifically, for the purposes of this thread] any different than any other [a fighter/cleric...or cleric/fighter...or just a very martially adept cleric...or a devout fighter]?The rules changed...the lines blurred...and here we are in a mish-mash quicksand trap of our own making, essentially.The alignment restriction argument isn't an argument about alignment, though I've no doubt many believe it to be so...it's an argument against restrictions on their character...which they then justify with XYZ examples of literature and history and "how one can reason out a paladin who is Chaotic Good." Anyone, of enough intelligence, can 'reason out" any position/argument they like. Doesn't make it a "good" or a "right" choice for the system as a whole, but it/anything is defensible...and the general archetype/fictional character concept suffers as a result.All of that said, I have very little doubt that Alignment, in general, is going to be taking a very very minor, if not completely "optional module", place in 5e. As such, it seems any and all of us will be able to apply, or not, the LG paladin into our games at will. And, let's be honest, even if it didn't make it optional, we'd make it how we want in our games anyway.Now, they've presented, from the "Design Goal" article that a paladin (at least as far as we know/the coming playtests) "must be lawful"...which makes all kindsa sense to the concept of a devout champion who follows a stringent code. If you're not "lawful" you don't really give two rats' tails about "following rules" all that much. You wouldn't choose to be a member of an "order" of pretty much any kind that's going to tie your hands on certain things, let alone a stringent code of conduct in your personal (and potentially religious) life.I've been allowing "lawful" paladins in my games/world setting since 1e days. It just makes flavor sense...upon which the archetype is based, with the mechanics of what that means/entails [the "extra powers"] coming along afterwards to reenforce the fluff. It seems a compromise on the designers part to allow for LG paladins, but allow folks who want "paladins" (or, more accurately all of the paladin's powers) without the single alignment restriction. You want an "evil" paladin? Fine. Lawful Evil. Enforce your "brand of justice" or maintain the "Order of your personal rule/power" on anyone you like with impunity. You want a "paladin" who travels around dispensing out the judgements and bringing the "rule of Law" to the masses/less fortunate? Fine. Lawful Neutral is your bag...have all of the "Batman paladins" you want (who care about bringing/enforcing the Order of Law but don't really see/feel a need to adhere to the "good" all of the time to get that done. Law and Order are the "true" ideals/virtues to be upheld/enforced).I also, in my game world, demand that all paladins are tied to gods  (obviously only the LG, LN or LE ones) and are part of established  orders...be they connected/beholden to the clerical temples or their own  offshoot organizations. Again, this seems like a piece of fluff easily  ignored/taken out of your games if you want the "ideals/virtue/only  responsible for or to their own code" paladin guys.There's just so much disagreement over things that are so easily mutable. As long as the options are there, presented as options, then everyone wins and all of this debate is pointless. "If you're going to change it anyway then give me my rules the way I want them and change yours" does not, in any way, argue against the inclusiveness of options.For those who want to say "but I want my paladin to be Chaotic Neutral" or "have the Lurker Theme" or "every god should have a paladin [cuz I have this really cool Neutral Good god I want to use]" or whatever other special snowflake/corner case vision you want to present...just DO IT!Put it in your games [if you're the DM]. Noone's coming to your table from the 5e Gestapo to tell you your "doing it wrong"...and players who do so can and SHOULD be easily ignored or expunged [if they're not willing to let it go/let you run your table as desired] or are welcoem to leave of their own accord if they feel so strongly about it.But, stop telling everyone else who's playing the game with [or without, for that matter] LG paladins, they're doing it wrong or WotC is doing it wrong or D&D always got it wrong...because they're not making it a "rule" the way you think it should be. Again, just do it!There...I think that's all I have to say on the paladin front...which, obviously, applies to just about anything else you want/don't want in the game.--SD</blockquote>

Verification